Senator Jack Reed Gives Democratic Response To Bush's Surge Speech - Dubunking The Spin
By Logan Murphy Wednesday Sep 12, 2007 9:01pm
Senator Jack Reed gave the Democratic response to tonight's surge spin President Bush's speech to the nation on our future in Iraq and he was right on the money.
Download | play 
Download | play
In addition to Reed, Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas presented the Spanish language response, available here. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi issued her own statement, available here, as did Sen. Barack Obama.
UPDATE: Hillary Clinton's response
The Speaker's office has released some fact-checking as well:
Below is the transcript of Reed's official Democratic party response, let's hope the Democrats stand behind these words...
Good evening.
I’m Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island, and I was privileged to serve in the United States Army for 12 years.
I opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. It was a flawed strategy that diverted attention and resources away from hunting down Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network. And since then, too often, the President’s Iraq policies have worsened America’s security. Hundreds of billions have been spent. Our military is strained. Over 27,000 Americans have been wounded, and over 3,700 of our best and brightest have been killed.
Tonight, a nation eager for change in Iraq heard the President speak about his plans for the future. But once again, the President failed to provide either a plan to successfully end the war or a convincing rationale to continue it. The President rightfully invoked the valor of our troops in his speech, but his plan does not amount to real change. Soldiers take a solemn oath to protect our nation, and we have a solemn responsibility to send them into battle only with clear and achievable missions.
Tonight, the President provided neither.
As a former Army officer, I know the great sacrifices our soldiers and their families make. Our military can defeat any foe on the battlefield. Yet, as General Petraeus has repeatedly stated, Iraq’s fundamental problems are not military, they are political. The only way to create a lasting peace in Iraq is for Iraqi leaders to negotiate a settlement of their long-standing differences.
When the President launched the “surge” in January, he told us that its purpose was to provide Iraqi leaders with the time to make that political progress. But now, nine months into the surge, the President’s own advisers tell us that Iraq’s leaders have not, and are not likely to do so. Meanwhile, thousands of brave Americans remain in the crossfire of another country’s civil war.
So tonight, we find ourselves at a critical moment.
Do we continue to heed the President’s call that all Iraq needs is more time, more money, and the indefinite presence of 130,000 American troops — the same number as nine months ago? Or do we follow what is in our nation’s best interest and redefine our mission in Iraq?
Democrats believe it is time to change course. We think it’s wrong that the President tells us there’s not enough money for our veterans and children’s health care because he is spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. We have put forth a plan to responsibly and rapidly begin a reduction of our troops. Our proposal can not erase the mistakes of the last four and a half years, but we can chart a better way forward.
That is why our plan focuses on counter-terrorism and training the Iraqi army. It engages in diplomacy to bring warring factions to the table and addresses regional issues that inflame the situation. It begins a responsible and rapid redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. And it returns our focus to those who seek to do us harm: Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
An endless and unlimited military presence in Iraq is not an option. Democrats and Republicans in Congress and throughout the nation can not and must not stand idly by while our interests throughout the world are undermined and our Armed Forces are stretched toward the breaking point.
We intend to exercise our Constitutional duties and profoundly change our military involvement in Iraq. We ask Americans of good will of whatever party to join with us in this historic effort to restore the strength and security of the United States. I urge the President to listen to the American people and work with Congress to start bringing our troops home and develop a new policy that is truly worthy of their sacrifices.
Thank you.
Login or Register to post comments.
i just watched it all. this is the first time i have listened to bush tell his lies and misdirection live. i usually get it filtered thru the blogs i read. why can we not impeach him for lying about this war? if any of us ran from a fatality hit-and-run accident, we would be at the least charged with manslaughter. bush is killing thousands of our troops, permanently injuring tens of thousands of our troops and been the cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths of iraqi and millions of iraqi refugees who have lost everything.
i suggest that we ask al qaida, " will you stop all aggressions against america, if we will send you bush on one of his "rendition flights?" i would gladly pay to send bush directlly unarmed to the al qaida.
or possibly we could lock bush and a handgun into one of those automatic outdoor toilets with only one option. put the gun to your head and shoot. the door will not open until you do this. why? because he has put a gun to the head of every american citizen and brave troop we have.
