close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Typical Bush Quote

Discussion in 'Band of Glockers' started by antediluvianist, Feb 1, 2006.

  1. antediluvianist

    antediluvianist

    Messages:
    1,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Location:
    planet earth
    That Bush quote in red at the top of the page - well the owner has the right to print what he wants :

    "There is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom and second-guessing is not a strategy"- George W. Bush

    Mere rhetoric. Once Bush labels those who don't agree with him as "defeatists" , and as persons who just use "hindsight"and "second-guessing", well then of course their positions must be wrong.

    Face facts, Bush; name-calling proves nothing.
     
  2. powernoodle

    powernoodle

    Messages:
    2,630
    Likes Received:
    5,428
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Location:
    secret underground bunker
    How else could the President characterize these folks other than defeatist? They want to surrender in Iraq and withdraw. On every topic, they offer nothing but whining, *****ing and moaning. Ever seen Pelosi laugh, or Harry Reid smile? Have you heard any of them say anything positive about America, or express the belief that tomorrow will be better than today? Me neither. W was right. They are defeatists.

    best regards
     

  3. stglock

    stglock

    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Location:
    san jose, ca
    I like Bill's quote better:

    " I did not have sexual relationship with that woman"
     
  4. Fred Hansen

    Fred Hansen Liberal Bane

    Messages:
    16,043
    Likes Received:
    12,401
    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Quite frankly if America hadn't listened to the defeatists of 25 years ago (when I was in the WestPac) we would have anihilated the death-cult psychotics of Islam that infest the P.I. and then we wouldn't have had the Abu Sayef cell in Manilla that originated the plan to crash 747s leaving the P.I... A plan that was later adapted into the 9/11 Twin Towers plan.

    But that's what happens when we listen to cowards. Innocent people die for no reason, and the enemy gains decades to grow even stronger.

    Best hang on with both hands, because for at least the next 2 1/2 years we aren't going to stop killing the 7th century death-cult psychotics of Islam. Not even going to slow down a little bit.

    :( :( :( :(
     
  5. mitchshrader

    mitchshrader Deceased

    Messages:
    8,672
    Likes Received:
    5
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Location:
    Tulsa
    more to the point, if the choice of whether to pay for it or not was voluntary, it'd be even more reassurring.

    it aint. and it ain't.

    what's more, and the biggest factor, is.. it ain't gonna work.

    there's more arabs than we can kill. and optimism on your part doesn't imply agreement on mine.
     
  6. horge

    horge -=-=-=-=- Lifetime Member

    Messages:
    3,052
    Likes Received:
    22
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Location:
    almost home
    On its own, the Bush quote stands for me.

    While there IS a sizable segment that is intelligently critiquing the WOT (and by definition, offering proposals rather than just criticism), I feel most are just out for personal political gain,
    or are not thinking straight.
     
  7. PMMA97

    PMMA97 TagaBundok

    Messages:
    1,744
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2003
    ..but I am wearing her underwear. ;f
     
  8. isuzu

    isuzu

    Messages:
    4,072
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Location:
    North America
    I still believe in George W Bush. I believe it was during Clinton's time that Al Qaeda began strengthening their cells in the US. George W Bush just suffered the after effects of the previous administration's laxity by cutting the budget particularly of the FBI and CIA.

    http://www.udata.com/users/byrd/pray.htm
     
  9. antediluvianist

    antediluvianist

    Messages:
    1,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Location:
    planet earth
    All surveys show that the majority of Americans think the war is a mistake. The minority call the majority defeatist. It's just name-calling.
     
  10. toxic

    toxic

    Messages:
    1,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2005
    Location:
    doin' time
    heres my qoute

    "nobody wants war..but everybody wants profit that you can get from war"

    Common baby.. get that pipe line workin';V
     
  11. Fred Hansen

    Fred Hansen Liberal Bane

    Messages:
    16,043
    Likes Received:
    12,401
    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    We have a little "survey" that we hold in November... you may have heard of it, it's called our election. You defeatists lost. Too bad, so sad. LOL ;Q
     
  12. nrmcolt

    nrmcolt What?

