Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

Battle hardened?
If dead is battle hardend... sure, why not?

[tw]

From the Washington Post of 17 Dec 2006:

Stubborn or Stalwart, Bush Is Loath to Budge
... said former senator Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.), a member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, ... "Now his legacy depends on the national interest, not partisanship."

Others don't buy it. On its Web site last week, the Democratic National Committee said Bush could be "the most stubborn man on Earth" for not immediately embracing the study group's plan. Critics predicted that any new strategy he announces after the holidays will be little more than a dressed-up version of "stay the course." And a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 66 percent of Americans do not think Bush is willing to change his policies in Iraq.

"I just don't believe that this president, with this vice president whispering in his ear every moment, is oriented to change," said retired Col. Larry Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in Bush's first term. "And even if he were, I don't believe his administration is capable of implementing change."

Lawrence J. Korb, a former Pentagon official under President Ronald Reagan, agreed. "When it comes to Iraq, he has basically confused stubbornness with steadfastness," said Korb, ...

But Bush was deeply influenced by the fate of his father, whose decision to break his no-new-taxes pledge as president helped doom his reelection. The lesson: Stick to decisions regardless of shifts in political winds.

"Stay the course" is now called "Way forward".

from Lord Tennyson:
"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

34% of Americans still cannot see the lying president for what he really is - who even deny facts from the Baker Hamilton commission. George Jr's stubbornness and mental midgetry will even guarantee a defeat in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, American opoerations in Somolia are also failing just as spectaculorly.

85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. That is 99% when top management is in denial - blames others such as me.

He has contempt for the American soldier. Way "Forward, the Light Brigade!" is just "Stay the course".

Time to solve "Mission Accomplished" with hundreds of thousands more troops has ended. So George Jr will think for another month about deploying a few ten thousand. They are expendable.

[tw]

When a president must "Wag the Dog". George Jr now advocates more war (rejects the Iraq Study Group) because soldiers are expendable and George’s legacy is more important.

Patriots leak constantly when scum bags would sacrifice more American soldiers to "Mission Accomplished". Leakers apparently include the Joint Chiefs. From the Washington Post of 19 Dec 2006 - and a fact that was predictable:

White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops
Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals ...
But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.

Of course it was obvious that "Mission Accomplished" was being lost. The president started a war without a strategic objective AND (as leaked) still has no strategic objective. To anyone with minimal grasp of history, that means defeat. To any student of history or military science, the PBS Frontline program The Lost Year demonstrates why this discussion should have been held in 2004. Since no positive solution remains, what do our anti-American leaders do?

Discussions are expected to continue through the holidays. Rice is expected to travel to the president's ranch near Crawford, Tex., after Christmas for consultations on Iraq. The administration's foreign policy principals are also expected to hold at least two meetings during the holiday. The White House has said the president will outline his new strategy to the nation early next year.

Current attitudes duplicate 1968; including rejection of conclusions from the president's "Wise Men". The expression "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" has never been so explicit.

Colin Powell (former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and former Sec of State for George Jr) has defined "Mission Accomplished"

So if it's grave and deteriorating and we're not winning, we are losing, ... I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work,

Still 34% in America denied reality when defined even by UK General Sir Richard Dannatt in October 2006. See British to Withdraw from Iraq to appreicate which Cellar Dwellers could not recognize the obvious - who therefore demonstrate contempt for the American soldier.

George Jr must reject the Iraq Study Group. He must send more troops to Iraq. George Jr must advocate troop increases in Iraq AND more military spending at home. He is an extremist no different than Crusaders of the 11th Century. He even said that god told him to invade Iraq. And he must maintain this war beyond 2008 so that it is not 'lost on his watch' - his legacy. Worse are many Americans who believed this idiot – and still do. See British to Withdraw from Iraq. And see what anti-Americans must deny: The Lost Year

The idiot president as an MBA – and like every administration official did on 11 September to make zero decisions – this fool and his staff, instead, will have more meetings.

George Jr recently said we are not winning "Mission Accomplished" and not losing it either. Simple logic. Then American soldiers are not in Iraq. Well not being there is what another lying president tried to claim when he invaded Cambodia. So now George Jr says, by default, that American troops really are not in Iraq. "Mission Accomplished"?

[tw]

From ABC News of 4 Jan 2007 or why Urbane Guerrilla has a president he adores:

Bush: Government Can Open Your Mail
President Bush says he and other government officials have the power to snoop through your mail without a judge's warrant.

Bush made the claim last month in a signing statement attached to a postal reform bill. Bush wrote that the bill "provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection."

