[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
That's rich. Anyone with a semi-functional brain knows the Dems have been demanding a timetable (Kennedy et al), and Bush succinctly (imo) answered why such a demand is unreasonable, let alone dangerous.

It's interesting that the NYT op-ed is in lockstep with other prominent dems/libs in balking over the 9-11 references. I think the reason Dems don't want Bush to ever mention 9-11 is because they know people are reminded of how they felt that awful day and how much support Bush received afterwards. Oh well, I didn't really expect better of the NYT.


[/ QUOTE ]

A: The dems are not the only ones calling for a timetable.

B: he said absolutely nothing that hasn't been said before

C: he continues to assure the public, promise them, in effect, an eventual "victory", without giving even ONE specific policy change that would make such a promise even remotely credible. No one doubts that the US is TRYing to win the war, defeat the insurgency, whatever, but they are beginning to suspect that we may not be ABLE to win the war. Bush did absolutely NOTHING to address these concerns, obstinatly continuing to repeat the same bits of propaganda that he's been spewing ever since "mission accomplished"- 1500 americamn lives ago.

D: Again, it's not just the democrats that are beginning to question Bush's constant refrences to 9-11- it's become a kind of catch-all for the administration, whenever dissent comes up, it's "9-11, 9-11" because, c'mon, who can forget how we felt that day? Bottom line? Bush has gone well beyond refrencing 9-11 to provide context to his speeches, etc, he is quite clearly cynicly abusing a national tragedy to further his own political purposes. oh well, i REALLY didn't expect any better of Bush.