Bush Speaks Tonight From Fort Bragg- Oooh-Rah!

The speech probably was the best Bush could do inder the circumstances.

He needs to get people thinking about US vs THEM, and stop concentrating on the little tricks and lies which got us involved in the first place.

No mention of WMD's. The fighters in Iraq are described as having the same philosophy as bin Laden-which is a neat way to come close to saying Iraq is responsible for 9/11 without actually saying it.

It's an appeal to the emotions. I think it will get him a brief bump in the polls, but as the bad news multiplies, I think it will be forgotten quickly.

Oops.

81 cents.

www.xe.com

Oops.

Oops. Quadruple post. I thought that message was taking an awful long time to submit!

Quote.
looking ahead, he warned as he often has of "tough moments that test America's resolve." But he said the sacrifice would prove worthwhile to the Iraqis and to Americans.(unquote)




Only read a bit of the presidents speech....and as a non member the USA I found this part to be what I would imagine a early priest in his temple would say... with the same thought in his mind... the "sacrificer's" gifts will be on his temple's plate not the masses.

There was no expectation that it would be any more than a zero. In this respect the President met expectations. If the bar were any lower he'd be a limbo master (that is, if the rules were changed to allow points for stepping over it).

Rove needs enemies -- someone or something to demonize -- in order to thrive; he and Cheney are simpatico in this respect. One week it's judges; one week it's the Senate; the following week it's liberals in general. Keep an eye out for next week's bad guys.

Ten-to-one it's not al-Qaeda.

If the administration were half as good at fighting the terrorists as they are at whipping their political opponents' asses (and that includes the Republicans who occasionally step out of the party line), the war really would've been over when Bush landed on the Abraham Lincoln.

To answer your question: they're enjoying this fresh game of kicking the anthill. But they've retreated again for now; it will be a short while before they resurface from the bunker to resume their taunts.

Re: brief bump in the polls... NPR reported yesterday that prior to speech disapproval of way Bush is handling Iraq = 53%. After speech = 55%.

kelticwizard
" Appeal to the emotions" Ha. I can't express the emotion he brings out in me anytime he opens his mealy, lying mouth.

Well, there have been 8,000 people killed by the insurgents in the past 6 months, mostly Iraqi civilians. Bush's war is doing a pretty good job of wiping out random Iraqi people for no good reason. I'm sure Saddam would be proud.

squinney

That does not surprise me.

PD

Understood, and I expect 'liberalism' to be the broad target. I'm guessing that Rove is looking up ahead one year, then to 2008 and that his strategies all fall out from this. Retaining control overtly and covertly is his central aim. I'm not sure how many seats might be in play but he'll know exactly.

But the continued slide in polls will hurt, perhaps particularly the polls of women's notions. Iraq is bad news and nothing much but bad news (even if the press/tv here have been pretty much sanitized of any dim reality of blown up people), the big economy guys are seriously worried about a crash, and Bush is looking increasingly like a loser and increasingly perceived to be untrustworthy.

The next year and a bit will get ugly. Klein's book is just a shot over the bow.

I have not seen this in any of the US media but it looks like the US is try to talk its way out of Iraq, if not throw in the towel. I suspect that Bush's speech the other night was mostly bluster for domestic consumption.

Link to London Sunday Times article
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1669601_1,00.htm

US 'in talks with Iraq with Iraq rebels'
Hala Jaber
Insurgents reveal secret face-to-face meetings

Quote from the London Sunday Times article


"Time magazine reported in February that a meeting had taken place between one representative of the insurgents and two US military officials. Earlier this month it was claimed that indirect negotiations had begun through an intermediary".

"The meetings described to The Sunday Times appear to have been the first formal talks between the two sides."

"An interior ministry official in Baghdad said he was not aware of the two encounters but knew that the Pentagon and State Department had been anxious to talk to insurgent leaders for some time."

"The Americans want to expedite this matter of talks with the insurgents," said Dr Sabah Kathim, the ministry's senior spokesman.
"They initially thought they could win it through military operations and now they have come to realise that the military option will not provide them with the solution, so they are going for the political option as well."


But we have some conditions

"After a discussion about Al-Qaeda activities, the Americans bluntly advised the Iraqis to "cease all support, logistics and cover for Zarqawi's group". Only if links to Al-Qaeda were severed would the Americans be ready to discuss Iraqi demands.
"Our response was that we will never abandon any Muslim who has come to our country to help us defend it," the commander said."

Insurgents kill civilians and you blame Bush???

Well, he DID start the war, didn't he?

Cycloptichorn

Well, with that logic, I guess we can blame Henry Ford for all the people killed in auto accidents.

Ahh ... the "blame America first" attitude.

And the US did "something" to cause the radical islamic terrorists to hate the US ... thus, the US has no one to blame but itself for 9/11.

Did I get that right, Cyclops? Did those "little Eichmanns" get what they had coming? Let's not blame the terrorists, after all, they are only reacting to what the US has done.

Well, first you have to stop conflating 9/11 with Iraq. The two had nothing to do with one another.

It would be akin to us here in the US attacking France, who responds by attacking Mexico. Close Geographical boundaries do not the same country make.

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism at all.

The fact is that Bush wanted this war and there is a mountain of evidence showing that they planned it long before they drummed up justification for the war. So, yes, Bush started the war. He wanted it, he pushed for it, he ignored counter-evidence that what we were doing was wrong.

I'm not 'blaming America first' because I don't think that Bush=America. So save your insults.

Cycloptichorn

Wrong. It's the "blame that talking chimp in the whitehouse first" attitude. Get it right, would you? He is not America. If he was, the flag would have a bunch of bananas on it instead of stars.

Okay, is it the "let's not blame the terrorists" attitude?