His question was a distraction and intended to derail the discussion. The purpose of the speech tonight was to defend the decision to stay the course. It wasn't to re-debate going into Iraq, which is what the liberals are so desperate to attempt to debate again. It's a total waste of time and only takes us backwards. Instead of elevating the conversation to what to do next, the liberals are more concerned with throwing flames across the aisle and trying to ridicule past decisions. They offer zero in the way of recommendations. They simply throw stones. It's counterproductive. I suppose the hope is to break the country's will to stay the course. That is the only way the terrorists can win. We can not be defeated militarily. So the question remains, liberals: Are you in favor of leaving Iraq and handing the keys over to the terrorists?
Well, it is a bit disingenuous to say that the objective behind going into Iraq has nothing to do with our goal in staying in iraq. Instead of asking what will happen if we leave, shouldn't we really be asking what will happen if we stay? A few questions that need to be answered before yours, TJ: -What is the definition of "winning" this war? -What is the "course" on which we are staying? -Do you think the insurgency can be defeated militarily?
This is hilarious! We can't get a single liberal to answer the question that formed the basis for tonight's speech! I wonder why... Actually, I don't wonder. I know. Bush's speech shot a wide, gaping whole into their entire strategy. The liberals' strategy is to poke holes at why we went to war. They would *love* to debate items like WMD and Iraq/al Qaeda ties. While the decision makers in the country have moved on, the liberals have not. They are still stuck in a 2003 debate. It's 2005, almost 2006. They must be frustrated. What good does debating WMD do? Seriously? What is the goal in debating WMD? Other than to attempt to score political points -- all the while helping the terrorists' propaganda machine. By refocusing the debate on what actually matters -- moving forward and winning in Iraq -- Bush is incredibly savvy. The liberals simply can *not* answer the following question: Should we stay the course in Iraq? The ones that answer 'no', are in favor of handing the keys over to the terrorists. None of them will answer 'yes' because in their minds, that partially validates the war. The liberals are stuck. Outmaneuvered again by the man that defeated their best candidate in two straight Presidential races. That's gotta sting. Bad.
The question of this speech wasn't should we leave iraq and leave it to the terrorists? This speech was for once actually an attempt to answer the many questions posed by liberals and conservatives alike. For once Bush actually acknowledged the questions and criticisms of the war and tried to answer them. Look I personally feel we should stay as long as necessary but the question posed here and what everyone else has posed is what does necessary mean. You ask the question should we stay the course or give it up to terrorists. The response of most here has been what does "stay the course" mean and how do we know when we've actually completed the mission. How do you expect anyone to answer your question when you don't even clarify or acknowledge the fact that your question is rather flawed and vague. Bush did a good thing by actually tailoring his speech to attempt to answer and acknowledge the questions and problems of Iraq. It would be nice if you would try doing the same for once.
The politically astute recognized what he was doing -- He was putting those issues behind him. Acknowledging the errors in the intelligence takes away the anti-war camp's favorite weapon -- recycling the WMD debate. It attempts to elevate the discussion to what is relevant. Bush also made a couple of indirect references to letting the troops and generals on the ground inform on and make strategic decisions. Given that they have the experience and first hand information, I back this. Who would you rather have making strategy in Iraq? Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or the generals that have been there for years? Bush is picking the generals. The liberals are picking politicians. Pure, unadulterated folly by the libs.
Trader_J, you are in perfect company with the President... you both are misleading and delusional. It's pretty sad, really. I suggest you go read the Constitution of the United States again. That's the document "your guy" is using as toilet paper. Right now, I'm more concerned about what Bush, with his blind supporters, are doing to that document, and the foundation of our country, than I am about this damned nightmare in Iraq Bush has dragged the United States into. At least the Rockets won again, even if the nation is losing. Keep D&D Civil.
