Liberals Bash Bush In TV Ad Before Speech

[Bonnie]

(CNSNews.com) - President Bush plans to address the nation on the situation in Iraq Tuesday night, but before he has a chance to speak, liberals are offering their own fix for what they see as a "quagmire" and a "disaster."


New TV and print ads produced by MoveOn.org's political action committee are scheduled to run shortly before President Bush delivers his prime-time address to the nation on the one-year anniversary of self-rule in Iraq.


Those ads will tell the American people, "We got into Iraq the wrong way - let's get out the right way."


Also on Tuesday, Sen. John F. Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who lost the election to President Bush, offered his views on what Bush should tell the American people.


In a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Speech the President Should Give," Kerry says the Bush administration has turned Iraq into a "breeding ground for jihadists," and he says the president should "tell the truth to the American people."


According to Kerry, "Happy talk about the insurgency being in 'the last throes' leads to frustrated expectations at home."


USA Today reported that President Bush's speech, to be delivered at 8 p.m. at Fort Bragg, N.C., is an attempt to "convince war-weary Americans that the unpopular campaign in Iraq is worthwhile despite spiking violence that makes claims of progress increasingly difficult. "


President Bush has said he doesn't rule according to opinion polls; and on Monday, he said Iraqis must be capable of defending their democracy before the U.S.-led effort can be considered a success.


In a blow to Iraq's fledgling democracy on Tuesday, one of the few Sunni members of the Iraqi parliament was killed in when a car bomb blew up his convoy in northern Baghdad. Also on Tuesday, press reports said U.S. forces have launched a new offensive against insurgents in Iraq's western Euphrates valley.


Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Tuesday that despite the difficult news coming out of Iraq - car bombings and U.S. troop deaths -- "it is very important to keep focused" on the political process, because when Iraqis take control of their own future, "there's no doubt that our own coalition forces will be less needed."


Rice said President Bush, in his Tuesday night speech, will tell the American people "where we are in this great mission."


In the interview on Fox & Friends, Rice said the stakes in Iraq are very high: "We're talking about a change in the center of the Middle East that would change the poisonous politics of that region which is producing so much of the extremism" that leads to terrorism.


Rice described Bush's Tuesday night speech as a "progress report on what really is an amazing story of Iraqis taking more and more responsibility for their own affairs."


'Quagmire'


MoveOn PAC's 30-second TV ad calls the war in Iraq a "quagmire," noting that 825 days after it began , 1,725 Americans have died.


The ad mocks President Bush's claim that "we're making really good progress in Iraq," and it quotes Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska saying that "the White House is completely disconnected from reality...It's like they're just making it up as they go along."


"It's time to come home," the ad concludes: "We got in the wrong way. Let's get out the right way."


'Courting disaster'

link more
http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200506/POL20050628b.shtml


This is hysterical........

 

[freeandfun1]

I am so sick of the liberals and their "quagmire, Vietnam" comparisons. There is absolutely NO comparison. The major difference is that there is no "northern" government or "southern" government. The ENTIRE nation elected their officials. If they didn't vote, that was THEIR problem as the opportunity was available (read Sunnis). Since there is no "North Iraq", there is no organized opposition represented by a government that ANY nations recognize. The majority of those fighting in Iraq are not even from Iraq and the insurgency has NOTHING to do with nationalism as in Vietnam.

They (the liberals) really need to go back and revisit history and learn what they missed while protesting in the streets and acting like they know it all.

 

[ThomasPaine]

glad that worthless piece of shit never became President. That so many blindly and without thought vote Democrat and voted for that left wing pacifist really bothers me. It's as if they were robots and never had two brain cells to rub together. Kerry was clearly unqualified to be President. Massachusetts must have the most brain dead constituency in the country, Kerry and Kennedy, both worthless.

 

[Bonnie]

I am so sick of the liberals and their "quagmire, Vietnam" comparisons. There is absolutely NO comparison. The major difference is that there is no "northern" government or "southern" government. The ENTIRE nation elected their officials. If they didn't vote, that was THEIR problem as the opportunity was available (read Sunnis). Since there is no "North Iraq", there is no organized opposition represented by a government that ANY nations recognize. The majority of those fighting in Iraq are not even from Iraq and the insurgency has NOTHING to do with nationalism as in Vietnam.

They (the liberals) really need to go back and revisit history and learn what they missed while protesting in the streets and acting like they know it all.

Their whole argument has no basis at all in common sense, or reason and their agenda is simply to try and ruin Bush's accomplishments here and abroad and that is the worst part. They do not give a piss about our soldiers period!!!

 

[Gunny]

link more
http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200506/POL20050628b.shtml


This is hysterical........

