Truth-telling and course-changing.

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Mariner, Dec 12, 2005.

  1. Mariner
    Offline

    Mariner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    772
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston, Mass.
    Ratings:
    +52
    It's been an interesting couple of weeks for the President.

    I've not been able to keep up as thoroughly with the news as usual, as I've been busy at work, but a few things stood out--

    --his speech at the Naval Academy, where he said we can't leave Iraq too soon for fear of turning it into a base for Al Qaeda, which is a backhand way of admitting that it wasn't one before.

    --his call for "staying the course" even as the media was abuzz with leaks from the Pentagon about reducing troop levels in 2006. A classic case of political double-speak.

    --his first admissions that things aren't actually going perfectly over there.

    --his first ever reference to the number of Iraqi civilian dead (he suggested 30,000).

    --the "Plan for Victory" which the administration said was a declassified version of a 2003 plan, but whose main author was apparently Peter Feaver, a newly-hired political consultant whose expert is public opinion polling (has Bush become poll-driven Clinton?).

    --the bizarre revelations of $100,000,000 worth of planted propoganda stories, outsourced to some seriously shadowy folk.

    --Bush finally showing some recognition of the reality of global warming.

    --Rice finally showing some official recognition that being known worldwide as a torturer, renderer, and keeper of secret prisons might not be our best advertisement for the joys of democracy.

    Overall, it seems like slightly more truth-telling and course-changing than we're used to from the administration. Too bad it's not working--a grand 25% of the populace is convinced Bush actually has a workable plan for getting us out of Iraq. If only the Democrats were offering something better, but they're not.

    Mariner.
     
  2. Mariner
    Offline

    Mariner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    772
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston, Mass.
    Ratings:
    +52
    truth-telling and course-changing. Bush actually took questions today--in recent history, he is the president who has least often been willing to answer reporters' questions directly.

    And when asked why he continued to blame Saddam Hussein for 9/11 to justify invading Iraq when "no respected journalist or other Middle Eastern experts confirm that such a link existed," he did NOT answer that there was a link. Instead, he said "there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein, 'You're a threat," and the 9-11 attacks extenuated that threat."

    I think he needs to check the meaning of extenuate in the dictionary, but it's still remarkable to me that he sideways admitted that his previous linkage was wrong. Instead, he proposes an emotional linkage, which might be close to his actual truth, i.e. 9-11 made him feel more vulnerable and therefore in more urgent need of doing something about Iraq.

    Mariner.
     
  3. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Glad to hear your still obsessing about it all!
     
  4. Mariner
    Offline

    Mariner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    772
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston, Mass.
    Ratings:
    +52
    billions a month on this war, and charging it to our kids. It's hard for me to think of a more worthwhile subject for obsession, particularly if you feel, as I do, that managing it incorrectly increases rather than decreases our safety.

    Paying for propoganda in Arab newspapers, for example, is about the stupidest move I could imagine. Here we are, extolling the wonders of freedom--free speech and a free press--and then it turns out we're total hypocrites, trying to control their press. Ugly. How can we now take any kind of moral high ground when Al Jazeera or a mullah hypes something anti-American? And did you see some of the actual propoganda stories? Absurd beyond belief! Why does Bush constantly throw away our moral high ground? It's our most important asset, like a person's character.

    I think most people here know this, and don't like it any more than me, but since they voted for the guy, it's hard to talk about.

    Mariner.
     
  5. Democrat4Bush
    Offline

    Democrat4Bush Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    228
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Orlando
    Ratings:
    +27
    How is paying someone to run an article controlling their press. The paper could have just as easily said no thank you, right.

    Talk about twisting the truth, you libs are the champions at.
     
  6. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,914
    Thanks Received:
    2,073
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,804
    I assume you are referring to our military. They are not kids. I was not a kid when I was in the military. I am sick and tired of hearing liberals refer to military as a bunch of clueless kids being used. We are adults. :finger:
     
  7. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Are we stopping others from getting THEIR message out? That's suppression of free speech. You want to suppress the speech of the administration.
     
  8. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    Were the training camps in operation in Iraq before the invasion ever specified by the administration to be al-Qaeda bases? Even if you can find such an assertion that's hardly the same as saying 'Iraq itself is an al-Qaeda base' now isn't it?

    Double-speak how? Cannot a winning force stay the course with fewer troops?

    It wasn't his first. And in a few weeks certain people will be saying he's never admitted any lack of mistakes....once again. He and his administration, including Rumsfeld, Myers, and Pace, have repeatedly stated that things aren't going perfectly and further that it would be illogical to assume that they would.

    Why is this important to you?

    Might it be a poltical consultant edited/re-worded the actual text of the internal plan so that it was better fit for media and public consumption? Or is that too far fetched? Is it much more likely that among all the people at the White House, all the people at the State Dept., all the people at the Dept. of Def., and all the officers in the military, not a single person put forth any sort of plan for anything whatsoever until a politcal consultant came along a few months ago?

    Why is that bizarre? Propaganda is about as old as war itself. And incidentally, contrary to common understanding, 'propaganda' is not synomous with 'lies'. Were any of the submitted stories lies? Some people who oppose this war believe war is never the answer, that disputes should be settled through talk and diplomacy. Someone of that persuasion, one could conceivably assume, would prefer we spend money on propaganda than on bombs and tanks. Which would you prefer?

    Now that's bizzare. Or perhaps just politically driven. Global warming, at least as a result of human activity, is a crock of shit.

    I would agree. That's why I think the media, Kerry, Murtha, Reid, Kennedy, and the like should stop spreading lies about the conduct of our soldiers.

    Have a link for that? Worst number I can find is 41%.
     
  9. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    First of all, did someone really ask him that? Do you realize the adminstration never blamed Hussein for 9/11? Do you further realize the bias of a reporter implicit in the nature of such a question?

    You have fallen into the lie of the question itself.

    Close to the truth? It is the truth; no question about it. Why? Because he admitted as much himself in the run up to the war. The shortness of memory is either astonishing or deliberate. He explicitly stated, repeatedly, that 9/11 revealed a vulnerability previously unrecognized or ignored by the the public and many in the government, both sides of the aisle, for years. And that the position of the U.S. with regard to terrorism, with regard to terrorists supporters, and with regard to Saddam Hussein had to be re-evaluated.

    See, you have a problem with pro-U.S. propaganda, yet you swallow anti-U.S. propaganda by the bushel. You've been told the sole reason for the invasion was WMD, when mountains of information proves otherwise, and you have bought it.

    WMD was never the only reason, and this 'true cause' for the war you think you have discovered was in fact enunciated, by the President, even by Democrats, more than four years ago.
     
  10. LuvRPgrl
    Offline

    LuvRPgrl Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,163
    Thanks Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +206
    Thats the best you've got? Pleasssssssssssssssssssee

    give us something difficult to respond to.
    Zhukov responded quite well.
    You have been owned.

     

Share This Page