^^^ Yet another liberal forced to change the subject to the Constitution and the decision to go into Iraq. It is becoming increasingly obvious how Bush outmaneuvered the liberals tonight. Responses like Deckards and vlaurelio prove it quite nicely. They are *forced* to return to recycled debates. When the President steered the discussion towards moving forward in Iraq, he blew up the liberals strategy of re-debating old issues. Now that Bush has put the intelligence errors behind him, as well as the decision to enter Iraq, the liberals are left with nothing! I love it! They are being exposed for the defeatists that they are. My question is whether they will man up and admit that staying the course and following the generals plan to victory is the right move or not. Surely they can't be in favor of leaving Iraq and handing the keys over to the terrorists, are they? Are they? Who knows, they won't answer it. Totally outmaneuvered tonight. TOTALLY. Bush continues to run circles around the libs. If Bush is dumb, how dumb must be the people he is routing time and again?
So the lesson we teach future presidents is this: Exaggerate the extent of an external threat to create a war. Conduct that war incompetently so it never ends. And then win elections by pointing out, "hey, we're in a war here!" When people criticize the way you're handling the war, kindly point out that the other party didn't even want to go to war in the first place. I mean, how could those sissies fight a war they were opposed to? Actually, that is brilliant.
Shoulda just said: "We are tracking your movements to save our country, to pretect us frum the terrorists. 9/11. now don't complain or I will record your internet activity and tell your spouse about your p*rn addiction and the FCC about all the MP3's in your ipod. 9/11."
this speech = 1 news cycle PlameGate = 20+ news cycles NSA-Spy-Gate = 10+ news cycles Iraq body count = 356+ new cycles
Can any liberal answer TJ's question? It has become painfully obvious that this is not the case. I commend Bush on giving an excellent speech that has certainly stumped liberals everywhere.
Why was Bush forced to throw together an impromptu speech to address a few of the tough issues he's avoided discussing since the onset of the war? __________ The Dems have him on the defensive with their current highly effective strategy.
how can we discuss the mess we're in if we don't discuss what got us there? don't you want to go back debate it? or are you scared. bush will be tried or impeached for his war crimes yeah totally.. whats up with the timing of this speech? is this a sign of being in control or desperation?
Murtha offered a very reasoned set of recommendations which the GOP was unwilling or unable to debate on its merits. So instead, they offered up a ham fisted parody of Murtha's proposal for a vote. The GOP doesn't have any solutions, just partisan politics and empty rhetoric.
WRONG we want to discuss if intelligence was manipulated so whoever responsible for taking this country to war can be tried
Roughly 92% of the people we are fighting are IRAQI's. 8% terrorists. Every Iraqi leader said it would be better if we left. They don't want us there. Murtha's plan is not to "CUT and RUN". It's to take the troops to the out skits and let the Iraqi's take control. We would have a reaction force to fight the terrorists or if the Iraqi's asked for our help. Make no mistake; we are currently in the middle of a civil war. Commanders now have to evaluate the intel they get for a strike because some Iraqi's and using us to settle old scores. There are roughly 30 Iraqis showing up in the morgue every night because Iraqi's are killing each other. Since we are primarily fighting Iraqi's, how would redeploying and reducing our troop numbers in Iraq be turning the country over to the terrorist? We would still have forces there to fight the true terrorists. A lot those terrorists are filtering into Iraq just to fight Americans. The elections were appear to be a success, and any well thought out withdrawal strategy might take a year or more to fully implement so I believe it is time to start implementing such a plan.
It was a good speech and made points which I agreed with. I'll break it down for those who didnt watch Bush: "I messed up, and got us all into a pile of horsecrap, now I need everyone to work together or all of us is gonna pay a worse price." He screwed up getting us into Iraq, and unfortunately the only thing we can do right now is to stay there until Iraq is on its way to a more stable country. It can be done, the elections proved that. However, it doesn't take away the fact that Bush was a complete tool about it. It's kinda like playing a co-op multiplayer game with 4 or 5 other guys. You're trying to sneak up on another group and one moron starts firing before everyone else is prepared, so you have no choice but to try to help him cuz otherwise you'd be screwed too. Of course, in the game, you can always kick him out of your group, unfortunately we can't do that with the current jackass
