What the Democrats really think of the troops
- Thread starter Monadnock
- Start date
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
Source?
What he said was "And I believe that one day Iraq will be a government of, and by, and for the people, unless we leave before the job is done. The only way we can lose is if we leave before the job is done." (emph mine)
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Check the YouTube from Colorado ... I think the rally was in Greely? Greenly?
Sure, you are looking at a scrubbed transcript. But, we know what he really means. He's lost the war, and now he needs to blame it on some one.
the only victory that could be in iraq is that are soldiers are given the tools to protect themselves during their time served there.
i'm not sure what winning means anymore. one assumes that means the iraqi's fight their own battles against insurgents and the US departs free of the responsiblity. of course that opens the door to civil war. insurgents equal sunnis-- new army/police equal shiites. kurds sit up north ready to battle either that attempts to meddle in their business.
corruption and anarchy rule the day. joblessness and dysfunctionality exist to the extent that the professionals are leaving in droves and none of the expatriates who left during saddams reign feels safe in returning.
bush claims progress but can't point to any example. the entire gov't of iraq is sequestered behind the wall of protection in the green zone. travelling to or from the airport is consider a dangerous thing to do.
no contractor/u.s. gov't officials walk the streets without weapons or body guards.
if rice,rumsfeld,bush,cheney want to visit baghdad-- they sneak in and out the backdoor.
same in kabul.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/97751226.html
This is an un-scrubbed transcript. I saw the video earlier. Looks like it may have been scrubbed from YouTube too .... I suppose "It's Good to Be the King".
Now, of course, President Bush didn't mean to say that. But he did say it. I'll be watching for two days worth of news cycles trying to parse it all out. I'll be watching for all of those on this thread that wouldn't toss a benefit of a doubt toward Kerry to justify this gaffe.
Mariachi Joe
Brown Belt
Kerry's just bitter he lost to someone he thinks he is smarter than.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Video currently available here ..
http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=942
I wonder why I am not seeing this every 5 minutes on Fox News?
http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=942
I wonder why I am not seeing this every 5 minutes on Fox News?
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Tinfoil hat much?
Yeah, it does sound like him and it does look like him, but the sound is way off from the video. It wouldn't surprise me that there is an audio clip of Bush misspeaking, his gaffes are well known. He immediately corrected himself, so I don't know why it would get repeated play on any news channel.
I don't really get the tinfoil comment directed at you. Maybe if you wear a tinfoil hat the video and audio will match up nicely? Who knows?
One thing's for sure. After that video, I won't be voting for President Bush on Tuesday.
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
He immediately corrected himself, so I don't know why it would get repeated play on any news channel
This is why the comparison to Kerry is an apples/oranges comparison. It sounds like at worse that Bush mangled his words away from his intention,which happens. It sounds like Kerry did not misspeak his words but his intended words did not come across quite as he had hoped. which also happens.
This is why the comparison to Kerry is an apples/oranges comparison. It sounds like at worse that Bush mangled his words away from his intention,which happens. It sounds like Kerry did not misspeak his words but his intended words did not come across quite as he had hoped. which also happens.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Well, the script from which the Senator was speaking has been available since Tony Snow's discovery of the gaffe. It has not been a secret. One can choose to remain willfully ignorant. Perhaps it is best to do so, lest the evidence upset a paradigm.
Then again, maybe it is all just my perception ...
It seems that some on this thread extend the President a pass - because we all know he is incapable of structuring cogent English sentences, but are unable to accept any explanation of Kerry's verbal gaffe; to the point of accusing a transcript, and a video of being doctored.
Yes, and you can hear the cut in the audio too.
Sir, that's sounds very introspective. Take the political ads on TV and in mailers. The loyal partisans of each party see their candidate as talking about the issues while the opposing party's candidate is engaged in a nasty smear campaign. It probably isn't all just your perception, but that probably plays a large part.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
And yet, I see very few of those who lambasted Kerry's gaffe making comments like this ..
michaeledward said:
And, as to whether an add is a nasty attack ad, or an appropriate issue ad, there are indeed third party organizations that can make those assessments. Isn't there a saying somewhere, something like .... "Facts are Not Neutral"
Well, one could suggest that soldiers make society itself possible. Primitive history is the history of marauders and looting. Professional soldiers made society and Civilization workable.
The idea of not having a standing army was fine during the immediate post-Colonial period. However; the invention of the steamship made the concept of raising an army only when needed no longer practical. An enemy could literally be at the gates before a Militia was raised to fight them.
And can you imagine what the world map would look like now if you were president back in the late 30s and early 40s?!?!
There is a quote that is currently back in vouge where the guy talks about when they came for various groups he did nothing because he was not part of those groups. It ends with the comment that when they came for him, there was no one left to stop them.
The lesson of course is that if you look the other way when bad men do evil things to others, then they will not stop and someday you may be the victim. Another way of putting it that we can either all hang together, or all hang seperatly.
