Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

First 7 minutes:

"Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq + Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq."

--------

Next 7 minutes:

"Partsian disagreement = defeatism"

--------

Sendoff to the conservative Christians:

"God is not dead...Merry Christmas"

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

You still make me sick. It's reassuring that some things never change.

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
You still make me sick. It's reassuring that some things never change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry m'am, I'm just being my naturally defeatist self; what can I say?

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

It was more interesting to hear a Republican senator in the Arms Comitee saying that Iraq can't be won militarily in his comment afterwards. That's what I many and others who know something about this region/culture has claimed for a while and now it seems to slowly sink in.

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
It was more interesting to hear a Republican senator in the Arms Comitee saying that Iraq can't be won militarily in his comment afterwards. That's what I many and others who know something about this region/culture has claimed for a while and now it seems to slowly sink in.

[/ QUOTE ]

It can't be won militarily. It can't be won politically. A combination of the two is neccessary for victory. Its also the strategy we have been following since the start.

Stu

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was more interesting to hear a Republican senator in the Arms Comitee saying that Iraq can't be won militarily in his comment afterwards. That's what I many and others who know something about this region/culture has claimed for a while and now it seems to slowly sink in.

[/ QUOTE ]

It can't be won militarily. It can't be won politically. A combination of the two is neccessary for victory. Its also the strategy we have been following since the start.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how you feel that two losing strategies can be combined into a winning one?

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

This is pretty much accurate. My roomates were watching it in the other room and just listening to it put me on some major tilt [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img].

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

They are not two losing strategies. They are elements of an overall strategy for victory.

Sometimes you need a combination of elements to produce a good result becuase to use each element individually can be disastrous. Example, ingest pure sodium or pure chlorine and you might die. However you have to ingest sodium chloride to live.

Another example, Trying to flee a predator that is faster than you is an ineffective defense. Releasing a smoke screen is also an ineffective defense. However an octupus combines these two ineffective defenses into an effective defensive strategy.

Need more examples?

Stu

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
They are not two losing strategies. They are elements of an overall strategy for victory.

Sometimes you need a combination of elements to produce a good result becuase to use each element individually can be disastrous. Example, ingest pure sodium or pure chlorine and you might die. However you have to ingest sodium chloride to live.

Another example, Trying to flee a predator that is faster than you is an ineffective defense. Releasing a smoke screen is also an ineffective defense. However an octupus combines these two ineffective defenses into an effective defensive strategy.

Need more examples?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. One problem though.

I can also combine playing blindfolded with tying my hands behind my back in a basketball game. They are both losing strategies, but they won't combine to help me win at all.

How are these strategies (political and military intervention) going to combine to stop terrorists?

If I am a terrorist, is the fact that the US sets up puppet (anti-terrorist, at least) governments in Iraq and Afghanistan going to stop me from killing Americans if I want to? I mean, after all, my government doesn't consent to it.

Additionally, is the fact that the US military is using force to install these governments going to deter me?

Face it. It isn't that difficult to get into the US. It isn't that difficult to kill a lot of people once you are here. If individuals want to do it, then they will, and there is nothing the US government can do about it. Bush needs to admit that he is wasting money and lives with this boogieman known as "The War on Terror."

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

Hi Devault,

I didn't watch the speech tonight. However I did read the excerpts from CNN . Heres how they highlighted it

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush acknowledged deep divisions and difficult progress in Iraq Sunday night, but urged Americans not to give in to "defeatism" and "despair" over the conflict


911 wasn't mentioned in the CNN article. Was it mentioned at all in the speech? If it was a major point I'm sure it would have been mentioned multiple times.

Foxnews had the following summary

WASHINGTON — Elections in Iraq last Thursday were "a landmark day in the history of liberty," and set the stage for the first Arab democracy in the Middle East, President Bush said Sunday night in a prime-time television speech from the Oval Office.

FoxNews also had no mention of 911 in its article.

Devault, I bet if you reviewed the transcript of the speech, you would be pretty embarrassed about the summary you provided for us here.

Stu

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

I didn't get a chance to watch the speech, but how many times did he say "We're working hard and making progress"?

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
How are these strategies (political and military intervention) going to combine to stop terrorists?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not going to stop terrorist completely. All you're going to do is keep the terrorist in check. Iraq has free and fair elections. It has a vibrant economy. It has a free press. Most of the people of Iraq feel good about the future and most feel secure.

