Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Quote:

kelticwizard wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
For instance, I do not consider those who are consistently anti-George Bush and have absolutely nothing good to say about him or anything he does to be reliable in their reporting of what GWB says, thinks, or intends, and they generally get it wrong.

Ah, but those who consistently support George Bush and the Iraq war, you would presume to be reliable in their reporting? Because if you wouldn't, then why did you single out the people who oppose George Bush as being unreliable?

Seems to me you just admitted that you operate on a double standard.

Except that Hanson talked about the good and the bad. This is objective reporting. I think the honest can see all the mistakes and fubars and screw ups and setbacks while acknowledging the progress, the good that has been done, and the real expectations for a final positive outcome.

Where in Wanniski's piece do you find anything but negativism? That's the difference.

Quote:
Foxfyre wrote:
If Wanniski had given Hanson any credit whatsoever on any point, he would have more credibility.
In the article you provided by Victor Davis Hanson, please show me someplace where Hanson gives his critics any credit. Indeed, he spent much of the article attacking Brzezinski's record as national security advisor-fair enough-but Brzezinski is just one person among many who have raised the same points.

See previous comment.

Quote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I provided an article written by Hanson in his own words.
And I provided an article by Wanniski in his own words.

Hanson's article told about the good, the bad, and the ugly re Iraq. Wanniski told the ugly he sees in Hanson.

Quote:
Foxfyre wrote:
You provided an article by Wanniski that provided no direct quotes or context but declares Hanson to be essentially all wet.
Save for a single seven word quote from Tony Blair-hardly a Bush critic-the only quotes in Hanson's article are by Brzezinski. From there, Hanson spends most of the article stating that all critics of the Iraq war are all wet. So I provided an article by Wanniski proving that when it comes to his predictions of this war all along, Hanson is all wet.

How is that unfair?

Unfair? Not relevent. Irrelevent? There you have it. Again, Hanson's piece talks of the good, the bad, the ugly, and the positive of Iraq. Wanniski attempts to discredit Hanson not on facts, but on interpretation of a track record that he provides no information that can be easily used to check out his intepretations.

Now you tell me. If you are judging that debate, do you give the points to the one who argues with facts, logic, and substance that can be checked? Or do you give the points to the one who attacks his opponent's win/loss records on previous debates and even that bears no more substance than personal opinion?

0 Replies

More Bush wins:

GM, UAW talking on health care costs Sat Oct 15,12:58 PM ET

CHICAGO (Reuters) - General Motors Corp. and the United Auto Workers are negotiating this weekend over GM's plan to cut health care costs and could announce an agreement as soon as Monday, an industry analyst said on Saturday.

GM, the world's largest auto maker, and the UAW have been in talks for months over GM's aim to reduce annual health care costs, which are estimated to rise to $5.6 billion in 2005 from $5.2 billion in 2004. GM announces quarterly results Monday.

0 Replies

Bush runs General Motors? I didn't know that. Could you provide a link CI?

0 Replies

No. I know it's too spacial for you to understand, but you must learn to look at 1) Bush's tax policies and how they have affected health insurance for the middle class (higher taxes and higher health insurance premiums), and 2) how the middle class will react to Bush's incompetence to handle our economy (consumer confidence is falling). It doesn't matter that Bush does not run GM.

0 Replies

The Associated Press/NEW YORK
By ANNE D'INNOCENZIO
AP Business Writer

Consumer confidence sinks in September

SEP. 27 4:27 P.M. ET Consumer confidence suffered its biggest drop in 15 years in September as Hurricane Katrina made Americans anxious about the rising costs of heating their homes and filling their gas tanks. The decline raised questions about consumer spending for the rest of this year, including the holiday shopping season.

Meanwhile, the government reported Tuesday that new home sales plunged in August by the largest amount in nine months, continuing a string of mixed signals about the health of the housing boom.

The Conference Board said its Consumer Confidence Index, compiled from a survey of U.S. households, dropped 18.9 points to 86.6 from a revised reading of 105.5 in August.

