Friday, January 12, 2007

Bush Speech Upshot: Thank You For Smoking

President Bush announced his long-anticipated American troop surge for Iraq on Wednesday evening. Honestly, I’m not sure the purpose of announcements anymore, as in many cases such as this, the facts have already been in the public sector – right down to specific troop numbers – for some time.

It’s an understatement to say Bush’s escalation plan was seriously flawed.

As some officials have stated, the Iraqis will never take over their own responsibilities if we keep doing them for them. Sending more troops in makes as much sense as saying you want to develop renewable, clean sources of energy, even as you
push the expansion of oil drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. It’s like pledging to quit smoking, even as you’re looking for new places to buy cigarettes.

Your doctors would certainly tell you to quit smoking; when it comes to your health, they are the experts. But if you don’t like what they’re telling you, you can always get new doctors. Or
generals, as the case may be. Even though you said you would let them determine the best course to take. But you may have said that on the condition that their vision matched yours.

In other words, Bush was for his military commanders' recommendations before he was against them.

In the run-up to the 2008 election, Republicants will almost certainly use Democrats’ objections to Bush’s troop surge as yet another example of how the left is “weak on defense.” They’ll leave out the fact that many of their own ranks have also publicly stated the same position. They’ll leave out the more significant fact that military experts have said it would not be a good idea, but were summarily dismissed.

Bush was not specific about what the increase means for our future in Iraq. He mentioned November (presumably 2007?) as a target for Iraqis to assume control of their own security. He failed to finish the thought there – and it was what most Americans wanted to hear – with regard to what that timeframe means in terms of American troop withdrawal. For now, it looks like we can expect more of the same: uncertainty and loss.

I sure hope all this “smoking” doesn’t give our country terminal cancer.


Hellpig said...

Leftist defeatism

one question yes or no answer

"Do you want America to win the war in Iraq?"

Pete Bogs said...


Pete Bogs said...

Now that I’ve answered that, I’d like to point out that Bush’s military advisers are/were not leftists… this is not a partisan thing… if you watched Condi’s Senate appearance, you couldn’t tell the left from the right when it came to comments and questions… only a handful of nuts support the plan… just because I don’t agree with the president’s plan doesn’t mean I don’t want victory… but also want to know what “win” means… the president hasn’t been forthcoming with what that means, and I don’t think he really does know… he’s trying things just to see what sticks…

Hellpig said...

Bogs my questionn had nothing to do with the plan,I didnt watch either Condi or Bush,I just watched the explosion of far left news orgs,mainly msnbc show defeatism,although I did catch the troop hating traitor Kerry speak.I loathe this anti-american piece of shit with every fiber im my soul.Yes even more then the coward/appeaser Clinton.

But thank you for answering a question so many polititians refuse to answer.

The same as CAIR refusing to answer the question is Hamas and Hezbolla terrorists orgs.

As for your win statement he(Bush)has stated over and over what winning means.

Hellpig said...

For the record all the top politicians supported a troop increase as early as Dec 2nd but now they all went partisan politics and are against it go figure.

K9 said...

/bark bark bark

one annoying aspect is the polling...they ask do you approve of more troops and then you get only 30 something%...but if you asked "do you approve of letting the military do what it does best which is to exterminate terrorists and their blow up their hidey holes and then come victorious?" then youd see a different number.

we cannot afford to leave iraq unfinished.

is it any wonder the iraqis are afraid? if we pull out they are left there hanging in the wind, the dems will cut funds just like they did in vietnam and then you get a pol pot situation where 2 million get killed or put in re-education camps. thats what happens when we fail to finish the job.

the other crucial aspect is we cannot afford to leave in disarray a country sitting on a ton of money in natural resources like oil with the will and where with all to fund more terorism and mess up our economy.

failure is not an option.

i give the bush administration an "f" on explaining the stakes.

and finally, the jihadis know full well all they have to do is wait it out...they are on "allahs time" and will dig in. we are on the american polital cycles time and so it goes.

i do believe that the demoncrats would sacrifice the greater good of this country to fortify their party's political position. there is no way in hell they will let W win a war....if they get a dem for prez in 08 they'll want to win then i guar-an-tee-ya.


Anonymous said...

Winning in Iraq will not win the war on "terrorism", which is a misconception. Terrorism is a frame of mind. Terrorists are hell bent on spreading terror among their perceived enemies. In this case they want to make us afraid of them. And well we should be. However, we need to help remove the reasons they can draw recruits from the "hopeless".