The military prong is working. To say its not just because we are suffering causalties is to have no understanding of what it means to be involved in an on going military engagement.

[ QUOTE ]
If I am a terrorist, is the fact that the US sets up puppet (anti-terrorist, at least) governments in Iraq and Afghanistan going to stop me from killing Americans if I want to? I mean, after all, my government doesn't consent to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Terrorist killed more Americans in America than they have in Iraq or Afghanistan. The goal is to change the region from one that produces terrorist to one that does not. Its hoped that a democratic middle east will foster this change.

[ QUOTE ]
Face it. It isn't that difficult to get into the US. It isn't that difficult to kill a lot of people once you are here. If individuals want to do it, then they will, and there is nothing the US government can do about it. Bush needs to admit that he is wasting money and lives with this boogieman known as "The War on Terror."

[/ QUOTE ]

Is he? Knock on wood but we haven't had another 911, USS Cole, or embassy bombing. We went from fighting terrorist on our terf to fighting terrorist on their terf. Which is preferable?

Stu

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't get a chance to watch the speech, but how many times did he say "We're working hard and making progress"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I searched the transcripts. He didn't say it(I was surprised too). FWIW he did mention 911 once.

Stu

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

I am a pretty big critic of Bush's timing of the Iraq war and his handling of the situation there after the invasion. And I think many of his domestic policies are seriously flawed.

In spite of that, I think it is a shame that your summary is all you took out of Bush's speech, or at least that is the attitude you chose to convey. While I think there are legitimate criticisms of Bush's speech, it also had some valid points and was a move toward improving the quality of the debate about Iraq and trying to build a consensus. This is something Bush has been pretty poor at in the past and something he still struggles with -- but this speech was something that his critics can work with if they choose to.

It is unfortunate that you, just as Bush has done many times, have chosen to hear and see only what you want to.

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
Which is preferable?

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually fighting the terrorists and not invading countries that had nothing to do with attacking us.

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq + Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq + I'm listening to you're phone calls +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + I'm in way over my head + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Reformer with results + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq + Daddy, what's Vietnam? +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq."


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're not going to stop terrorist completely. All you're going to do is keep the terrorist in check.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a reason that Canadians arent blowing themselves up in AMerican buses, its because the social forces which create terrorists do not exist in Canada (not to a large enough extent anyways) Terroism is 100% stopable as long as the forces which create terrorists cease to be. American puppet governments and long drawn out military campaigns only increase hatred and the number of terrorists.

[ QUOTE ]
Terrorist killed more Americans in America than they have in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is very true. A large part of this war is to keep these forgien fighters abroad and not in the US. Unfortunatly in the process we have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people (not only amreicans count as people btw). This is a terrible tragedy which most Americans turn a blind eye to, cus hey they aren't REAL people. Real people a blindly patrotic to America!

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

"There is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right."

I consider myself in the former category, and really want to increase debate about what is going on in Iraq and what will and will not work.

I get so frustrated by the many people who are in the latter category -- and I think your post and that of the OP post are suggestive of that attitude. The approach of angrily denouncing Bush and using cheap arguments that are no better than many of his weak arguments is undermining the legitimate criticism of how Bush has handled the situation in Iraq.

I suspect you probably just hate Bush so much that you don't care or don't believe me. I personally don't hate Bush, but I am very disappointed with many of his policy decisions and I'd like to convince others why there are better alternatives.

I really fear that the rise of a leftwing outlets like moveon.org have encouraged the same lazy and sloppy thinking that the Rush Limbaughs brought to rightwing zealots in the 90s (and continue to supply).

This is a very simplistic formulation of public debate, but if you simplify arguments to petty namecalling and accusations, the right will always dominate. The right has mastered appealing to our emotions -- especially fear -- and will sway the moderate middle if that is where the debate stalls.

I think of myself as a (to the extent I can label my complex views in two words) classical liberal. (Which leads in practice to the fact that I tend to lean left but do sometimes think Republican ideas are better than Democratic ideas on some issues. And am not very happy with the ideas, or more specifically the lack of good ones, coming from either party.) If the public debate stalls at petty name-calling and attempts at fear-mongering, I think a lot of the policies I support will not be enacted.