    Messages:
    519
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2004
    Location:
    Raccoon City
    ;z ;a
     
  13. antediluvianist

    antediluvianist

    Messages:
    1,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Location:
    planet earth
    Wednesday February 1, 2006
    The Honorable George W. Bush
    President of the United States of America
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
    Washington DC 20500


    Dear Mr. President,

    This March will mark the beginning of the 4th year of the war in Iraq. In contrast, U.S. involvement in WWI came to an end after 19 months. Victory in Europe was declared in WWII after 3 years 5 months. In the Korean War, a cease-fire was signed after 3 years and 1 month. But after more than three and a half years into the war in Iraq, your administration finally produced what is called a "Plan for Victory" in Iraq.

    Iraq is not the center for the global war on terrorism. I believe Iraq has diverted our attention away from the fight against global terrorism and has depleted the required resources needed to wage an effective war. It is estimated that there are only about 750 to 1,000 al-Qaeda in Iraq. I believe the Iraqis will force them out or kill them after U.S. troops are gone. In fact, there is now evidence that Iraqi insurgent groups are increasingly turning against al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists.

    Our country needs a vigorous and comprehensive strategy for victory against global terrorism. The architect of 9/11 is still out there but now has an international microphone. We must get back to the real issue at hand - we have to root out and destroy al-Qaeda's worldwide network.

    There are 4 key elements that I recommend to reinvigorate our global anti-terrorism effort: Redeploy, Replace, Reallocate, and Reconstitute.


    Redeploy

    The war in Iraq is fueling terrorism, not eliminating it. Our continued military presence feeds the strong anti-foreigner fervor that has existed in this part of the world for centuries. A vast majority of the Iraqi people now view American troops as occupiers, not liberators. Over 80% of Iraqis want U.S. forces to leave Iraq and 47% think it is justified to attack Americans. 70% of Iraqis favor a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces, with half favoring a withdrawal in the next six months. In fact, 67% of Iraqis expect day-to-day security for Iraqi citizens will improve if U.S. forces withdraw in six months and over 60% believe violent attacks, including those that are ethnically motivated, will decrease. Our military presence is the single most important reason why the Iraqis have tolerated the foreign terrorists, who account for less than 7 percent of the insurgency. 93% of the insurgency is made up of Iraqis. Once our troops are re-deployed, the Iraqis will reject the terrorists and deny them a safe haven in Iraq. The Iraqis are against a foreign presence in Iraq of any kind.

    The steadfast and valiant efforts of the United States military and coalition partners have provided the Iraqi people with the framework needed to self govern. The Iraqis held elections that have been touted as highly successful, based primarily on the accounts of Iraqis who went to the polls. But our continued military presence in Iraq, regardless of the motives behind it, is seen by Iraqis as interfering in Iraq's democratic process and undercuts the chances for the newly elected government to be successful. Recently, Iraq's National Security Adviser accused U.S. negotiators of going behind the back of the Iraqi government on talks with insurgents, saying the process could encourage more violence. He said, "Americans are making a huge and fatal mistake in their policy for appeasement and they should not do this. They should leave the Iraqi government to deal with it... The United States should allow the new Iraqi government to decide on how to quell the insurgency."

    In December 2005, an ABC News poll in Iraq produced some noteworthy results. 57% of Iraqis identified national security as the country's top priority. When asked to rate the confidence in public institutions, they gave Iraqi police a 68% confidence level, the Iraqi army 67%, religious leaders 67%. But the U.S./U.K. forces scored the lowest, a mere 18%.

    The longer our military stays in Iraq, the more unwelcome we will be. We will be increasingly entangled in an open-ended nation building mission, one that our military can not accomplish amidst a civil war. Our troops will continue to be the targets of Iraqis who see them as interfering occupiers.

    Redeploying our forces from Iraq and stationing a mobile force outside of the country removes a major antagonizing factor. I believe we will see a swift demise of foreign terrorist groups in Iraq if we redeploy outside of the country. Further, our troops will no longer be the targets of bloody attacks.


    Replace

    The ever-changing justifications of the war in Iraq, combined with tragic missteps, have resulted in a worldwide collapse of support for U.S. policies in Iraq.

