What a great time we Liberals had last night making fun of W’s 6th SOTU. By this time we can anticipate exactly what lies and distortions his speech writers will trot out. In fact, we played a round of SOTU bingo based on his favorite buzz words, phrases and subjects. I was tempted to play a drinking game, like taking a shot every time Bush says the word ‘terror’, but with 22 instances of that word last night, everyone would have been in the hospital for alcohol poisoning. The only thing that surprised me about the speech was that Bush did not say, "God bless America." Instead, he signed off with a much more informal, "God bless." I think Bush will probably drop a few points just for being insufficiently jingoistic, and for mentioning Global Warming as something have to ‘assist’ (personally, I think that might mean he wants to help make it worse).
The most remarkable part of last night’s political kabuki was not the President’s performance, but that of Senator Jim Webb. Webb’s arrogant, somewhat dismissive style was a perfect foil to W’s unctuous and utterly insincere bullshit. I loved when Web said with a manner that left no doubt as to his opinion that we Democrats hope and will wait and see if the President is sincere about the program of reforms and progress he outlined. He bluntly undercut the President’s premises in his proposed augmentation and new strategy for victory in Iraq, and savaged the Administration’s expertise and track record. In all, I think it was the most effective rebuttal to a SOTU I’ve ever seen.
Instead of trying to rebut the President point for point, he adroitly pivoted into explaining the populist Democratic framing of the needs of our economy and national security. He emphasized that the measure of our economy is based largely on what, and who, you measure. The average person has not been made better by the GOP’s policies over the past 6 years. Likewise, in Iraq, the real security needs of our nation are being neglected for political ends by this Administration and the GOP. Webb then convincingly established his own security credentials, pointed out that the majority of Congress, the military, and the American people have lost confidence in this Administration’s handling of the war, and then let fly with perhaps the harshest critique of the Iraq policy I have seen nationally televised by an elected official. One might criticize Webb for getting a little angry, but it was rightful and justified indignation blazing out of Webb’s eyes as he denounced the President, and it was totally convincing and refreshing to see actual anger displayed so appropriately in our national discourse. In the end, Webb made no bones about the fact that he, at least, fully expects the Congress to take up it’s constitutional authority to end this war, promising that if the President takes constructive steps Congress would join him, but if not, "we’ll be showing him the way."
By the end of his speech, Webb also put himself firmly in the forefront of the national debate about Iraq. I heard more than one person in the dining room at Rusty’s last night say that they thought they had just seen a man with real Presidential timbre. The freshman Senator took his assignment and rammed it over the goal line for his party and for himself. If you didn’t catch it last night, it really deserves a viewing.
Part 1:
Part 2:
I define a ‘neocon’ as one who has been liberated from reality.
I classify you as one because the contents of your comments clearly demonstrate your complete freedom.
Well I only had to read about 60 words before you stopped the personal attacks and moved to an actual debate. I guess I should also take that as a compliment.
A leftist (this is my personal & favorite definition) is one who has been liberated from absolutes.
The war has not gone badly, that is merely your opinion. You and your ilk scream at the top of your lungs that it is a fiasco, disaster, that it a miserable failure, that Bush lied, blah blah blah. The media has carried your message almost exclusively. From the NYTimes to the Washington Post to CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN your defeatist message has been the sole voice that the electorate and the world has heard. Every negative event is given a megaphone and the good news is buried if even reported. And don’t pretend that this is a recent occurrence. It began weeks after we invaded and has only crescendoed. The second WMD’s were not found the Left had its hammer and you’ve unceasingly used it to bash the President, even though the President merely relied upon the intelligence gathered during the previous leftist administration. Why don’t you and your ilk bash the Clinton admin for the WMD failure? And be honest, WMD’s were found, cyclosarin-tipped missiles were found. We just didn’t find the number of WMD’s that Clinton, Chirac, Putin and Blair told us were there.
After the Saddam regime was toppled, after an Iraqi government was formed, after two elections with over 12 million Iraqis risking their lives to vote, after 2/3rds of the country was stabilized and actually prospered – after all of that the Left realized that they would lose another Presidential election. So you turned the tables and united behind Dean and then Kerry to change the subject. Your side’s desire for power became the only thing that mattered and truth was damned. Now there is no turning back. You have chosen your path and you now cannot retreat out of fear of looking weak and seditious. In other words, you cannot bring to light the truth.