If you choose to give up on improving the quality of debate and reduce yourself to petty Bush insults, then you are no better than Bush at his worst. If you are okay with that and want to blindly go on assuming that you have all the answers to everything (as a certain chief executive has done in the past), feel free. Ironically, while your policy preferences will be different, you will be methodologically similar to the very individual you so ardently (and counterproductively) ridicule.

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am a pretty big critic of Bush's timing of the Iraq war and his handling of the situation there after the invasion. And I think many of his domestic policies are seriously flawed.

In spite of that, I think it is a shame that your summary is all you took out of Bush's speech, or at least that is the attitude you chose to convey. While I think there are legitimate criticisms of Bush's speech, it also had some valid points and was a move toward improving the quality of the debate about Iraq and trying to build a consensus. This is something Bush has been pretty poor at in the past and something he still struggles with -- but this speech was something that his critics can work with if they choose to.

It is unfortunate that you, just as Bush has done many times, have chosen to hear and see only what you want to.

[/ QUOTE ]
Improving the quality of debate about Iraq? Seems to me there wasn't any room for debate according to Bush(You're either with us or against us). But now that his ratings have fallen off a cliff he wants to build a consensus. Give me a break.

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is he? Knock on wood but we haven't had another 911, USS Cole, or embassy bombing. We went from fighting terrorist on our terf to fighting terrorist on their terf. Which is preferable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stu, I appreciate your thoughtful posts on the matter. While I disagree with your position on Iraq, I think your approach to the dialogue is productive for good debate and gives people the opportunity to be convinced by your points. (Even though it is unlikely that someone will be completely swayed, but they may accept some of your claims and arguments that they would not have otherwise.)

Let me explain what I believe that the flaw is with your reasoning. I agree that we want to prevent future terrorist attacks on our soil. (I agree less that it is okay to induce terrorist attacks elsewhere to accomplish this goal, and I am not sure that is exactly what you are saying. I suspect you want to stop the terrorist attacks elsewhere in the world, and it's just a matter of degree over how we should balance our desire to prevent terrorism everywhere and our naturally stronger desire to prevent terrorism here.)

However, I believe that the evidence clearly indicates that the motivation of the terrorist organizations for their attacks has been the increased military presence of American troops in Arab land -- particularly our presence in Saudi Arabia during and after the first Persian Gulf War. Of course, I do not believe that this motivation in any way morally legitimizes the atrocities that were committed, but I believe that understanding this motivation is essential to our strategy to prevent terrorism in the long run.

While we are indeed fortunate not to have suffered any terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001, I think our involvement in Iraq has increased the motivation for fundamentalist Muslims to terrorize us. Simultaneously, we have crippled the organization to a certain extent (how much I don't really know) through our campaign in Afghanistan, have improved our homeland defense (to a certain extent) and it is certainly true that terrorists are (for the time being) distracted by our involvement in Iraq. Unfortunately, our military and Iraqi military and Iraqi civilians are losing their lives, and this is undesirable. If their sacrifices will significantly decrease the likelihood of future attacks (beyond the time we are in Iraq -- as I assume you agree that we cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely to deflect terrorists), then it might be a regrettable but necessary (or at least justified) loss. However, I believe that the fundamental flaw with this reasoning is the assumption that the campaign in Iraq has truly lessened significantly (and not perhaps even increased) the risk of future terrorist attacks, especially after we eventually leave Iraq but inevitably get blamed for any future problems that they have.

I recognize that you may disagree with my assessment and I admit that the situation is so complex that it is hard for me to make a good judgment, and my opinion is just the best judgment I can form. I also, despite my skepticism, want us to make the best decisions in Iraq from this point forward that will protect us from terrorism, protect the Iraqi people from terrorism, and provide them with the necessary resources for them to sustain their current drive toward democracy (while at the same time not flaming the fuel of the insurgency anymore than we have to). Hopefully, a consensus can be reached on this latter point and more debate will take place on how we should prioritize our goals in Iraq and how best to accomplish them.

Respectfully,
Mike

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

ANYTHING can be won militarily.

(except things like love, etc.)

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

Read my other posts, I do participate in debate. This was a cheap shot that was too easy for me to pass up. To address your statement, I've yet to hear a good idea from Bush for me to embrace other than the obvious attacking those who attacked us, however, he kinda lost me when he decided to attack Iraq for no reason, never come clean about the B.S. intelligence, etc. Plus, it's very difficult to respect a man who, during his first administration, had to look in the mirror every day with the knowledge that the majority of the country voted against him.