Is anyone on the left going to engage their brains at any point in time? The N Vietnamese admitted after the fact that wearing down American resolve at home was their main objective.

Ho Chi Minh then ..... Zarqawi now ...... they can always count on the left to be unwitting but willing allies in their psychological warfare.

 

[nakedemperor]

Their whole argument has no basis at all in common sense, or reason and their agenda is simply to try and ruin Bush's accomplishments here and abroad and that is the worst part. They do not give a piss about our soldiers period!!!

The CIA now believes that Iraq is a more effective and larger-scale breeding and training ground for terrorism than Afghanistan... under the Taliban. Therefore the contention that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has done more harm to the war on terror than good (which is a significant part of the argument of the ad which you claim has no 'basis in common sense'). This seems pretty sensible to me. Moreover, it would seem that the people who want the soldiers home care do very much so 'give a piss about our soldiers'.

This whole thread is a vast generalization of the beliefs and convictions of millions of people who have been sloshed under the umbrella term liberal. I can't really get offended that people around here claim that me, my family, my friends, and any other Democrats I know 'don't give a piss about the troops', because I knows its just not true. What does get to me is how generalizations such as these really flatten a dialogue along idealogical lines.

 

[Annie]

The CIA now believes that Iraq is a more effective and larger-scale breeding and training ground for terrorism than Afghanistan... under the Taliban. Therefore the contention that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has done more harm to the war on terror than good (which is a significant part of the argument of the ad which you claim has no 'basis in common sense'). This seems pretty sensible to me. Moreover, it would seem that the people who want the soldiers home care do very much so 'give a piss about our soldiers'.

This whole thread is a vast generalization of the beliefs and convictions of millions of people who have been sloshed under the umbrella term liberal. I can't really get offended that people around here claim that me, my family, my friends, and any other Democrats I know 'don't give a piss about the troops', because I knows its just not true. What does get to me is how generalizations such as these really flatten a dialogue along idealogical lines.

CIA and State Department have and always have had, very close ties.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...state+department+same+&hl=en&client=firefox-a

 

[deaddude]

:huh: Does this surprise you in anyway shape or form? Yes the libs are going to bash Bush because he represents things which they are against (tax breaks, lax environmental protection, support of big business over the employee, ect). It happens on both sides (Gunboat Veterans for Truth, Kerry being called a worthless piece of shit, ect.)

It happens; one person's favorite president is another person's anathema.

 

[deaddude]

They do not give a piss about our soldiers period!!!

Now that is just mud slinging. I'd be willing to bet that there are quite a few soldiers in Iraq right now who don’t support Bush; I would also be willing to bet that they give a piss about themselves. I know several liberal families that have sons and daughters in Iraq who definitely give a piss about there children. Your ideas about caring for soldiers might be different but you do not care for them more. The Cons want to give the soldiers in Iraq the resources they need to do their jobs. The Libs want to support the soldiers but do not support the war. So the Libs want to get them home as quickly as possible to prevent more soldiers from dying in what they see as one of Bush's mistakes.

 

[Bonnie]

Now that is just mud slinging. I'd be willing to bet that there are quite a few soldiers in Iraq right now who don’t support Bush; I would also be willing to bet that they give a piss about themselves. I know several liberal families that have sons and daughters in Iraq who definitely give a piss about there children. Your ideas about caring for soldiers might be different but you do not care for them more. The Cons want to give the soldiers in Iraq the resources they need to do their jobs. The Libs want to support the soldiers but do not support the war. So the Libs want to get them home as quickly as possible to prevent more soldiers from dying in what they see as one of Bush's mistakes.

How does bringing home our soldiers now equate to being supportive of them or the mission? If we pull out now we loose, Iraq looses, and all the soldiers that have been killed have done so for nothing. How does that make any sense??
Secondly Im sure there are families that are terribly worried for their children as I would be and yes they have nothing but the best of intentions in wishing their children, spouses, parents home sooner than later, I was referring to the politicians and activists leaders who I do not beleive for a minute have any other motivations than to attempt to bring Bush down for political reasons. If the terrorists manage to destroy our country will these same people say sorry??? Doubt it!! I care about this country and those that joined the military did so of their own free will, they are extremely brave and I feel horrible for everyone that gets killed and their families as do most people in this country. Did liberal Clinton give a piss about putting our men in harms way, not give them enough support when things heated up, and then watch as they were being dragged thru the streets in pieces??? How come Move-On.org or liberals weren't screaming then???

 

[deaddude]

Many libs would say the same of Conservative politicians. Sending them to Iraq without body armor, after WMDs that don’t exist (or at least have not been found), having soldiers serve double tours with no end in sight, while threatening Iran for enriching whichever radioactive substance it is that they have. These are not the actions of caring politicians.