None of this was done in a vacuum. Every time your side made their attacks our enemies cheered. For every defeat they suffered on the battlefield your side was there to prop them back up. Our enemies know they can never win conventionally – they can never force our military out of Iraq. However, they know one group who can get us to cut and run and they are called Democrats. And they will hold on and live to fight another day as long as they continue to believe this.
You mentioned some particular criticisms that you hold regarding reconstruction. I won’t debate them because they are not relevant. I may even agree with you on some of them but that has no bearing to my point, as you should well know. Of course we should be critical and suggest alternative courses of action. But your side chose a different modus operandi. You chose condemnation. You called our troops terrorists. You claimed that we are the pariah. You claimed that your leader was a liar and that the war was a miserable failure. You started demanding withdrawal. And all of that was done BY LEADERS of your party even before Iraqis cast their first vote. And every time it made the news it also made it to the camps of YOUR enemy. Don’t sit there and act like there are no consequences for your side’s actions. How dare you play innocent!
Now my question to you: how do you define a ‘neo-con’ and why do you classify me as one? For the record, I am a classical-liberal.
Actually, it should die because the post is nearly off the page and I doubt many are reading these comments at this point. But your particular combination of persecution complex and megalomania is nonetheless quite amusing, Mark. I do hope you keep posting. It’s like having a pet troll under my bridge to show off. I just yank the chain and off it goes to frighten and amuse the kids…
What I’m really curious about, Mark, is how you define a ‘leftist’, as you call us. What do you think makes one a ‘leftist’?
And while you’re at it maybe you could help clarify how unanimity behind the President’s Iraq fiasco would have produced different results. First, I would remind you that in the first year, consistently over 70% of the electorate supported the war. Are you saying that it was that small minority who opposed the war, or didn’t care, that screwed things up? If so, how exactly?
Past that, when the war was going badly and the public support started dropping, how would not voicing those criticisms and questions about the conduct of the war have helped us find non-existent WMD, or create a new secular order that Bremmer and other neo-cons willfully destroyed by disbanding the Iraqi army, refusing to hold scheduled local and regional elections, and throwing millions of Iraqis out of work at state-owned enterprises? How would our silence and complicity help win the hearts and minds of Iraqis while we tortured and killed them indiscriminately as we tried to grapple with the insurgency the Administration’s policies created? How would Democrats lining up behind a misbegotten war policy have helped to rebuild Iraq even as American contractors gorged on no-bid contracts obtained through political influence? How would it help for liberals to suck it up and willfully believe this Administration had the capacity to carry out this mission with less than half the troops our own Generals said were needed? How could the American people, by force of will and hot air alone, have convinced those elements within Iraq bent on fomenting sectarian violence and mistrust to achieve long-held separatist political goals to merge themselves peacefully into a new pro-American democratic state?
If you can answer any of those questions without resort to magical realist neo-con talking points about dominoes, the power of example, and other such pollyanna nonsense, then, Mark, I’ll be as impressed by your intellect as you evidently are.
Wow… what a compliment. A lefty nutter (who runs the blog) wishes that my comments would go away and the thread would die – such an admission of defeat. You should have added a gif of a white flag to your post. Well, as Saint Paul says ‘thinking themselves wise they become fools’.
To answer your pedantic rambling, there was nothing ad hominem in my comments. For an example of ad hominem attacks read any posting by Michael Bryan. Oh… right!
I am sorry that my logic was over your head so let me pretend you are in grade school. That little ‘doozy’ was not unaccompanied. Following it I wrote “Had they supported the war in Iraq from the beginning and spoken with one voice about our determination to achieve victory in the region and in support of President Bush’s leadership we would not be having this discussion right now.” Earlier in a previous post I explained why this was important when I wrote “to what extent do our enemies in the region (who can watch CNN and read the NYTimes) feel emboldened to continue their struggle against our mission in Iraq when they know that half of America (blue America) eagerly desires to cut and run. If the left had followed Christopher Hitchens example their hope of our retreat may have been dashed years ago.”