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
Improving the quality of debate about Iraq? Seems to me there wasn't any room for debate according to Bush(You're either with us or against us). But now that his ratings have fallen off a cliff he wants to build a consensus.


[/ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY! Bush was wrong initially. He was deservedly criticized by many people. This led to political pressure which has forced him to change his position and accept that there is more subtlety to the matter and that a consensus approach to Iraq is better than listening to only half of the ideas out there. It's a shame that he took so long to get to this point, but at least he's finally willing to listen (or at least getting there).

[ QUOTE ]

Give me a break.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't about Bush and whether he's a good person or not. It's about having the chief executive make the best decisions for America. He has not, in my opinion, succeeded at this when it comes to Iraq (and I don't really care to dwell on why any more than is necessary). He is now showing a willingness to change his tune and I think his policies are getting better, but are still flawed. Rather than dwell on his past mistakes to try to let out my frustration or feel smug about myself, I want to acknowledge what I think is right and explain what I think is still wrong.

But that's just me, and one of the main reasons I am becoming as disillusioned with the "left" in this country as I am with the "right." The world is a lot more complex and policy decisions are a lot harder than moveon.org and powerlineblog.com would have you believe.

You and me both
 

I too am sickened by the smug political rhetoric out of touch with reality.

Too bad DVaut1 keeps reminding us of how badly the prez has handled himself. It is sickening how he does so, if he was a "real" american he would just shut up and salute.

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's about having the chief executive make the best decisions for America.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wake me up when he starts doing this.

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
Read my other posts, I do participate in debate. This was a cheap shot that was too easy for me to pass up. To address your statement, I've yet to hear a good idea from Bush for me to embrace other than the obvious attacking those who attacked us, however, he kinda lost me when he decided to attack Iraq for no reason, never come clean about the B.S. intelligence, etc. Plus, it's very difficult to respect a man who, during his first administration, had to look in the mirror every day with the knowledge that the majority of the country voted against him.

[/ QUOTE ]

RB, I did read one of your other posts after my reply above, and I appreciate your willingness for dialogue.

I think you may be underestimating how counterproductive the cheap shots at Bush are. He has hidden behind them for a long time, and many moderate people are aware that most of the outspoken critiques of Bush are just lame cheap shots. (Of course, so are most critiques of Democrats as well, and I do think that Republicans manage to get away with cheap shots a bit easier because they play the fear card better.)

I think if you look at the specifics of what is going in Iraq, you see a lot of mistakes but also some good moves and you realize how hard it is to make good decisions there. (Which by the way is the main reason I thought we should have held out longer before invading Iraq -- nation-building is not an easy task and it is sometimes a necessary evil to have to allow an evil dictator to stay in power if there are ways to contain him, and it was certainly possible to contain him longer than we did. Whether he could have been deterred from rebuilding a weapons program indefinitely is debatable and there were serious problems with the oil-for-food program, but I think is fairly clear that we had more time with the inspectors still there.) After the invasion, we moved too slowly in organizing Iraqi security forces (military and police). It turns out in hindsight that disbanding the army formally was probably a major strategic flaw. But there is now an urgency to get Iraqi security forces trained and that's a good thing. So yes, Bush screwed up, but now he's finally getting things right on this matter (or so it appears). So let's applaud that and acknowledge that this is an improvement. Let's focus on other issues with have with Bush's idea. I'd like to focus on understanding the motivations of Islamist fundamentalists and try to pressure Bush to stop with the frequent nonsense implication in his speeches that they are motivated by "hatred of Western values of democracy, liberty, and freedom" when in fact they are motivated by their opposition to the presence of American troops in Muslim nations, particularly Saudi Arabia. That might not fit in as well into political speeches, but it's the reality that we are facing and it's important that the public realize it. There will likely be a debate as to how this particular fact should affect our strategy.

Why not spend more time focusing on improving the understanding of the world among the public (which starts with improving our own understanding by reading a diverse selection of respected news sources -- New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Economist, The Atlantic Monthly)? Not everyone will agree on what this deeper understanding means for American policy, but at least it would get us on a better track.