0 Replies

President Bush's approval ratings for handling the economy, Iraq and Social Security have fallen to the lowest levels of his White House tenure, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday.

Guess who the GM workers are going to blame? You get only one guess.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Except that Hanson talked about the good and the bad.

Hanson does not speak about the good and the bad about what he thinks is the necessity of invading Iraq, which is what his piece was about. He ONLY granted that there might have been a few, uh, setbacks, largely because those setbacks are laid bare for all to see. But I do not see him give any credit to any of his critics' arguments at all. Prove me wrong. Please show me where he does that. Remember, you posted the piece.

Foxfyre wrote:

This is objective reporting.

Let's get something straight, shall we? There is absolutely no objective reporting in either piece. Hanson is not a reporter. He is a professor of classics at a California college. I don't know if Wanniski ever was a reporter or not, but it doesn't matter. His piece is, like Hanson's, an opinion piece. There is no need for either one to be "evenhanded", since both clearly advocate a position. And neither is evenhanded, either. Advocacy pieces rarely are.

Foxfyre wrote:

I think the honest can see all the mistakes and fubars and screw ups and setbacks....

Yes, we certainly can.

Foxfyre wrote:

......while acknowledging the progress, the good that has been done, and the real expectations for a final positive outcome.

"Good" being defined, solely, as "we carried out elections". So far, the elected government has given no indication that it can protect itself from insurgents. So far, all indications are that this elected government is pro-Iran, which should not surprise anyone who took the time to find out the history of the area. The Iraqi intelligence service does not report to the Iraqi elected government. It reports to the American forces. Why? Because the US government considers the Iraqi government-the elected Iraqi government-as being too close to Iran to trust.

If you think these facts can be answered, fine. But don't try to say that Hanson is somehow automatically superior to Wanniski because Hanson sees "progress", somehow making him more "objective". One can objectively argue that the establishment of a government which cannot keep itself in power and is already leaning toward Iran constitutes no progress whatsoever.

Foxfyre wrote:

Where in Wanniski's piece do you find anything but negativism? That's the difference.

What difference? Outside of briefly acknowledging a few "setbacks", where does Hanson give his critics ideas any credit at all? Please show me.

Foxfyre wrote:

Hanson's article told about the good, the bad, and the ugly re Iraq. Wanniski told the ugly he sees in Hanson.

Hanson's article is about the good, the good and the good Hanson sees in the principle of invading Iraq. Hanson only acknoweledges that there might be some setbacks in the implementation. Nothing more.

Foxfyre wrote:

Unfair? Not relevent. Irrelevent? There you have it.

There I have what?

Foxfyre wrote:

Again, Hanson's piece talks of the good, the bad, the ugly, and the positive of Iraq.

Again, all Hanson sees is the positive side of the principle of invading. The only bad he sees is his grudging admission that things are not going according to schedule.

Foxfyre wrote:

Wanniski attempts to discredit Hanson not on facts, but on interpretation of a track record that he provides no information that can be easily used to check out his intepretations.

Are you saying Wanniski is making Hanson's positions up? Is it absolutely necessay to point to the exact quote where Hanson said that once Saddam is captured, the insurgency should end quickly?

Please don't try to claim that it is not proved that Hanson is an apologist for torture, or advocates circumventing the Constitution in applying torture. The Hanson piece you posted has him doing that.

Foxfyre wrote:

Now you tell me. If you are judging that debate, do you give the points to the one who argues with facts, logic, and substance that can be checked?

I think the underlying logic of Wanniski's piece is quite clear. Anybody who has been as wrong about predicting what is going to happen in Iraq as Hanson has been hardly bears serious consideration. Substance? Well, if Hanson has been substantively wrong about so much, how much is his substance worth?

Foxfyre wrote:

Or do you give the points to the one who attacks his opponent's win/loss records on previous debates....