Just admit that you ‘feel’ that war is bad. Just admit that my post was all substantiated with reasoned arguments, apparently all of which you are incapable of disproving. Just admit that you want this thread to die because the mere idea of you having to even debate the right is futile to you because you feel like you have already won.
Boy this is the thread that won’t die. Yet it so richly deserves to. Chris, stop feeding the trolls.
“I believe the factor that is most responsible for the continued insurgency and terrorism in Iraq lays on the shoulders of the Left and their allies in Europe.”
This little doozy epitomizes why reasoned argument with the right is too often futile. We share no premises, and they always resort to ad hominem argument and their treasured beliefs (having no evidence, support, or even reasonable relation to reality) when they are cornered. I am, however, really glad I have allies in Europe. Who knew?
You don’t even know if Bin Laden is alive. You clearly haven’t seen an attack on our soil since 9/11. You clearly are aware that Al Qaeda has had large numbers of its leadership killed or captured. Yet nothing Bush does is admiration-worthy…
You then ask why Iraq and not North Korea or Iran. N. Korea is clearly a threat to the region but that region refuses to take actions to remove that threat. Are you suggesting that we should go alone? IMHO, we should arm Japan and Taiwan with nukes and then step back and play a smaller role in the region.
Regarding Iran please look at a map and see where American bases are now positioned in the region. Iran is now surrounded. Have you considered that fact? I agree with you that Iran represents the greatest threat but diminishing that threat isn’t a simple matter. Iran has the youngest population of any nation in the world who is one of the most pro-American of any nationality. The State Department universally believes that we would destroy that good-will if we were to invade. However, with Iran being as near as they are to having nukes I believe we need to enact the Bush Doctrine. It sounds like you also ‘admire’ the Bush Doctrine?
But to give you a simple answer to your question of why Iraq, the answer is that it was the easy choice. The other options would have been far more difficult and it was and is believed that by targeting Iraq first we could provide the region an example of our ability to change regimes. And that example would translate to internal changes in the region without us having to spend a dollar or lose a life. And this theory has proved true when you consider what has happened in Libya, Egypt, Kuwait, Lebanon and Syria. However, I would I agree that we played it safe. And again the Lefts outspoken rejection of our mission only serves to weaken efforts of liberalization in those countries.
Lastly, we were in a state of war, under a legal ceasefire agreement, with Iraq. To allow Saddam to repeatedly violate that ceasefire without consequences, namely a resumption of the war, made us look weak and cowardly to our enemies, which only encourages further attacks against us and our interests.
Regarding peace in Iraq let me make this clear. I believe the factor that is most responsible for the continued insurgency and terrorism in Iraq lays on the shoulders of the Left and their allies in Europe. Had they supported the war in Iraq from the beginning and spoken with one voice about our determination to achieve victory in the region and in support of President Bush’s leadership we would not be having this discussion right now. But the Left, in the US, preferred to use this war as a means to regain power regardless of the consequences to our national security. The Left that rules Europe simply didn’t want to give up those great oil prices that their buddy Saddam was giving them.
I have said that the Shrub (a tribute to the Late Molly Ivins) has been a failure in truly protecting our enemy since December of ’01 (the failure to get Bin Laden @ Tora Bora).
And how has this fiasco in Iraq protected the US from being ‘radioactive’?? Iran AND NORTH KOERA are closer to having nukes than Iraq had ever hoped to be, with Iran more of a DIRECT sponsor of terrorism than Iraq ever was.
Perhaps you need to get out of the wild west mentality that GW et al seem to have. Going in cowboy style to ‘clean up this town’ went out 100 years ago. Is our economy that strong?? The big housing boom a few years ago is down to a trickle in many areas, and the boom itself was built more on the few that could afford second homes/investment homes.
As far as Clinton and Somalia, that was a bungled job, but inBosnia, I felt he did not go far enough, and should have directly pressured Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt et al to openly assist and support us.
And if you are truly a history major, you should have realized long ago that there would be no peace in Iraq without and iron hand.
