Let Me Paraphrase President Bush's speech tonight:

[Exsubmariner]

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?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Claiming that some people have placed their political stake in the failure of the war doesn't demonstrate hatred, it demonstrates strategy and self-interest; something I think we can all agree is rational, no? That's not hatred, it's calculus.

And I think you're certainly engaging in just a bit of exaggeration; I won't pretend to know what's in most war critics 'every fiber in their core', but I generally assume most don't wish failure upon the United States, nor do they have deep and unending hatred for the war (given that, as you say, many of the people I think you're referring to voted for the war).

[ QUOTE ]
Why, O, Why Dvaut, do you put yourself in their defense by making posts like this thread if you disagree with their postion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whose defense? The people for whom you've created some exaggerated narrative about? Why have I put myself in the defense of those people?

I don't know. Why do people engage in demagoguery and use strawman arguments?

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

Or put another way: President Bush sent soldiers to war, and some soldiers died in this war, which makes President Bush an dictatorial murder, who would clearly kill puppies and kittens if he had the chance, and thought no one was looking, and Cheney gave the go-ahead.

Why do you defend this puppy killing monster?

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

So yeah, long story short, I'm not really in the business of defending others against over-exaggerated and demagogic attacks levied against them.

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the country feels the way about the course of the debate that the President does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Please explain.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So...you heard on right-wing talk radio that the President they fervently support finally said what needed to be said about the war they also fervently support.

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mind name-calling; in fact, I rather enjoy it and find it perfectly legitimate. I just disagree with the President's characterization of his opponents. I certainly have no ethical misgivings over name-calling.

[Exsubmariner]

"it's calculus."

They must have failed that class, thus the reason for becoming politicians. I submit there is no political capital to be gained opposing the war. Unless, that is, you believe having Cindy Sheehan on your side is vital to winning the next election. And if that's the case, you will probably loose the next election and think it's because you haven't gotten your message out.

How's that for a straw man? You really burnt down that last one I made. In fact, I don't think there's anyone anymore who fits the description that the President gave, I'm convinced now he just dreamed the whole thing up.

So now you've disagreed that the war is going badly and stated you hope we win, but the point of this thread was not to support the defeatists, or to defend them, just disagree that they are defeatists.

Glad we got to the bottom of it. Man, you've won me over.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
They must have failed that class, thus the reason for becoming politicians. I submit there is no political capital to be gained opposing the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a rather specious submission, to say the least. Of course there's political capital to be gained by opposing the war. How do you think a no-name former Vermont governor is now head of the DNC, if not for harnessing some measure of the political capital available by opposing the war?

Yes, there is a population of Americans (not a majority by any stretch) who both oppose the war and are hungry for leadership. Of course, there is lots of political capital there.

To claim there's no political capital to be gained opposing the war is tantamount to claiming there's no one opposing the war. Simply untrue.

[ QUOTE ]
So now you've disagreed that the war is going badly and stated you hope we win, but the point of this thread was not to support the defeatists, or to defend them, just disagree that they are defeatists.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's about right -- except I do believe the war is, in some areas, going poorly (and I'll freely admit there are, of course, some things going well). Merely saying that some things are going poorly does not mean that I believe we're bound to lose the war, nor does it making pointing such things out make me a defeatist.

Just because your favorite football team is down 14-0 at halftime, and playing poorly, doesn't necessarily mean that you think your favorite team is doomed to lose the game.

[Exsubmariner]

That was poorly worded. You are correct, there is political capital to be gained with a minority of voters who oppose the war in Iraq. That political capital, however, is NOT the path to Presidential victory in 2008, nor do I believe it is the path to regaining the House or Senate for the Democrats in 2006. I think it is not the keystone issue vocal opponents of it want it to be. The "defeatists" (as President Bush calls them; quotes provided for the sake of arguement) have set themselves up here as targets of ridicule and they are quite justly, in my estimation, reaping what they have sewn. Just as pointing things out about how things are not going well does not necessarily make one a "defeatist," denying there are any "defeatists" doesn't mean that they don't exist.

I'm sorry you feel singled out by the President, DVaut.