Wanniski did not attack Hanson's won/loss record in previous debates. Wanniski atacked Hanson's won/loss record on his predictions of what would happen in Iraq, and what has happened to date. What is wrong with that?

0 Replies

What is wrong with that Wanniski has not shown how he has a clue. He is doing an assassination piece that criticizes another person without providing anything substantive for his opinion. Nor has she shown how anything Hanson said in the piece I posted is incorrect.

I believe those who tell me there is much more positive in Iraq than negative, and why we got there is immaterial at this point. What we do about being there is the issue now for me. There will be time enough to critique the whole history of it later..

And as these discussions usually go, this one is becoming too circular to be productive or interesting. You'll keep making the same points and I'll keep making the same points and it is unlikely to go anywhere. So let's agree to disagree at this point and find something else to talk about okay?

0 Replies

Sunni Turnout High at Iraqi Charter Vote By LEE KEATH, Associated Press Writer
33 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Sunni Arabs voted in surprisingly high numbers on Iraq's new constitution Saturday, many of them hoping to defeat it in an intense competition with Shiites and Kurds over the shape of the nation's young democracy after decades of dictatorship. With little violence, turnout was more than 66 percent in the three most crucial provinces.

The constitution still seemed likely to pass, as expected. But the large Sunni turnout made it possible that the vote would be close or even go the other way, and late Saturday it appeared at least two of a required three provinces might reject it by a wide margin.

Washington hopes the constitution will be approved so that Iraqis can form a legitimate, representative government, tame the insurgency and enable the 150,000 U.S. troops to begin to withdraw.

After polls opened at 7 a.m.,
"I'm 75 years old. Everything is finished for me. But I'm going to vote because I want a good future for my children," Said Ahmad Fliha said after walking up a hill with the help of a relative and a soldier to a polling site in Haditha, a western Sunni town.

Some 9 million Iraqis cast ballots, election officials said, announcing a preliminary turnout estimate of 61 percentThe constitution is a sign of civilization," Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said after casting his ballot. "This constitution has come after heavy sacrifices. It is a new birth."In the south, Shiite women in head-to-toe veils and men emerged from the poll stations flashing victory signs with fingers stained with violet ink to show they had voted, apparently responding in mass to the call by their top cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, to support the charter.

"Today, I came to vote because I am tired of terrorists, and I want the country to be safe again," said Zeinab Sahib, a 30-year-old mother of three, one of the first voters at a school in the mainly Shiite neighborhood of Karrada in Baghdad.

Voters flowed constantly into a kindergarten used as a polling site in a Sunni Arab district of Mosul, Ninevah's capital.

"The government can't just sew together an outfit and dress the people up by force. We do not see ourselves or see our future in this draft," Gazwan Abdul Sattar, 27-year-old Sunni teacher, said after voting "no."

But in a nearby district, Kurds lined up as well, some decked out in traditional garb of baggy pants and belted vests, or wrapped in the red-and-green Kurdish flag, emblazoned with a yellow sun.

"This document serves the ambitions of the Kurdish nation and we hope then that we will be able to determine our destiny in the future," said Barzan Berwari, a 45-year-old businessman.

In Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, voting was intense. Whether the charter passes or fails, Sunnis appeared to throw themselves wholeheartedly into a political process that until now they have been deeply suspicious of. That could indicate they will try more in the future to work within a system U.S. and Iraqi leaders hope can moderate the country's vicious sectarian divisionsBut voting was not along sectarian lines everywhere.

In Sadr City, a mostly Shiite area of Baghdad controlled by radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who led uprisings against the U.S.-led coalition last year, people were widely expected to vote "yes."

Not Haitham Aouda Abdul-Nabi, a 23-year-old co-owner of a convenience store. When he showed up at a Sadr City secondary school to vote, he said: "More than 90 percent of Iraq's Shiites support the constitution, but not me."

Why? Because he is tired of the chaos that has followed Saddam's ouster: killings by insurgents, fighting between rebels and U.S. troops, squabbling in Iraq's mostly Shiite and Kurdish government, and nearly daily power outages in the capital.