    The credibility of the United States of America will not be restored if we continue down the path of saying one thing and doing another. We must not lower our standards and tactics to those of the terrorists. In order to keep our homeland secure, we must hold true to the values that molded our American democracy, even in the face of adversity. Former Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, said it best during a speech in March 2004 to the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies: "America knows we cannot seek a double standard. And, America knows we get what we give. And so we must and will always be careful to respect people's privacy, civil liberties and reputations. To suggest that there is a tradeoff between security and individual freedoms -- that we must discard one protection for the other -- is a false choice. You do not defend liberty to forsake it."

    Restoring the world's confidence in America as a competent and morally superior world leader is essential to winning the war on global terrorism.

    A recent pubic opinion poll, conducted jointly with Zogby International and taken in Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, found that 81% said the war in Iraq had brought less peace to the Middle East. A majority of the respondents said they view the United States as the biggest threat to their nations.

    Mr. President, I believe in order to restore our credibility, you must hold accountable those responsible for so many missteps and install a fresh team that demonstrates true diplomatic skill, knowledge of cultural differences and a willingness to earnestly engage other leaders in a respectful and constructive way. This would do much to reinvigorate international participation in a truly effective war on global terrorism.

    Reallocate

    The Department of Defense has been allocated $238 billion for the war in Iraq, with average monthly costs growing significantly since the beginning of the war. In 2003 the average monthly war cost was $4.4 billion; by 2005 the average monthly cost had reached $6.1 billion.

    Despite the urgent homeland security needs of our country, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission issued a dismal report card on the efforts to improve our counter-terrorist defenses. Even the most basic of recommendations, such as the coordination of fire and police communication lines, still have not been accomplished.

    In the face of threats from international terrorists, we need to reallocate funds from the war in Iraq to protecting the United States against attack. A safe and swift redeployment from Iraq will allow us to do just that.


    Reconstitute

    The U.S. army is the smallest it's been since 1941. It is highly capable. But this drawn out conflict has put tremendous stress on our military, particularly on our Army and Marine Corps, whose operations tempo has increased substantially since 9/11.

    The Government Accountability Office issued a report in November 2005 addressing the challenges of military personnel recruitment and retention and noted that the Department of Defense had been unable to fill over 112,000 positions in critical occupational specialties. This shortfall includes intelligence analysts, special forces, interpreters, and demolition experts-- those on whom we rely so heavily in today's asymmetric battlefield.

    Some of our troops have been deployed four times over the last three years. Enlistment for the regular forces as well as the guard and reserves are well below recruitment goals. In 2005, the Army missed its recruitment goal for the first time since 1999, even after offering enlistment bonuses and incentives, lowering its monthly goals, and lowering its recruitment standards. As Retired Army officer Andrew Krepinevich recently warned in a report to the Pentagon, the Army is "in a race against time" to adjust to the demands of war "or risk 'breaking' the force in the form of a catastrophic decline" in recruitment and re-enlistment.

    The harsh environment in which we are operating our equipment in Iraq, combined with the equipment usage rate (ten times greater than peacetime levels) is taking a heavy toll on our ground equipment. It is currently estimated that $50 billion will be required to refurbish this equipment.

    Further, in its response to Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard realized that it had over $1.3 billion in equipment shortfalls. This has created a tremendous burden on non-deployed guard units, on whom this country depends so heavily to respond to domestic disasters and possible terrorist attacks. Without relief, Army Guard units will face growing equipment shortages and challenges in regaining operational readiness for future missions at home and overseas.

    Since 9/11, Congress has appropriated about $334 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the insurgents have spent hundreds of thousands. We have seen reports estimating that the total cost of the wars may reach as high as $1 trillion. These estimates are said to include such costs as providing long-term disability benefits and care for injured service members. It is estimated today that over 16,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in Iraq, 10,481 of whom have been wounded by "weaponry explosive devices."