Bush didn't get raptured! What gives?!
Did the Dems say that "We are gonna impeach the bastard/President."? It's what's needed.
Don't just say it, DO SOMETHING!!!!!!
When will the Dems get a backbone?
Can we get a poll on this question site monitors?
You heard what W said...if we pull out of Iraq, extremists may end up in charge of our energy and resources.
BUSH SPEECH MAKES IT OFFICIAL: THE EMPEROR HAS NO ‘CLOSE’ (In Iraq)
> Don’t just say it, DO SOMETHING!!!!!!
ThanX for the correction. Just saying they'll impeach him isn't enough. They must actually do it. Sure we might not convict in the Senate, but just bringing the charges to trial will get the truth out. And with the truth out, maybe we will get a conviction!!!!
GOP = Elephant
Bush = Irrelevant
Only his base (26% rs) believe anything he says. He is just trying to still save his legacy.
Sorry president bush, the toilet has already flushed.
janefromhell @ 6:
oops
Bush isn't asking for another six months, he's planning on staying in Iraq forever. If the repugs sign on to this, their party is gone, dead, dust in the wind. If we weren't losing so many innocent people over there, I'd say it would be worth it. This has got to be a turning point for moderate republicans. Defund the war now. The next few days should be interesting.
(tivo delay) REED not Reid...ah.
What about Edwards response? I missed it....how did it sound?
Strawberry @ 11:
I turned on FAUX news for a couple of minutes, their all cumming in their hankies.. (sorry ladies)
I call it as I see it. The preznit is lost in space and the Dem's have no spine. Talk is cheap as they say, but why not just reduce this war to its simplest common denominator? This war has been nothing other than a boom for the power players that control the worlds money. Remind me again why we went into Iraq? How many times has this scenario changed?
Iraq has the second largest puddle of oil left in the world, and the neocons and their bankers want to control it. As long as they do, they will continue to stymie any efforts to bring new technologies that can provide unlimited power to the world, but if they can't control it, mankind be damed.
We had our asses kicked in Somalia and left fast enough. Why? No oil or any other natural resource that was of any value to us. Why do people continue to tap dance around the very truth that stares us in the face? This war is nothing more than a financial war for a commodity ( oil ) that has long out lived its purpose. Because of the strangle hold that the bankers have on the world, they will continue this garbage until every last drop of oil is sucked out of the ground as well as every dollar from our pockets.
Want to end the war? Find a party willing to cut off its funding and let the bankers find another way of making a profit rather than on the continued deaths of Americas blood and treasure.
I know how I feel about this neocons, the bad vibe they give me when I hear or see them. I just wonder how they respond to me and others they disagree with? I know when I see them the adjectives that run through my head. What are theirs? Does it sound like "wimp, unpatriotic, know-it-all..". I really don't think they even can articulate it themselves.
Unlimited power to the world I just read. Be careful what you wish for!! If our objectives don't change, running out of oil may be the best thing that ever happened to us! Imagine unlimited oil, if we didn't learn to use it wisely, we'd be DOUBLE screwed.
Email this to Nancy and Harry:
http://tinyurl.com/fk5mh
Tell 'em NO MORE MONEY FOR THIS MADNESS!! Then send them a job application for when their seats come due.
> What about Edwards response? I missed it….how did it sound?
What I got out of it was that he was calling for no more funding (except to responsibly bring our kids home.) It's partially what my comments above were a response to.
Reed wasn’t that good either. Had he started off with “Citizens of America, you are being lied to…” THAT would have been a rebuttal. Instead he just whimpered along with “we must change course…” Weak.
As much as I enjoyed watching Senator Reed's response I must say that mere words will not cut it. I for one am tired of listening to the empty rhetoric from both parties.
Stanley Rosenthal @ 19:
No more funding. Period. They have plenty to bring our troops home. Any funding approved now will be going to the war on Iran! I don't care what they say they need it for. No. More. Funding!
Here's the part of Bush's speech that frightened me the most:
"This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship -- in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops."
Anyone remember the Shah of Iran? Ayatollah Khomeini? REVOLUTION????
When the hell are American politicians ever going to learn the lessons of Middle East???
Impeachment or revolution, the founding fathers said so.