"Only force can bring results with a people like us in Iraq," he said. "Unfortunately, we need someone like Saddam. This government is too weak."
_________________________
Another great day on the path to a better world.

0 Replies

Sunnis are against it. The country is fragmenting fast.

From today's papers:

On the ghostly streets, a nation votes with its feet
By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad
Published: 16 October 2005

There is usually traffic gridlock in central Baghdad, but yesterday the capital had the look of a ghost town, with all roads empty aside from the occasional blue-and-white police car.
Across the country, a deeply divided population was voting on a constitution that is expected to widen their differences still further. While Kurds and Shia Arabs favour the document, Sunni Arabs are equally strongly opposed to it, though there was disagreement among them on whether to stay away from the polls or cast a "no" vote.
Yesterday all vehicles were banned from the streets of cities to prevent car bombings, so voters had to walk to the 6,100 polling stations protected by soldiers and police.

(more)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article319980.ece

0 Replies

Yes. They are against it. And, they related preference with a vote.

Democracy is gathering strength.

0 Replies

I take it from that you did not read The Independent's piece I gave the link for.

Here's The Herald, from Glasgow, Scotland

http://www.sundayherald.com/52292

0 Replies

For most of a generation the Sunnis, a distinct minority in Iraq, had been the ruling party that dealt injustice and oppression to the majority Shiites and also the minority Kurds. But the Sunnis will have to muster a majority "no" vote in three of the four provinces in which they reside to defeat the referendum on the constitution. The early speculation is that they failed to do that and the new constitution will become law.

The article McTag posted is the typical doom and gloom of the liberal press and, like most doom and gloom, it fails to note the history that 'doom and gloom' is transitional and defeatable by people of hope, optimism, and determination to beat it. The same 'doom and gloomers' said there would be no transitional government, then no vote for the first elected government, yadda yadda. All those things happened nevertheless.

The U.S. Constitution was years in the making with continual debates, rewrites, backing down, moving forward before enough of the people were satisfied with it to vote yes. The U.S. had thirteen fragments, and numerous splinters within the fragments, to pull together, and the final draft that passed of course did not please everybody still. But it pleased enough to be a start and has been revised and amended as necessary snce that time and has proved to be an enduring document.

Iraq has essentially only three fragments to pull togehter and two of those are already mostly on the same page. They probably won't need as long as the US did to get it done, but it is unreasonable to think unity and a working democratic government can be created overnight.

I'm sticking with conservative ideals of optimism, hope, and seizing opportunity when it presents itself. I think that kind of attitude will always win out in the long run, and I think most of the Iraqi people are embracing those kinds of ideals.

I watched news clips of families walking hand in hand to the polls, all dressed up, smiling, and rejoicing in participation in what they expected to be a better life for themselves and their families. I saw Sunni parents point to their children that they brought with them so they could see their parents vote.

The Sunni minority has been allowed a voice all along and all indications are they will be allowed their place in the new Iraq. I think they won't be allowed to scuttle the forward momentum. The early speculation (from CNN and others) is that they failed to do so.

The doom and gloomers have been wrong all along so far. The constitution may not pass and will need revision and a new presentation just as the the U.S. Constitution had to go through that process. But the short history of the process so far certainly suggests the Iraqi people are up to it and determined to do it.

It's an exciting thing to watch happen.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But the Sunnis will have to muster a majority "no" vote in three of the four provinces in which they reside to defeat the referendum on the constitution. The early speculation is that they failed to do that and the new constitution will become law.

Actually, two-thirds "no" vote in any three of Iraq's 18 provinces and not only "in three of the four provinces in which they reside".
(But there are four provinces where the Sunnis have a chance of doing so.)

I've got the newsfeed from Al-Iraqia and Al-Hurra TV since polls closed: early speculation in Iraq by Iraquian media was that at least two provinces said 'no'.

You are right, however, that the US (e.g. Rice) thinks that the Iraqis voted 'yes' as well as Iraqi officials are optimistic on the charter referendum.