Actually George Jr is correct. Another president - Nixon - did open mail without judicial review. When he was lying to the nation about Cambodia, Nixon feared that soldiers would hear the truth about his lies. So all mail to the troops from the United States was censored. Mail both from the troops and to the troops were censored. Nixon could not afford to have troops even receive the truth. So he opened and censored all mail - in both directions.

Deja vue Vietnam. Nixon - I mean George Jr - censors mail because we cannot be trusted. But then Americans finally got intelligent and demanded that other president (that Urbane Guerrilla also adored) be impeached.

[wolf]

The only mail I get is from creditors. If they open them, they have to pay them, right?

[yesman065]

Thats a good idea wolf - can we get that through congress?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by tw

From ABC News of 4 Jan 2007 or why Urbane Guerrilla has a president he adores:
Actually George Jr is correct. Another president - Nixon - did open mail without judicial review. . . (that Urbane Guerrilla also adored) be impeached.

This is not why I "adore" the President, as you should very well know, but never do know, tw. It is your perpetual, oft-demonstrated inability to get these things right that persuades me you're none too bright -- in political matters at any rate. Nonetheless, valiant in your ignorance, you go on until you go down in flames, never learning the least lesson. Are you then a booby or a target drone?

Nixon was regarded in 1968 as being a strong man on foreign policy. A good man at foreign policy is what's wanted in a state of war, Congressionally declared or not. He quite upheld his reputation there.

You'll recall the Democratic candidate was George McGovern. That George had nothing (theoretically anyway -- I was seventeen at the time he was running) to offer me that would make me, and as it turned out forty-nine of the fifty states, want him in the Oval Office. That looks like history's vindication to me.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

This Nixon was regarded in 1968 as being a strong man on foreign policy. A good man at foreign policy is what's wanted in a state of war, Congressionally declared or not. He quite upheld his reputation there.

That's right. Massacre another 30,000 American soldiers in Nam so that a war is not lost on his watch. Send 20,000 more to Iraq (woefully too few) so that "Mission Accomplished" (and Afghanistan) is not lost until after 2008. These are presidents that Urbane Guerrilla admires.

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

You'll recall the Democratic candidate was George McGovern. That George had nothing (theoretically anyway -- I was seventeen at the time he was running) to offer me that would make me, and as it turned out forty-nine of the fifty states, want him in the Oval Office. That looks like history's vindication to me.

Nothing? He didn't want to send you into a pointless war.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Blue, the last card you should ever try to play with me is that one.

Resistance to tyranny -- a tyranny amply proven in North Vietnam's behavior in the South -- always has a point and is by nature noble and right.

The defeatism he pushed -- that liberty and democracy aren't worth the effort needed to emasculate the Communists for trying to chain humanity -- is exactly what people like me never accept. America has quite a supply of people like me, it seems. We like democracy in ways you apparently can't fathom, and we don't accept totalitarianism as a way for any society to be.

Your remark, dear sir, is extraordinarily anti-democracy, and it is cowardly. Be ashamed, and then be better than you were tonight.

The same goes double for you, tw. You aren't a patriot, but an antipatriot, and you've been that way since, oh, the 1960s. You have not written one single word demonstrating you want America to win. Contrast that with a search of my postings, you indescribably awful example.

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

the effort needed to emasculate the Communists

And it was working so well right then and there, and ended up being so very successful. McGovern wanted to save your American life, and you blow him off by accusing him of defeatism. So ungrateful, you are.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I'm never grateful to people who fifth-column for humanity's enemy, and even less so to people who try and make America lose without even the crappy excuse of being foreigners.

Success, from a long-range point of view, was delayed: Vietnam eventually concluded Communism doesn't work as an economic system, and now seems to be turning capitalist in the streets while maintaining Communism as a sort of state religion. For the time being.

Which goes to demonstrate we were on the right side in that war, and that, blue, is something I've always understood -- since about fuckin' fourth grade. You, OTOH, have some catching up to do. I see you're not yet prepared to take the advice I gave you.

And where is McGovern now? -- retired and good riddance.

[Hippikos]

Resistance to tyranny -- a tyranny amply proven in North Vietnam's behavior in the South -- always has a point and is by nature noble and right.

Claiming that the US foreign policy is based on noble and right principles is ignorant, to say the least.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Claiming that the US foreign policy is based on noble and right principles is ignorant, to say the least.

Why can't America be noble and principled? I'm not saying our policy is, just asking why you think it can't be.

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Why can't America be noble and principled? I'm not saying our policy is, just asking why you think it can't be.

It can be, but it isn't. It would be against the benefit of the US itself, most of the times. I'm not necessarily saying it's not the right thing (for the US) to do (Realpolitik and such), but claiming it happens out of noble principles is utter bollox.