Playing the game of Bush sucks versus Hillary sucks is just not productive in my opinion.

FWIW, I don't think the results of the controversial 2000 election are really worth focusing on any more at this point. Bush did end up winning the election through the ugly process and no doubt a different Supreme Court makeup could have changed the result; but he won the 2004 election legitimately and the reality is that it is in everyone's interest to get the president (and Congress and other public officials) to do what is best for America, regardless of how they got there or how much we respect them.

Respectfully,
Mike

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
ANYTHING can be won militarily.

(except things like love, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but it's always prudent to ask: at what cost?

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

You are exactly right. I could go off for a couple thousand words on how and why I think Bush is a lying idiot who should literally be impeached (and possibly imprisoned?) for the incompetent (and criminal?) way he's led this country. But it is what it is, and right now the question is, where do we go from here?

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Devault,

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Stoo Pidahhsoo,

[ QUOTE ]
911 wasn't mentioned in the CNN article. Was it mentioned at all in the speech? If it was a major point I'm sure it would have been mentioned multiple times.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, yes -- a majority of the first half the speech (the 'Campaign of Murder' section of the CNN transcript) was another in the long line of Bush administration attempts to link together domestic terrorism/Sept. 11 and Iraq in the minds of Americans; a claim that is as of now completely devoid of compelling evidence -- but a claim that many polls have demonstrated resonates as true in the minds of many Americans; again, despite the lack of compelling evidence, and due in no small part to Bush administration efforts like this to purposefully suggest, even if not overtly so, that Iraq and 9/11 were somehow related.

[ QUOTE ]
Devault, I bet if you reviewed the transcript of the speech, you would be pretty embarrassed about the summary you provided for us here.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no idea how proud of it I am -- the fact that you find it such an inaccurate and unfair summary only further convinces me that I've done well.

At first, the summary I provided was merely my attempt to be rather satirical; but now that I've had a chance to review the transcript, I don't think I was that far off the mark.

Thanks for the eye opener.

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
In spite of that, I think it is a shame that your summary is all you took out of Bush's speech, or at least that is the attitude you chose to convey. While I think there are legitimate criticisms of Bush's speech, it also had some valid points and was a move toward improving the quality of the debate about Iraq and trying to build a consensus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, consensus building typically revolves around taking your critics out to the woodshed and calling them defeatists.

The quality of debate has clearly improven if you're a strident right-winger, as the President said exactly what you wanted to hear: vocal critics are mere dishonest defeatists, who criticize for their own sheer 'partisan uses' in a way that 'is not justified by the facts'.

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In spite of that, I think it is a shame that your summary is all you took out of Bush's speech, or at least that is the attitude you chose to convey. While I think there are legitimate criticisms of Bush's speech, it also had some valid points and was a move toward improving the quality of the debate about Iraq and trying to build a consensus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, consensus building typically revolves around taking your critics out to the woodshed and calling them defeatists.

The quality of debate has clearly improven if you're a strident right-winger, as the President said exactly what you wanted to hear: vocal critics are mere dishonest defeatists, who criticize for their own sheer 'partisan uses' in a way that 'is not justified by the facts'.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've mastered one of Bush's (and moveon.org's) common techniques: taking quotes out of context and trying to suggest that they say something other than what they did.

He did not say that all vocal critics are defeatists, but said that some are. I believe he hides behind this criticism too much, but unfortunately the hardcore prominent leftists keeps strengthening his case here by making criticisms that are so over the top that they have lost credibility to moderates.

He dismisses the extreme leftwing criticisms of the war, and he is right to do so. Unfortunately, he does try to use that as a rhetorical tool to downplay the legitimate criticisms of people who take the time to try in good faith to understand his perspective and still find it flawed.

Still, you have selectively quoting only what you wanted to hear and see. The reality is that while the Bush speech still had some serious flaws, it was better than previous ones and was the most significant concession of error he has made to this point. He made a limited and perhaps begrudging move toward opening the door for well-developed criticisms that accept what the situation in Iraq is, regardless of whether they agree we should have been there in the first place.

I am a Bush critic. I just care about developing better policies and convincing others to support them, and I find it both intellectually lazy and practically counterproductive to dwell on my personal feelings toward Bush. Your hatred and fervor toward Bush is no less irrational than that of conservatives towrards people like the Clintons.