These are the turnout levels recorded in the 18 provinces in Iraq according to the electoral commission in the latest press conference:

High= more than 66%
Moderate= 33% - 66%
Low= less than 33%

Duhok: moderate.
Erbil: moderate.
Sulaymania: high.
Mosul: high.
Kirkuk: high.
Diyala: high.
Anbar: unknown.
Baghdad: high.
Babil: high.
Kerbala: high.
Wasit: moderate.
Salahiddin: high.
Al-Muthana: moderate.
Al-Qadisiya: low.
Najaf: high.
Thi Qar: moderate.
Maysan: moderate.
Basra: moderate.

Officially, the referendum turnout topped 60%.

0 Replies

Yes, I should have said 4 of the 18 total provinces. I was just thinking of the four provinces where Sunnis are concentrated as being where the referendum could be defeated. THere is little concern that the other 14 will not vote yes.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

No. I know it's too spacial for you to understand, but you must learn to look at 1) Bush's tax policies and how they have affected health insurance for the middle class (higher taxes and higher health insurance premiums), and 2) how the middle class will react to Bush's incompetence to handle our economy (consumer confidence is falling). It doesn't matter that Bush does not run GM.

you couldn't be more incorrect C.I. The small minority of mouth breathers who still support and defend bush don't have to understand anything except bushworship. That's all that's required of them. :wink:

0 Replies

From the Rasmussen Report yesterday:

"Saturday October 15, 2005--Forty-seven percent (47%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President.

Fifty-one percent (51%) Disapprove.

The President earns Approval from 50% of men and 45% of women."

While the President's approval ratings remain lower than 'normal' for a President, they are remarkably strong in face of unrelenting negative spin on Iraq, Harriett Miers, and accusations of incompetence to deal with the hurricane issues.

The numbers do not reflect a 'small minority of mouth breathers who still support and defend Bush'.

0 Replies

quite true, the number of mouth breathers is larger than most would expect.

0 Replies

Quote:

Rice: I Don't Want to Run for President

Sunday October 16, 2005

WASHINGTON (AP) - For Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, no means no - and no again - when it comes to whether she will run for president.

``It's not what I want to do with my life, it's not what I'm going to do with my life,'' Rice said Sunday on NBC's ``Meet the Press.''

A group pushing for a Rice candidacy has run a television ad in New Hampshire - traditional site of the first presidential primary - and plans to air it soon in Iowa, where the first party caucuses take place.

At least two Web sites are promoting Rice even though Rice herself has said for months that she is not interested in running.

Asked on NBC and on ``Fox News Sunday'' whether she would run for president in 2008, Rice said she is flattered but would decline.

``I'm not somebody who wants to run for office. I haven't ever run for anything,'' Rice told NBC. ``I think I'm doing what I need to do, which is to try and promote American foreign policy, American interests, the president's democracy agenda at an extraordinary time.''

Pressed by host Tim Russert, Rice said, ``I don't know how may ways to say no.''

``So,'' asked Russert, ``no ...?''

A few seconds of silence followed. ``Tim,'' Rice said, ``I don't know how many ways to tell people that I have no interest in being a candidate for anything. ... No.''

She told Fox host Chris Wallace, ``I'm quite certain that there are going to be really fine candidates for president from our party, and I'm looking forward to seeing them and perhaps supporting them.''

Rice was interviewed from London at the conclusion of a diplomatic mission.

0 Replies

What's "too spacial" for the looney left to understand is that a majority of the Democratic party is made up of liberals. Considering that the majority of the electorate is dominated by pro-military with strong religious beliefs, this doesn't bode well for any politician running as a Democrat. It's an uphill battle all the way unless they take a page from Hillary's book and "pretend" they're more mainstream.

So the lefties can "gloat" all they want about poll numbers (it's about all they have to gloat about these days), but unless they start paying attention to what's important to the majority of Americans, they'll just keep on losing....and losing....and losing.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know