    But while war costs continue to climb, cuts are being made to the defense budget. As soon as the war is over there will be pressure to cut even more. This year, even while we are at war, 8 billion dollars was cut from the base defense spending bill. You ordered another $32 billion in cuts to the defense budget over the next five years, with $11.6 billion coming from the Army. The Pentagon told Congress only last year that it needed 77 combat brigades to fulfill its missions, but now insists it only needs 70. In fact, 6 of the 7 combat brigades will be cut from the National Guard, reducing its combat units from 34 to 28. Even though all of the National Guard combat brigades have been deployed overseas since 9/11, your Administration has determined that, because of funding shortfalls, our combat ground forces can be reduced. Not only will these cuts diminish our combat power, but our ability to respond to natural disasters and terrorist threats to our homeland will be adversely affected. It is obvious that the cost of the war, in conjunction with the Army's inability to meet recruitment goals, has impacted this estimate. My concern is that instead of our force structure being based on the future threat, it is now being based on the number of troops and level of funding available.

    I am concerned that costly program cuts will lead to costly mistakes and we will be unable to sustain another deployment even if there is a real threat. The future of our military and the future of our country could very well be at stake. The high dollar forecasts of our future military weapons systems and military health care add pressure to cut costs on the backs of these programs. As our weapons systems age, the concern becomes even greater.

    During a time of war, we are cutting our combat force, we have not mobilized industry, and have never fully mobilized our military. On our current path, I believe that we are not only in danger of breaking our military, but that we are increasing the chances of a major miscalculation by our future enemies, who may perceive us as vulnerable.


    Sincerely,


    JOHN P. MURTHA
    Member of Congress
     
  14. vega

    vega

    Messages:
    2,799
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2001
    Location:
    SoCal
    I didn't know that John Murtha is majority of Americans.

    vega
     
  15. isuzu

    isuzu

    Messages:
    4,072
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Location:
    North America
    Political mileage.
     
  16. stglock

    stglock

    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Location:
    san jose, ca
    Here is another POV

    -----------------------------------------------------------
    Democrats need to devise a unified political strategy on Iraq before Republicans box them in.

    By Matthew Yglesias
    Web Exclusive: 12.13.05

    Print Friendly | Email Article

    Having argued with tedious frequency for the proposition that the United States needs to look for ways to head for the exit doors in Iraq, I'm naturally heartened, in some ways, by a recent uptick in anti-war sentiment among the Democratic Party's leaders. Nevertheless, advocacy of withdrawal within the liberal community has long been bedeviled by a fairly vicious case of what I like to call the "pundit's fallacy" -- assertions that the key to electoral success is for a party or political leader to adopt the writer's policy preferences. In their December 12 issue, for example, the editors of The Nation argue that "Democrats must recognize, as [John] Murtha has, that by putting aside politics and doing what is right for the country they will not only establish their party as the alternative that is needed; they will isolate the Administration and create a space where sensible Republicans can join a new bipartisan drive to get this country's troops out of the Iraq quagmire."

    The basis for this proposition is the view that "the public has turned against the war."

    It's an admirable sentiment, but it involves a pretty hefty dose of wishful thinking. The public has turned against the war in the sense that stable majorities now, rightly, view the war as a mistake and the administration's selling of it as deceptive. But opinion on forward-looking policy questions remains complicated. As pollster Mark Blumenthal's excellent examination of the available data shows, poll results on these questions are highly influenced by how questions are phrased and alternatives framed. The Iraq debate, in other words, should be winnable by an anti-war party, but it's also losable. These are treacherous waters, and while Democrats shouldn't be cautious about speaking out on the war, they need to be careful in their political strategy.

    The distinction is an important one. During the successful Social Security fight, Democrats took a bold stance against privatization and managed to turn initially confused public opinion decisively against the Bush scheme. A plethora of misguided pundits advised the party to adopt a more nuanced view, and their counsels were rightly rejected as likely to merely deepen the confusion and open the door to Republican machinations. But the counter-campaign, while strong and decisive, was disciplined and well-executed. Recent anti-war agitation, by contrast, has looked confused and amateurish.

