Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

The great man speaks:

Just last week, playing host to Junichiro Koizumi, the Elvis-obsessed prime minister of Japan, Dubya gave yet another master class.

"I reminded the American people, Mr prime minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship," he said. "After all, 60 years ago we were at war."

'Stars and Stripes' Lands Exclusive, and Revealing, Bush Interview

By E&P Staff

Published: July 05, 2006 3:20 PM ET

NEW YORK When Stars and Stripes nabbed anexclusive interview with President Bush on July 4 -- aboard Air Force One -- it devoted most of the questions to ones submitted by service members.

One, put to the commander-in-chief by the newspaper's Jeff Schogol: Has he attended even one funeral for a fallen soldier from Iraq? No, he replied. "Because which funeral do you go to? In my judgment, I think if I go to one I should go to all. How do you honor one person but not another?" he said.

A soldier now serving in Iraq asked how many times he would have to return to the war zone in the next five years. Bush said he did not know. "The conditions on the ground will determine our troop levels, and one of the main conditions on the ground is the capacity for the Iraqis to take the fight to the enemy, and therefore it is very difficult for me to predict with certainty how many times this particular person would be sent back to Iraq," Bush said, in the article published on Wednesday.

Another soldier asked if Army rotations in Iraq could be shortened from one year to six months. Bush: Not likely. A question about special benefits for troops who had served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan brought pretty much the same response, with Bush explaining that he had already boosted normal benefits.

The newspaper's reporter put forth his own query: Would the president accept a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in return for a cease-fire by insurgents?

Bush called the question hypothetical. Reminded by Schogol that the media had reported just such an offer from Sunni insurgents, Bush answered, "I'm not sure they have or haven't. … I will tell you that whatever decisions I make will be made upon the recommendations of commanders and and with one thing in my mind: Can we win?"

Bush was also asked if the strategy of putting relatively few U.S. troops in Afghanistan had backfired, with the Taliban reviving. He replied: "The strategy all along was to help internationalize the effort, and NATO troops are now moving into where the Taliban thinks that they may be able to make a foothold, or gain a foothold."

Cindy Sheehan this week said she would rather live under Venezuela's Hugo Chavez' rule than George Bush. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/)

I'm willing to pitch in for bus fare. How about the rest of you?

Foxfyre wrote:

Cindy Sheehan this week said she would rather live under Venezuela's Hugo Chavez' rule than George Bush. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/)

I'm willing to pitch in for bus fare. How about the rest of you?

Will she be renouncing her citizenship and living there permanently? If so, I'd be willing to help her out.

This country was built on dissent. You two would be hanged if the founding fathers were around because you represent exactly what they are trying to get rid of.

Magginkat wrote:

This country was built on dissent. You two would be hanged if the founding fathers were around because you represent exactly what they are trying to get rid of.

You just said the US was "built on dissent," but then immediately claimed our founding fathers would have hung me for speaking my mind.

Why the hell should she leave the country just because you can't stand the truth?

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/07/i-give-up-go-ahead-and-lose-dems.html

Finally, about Cindy Sheehan, I will offer this thought. When confronted by an administration and a media that are completely oblivious to facts and to the most basic principles of morality, there is almost no tactic short of violence that I would not support wholeheartedly. How else is Sheehan or anyone else going to break through the catatonic state in which this country now slouches from day to day? And if Mr. Sargent is any indication of what can be expected from "mainstream" liberals, and he very unfortunately is, neither Sheehan nor anyone who agrees with her will find any meaningful support from that quarter, either.

The single most important quality that Sheehan projects is an absolute moral confidence in the rightness of her position. And you know what? She is right. I think Sargent knows she's right, too. But, oh, no, we don't want to be viewed as too "extreme" or too far "out there." So the mealy-mouthed, cowardly qualifications come flying, even when they are completely irrelevant.

If the Democrats want to win this fall, what they most desperately need is that same kind of moral confidence. They need to denounce our invasion and occupation of Iraq absolutely and without hesitation. They need to condemn any attack on Iran in the same manner. They need to project that their position is absolutely right and they know it.

People would rally to that banner. The Democrats might win by a very sizable margin. People do not flock to cowards or to people who cover themselves by taking every position possible, which means no position at all.

Bush is a terrible man, and his administration has committed and continues to commit the worst kind of atrocities. It will take decades for our country to recover, and to begin to reclaim its honor. But Bush understands one thing: he thinks he is right, and he brings full confidence to his actions, as despicable as they are. If the Democrats want to counter a force of that kind, particularly given the somnolence of the American public and our media, they need the same kind of confidence, but in the name of peace, diplomacy, compassion and decency.

PRESS RELEASE:

The U.S. government today announced that it is changing its emblem from an EAGLE to a CONDOM because it more accurately reflects the
government's political stance.

A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you're actually being screwed.

pachelbel wrote:

PRESS RELEASE:

The U.S. government today announced that it is changing its emblem from an EAGLE to a CONDOM because it more accurately reflects the
government's political stance.

A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you're actually being screwed.

I bet Bush & Co. laugh themselves silly at how they manipulate the American sheeple. Baaaaa......