Let Me Paraphrase President Bush's speech tonight:

[BluffTHIS!]

Excerpts from Senator Biden's commentary on the president's speech show why the democrats are utterly clueless on the whole Iraq situation and only interested in political demagoguery:

"We have six more months to get this right"

and

"If we, in fact, lose in Iraq - that is, if a Shia-style, Iranian-style government is set up - it will be terrible for us for a long time."

So he says the stakes are very high for us to fail in Iraq, butttttttt, we have to succeed in six months more max.

Whereas the president has also correctly recognized what is at stake, but is also willing to see this through to a successful conclusion even if it takes longer than we would like, let alone longer than an artificial time period set up by democrats solely for the purpose of political grandstanding.

Bottom line is the democrats are just fair weather soldiers.

[Exsubmariner]

I don't think it implies things are going badly. I think that the media machine would be spinning things in a very positive light regardless if there were a Democrat in the White House and of course the Left Wing would all be shaking their palm-palms. I just do not trust the take of anyone who is pushing an agenda is in line with reality.

If there were other alternatives, I think they would have been pursued. In fact, I think they were, but failed. The present course is risky and expensive. All other roads had lead back to the same point.

[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.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ 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 ]

No, you haven't been following that strategy from the start (it was spoken, but not executed). In the beginning you arrogantly ignored nearly all politics due to an irrational belief in the military part.

[ACPlayer]

WHile it is true that the war cannot be won militarily, the real problem is that there is no clear goal for the war (see the many goals articulated over the past few years). Even now the goals are all fuzzy rather than clear cut.

I kept hearing we must defeat the enemy with our Iraqi partners (or words to that effect) but what exactly is the enemy and how do know when we have defeated the enemy.

Clearly according to the Prez we must defeat the enemy to be safe in America -- I wish I knew what enemy we are fighting in Iraq so we can be safe in America.

Clearly we must make Iraq free and democratic. But what exactly is this democracy -- is running an election a democracy? What about if those who are close pals with the IRanian's rise to power (democratically!!!) have we won?

There is no definition of victory. We simply must get there though according tot he prez.

Getting to the river is not a goal. Winning something tangible should be the goal.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no definition of victory. We simply must get there though according tot he prez.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on now. Obviously the definition of victory is some sort of established democratic Iraqi government, with the Iraqis able to maintain their own security within a relatively stable Iraq, and the jihadists possessing considerably less ability to attack.

[ACPlayer]

I can assure you if a manager had brought me a statement like this as a project objective in my corporate life, they would have had some sort career of a relatively stable sort with considerably less ability to get future projects done.

This is not an objective this is a recipe for a disaster.

[InchoateHand]

"Come on now. Obviously the definition of victory is some sort of established democratic Iraqi government, with the Iraqis able to maintain their own security within a relatively stable Iraq, and the jihadists possessing considerably less ability to attack. "

If thats your definition, we are entirely doomed to failure.

That is certainly not the President's definition of victory.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no definition of victory. We simply must get there though according tot he prez.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on now. Obviously the definition of victory is some sort of established democratic Iraqi government, with the Iraqis able to maintain their own security within a relatively stable Iraq, and the jihadists possessing considerably less ability to attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem with this line of thinking is that the terrorists can't be defeated. It's like trying to wage a war on murder, or theft. There will always be thieves and murderers and in the Middle East, there will always be jihadists. The best we can do is to set up a stable government in Iraq that can deal with them as best they can and leave them to their own devices.