I am advocating that, in the nuclear age we have no other option unless you want to find yourself or your kids or your grandchildren made radioactive.
And to say the Bush admin has failed miserably 3 years into it is the height of arrogance. Yes mistakes were made but on the whole things are progressing rapidly and successfully in many areas. I am a history major so I have the advantage of understanding how long such things historically take. Also, to what extent do our enemies in the region (who can watch CNN and read the NYTimes) feel emboldened to continue their struggle against our mission in Iraq when they know that half of America (blue America) eagerly desires to cut and run. If the left had followed Christopher Hitchens example their hope of our retreat may have been dashed years ago. Remember, the lefts rejection of this war had nothing to do with its success or failure but with the left’s belief that it would help them regain power. Doubt me at your peril but Nancy and Harry will not cut funds to this war now that they are in charge, even if they spend the next two years repeating that threat.
Our rockin economy surely is admiration-worthy but, to stay on topic, Bush’s steadfast determination to liberate so many millions of people, especially women, knowing that the more evil lefties would rabidly attack him for mere political gains is clearly admiration-worthy. Bush could have simply gone Roman on their asses until we got governments in that region that we could control but instead he took the much harder and nobler course, one that will cost our nation in both blood and dollars. But it is noble when you understand that all true liberty must come with sacrifices.
Yes and we rightly criticized Clinton for nation-building as he was involving our blood and dollars in military theaters that had nothing to do with our national security. Furthermore, sadly but predictably, we surely received no kudos for helping all those suffering Muslims.
Mark, you wrote: “….state-sponsored terrorism. The only way to truly achieve victory is to change the despotic nature of the Middle East. This is a noble goal and to be successful will take decades.”
This sounds alot like you are advocating war and the overthrow of governments.. essentially nation DESTROYING and REBUILDING. This administration has failed miserably at this so far, what makes you think that they will get it right the second time around?! And didn’t the Republicans blast Clinton for nation building???
And specifically WHAT has this administration done that is admiration-worthy???
AZW88,
Well we do agree on one point: no mortal is worthy of worship. But, sadly, the left has rejected God and their innate desire to worship is too often transferred to mortals.
Of course the GWB admin is worthy of admiration. I could name a hundred areas where this is true. Of course this is not absolute and we can have friendly disagreements about particular points. But the fact that you and the left refuse to admire this President makes my original point.
The truth is that much of what GWB does is over the left’s head. Look at your last comments where you reveal your confusion on how victory can best be achieved against islamo-fascists. The greatest danger that we face in this generational war on terror is not Bin Laden or Al Qaeda but state-sponsored terrorism. The only way to truly achieve victory is to change the despotic nature of the Middle East. This is a noble goal and to be successful will take decades. However, once again, the left prefers its Chamberlain model of appeasement.
Mark, the GWB administration is NOT WORTHY of admiration and worship. (NO administration is worship-worthy, as they are all headed by mortals). Hell, the C-in-C an his Veep can’t even agree if there have been mistakes committed in Iraq. The Decider, well he calls himself “the Decision maker” now, will not even listen to other ideas, even after saying “You have a better idea, let’s hear it”. Even the BI-PARTISAN Iraq commission report has been ignored by the C-in-C.
This President took the support that this world had for the US after 9-11-01 and shat upon it. Our case for attacking Afghanistan was clear and no nation stood up to protest. The world supported our efforts to eliminate those that had done us harm. Instead of continuing the focus on Afghanistan, he chose to change the focus to Iraq, a country he clearly had a hard-on for early in his presidential campaign.
His failure as C-in-C is clear. In December of 2001 we clearly had our best chance ever at getting BinLaden (Tora Bora) and instead of sending troops in ther to take care of business, he left it to a few special forces units and local tribal warlords. Bin Laden and the A-Q leadership is still at large. He went from labeling Bin Laden as Public Enemy #1, to more or less calling him insignificant.