Reed rocked it..he was real...and factual...and he actually looked pissed...it is time to get let go of being all polite...BUSH IS FRIGGING NUTS...DANGEROUSLY INCOMPETENT....
Wes of 24 CAN WE HAVE BOTH??? Revolution and Impeachment??
the United States Constitution is the ultimate benchmark of America. as citizens we pledge an oath to abide by and uphold this holy grail of democracy as the founding fathers set it up for us. and as citizens we are obligated to Honor and Protect our Constitution against the tyranny of all oppressors.
at this time in our history we find that our own commander-in-chief, bush, and his entire administration is that TYRANNY and in his own words part of the axis of evil terrorists. we must remove this cancer and the time is now.
IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY
bush plans to stay and you can bet unfortunately he will enter or try to enter iran and start a war. we can only hope that those nuclear missiles that were mishandled this last week, DO NOT end up in iran.
these bastards, bush and cheney must be removed from office now.
we CAN NOT WAIT for the 2008 elections, he will devastate the entire world.
IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY
sounds good, but I'll believe it when I see it.
I know they don't have the votes yet to over ride the veto along party lines, so they need to get out there and tell people who is with them and who is against them, I'm not saying they should act like Republicans but they should let it be known that the Republicans are stopping the Democrats efforts because they don't want the war to end, and they are the obstructionists who are filibustering the debate...notice the Dems don't threaten any nuke-option when you filibuster, even after the shitty treatment they have gotten for so long...but that's why I support these idiots (the Dems) in the first place, but they have got to get their act together!
[...] Watch the democrats rebuttal here [...]
Where is Senator Clinton's response?
Not One More Dime - Not One More Life
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
AndyZ @ 4:
Yes! Talk is cheap.
In addition, quit echoing the euphemism "surge." This is an escalation. In other words, this is the same policy that failed in Vietnam, and for many of the same reasons.
Putting more Americans among warring factions in a civil war just gives those wielding AK-47s and IEDs more easy targets to kill or maim. More American families grief. More brave American Soldiers and Marines and Sailors a lifetime of physical and psychological suffering.
What if we had invested the half-trillion dollars in research into developing our own alternative energy sources instead of into ripping off Iraq's resources? Our internatinal honor would be intact, very few persons would be dead, and we'd be a whoooooooole lot closer to energy independence. And after all, that's what it's about, right? As Republican Representative Chris Shays openly admitted, it's really about controlling Iraq's (or Kurdistan's?) oil. And let's face it. There's no reason why Halliburton couldn't steal from the American public just as effectively pursuing alternative fuel sources as they do now seeking to rip-off conventional fuel sources from the Iraqi people
enigma4ever @ 26:
Both? Isn't that kinda like sentencing someone to death and life in prison?
Well Bush let Americans know he could care less about how many soldiers die in Iraq, he's only interested in controlling Iraq oil. Now American taxpayers money will be used the make sure Iraq men has jobs and those who lost their pensions will now be paid with US taxpayers money. That's good news for the Iraq people. Bush made clear that the US would stay to rebuild Iraq. Yes we will make sure they have jobs, homes, electricity, water, colleges, schools and a strong economy in Iraq. Now as we see millions of Americans are losing their homes and jobs but that's not important to the Bush Administration. Just make sure you pay your taxes so the White House can keep giving 10 billion dollars a day to Iraq. Yes all this will continue until a new President takes office.
Funny, no one ever mentions WHY Iraq is in the middle of a civil war. I guess the truth hurts and hits a little too close to home.
We have invaded a country that had as much to do with 9/11 as Korea did with Pearl Harbor and yet we still have a significant amount of the public that believes it to be true.
We have destabilized an extremely volatile part of the world for control of the resources that lie below it.
We talk about how we can't let Iran control Iraq and have too much influence in the region, yet our unwarranted invasion has made Iran more powerful than ever in doing just that.
Remember the WMD.
In his speech to the nation Thursday night, President Bush unveiled the latest official White House talking point on Iraq. Destined for regurgitation from reliable Republican mouthpieces is "Return on Success." That business sounding jargon from our first - and failed - MBA president is designed to reassure the American people that after our troops fight them there, they can come home here.