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
The reality

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently 'reality' is now just synonymous with 'my opinion'; I suppose we can forgive the occasional human tendency to disregard the distinctions between the two, but keep in mind that 'reality' probably has a narrower definition than your use of it here.

[ QUOTE ]
I just care about developing better policies and convincing others to support them, and I find it both intellectually lazy and practically counterproductive to dwell on my personal feelings toward Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Your hatred and fervor toward Bush is no less irrational than that of conservatives towrards people like the Clintons.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I'm engaged in dishonest tactics by 'taking quotes out of context' -- and yet you're debating 'honestly' by levying the charge of me having an irrational hatred of President Bush, despite the fact that no where in this thread (or any thread) have I said anything that could legitimately be construed as demonstrating a 'hatred' for the President.

1) I don't hate President Bush. On a personal level, he seems like a rather decent person for whom I have absolutely no qualms with.

2) You claim to find 'developing better policies and convincing others to support them' intellectually stimulating and highly productive; and yet your conduct throughout this thread has has been to lament about the disingenuous debating tactics of others by engaging in your own brand of unfounded demagoguery (yes, making exaggerated claims about your opponents over-emotional irrationality is an act that needlessly adds emotion to a debate). So it seems as though you find hypocrisy to be intellectually stiumlating and highly productive as well.

Again, to answer your concerns: I have absolutely no emotional disagreements with President Bush - I think he's a fine person, I just disagree with his policies. I too find dwelling on my own personal feelings to be intellectually lazy and practically counterproductive, which is why I haven't bothered (up until now) discussing any of my personal feelings.

May I suggest ending the moral posturing, as lame faux-intellectual moralizing is tedious, and come join the rest of us in the mud. It's not all that shameful. Truth be told, you're already here, as you've shown absolutely no hesitation to levy unfounded criticisms against those you disagree with; so just do fairness a favor and end the hypocrisy.

Respectfully, DVaut1 (I noticed the abrupt end to the 'respectfully' signatures you were ending your posts with; what happened?)

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
You've mastered one of Bush's (and moveon.org's) common techniques:

[/ QUOTE ]

So let's have a little inquiry into common debating techniques. Perhaps we can shed some light on this:

[ QUOTE ]
He dismisses the extreme leftwing criticisms of the war, and he is right to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Which 'extreme leftwing' criticisms has he/did he specifically dismissed/dismiss? One common technique in debates is to pretend as if you've dismissed your opponents points when you've actually just presented a strawman or red herring (for instance, constantly implying that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 when questioned about the wisdom of going to war, when no compelling evidence for such a claim exists)

2) Why are they 'extreme'? (because, as I'm sure you know, referring to opponents as 'extreme' is a common rhetorical technique that's used to cast opponents in an unpleasant light, while attempting to add some measure of credence that the arguer's position is more widely agreed upon or popular -- not that you would stoop to that hackneyed technique, though)

3) Why is he right to do so? (another common debating technique, again as I'm sure you're aware, is to present opinions as if they're fact and need no further explanation)

I'd hate to see you get too bogged down in details, as empirical evidence which helps form the foundation of the premises that aid in making our arguments compelling can often get in the way of a nice, opinion based rant - but just humor those irrational Bush haters like me and the rest of the resident MoveOn crowd.

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the public debate stalls at petty name-calling

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, doesn't it stink when debate stalls at name-calling? Let's examine, shall we?

---------------------------

[ QUOTE ]
"There is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right."

I get so frustrated by the many people who are in the latter category -- and I think your post and that of the OP post are suggestive of that attitude.

[/ QUOTE ]


So you hate petty-name calling -- but RussianBear and I are defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

Yes, it's quite apparent you really disdain name-calling.

Let's look deeper into the many ways you've raised the level of debate:

[ QUOTE ]
The approach of angrily denouncing Bush and using cheap arguments

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect you probably just hate Bush so much

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I really fear that the rise of a leftwing outlets like moveon.org have encouraged the same lazy and sloppy thinking that the Rush Limbaughs brought to rightwing zealots in the 90s (and continue to supply).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I just hate name-calling too, and all those stupid, lazy, and intellectually spurious MoveOn folk and their right-wing zealot counterparts are just lazy name-callers who don't engage in hightened debate -- such as calling others zealots who are engaged in lazy and sloppy thinking.