More later…
You leftists are so funny. You actually think that you are wise, lol. Mike, your refusal to recognize your President as your Commander-in-Chief results from your own despair. What a Freudian slip… Your historical beloved leaders, people like Stalin, Mao, Castro and now Chavez, all your philosophical brethren, instituted authoritarian regimes. Our enemies in Iraq and the greater Muslim world, those you demand that we NOT fight, all embrace authoritarianism. Your constant attacks, which depend so heavily upon lies and distortions, against your President merely originates from recognition that Bush is not one of you and, thus, unworthy of your adoration and worship. How you long for your god man. I’m sure you have a few people in mind who you are ready to follow blindly.
I would prefer that they refer to him as “Dear Leader”.
I just love it when Republicans refer to the President as the Commander in Chief. Makes all the jingoism transparent as a simple longing for true authoritarian government.
Mark, Mark, Mark.. What proposals are worthy of support??? Clearly not his piss-poor plans for healthcare??? How will a tax DEDUCTION help the working poor pay for healthcare?? How will it make healthcare affordable??? It benefits me, heck my wife and I make about 70K a year right now, and we will get money back or pay a little less in come april 15th. It does not help working families to make paying MONTHLY premiums that can go as high as $750 a month for family coverage?? (and that figure is pased one ONE parent having coverage paid for by his/her job!)
As for energy, his push for reductions in use of petroleum based fuels is noble, he pairs it with SAFE Nuclear power (which is damned expensive, and not all that environmentally friendly.. and NOT TRULY THAT SAFE).
he calls for a balanced budget, but proposes INCREASING spending on the military (92K soldiers will expect to be paid, equipped and billeted), increase in $$ for Africa for Aids and Malaria, and increasing $$ for alt fuels research. …. how the F will he pay for it??? cuts to education….. which he has done year after year IN SPITE of his support for NCLB (whish is LOADED with tons of unfunded mandates)
support his proposals, hell no, we should oppose them at every turn!
Safe from folks like Dwight that want to blame everything on illegal immigrants, Clinton, and congress.
Dwight, I thought you were a buddy of Clinton!
What’s so funny about you radical leftists is that in truth there is nothing serious that you truly object to regarding Bush or his policies. You prefer to “make fun of his SOTU” instead of supporting his proposals because, at the end of the day, all you care about is power. You don’t care that you are attacking the Executive Branch for purely partisan reasons because you believe that ridiculing him will get your side more votes. There are no principles in your opposition; you present no alternative solutions; you just desire power at any cost.
Bush enacted the Clinton doctrine for regime change in Iraq and the dems overwhelmingly voted for it. However, since it’s a Republican in power, you and your ilk spread your propaganda, lies and personal attacks against the Commander in Chief merely in hopes that it will get a few more Independents to vote dem in the next election. If Hillary or Gore or Kerry were President and had enacted the exact same policies your side would call our peacekeeping and reconstruction missions in Iraq and Afghanistan one of the greatest acts of liberation in human history. I’ve known for years how much your hypocrisy stinks and in 08 the nation will reject your odor as well!
Francine;
Save OUR AMERICA? For who Illegal Mexican Nationals who are going to take your and my Social Security; Heathcare and JOBS???
Save OUR AMERICA for NAFTA CAFTA that was pushed by the CLinton Administration that has destroyed the middle class worker in AMERICA???
Save OUR AMERICA for Chinese domination of everything from our currency to making us a third world country????
Save OUR AMERICA as Congress cuts off our troops as a scapegoat to get Bush???
Save our AMERICA from our own stupidity and thinking that elected idiots can manage our Heathcare when they could not save a million people in New Orleans???
Save our AMERICA as we United States Citizens must now show a passport to enter the United States when traveling abroad when Mexican Nationals use the hole in the fence???
Save our AMERICA!!!
No, let me get a word in first: Hooray for Jim Webb!!!! Straight talking former Republican!!! We could use more like him. And kudos, too, for Chuck Hagel who opened the window and let the sun and light of truth and honest indignation waft in the window. Republicans who have a head and a heart and want to see this country find its way out of the morass of ultra conservative rule – join us that together we may save our America!!!!
Whew!!!! There is hope!!!!
Web gave the best rebuttal that I have ever seen, from either party. He sounded more Presidential than the President(Not that this is a hard thing to accompish)
OK, Dwight, time for you to bring up a completely non-related topic.