For the complete list of RNC-approved Iraq sound bites, see:
"'Return on Success' Added to Official GOP Iraq Talking Points."
Don't say civil war. The appropriate characterization now, I am told, is Ethnosectarian Competition for Power and Resources.
We intend to exercise our Constitutional duties and profoundly change our military involvement in Iraq.
My sentiments exactly. I recall Jim Webb and the response to the state of the union. Five votes later, the preznitwit has unlimited surveillance powers, 30,000 more troops in Iraq and three extra appropriation bills. also, as KO pointed out, 760+ soldiers have died and thousands injured. The Iraqis are dying at a rate of 1500+/month.
so I don't give a schitt what any Democratic coward has to say. how they vote is what it's all about!
> ... so I don’t give a schitt what any Democratic coward has to say. how they vote is what it’s all about!
Well, that and what bills or impeachments they might bring up for votes.
That's the best we can do?? Jack (who the hell is that?) Reid?? We are f-ing doomed.
Good speeches are a dime a dozen -- let's see how all this dem lip-service translates into action.
Peace!
SemiPundit @ 30:
She said some time ago that the surge was working. What a dupe. Panderer extrordinare.
Johnny2Bad #39
Judging from your earlier argument againt Dennis Kucinich, followed by you not knowing who Jack Reed is -- i would suggest that you do a bit more research, and reading.
Good Night and Good Luck!
Paper tiger, paper tiger
You paper tigers are all alike
Your bark is much worse than your bite.
Grrrrr.
SemiPundit @ 30:
"Where is Senator Clinton’s response?"
Who cares!
Peace!
I will vote for the Presidential candidate that I believe will end the war. Period. I don't know who that is yet, but that's who I'll vote for.
> I will vote for the Presidential candidate that I believe will end the war. Period. I don’t know who that is yet, but that’s who I’ll vote for.
I think that all the Dem candicates (and maybe only 1 Republican't candidate) would end the war if elected. I think you should think larger.
I am not so sure that either Biden or H. Clinton will end the war. And there are others that I am not so sure wouldn't get us into another. If peace is what we want, then that would be Kucinich or Gravel. Other wise, don't be suprised if we end up with just a slightly more palatable version of -- more of the same.
Peace!
jeremySF @ 43:
I know who Jack Reed is....the point was that I doubt if the many in the country do. Its called sarcasm...read up on it.
The only response I'm interested in is the response from our troops after being told that 90%,at least,of them will be going home in a matter of weeks.
I'm afraid that won't be until Jan.,2009 at the very earliest.
> I am not so sure that either Biden or H. Clinton will end the war.
I'm with you on Biden, he's a main reason we're still in this thing (the Conservo-nazi control of the Supreme Court, which Biden enabled during the Clarence Thomas hearings), so I accept (and appreciate) your correction. Hillary? we'd be able to make her end it if she didn't want to do it on her own, IMHO.
One example to the world is how little Americans know about their own government. Bush can veto any bill unless there is 60 per cent of a vote. Now comments are made about why Democrats don't do something while ignoring the fact that Republicans vote with Bush. Math is a good thing if you can count. Democrats don't have the numbers to over turn Bush's veto. Hillary Clinton is a Senator not a President. All the candidates have things they would do if they were President. Notice Bush is letting our soldiers die yet no out cry from the American people but when Vick killed the dogs the out cry by Americans was loud and clear. It's the blame game so blame Hillary, Obama and all the Democrats for this mess and because they aren't stopping the idiot Bush. Now as for the Christian Republicans Value GOP well it's not their fault it's the Democrats. As the GOP vote to support the Bush crime wave the American people blame Democrats. Hillary is blamed for everything, while Republican candidates just support Bush/Cheney policy. If anyone wants to know why the enemy is winning all they have to do is read comments by Americans and it's clear the No Child Left Behind bill didn't work their were many left behind. But ask the name of the Simpson cartoon family and it's 100 per cent.
What the hell is everyones obsession with Gravel? The man is a fraud, and an opportunist. If you really think he is for peace, why don't you go back and see how he was elected back in 1966. Running against Sen. Ernest Gruening for the Democratic Nomination, he used Gruenings vote against The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution against him, and would remain intentionally ambiguous about the Vietnam War during the general election. He sure sounds an awful lot like those Democrats he is now criticising. Fraud fraud fraud.
