President gives speech Dems spaz....

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
He did say when the troops will leave He has said it numerous times.
When the Iraqis can stand on their own.
Granted there was not much new in his speech.
There was not much new in the Dems response either.
Any points for staying the course ?

[/ QUOTE ]

he might as well have said "when pigs fly".

Defering a question of timing to another question of timing is a non-answer, a cowardly evasion of the real issue, which is, obviously, "WHEN will we be able to leave, WHEN will the iraqis be able to 'stand on their own'?" Bush did NOT answer, because he has no answer, because he and the rest of the Neo-con establishment are STILL working off of the same obviously invalid set of assumptions that landed us in this big freaking mess in the first place- assumptions about the iraqi reaction, the superiority and feasability of an iraqi of democracy, the strength and capacities of our forces, etc.

Bush in iraq:

[Arnfinn Madsen]

They seem to try to follow public opinion. First, they don't critizise Bush's war on terror when it is popular among the public. Then, when the public support drops they weaken their support.

Weak-tighties [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img].

Are they in politics to be politicians or to put their policies into life?

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
They seem to try to follow public opinion. First, they don't critizise Bush's war on terror when it is popular among the public. Then, when the public support drops they weaken their support.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although you and OP are generalizing, you've got a point about following public support.

But that's not a character trait specific to Democrats. Watch Cheney and his henchmen change their talking points as the poll numbers for supporting the war continue to drop.

It is VERY difficult to sustain a protracted war effort when you don't have the popular support of the country.

Then we'll see who's weak-tight.

-ptmusic

[BCPVP]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
1) This helps my case
2) Dems are the most vocal

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

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, but many Americans have probably not heard what was said before.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
This was mostly a pep speech, not a new sweeping policy announcement. Bogging down the speech in each tiny thing the U.S. is going to do over in Iraq would take away from the point of the speech; 'stay the course'.

[ QUOTE ]
D: Again, it's not just the democrats that are beginning to question Bush's constant refrences to 9-11

[/ QUOTE ]
There probably are a few others, but in general, it is the Dems.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
You want the man to stop referencing the most memorable and powerful event of his presidency and probably his existance. It is irrational and childish to ask him to not ever speak of the event, which is what I believe Democrats want Bush to do. It would be somewhat similar to Republicans demanding that FDR not mention Pearl Harbor when talking about why we were fighting Germany (Let me pre-empt your panty-twisting by saying, yes I know the analogy isn't perfect).

[kurto]

This:
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen the latest polls, but as of a year ago, an astounding 57% of Americans still believed that Iraq was connected to the 9/11 attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

leads to this:
[ QUOTE ]
You want the man to stop referencing the most memorable and powerful event of his presidency and probably his existance. It is irrational and childish to ask him to not ever speak of the event, which is what I believe Democrats want Bush to do. It would be somewhat similar to Republicans demanding that FDR not mention Pearl Harbor when talking about why we were fighting Germany

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the objection to mentioning 9/11 is that Bush is not discussing the war in Afghanistan... he's discussing Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush wanted to go into Iraq PRIOR to 9/11.

But 57% thought, after the Bush admin constantly associating the two together, that they were related.

Its obvious who the 57% were and which ones still incorrectly tie the two together.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Since the objection to mentioning 9/11 is that Bush is not discussing the war in Afghanistan... he's discussing Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. It has a lot to do with 9-11. Bush and others have made the argument that those they are fighting in Iraq are the same type of people we were attacked by on 9-11. That's the connection.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. It has a lot to do with 9-11

[/ QUOTE ] That's the effect of the administration repeating it daily.

You're ignoring the fact that the administration hoped to go into Iraq since day 1. There are certainly many in Iraq who are 'like the people who attacked us on 9/11'... though they're the people who went to Iraq AFTER we invaded.

Let's remember that the Iraq war was about WOMD. He was an immediate threat to the world because of his fleet of planes that could reach anywhere in the world ready to spray non-existant chemical weapons in a moment's notice and his nukes that would lead to 'mushroom clouds over US cities.' When that was all proven untrue, it then because about spreading democracy. And when its convenient, its about terrorism. But Saddam wasn't a terrorist, had no links to 9/11 and all the perpetrators of 9/11 came from elsewhere (most notabley, Saudia Arabia).

But the remnants of the 57% will continue to say otherwise.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since the objection to mentioning 9/11 is that Bush is not discussing the war in Afghanistan... he's discussing Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. It has a lot to do with 9-11. Bush and others have made the argument that those they are fighting in Iraq are the same type of people we were attacked by on 9-11. That's the connection.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it you are among the 57%.

To put it in simple terms: Iraq did not attack us on 9/11.

-ptmusic

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Are they in politics to be politicians or to put their policies into life?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm is that a trick question?

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

natedogg

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]

wait aminute... a bush supporter is accusing the opposition of oversimplyfing? that's a riot! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

A decent though overused liberal one-liner that doesn't even attempt to argue against the substance of what I said.