It amazes me that people can use this logic when we talk about giving extra scrutiny to young arabs in airports, but not to international relationships. Instead the alliences we make are portrayed as efforts at hedgemoney and are refered to as "entageling alliances."
Well, there are bad men out there. They will not go away if you look the other way and if enough nations go down instead of standing together against these modern barbarians, then when they come for us there will be no one else to stop them.
Some folks think we need to be liberated from our economic system for the greater good. Others think that we need to be liberated from conspiracies involving jews and need to get back in the good graces of Allah. Yet others look back on ages when they were the center of their known world and everyone bowed to them with nostaligia. Whatever the reason, someone somewhere will start moves against other nations and if they win, they will go on getting stronger and keep on conquering other nations.
And you expect to let this all go on and stop them when they finally get to our shores?
When they came for the Japanese, we did not help because we were not Japanese.
When they came for the Isrealis, we did nothing because we were not Isreali.
When they came for the Armenians, we did nothing because we were not Armenain.
And when they came for us, there was no one left to stop them.
And have you realized that very few of those people represented in the UN actually chose their leaders?
Aside from the fact of why America should put itself at the mercy of anyone, even a majority of the population, there is the very real fact that many of the nations that expect us to follow the vote of the majority of the UN council actually were not put there by a vote themselves.
When you talk about the 95 of the population, you really are talking about nations ruled by people like Bashir, Mugabe and Han Sen. How many elections are there in China, one of the nations that hold veto power? For that matter, along with Russian, two of the premenent members of the UN security council would not pass even close to a western democracy with a minimum of rights for their people.
And this is the foundation that you would leave the security of the US with?
It is not just that. Your idea of what is needed to protect a country is not in accordence with a good look at reality.
The UN does do a job from time to time in putting itself between two opposing nations. If one nation tries to attack, they have to go through the UN forces and open up the battle with other nations.
But you could have ringed all of Afghanistan with blue helmets and 19 guys with box cutters would still have killed all they did. The view of guys on the ground to fend off tanks as defence died on 9-11.
What keeps most nations from attacking is the idea that even if they did do something like what Osama did, they would end up like the Taliban. For that you need an army that can attack and defeat another nation to make their leaders accountable for their actions.
We don't do that with the UN. We could never pull it off. The Taliban would still be in Kabul today and they would still be debating it in the UN if we tried. You may have forgotten that a lot of Arab nations did not want us to attack Afghanistan for various stated reasons. They might have locked things up with their petroleaum pull if we had left it to the UN.
Aside from trying to get multiple nations to pull something like that off succesfully, there is the very basic problem of the nature of the UN. As I mentioned, a lot of the nations that make up that body are not there due to the will of their people. And every nation puts its own interests and benefits above the concerns of justice for other nations. It is like politics at every level. People just do not do the right thing because it is right, they do things only if it is in the own self interest.
And before anyone says that the above is silly, take a look at Darfur. China and Russian have business deals with Sudan. There has been an estimated four hundred thousand people who have died as a result of the goverment's actions in Darfur. And the two veto holders on the security council won't even let us use the term "genocide" when refering to the conflict.
Oh, and you want to turn our security over to this type of group?
Let us say that we turn over our security concerns to the UN. Then America gets hit with a smallpox attack. Millions die in weeks. The Americans provide proof that the smallpox originated in Iran and even provide various peices of evidence that Iran developed the germs and spread it by passing it along in diplomatic pouches.
And China, dependent on Iranian oil, vetoes any sort of action stating the need to gather more evidence of a better nature.
Is this the type of thing that anyone wants? If China will not let anything happen as hundreds of thousands of people are killed by a goverment they buy oil from, what makes you think they will take the hit to do the right thing for America?
And that is just one possible scenario involving one possible nation. You may argue over the possibilities of one single scenario, but the underlying points are sound.
If you will go here:
http://www.martialtalk.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=random&cat=15725&pos=-437
you will find a photo of me in uniform on patrol with the U.S. Coast Guard. I volunteered after 9/11 and served four years as a volunteer. I love the Coast Guard and everything it stands for. However; I recognize that it is NOT designed to stand up against a modern professional Navy in open warfare - not EVEN in Coastal Defense.
Please be realistic here. You're losing me. If it were not for Standing OpSec Orders (Operational Security), I could go into more details. BTW, my grandfather fought in WW2 and did NOT want me to serve in ANY capacity. In fact, he talked me out of enlisting in the USAF after high school. However; a few years after 9/11 the topic of casualties not related to enemy fire came up and MY opinion was the only one he was interested in.
Marginal
Senior Master
FDR stopped catastrophic tectonic plate shifts?
Pity it's taken so long for the country to wake up to the illegal misappropriation of executive powers. We're at the gates as it is.
It's not either/or. Gotta think of WWI as well as WWII.
What exactly is the modern equivalent of a river freezing over?
Yes, I see quite a few letters like that in the local paper. (They're usually raging about the restrictions on monkeying around with other nations brought on in large part due to the Iran Contra scandal.)
Similar threads