Don't let his and Ron Pauls anti-war rhetoric fool you, especially with Rep. Paul. Just because he is against the war, doesn't mean you should sell out the rest of your Progressive Views and support him (unless you think eliminating the FAA, IRS, Department of Education, Social Security, gun regulations, Income Taxes, etc is a good thing.)
Nothing pisses me off more than single issues voters. The war is important, but don't let it overshadow other important issues, and be fooled into voting for someone who would love nothing more than to piss all over every Progressive View you have.
WTF does "dubunking" mean?
Johnny2Bad@48
Okay -- sarcasm...........NICE! -- and your point?
So, given you assumption is correct, that most of the country doesn't know who Jack Reed is -- does it matter? Isn't it about what actions they take, and not what is said, or who says it. It called truth...........read up on it!
Peace!
Spokesmen for congressional democrats should first of all beg the forgiveness of the American people for their gutless performance during the past 7 years.
But Reed did no such thing.
Why not?
The answer is simply because congressional democrats played ball with the most sinister fucks extant in the post-atomic age. Had he been honest- had Reed admitted his party had been stampeded when the chips were down- then his words might have counted. But he chose to play act. A principled man would have denounced his own party for their role in facilitating the Big Lie war. Reed chose otherwise.
We are in this Iraq mess largely because the democratic party "leadership" are goddamn fools.
Everyone fucks up, all the time. But, like George Bush and Dick Cheney, those swine refuse to admit it. Until they do, they'll betray our country, again and again and again.
I decided to switch channels rather than endure the latest round of spin from El Arbusto. It so happens that HBO was playing its new co-production (with BBC), Pinochet's Last Stand. Although it contains only a snippet of dialog referring to the pressure our State Department put on the Blair government to thwart a move in the House of Lords to boot the butt of the Chilean dictator (and murderer of thousands) out of Britain and into the clutches of his would-be Spanish inquisitors, the moment is telling and oh, so timely. (If you have access to HBO and have not seen this film, by all means run, don't walk, to switch channels and take a look. It's a bit tedious at first, but Derek Jacobi's Pinochet and the insightful, mordant teleplay make it must viewing.)
Two forces were at work (in addition to the parliamentary factions): the out-of-power conservatives, epitomized by a photo-op obsessed Maggie the Thatch, working behind the scenes (and in front of the co-opted TV media -- think Murdoch!) on the right, and the survivors of Pinochet's pogroms against any Chileans thought disloyal to the military junta that, with the help of the CIA, overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende, on the left. (The latter is symbolized in the film by a woman who lost her sister to Agosto's death squads, the armed militia employing torture, rape, and murder of "the Disappeared Ones" to instill fear into Allende's supporters.) At one moment, Pinochet protests that he had no knowledge of such goings-on, although they occurred on his watch and could not have otherwise occurred. Of course he didn't. Willfull ignorance is the same tactic that Thatcher pal Ronald Reagan used when questioned about his "no-arms-for-hostages" lies, spoken even as Ollie North was doing just that in the White House basement.
Finally, as we all know, Pinochet was allowed to go back to Chile and attain biological amnesty, dying there of old age at 91. He remains a symbol of what has been, and continues to be, the disastrous U.S. Latin American foreign policy of the 20th century and, perhaps, by extension, that of the Mideast in the 21st. To put it country simple, we tend to support the very worst elements in the political life of both our neighbors to the south and our would-be allies in the Arab World. I'm not talking only about the House of Saud, though that is certainly a good example. For all their supposed friendliness toward the U.S., the Saudis continue to appease the anti-Western (indeed, anti-progress, anti-democratic) Wahhabia sect by allowing them to teach in all of their schools, there to instill in the very youngest and most impressionable Muslims the notion that Shias are the archenemies of Islam; that the West is decadent, its ways the apotheosis of Shari'a, and that jihad is a legitimate pursuit.