    To revive his political fortunes on the war, Bush has settled on a clear and reasonably effective plan -- frame the debate as a choice between victory and defeat. Hence the White House's latest propaganda document was labeled a "National Strategy for Victory on Iraq," while The Weekly Standard's hackish and absurd blog has labeled the opposition "SurrenderCrats." Liberals need to reject this frame. The American people are tired of the war, but are not prepared to accept defeat by an insurgency that genuinely involves loathsome and evil characters. Nor is there any reason for the frame to be acceptable. Jihadi goals in Iraq are wildly unrealistic irrespective of American policy, and credible cases have been made -- most recently by Nir Rosen in The Atlantic -- that withdrawal is the best hope for stabilizing the country.

    Instead, DNC Chair Howard Dean last week blundered right into the White House trap by proclaiming victory unattainable, rather than arguing more sensibly that the administration's definition of victory as something like the indefinite continuation of the war is perverse and wrongheaded.

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has, if anything, been worse. She responded to Bush's new political push by first proclaiming herself a proponent of leaving Iraq as soon as possible, then by saying that most of the caucus agrees with her, and then by saying that the caucus wouldn't be adopting this as its official position. Telling the world that most House Democrats have a position on Iraq that they don't intend to expound and defend in public is bizarre and merely opens the door for Republicans to define their opponents' views any way they choose. Pelosi was trying, one assumes, to accommodate the existence of diverse viewpoints within the party, which is understandable. But at a December 8 press conference, she managed to explain this diversity of views in the most counterproductive way possible, describing the war as "not like an issue such as prescription drugs or Social Security, which are core issues to the Democratic Party." Thus, House Democrats apparently both have a secret plan to lose the war, and don't consider national security to be a topic that should be taken all that seriously anyway.

    Imagine, instead, that she'd noted that people disagree about what to do in Iraq largely because -- thanks to a stupendous series of policy errors -- the country now faces an absence of appealing options. She could have noted that while Democrats are allegedly in disarray, they in fact agree on a great deal, most notably the need for the administration to disavow a permanent or open-ended military presence in Iraq. Most of all, she could have noted that Republican unity on Iraq is ephemeral, a purely partisan position in support of a president who steadfastly refuses to define what he's trying to do in a comprehensible way. Instead, through careless statements she and Dean are causing vulnerable Democrats to flee their party leadership.

    Since the 2004 election, liberals have expended much energy explaining an opposition party's duty to serve as precisely that, an opposition, offering a real alternative to the governing party's approach. This is all quite right, but it follows that an opposition has a duty to present itself as a credible alternative government with a consistent and clear message. Most of all, Democrats have a responsibility both to themselves and to the country to take the pursuit of political power seriously, and not offer tossed-off blog-style running commentary on the political scene. The politics of national security, like national security itself, are complicated, and can't be managed properly without a serious plan. Pelosi and Dean wouldn't treat a prescription drug bill so carelessly, and, given historic Democratic weakness on questions of war and peace, they ought to redouble, not relax, their efforts to play smart politics on Iraq.

    Matthew Yglesias is a Prospect staff writer.
     
  17. Fred Hansen

    Fred Hansen Liberal Bane

    Messages:
    16,043
    Likes Received:
    12,401
    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Democrats need to go surrender themselves to the death-cult psychotics of Islam. Anything less just makes them a whiny bunch of friggin' hypocrites.
     
  18. antediluvianist

    antediluvianist

    Messages:
    1,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Location:
    planet earth
    I did not say that Murtha "is majority of Americans". You did, as a red herring.

    You apparently are simply not up to date with the results of surveys about what Americans think about the war (watch Bloomberg, CNN, MSNBC, whatever.)

    Murtha's letter is not the same matter.
     
  19. Fred Hansen

    Fred Hansen Liberal Bane

    Messages:
    16,043
    Likes Received:
    12,401
    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Looks like you still aren't up to date with that survey we hold in November. LOL
     
  20. vega

    vega

    Messages:
    2,799
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2001
    Location:
    SoCal
    You still haven't substantiate your post regarding "majority of american". All I see in Murtha's letter are polls of Arabs. Based on the post of members here in your post majority are for Bush. You are a journalist, at least give facts and link of your source not posting something you feel like, as a red herring I might add.

    You said it Murtha's letter is not the same matter, then why post it here. You talk about survey yet you give another survey.