Like I said, I just hate all those douchebag name-callers too. What dickheads those name-callers are.

I fear hypocrisy much more than I fear partisan outlets, and it's not even close.

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

"being my naturally defeatist self"

The President said it, you said it. Now, you obviously feel it's not true. So prove it wrong.

Begin.

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
"being my naturally defeatist self"

The President said it, you said it. Now, you obviously feel it's not true. So prove it wrong.

Begin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't feel this war is a lost cause, nor do I feel we were destined to lose it; nor do I hope we lose it, either. In regards to the latter, I do not know anyone who hopes we lose this war, or hopes that it turns out badly. As for the former, perhaps others felt this war was a lost cause or we were destined to lose it; I'm not one of them.

The "being my naturally defeatist self" comment was sarcasm.

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

Let Me Paraphrase President Bush's speech tonight:

"We are winning, and the democrats know we are winning. (If they thought we were losing, they'd be quiet and let me self-destruct) And how do I know the democrats know we are winning? Two words: wire taps." [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

Mike,
You seem to be willing to spend copious amounts of verbage on this discussion. To offer my two bits, after having discussed this extensively with a large number of people whom I feel are more politically astute than your average college professor, I firmly believe that the course of history would have been exactly the same if Al Gore won.

Consider it. As far as Iraq is concerned, the continued situation with the UN was not acceptable, the intelligence coming out about WMD's would have been the same no matter who was in office & as we all know, John Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it, as did many other wafflers on the left, and combine that all with the gutted intelligence operative capacity of the CIA, and there was simply no other alternative for a Iraq policy than going to war.

At least we have a President who is willing to do what is necessary, in his view to finish the job of firmly planting Democracy in Iraq, regardless of what the poll numbers say. Other Presidential contenders may not have done the same.

(Que Yoko Ono leading "give peace a chance")

FWIW,
X

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

[ QUOTE ]
Mike,
You seem to be willing to spend copious amounts of verbage on this discussion. To offer my two bits, after having discussed this extensively with a large number of people whom I feel are more politically astute than your average college professor, I firmly believe that the course of history would have been exactly the same if Al Gore won.

Consider it. As far as Iraq is concerned, the continued situation with the UN was not acceptable, the intelligence coming out about WMD's would have been the same no matter who was in office & as we all know, John Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it, as did many other wafflers on the left, and combine that all with the gutted intelligence operative capacity of the CIA, and there was simply no other alternative for a Iraq policy than going to war.

At least we have a President who is willing to do what is necessary, in his view to finish the job of firmly planting Democracy in Iraq, regardless of what the poll numbers say. Other Presidential contenders may not have done the same.

(Que Yoko Ono leading "give peace a chance")

FWIW,
X

[/ QUOTE ]

By claiming that any Democratic president would have done the same -- does that not imply that things are going badly? I can't quite figure out why right-wingers try to claim it; it seems to be saying something along the lines of:

"This war is all [censored] up, but Dems would have done the same".

I think it could, in some way, be trying to demonstrate that we had no other alternatives other than war; but merely claiming that Democrats would have done the same doesn't prove there were no other alternatives.

Am I wrong? I don't quite understand.

Re: Let Me Paraphrase President Bush\'s speech tonight:
 

I can think of several people in the national dialogue who I feel have every fibre in the core of their being and their political futures invested in hating the war until it fails. Their tactics are to go against their own statements of support before the war started, to critize every miniscule setback until they are blue in the face, create public farce which fuels the the Al Jeezera Anti-American propaganda machine, and generally behave like politik worms are apt to do by putting their own interests over that of the country.

Why, O, Why Dvaut, do you put yourself in their defense by making posts like this thread if you disagree with their postion. Most of the country feels the way about the course of the debate that the President does. In fact, I've heard many comments after the speech (coming out of the evil talk radio establishment, which obviously isn't mainstream because the ratings are in the toilet and no body listens to it or pays hosts enormous sums of money to advertise on their programs) that the President was finally saying what he needed to say.

Most of the right wing beef with the man is over other issues, not the war.

Now if you oppose the President's labeling of his critics as defeatists on the basis that it's simply name calling, how do you feel about the use of every label that has been hung on the President by the same people (liar, racist, theif, corrupt, Hitler, stealer of elections, hijacker of the government, etc, etc, etc)? Is turnabout fair play, or not?