And we wonder why almost all of the 9/11 dive bombers were Saudi-born? What is perhaps worse, no steps are taken to prevent Saudi contributions to the various "charities" (so called) aiding and abetting the "martyrs" (so-called) who join al Qaeda and allied terrorist groups world-wide, including donations to the families of suicides who've gone to get their just rewards in Paradise, be it virgins or grapes. (No kidding: Sam Harris has explained that "virgins" may have been a mistranslation for a kind of rare grape or raisin!)
No, I am not saying that by cold-shouldering the Syrian regime, much less that of Iran, the U.S. shows a semblance of discrimination when it comes to its allegiances in foreign lands. Hardly, although it may certainly be argued that we are unfriendly to those leaders because they dislike us, usually because they are viewed as supporting Hesbollah, Hammas, and other terrorist armies. But Pinochet's oblique accomplishment of evil is precisely what the Saudis are up to. Sometimes, the two-facedness of the Saudis pokes through the veil of diplomatic amiability, as when, recently, King Abdullah was heard to refer to Arbusto's War as "an illegitimate foreign invasion." (Abdullah and the royal family love the Bushes because they insure a steady income from oil sales to the West. But the moment our backs are turned, you can bet they're calling us decadent heretics or worse.)
If one examines the history of U.S. meddling in foreign affairs, one sees, repeatedly, attempts to install as president, prime minister, panjandrum, whatever, persons who tow the line of U.S. foreign policy, which always translates to cooperation with multinationals bent on exploiting the wealth of nations. Years ago, my older brother warned me that our country was on a course designed to deplete all the oil resources of every country on earth so that we would be the last nation with any appreciable supply. This is obviously what has come to pass. Perhaps it explains why Arbusto is unwilling to admit that there is no diplomatic or political solution to what is happening in Iraq. He tried to convince us that his Splurge was a smart ploy, not putting the cart before the horse, that securing the peace in Iraq would lead to political stability. No one believe him except one poor, deluded loon who wanders around the White House "talking to God."
Yes, and I have a camel to sell you that has very good teeth. Al-Maliki was hand-picked and everyone knows it. His government is doomed to failure, and already we see our government grooming some dude who's warming up in the bull pen. When will we quit meddling in others' affairs?!
I was living in Venice, California during part of the Vietnam War. It was 1968. We had a person of color who liked to hang out on the boardwalk and flip through passing proselytizers' bibles until he found select passages with meaning for the modern world. The TV news was showing video of LBJ lifting his beagles by their ears. The African-American gentleman's spiel went something like this:
"I'm a corner preacher! Yessir! I'm a corner preacher! Here's a verse says God gave us all the plants that grow, so you see, God meant that we should smoke dope. And here's another passage: 'He who passeth by and meddlith with striff not his own is like one who taketh a dog by the ears.' You see what I mean? You see what I mean?"
Here we are, almost 40 years on and the truth of a remark by another wit, Will Rogers, has never been more pertinent: "The poor dumb clucks, they ain't learned nothin' yet."
Bush is allowed to get away with his nonsense because the Democrats have been unable, have not even tried, to get across the truth: There is no rationale for us being there. What are we trying to do? Ask even those who want to pull out immediately. They never even thought of the question so never realized that we are fighting without a purpose. No wonder we haven't gotten that across! We don't see the weakness of the policy ourselves. But if we keep yelling that, Bush would have no defenses and would have to give in. We should work very hard to get the hollowness of the whole Bush policy across. For further discussion see
randomabsurdities.wordpress.com
anon @ 54:
Dubya-debunking?
What does debunking mean? Well, I've been using this clip for quite a few years to do that (it's Rep Rep John Boehner holding Newt Gingrich's tail) -
http://www.thesequencers.us/whatsametau/samples/bonstup.wav
I'm reading these Democratic responses, and I'm finding them pretty weak. I want to hear someone emphasize exactly what Bush said:
In his speech, George Bush blamed the American public for being weak, because we want to end his failed war strategy.
He said the American public is taking a "suicide potion," comparing you with the Peoples Temple who followed Jim Jones and drank the poisoned punch.
The president accuses America of being complacent about protecting America, yet this is the same man who said in 2002 that he was "not very concerned" about bin Laden.
Bush continues to link Iraq with the 9/11 hijackers from Lebanon, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia.
Like extreme right radio, Bush tries to make us afraid of a religious takeover of the U.S.