 

[freeandfun1]

Many libs would say the same of Conservative politicians. Sending them to Iraq without body armor, after WMDs that don’t exist (or at least have not been found), having soldiers serve double tours with no end in sight, while threatening Iran for enriching whichever radioactive substance it is that they have. These are not the actions of caring politicians.

Wait a minute, one thing you need to understand is that we don't have the leisure of deciding "when" we will fight a war. Offensives are planned when the opportunity best exists. You seem to forget that it was eight (8) years of Clinton defense cuts that led to our troops not being prepared. One of the first things Bush did after taking office in 2001 was increase defense spending. Our military didn't even have enough fuel to train with under Clinton. You can't put this on Bush.

 

[Bonnie]

Many libs would say the same of Conservative politicians. Sending them to Iraq without body armor, after WMDs that don’t exist (or at least have not been found), having soldiers serve double tours with no end in sight, while threatening Iran for enriching whichever radioactive substance it is that they have. These are not the actions of caring politicians.

Im not saying that Conservatives are perfect nor are our generals or any administration in doing everything correct, what I am saying is we are in this now, and the country was told that it would be long and hard. No one was ever told it would be easy or quick. Does it seem reasonable that this adminstratin would purposely send in troops that were not armed correctly if their objective was to win with as few casualities as possible?? We can all dissagree as to whether going to Iraq was for one reason or the other but we are there now and we are making progress and the outcome is heading in the positive direction. Im not naive but I don't see Bush sitting there in his warroom with all his generals playing war games with our troops just for the hell of it, or so he could line his pockets with money, it just doesn't shake out, just for practical reasons he would have been putting his presidency completely on the line.

 

[deaddude]

Wait a minute, one thing you need to understand is that we don't have the leisure of deciding "when" we will fight a war. Offensives are planned when the opportunity best exists. You seem to forget that it was eight (8) years of Clinton defense cuts that led to our troops not being prepared. One of the first things Bush did after taking office in 2001 was increase defense spending. Our military didn't even have enough fuel to train with under Clinton. You can't put this on Bush.

Now you wait a minute you are forgetting that Iraq was not in any way an immediate threat to the U.S. So yes we could have waited, at least long enough to get our troops in with body armor, we gave inspections (which were working more effectively than any previous attmept at inspecting Iraq) about a month. So while lack of funding may not be Bush's fault, rushing off into a second conflict was.

 

[Bonnie]

Now you wait a minute you are forgetting that Iraq was not in any way an immediate threat to the U.S. So yes we could have waited, at least long enough to get our troops in with body armor, we gave inspections (which were working more effectively than any previous attmept at inspecting Iraq) about a month. So while lack of funding may not be Bush's fault, rushing off into a second conflict was.

Exaclty how were those ridiculous cat and mouse inspections working???

 

[deaddude]

Just said they were working better than previous attmepts. Inspectors were getting into palaces without prior notice or substantial delays (i.e. the kind required to move a WMD.) That had not happened in earlier attempts at weapons inspections. :huh:

 

[freeandfun1]

Exaclty how were those ridiculous cat and mouse inspections working???

Ya know, I wasn't even going to reply to him because his ignorance on the facts is astounding. We gave them more than a month... we gave them something like 12 years! The inspections were not working and people like him will ignore the fact that it is highly likely and probably that Sadman shipped his programs to his Baathist buddies in Syria.

 

[Annie]

Ya know, I wasn't even going to reply to him because his ignorance on the facts is astounding. We gave them more than a month... we gave them something like 12 years! The inspections were not working and people like him will ignore the fact that it is highly likely and probably that Sadman shipped his programs to his Baathist buddies in Syria.

I'm still waiting to hear where those terrorists in Jordan got the VX gas? Weird how there were no WMD's? Yeah, right...

 

[deaddude]

The twelve years you refer to are what I was calling previous attempts, if you want to include them as a whole that’s fine. Twelve years it is. My point remains that we could have waited for longer than we did in order to improve our resources which as you say were devastated by Clinton defense cuts. We did not need to rush into the conflict. Iraq was not any kind of immediate threat.

Also if you are going to call me ignorant (which may very well be), don't just leave your argument at that and not respond. Please enlighten me as to the reasons that my argument does not hold water. You are taking the inspections as a whole and I see that as valid, I will argue from that point of view from now on.

 

[deaddude]

I'm still waiting to hear where those terrorists in Jordan got the VX gas? Weird how there were no WMD's? Yeah, right...

Perhaps we should have attacked the Jordanians? No idea where the VX came from. If you can prove that it is from Iraq than I will support the war, in addition to supporting the troops.