Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Update2: Josh Marshall has a link to the full playbook here (a large .pdf file). The 104-pager includes a recommendation for speech giving:

"How to Talk About Social Security Personal Accounts

"Social Security Speech For Audiences Ages 18+

"Introduction

"Good day. My name is _______________. I am here to talk with you about your future, and the future of your children and grandchildren. I have studied the challenges facing our Social Security system. I am going to share with you today what I have learned, and tell you about the solution that I recommend. The first thing you need to understand is that Social Security has to be fixed. It's not a matter of "I want it to be fixed" or "I think it should be fixed" -- it has to be fixed."

I don't know if we can solve all the world's problems either, FreeDuck... but I do want us to try. If we don't, who will? And, yes, I want every other civilized country to stand up with us until eventually we're all standing together… on the same side. Infighting between civilized nations who share values (like human rights and the right to self determination), only serves to benefit the true enemies of human kind (those who don't). The politics as usual power struggle both domestically and internationally should be set completely aside when addressing the A-holes like Saddam. Too often we're like parents bickering at a PTA meeting while the kids are off bangin and smokin crack. Differences between Parties… or between European nations and the United States should be too minor to interfere with addressing the mass murdering monsters of the world. That's a sh!tty issue to play politics with.

I'm sorry you're that cynical about the military, too, FreeDuck. Saying you haven't seen the U.S. military act for humanitarian reasons strikes me as borderline obscene.

You must subscribe to an idealism that says force is NEVER acceptable. Who do you think does most of the heavy hitting in UN peacekeeping missions? Did you really have a problem with the first Gulf War? Did you miss the reports about the USS Abraham Lincoln and a dozen other ships, along with thousands of troops chipping in after the Tsunami? I just don't get it. How do you decide to be against something you freely admit you probably don't understand

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I'm sorry you're that cynical about the military, too, FreeDuck. Saying you haven't seen the U.S. military act for humanitarian reasons strikes me as borderline obscene.

Almost as obscene as concluding that I said that. I didn't. I thought my meaning was pretty clear.

Or are we all cynical because we've never seen the US act militarily for humanitarian reasons.

What about the first Gulf war?

The Powell doctrine is a cowards war. A war in which the radically advantaged American Air Force and air power in general including cruise missiles is used to devastate a completely and publicly demonized enemy population so that the cowards in the Pentagon don't have to risk the kind of casualties that were accrued in the Vietnam War or for that matter past successful U.N. peacekeeping operations. The cowards in the Pentagon and the White House have not wanted to risk a backlash from the American public whose children might die in a full frontal war. But in using the Powell doctrine in Kosovo General Wesley Clark as supreme commander of NATO forces dumped tons of depleted uranium ordinance into Kosovo creating widespread sickness as a result of the contamination caused by the ignition of the ordnance on the impact of its target. Not to mention the so-called collateral damage of civilian deaths that occurred as result of the cowards indiscriminately bombing anything that moved. General Wesley Clark's supporters are already touting Kosovo as a great success with not one American casualty, a testament to both Bill Clinton's and Wesley Clark's genius. And of course, a well orchestrated lie which will produce the desired results thanks to the corporate media and a compliant NPR.

What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?

February 1, 2005

BY MARK BROWN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.

You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.

Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.

By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.

But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

It's hard to swallow, isn't it?

Americans cross own barrier

If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.

For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.

I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.

Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).

I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.

Deciding democracy's worth

On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing:

Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.

Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.

Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.

I don't want to get carried away in the moment.

Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world.

Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I've maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.)

In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out.

Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year's end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people.

And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam.

Penance could be required

But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them.

Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain.

Obviously, I'm still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region.

So is the rest of the world.

For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.

If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.

Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008.

well sure George why even bother having anything like divergence of views in US politics, tis a far far easier thing to have everyone on exactly the same page. right? like if everybody's right nobody's wrong eh?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4220473.stm

Psychologists and handwriting experts were drafted in by the press in the hope of getting a glimpse into the inner workings of the prime ministerial mind.

Newspaper stories contained phrases such as "struggling to concentrate" and "not a natural leader".

Now - and with not a little glee - Downing Street has revealed that the scribblings were not the work of the premier, but that of one Bill Gates of Microsoft.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=605702

The Independent asked Helen Taylor, a graphologist, to analyse the writing and, just for fun, Nina Ashby, a clairvoyant who specialises in the interpretation of patterns, to investigate Mr Blair's extensive use of symbols. She said: "It shows he's full of aggressive, nervous energy, which is driving him on. But it is not rooted in practicality. It's more aspirational, as indicated by the slanting writing. A more practical person would be expected write more horizontally.

"The boxes suggest he is trying to compartmentalise things, possibly for delegation, but some look as if they are going to collapse. The relative sizes of the boxes and the letters indicate his priorities."

She added: "I think he's under pressure, trying to complete his circles, but not always succeeding. And it suggests this is not a natural leader. It is a person of a religious nature, perhaps a vicar, not sure of his priorities." Ms Ashby concluded that Mr Blair was easily able to compartmentalise matters; organisations such as the G8 and the International Finance Fund are firmly ringed and boxed. "But as you get further down, the boxes and circles and triangles overlap and crowd in on each other and the focus is on issues, such as Aids and trade.

"Look at the triangle goalposts: one is trapped among circles and boxes, the other free and isolated. It creates a more confusing picture and suggests things are in danger of getting out of control."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=15125247&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=what-s-on-your-mind--mr-blair--name_page.htm

Psychologist Elaine Quigley says the loopy letters and boxed-up issues are the tell-tale signs that our leader is a bit of daydreamer hoping for the best.

Blair even mis-spells the name of Porto Alegre, Brazil, which he calls Allegro, where he is to attend a crucial summit with leaders of the developing world, union chiefs and campaign groups.

But Ms Quigley adds that his extensive use of triangles indicates a constructive and practical approach.

She says: "He is struggling to concentrate and his mind is going everywhere, but he knows he will get to the bottom of the problems in time. That's Teflon Tony.

"We can see the way the Prime Minister's mind works, not only by the way he fills in his boxes, but also by the size and clarity of his priorities.

"The most readable of his doodles are the points that he believes will catch the public interest."