When confronted with truth and opposition, Bush retreats to deception, fear mongering, and attack.
In a time of war, in a time of peril, great presidents unify America to do what is right rather than divide to make political attacks.
Bush, the self-proclaimed "decider," has decided that Americans are too stupid, too lazy, too cowardly to follow his failed policies as he tries to rescue his legacy from the trashbin of history.
President Bush, you say America has failed to follow you, but you have failed to protect, to lead, and to do what is right.
The only right that Mr. Bush knows is the far right.
When a president confuses the demand for truth with weakness, he is no longer a leader to be trusted.
Americans are not stupid, Mr. Bush. We are not complacent. We are merely tired of your deception and failed policies.
Congress must begin to tell the real truth about Bush's lies and betrayals. These half-hearted steps are less than useless.
Imploding Democrats
Must the Democrats fight the Republicans and their own base? Whatever happen to standing behind your Party? Harry Reid and Nancy Polosi have very difficult decisions to make concerning this war.
Without the votes to do anything constructive, the Democrats must do something they don't feel comfortable with. They have to stalemate the congress and force troops withdrawal. This is a strategy that could use support. Yet, because the Democrats didn't figure out how to beat this crazy president and his loyal Republican congressmen and senators, their Party have begun to implode. You can find their Party members attacking their leaders with the same labels the Republican Party uses.
I am from the "old school" that lives by a principle. This principle is as follows: Never give your enemy the fuel to defeat you. The only thing the Republicans should see is a united Democratic Party. We need the Republicans out of the White House because Bush has made the political playing field unbalanced. This unbalance must be undone, and without the Democratic control of the executive branch, this cannot be undone. The Democrats must stay united throughout our decision processes.
Joseph
Jackie @ 52:
66%, actually, but who's mathing?
True, but that doesn't mean it isn't good politics to keep sending him bills to veto. The more bills that he vetoes that the American people want, the more the American people will trust the Democrats to actually take action, and the larger our majority will be next year.
What a deliciously peculiar slant. No outcry from the people about the war? We voted in droves in 2006 and changed Congress' hands. People are blogging like crazy. The vast majority of Americans say not only that they are against the war, but that it is the main issue they follow in the media, and that they are dissatisfied by the dismal coverage of it. The outcry might not manifest as 1960s-style mass demonstrations, but it has been sustained, and defined an election. Vick's story made some headlines for its brutality to animals, and made people justifiably disturbed, but that's about it.
How exactly is it that frustration with the Democrats' performance and blaming Bush for this madness are mutually exclusive sentiments? Criticizing the Democrats does not meaning exculpating Bush, and shifting the blame to the Democrats. It just means criticizing the Democrats too.
Oh, I don't have to tolerate that from George W. Bush, and I don't have to tolerate that from you. What a deplorable thing to say.
Um.......what?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Game Show Host: Ok, America, the million dollar question is: What is the name of the Simpson cartoon family?
Drumroll
America: Um, the Simpsons?
Stagehand: Um, sir, we're giving away too much money. Perhaps we should choose subjects the American people don't pay attention to for the million dollar questions.
What's with all the flags?
Thrust of the Bush primtime speech last night: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah more war.
Thrust of the Democratic response afterwards: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah mommy I want my blankie.
Enduring Presence in a country that we've invaded is called an Occupation. The main difference between Korea and Iraq is that we didn't invade Korea.
How can Iraq be a sovereign country when we have command and control of their armed forces?
Bring the troops home now.
If, by restoring genuine security to the Nation, he mean restoring Constitutional protections, repealing in whole Constitutionally objectional laws like the patriot acts, the military commisions act and all the other crimes against the soul of America, he's dead on. If he is talking about anything else, he's barking up the wrong tree, and his premise is part of the problem, not part of any solutions.
Where was Jim Webb?
Why Reid? How many RI kids are serving in Iraq?
Are Dems afraid of Webb or did he have no interest in Speaking. We nee dot speak tough truth to power, not whinny shallow statements.
Impeach and Jail Bush and Cheney!!
No more blood money for bush.
Cantor de Mambo @ 65:
He's showing his support for the Made in China industries.
Is Bush concerned about more about Americans or corporations? He has sure made a mess of things while in office.
Login or Register to post comments.