Here is a quote I borrowed from another blog. (Thanks, Peaches.)

A real war on terror would not involve guns or planes or bombs or soldiers. It would involve calming, soothing, cooing noises and a warm embrace rocking you gently. It would involve hot chocolate and a loving voice singing soft songs in your ear and telling you everything will be all right.

Andrew Weldon.

Last week, my coffee group, (retired military guys) discussed this very matter and concluded that the ideas cited above were the accurate way to deal with terrorism. And most of these guys are very conservative in their views of the world.

Just some thoughts.

K9 said...

/bark bark bark

jack thats great. but how is that actually applied?

we know the governments in question do not want hot chocolate and soft voices. they need poverty and poor or no education to advance their goals. when we send tons of money for do gooder operations it is mostly stolen and used to buy munitions and finance more of the same. they dont want a free people.

i agree terror has no nation state. but a demonstration of resolve has to happen somewhere. and it wont stop. i think americans need to understand this is going to be a long long slog.


K9 said...

/bark bark bark

jack: this guy can be peaches' first hot chocolate recipient!

AUSTRALIA’S controversial mufti Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilali said Australian Muslims are more entitled to the country than those with a convict heritage. ...

Speaking in Arabic on Egyptian television Sheik al-Hilali said, according to a Seven Network translation, that white Australians arrived in the country shackled as convicts.

“We (Muslims) came as free people. We bought our own tickets. We are entitled to Australia more than they are,” he said.



rusty shakelford said...

Bogs why are you relying on past military commanders advice? Wasn't it you who wrote:

"This war started bad and sloped downward at an exponential rate"

Suddenly in your eyes these people are respected military experts. This may be evidence that you are incapable of having an objective opinion on the war.

Didn't the democrats want change in Iraq? I know that is a vague term that no-one (including the Democrats) understands but once again without a viable alternative solution I see no reason for criticism.

Our President does not see failure as an option and the Democrats see failure as an excellent political opportunity. Once again we see how Democrats see the party as more important than the Country.

Karen said...

I asked an Iraqi in Najaf what he thought about this. This is what he said:

Jassim: I still believe in american
Karen: yes, many people are asking to force a full American exit from Iraq
Karen: what do you think would happen if the Americans were to leave now?
Jassim: even if I do not agre or understand USA government policy some times I respect soldiers
Karen: Bush is currently planning to send 21,500 troops
Jassim: because I know what they suffer too, I jusy hope them would take care of iraqis
Jassim: yes I know that
Jassim: if usa withdraown from Iraq every one will kill every one else
Jassim: it is like a civil war now but it will be official
Jassim: no one know what would happen exactly but every bad thing is possible
Jassim: may be arabic countries will attack us
Karen: is the Iraqi military part of the solution or part of the problem?
Jassim: Iran also
Jassim: both !!!
Jassim: no one can depend on them
Jassim: they are a wasting formoney
Jassim: for money
Jassim: like most of money spent in iraq
Jassim: just wasting
Jassim: most of it went to private pockets !!
Jassim: or to support militia
Jassim: political parties

More at:

In a previous conversation, he had this to say:
Jassim: but may be I say may be if USA government follow a new strategy it would make a differance
Karen: what kind of strategy?
Jassim: wel some thing like chasing terorists
Jassim: eleminating them
Karen: I thought that the Americans were already hunting terrorists
Jassim: support independent people in government not parties
Jassim: no
Jassim: they are bearly doing that
Jassim: it surprise you right ??
Karen: yes, it does
Jassim: I know
Karen: the whole reason for being in Iraq is supposed to be “The War on Terror”
Jassim: they are defending themselves but not attacking them effectively
Jassim: well in some how it changed
Karen: In the news, we are told that it is impossible for the Americans to tell the difference between terrorists and civilians. They are afraid to go after terrorists, because they might kill more innocent people.
Jassim: Bush strategy was to allow all terrorists to gather in Iraq instead of attacking USA then eliminate them but slowly
Jassim: no
Jassim: every one know where terrorists located
Jassim: even children
Karen: I definitely will need to tell others that
Jassim: so you see he used Iraq as a field for his war instead fighting on USA ground
Jassim: we pay for this strategy
Karen: have Iraqis told the American soldiers where to find the terrorists?
Jassim: yes
Jassim: I was involved in one of the hottest cases during my work
Jassim: it was what happened in …
Karen: would the civilian population support the Americans if they went after the terrorists?
Jassim: for months terrorists were entering fom borders in Seyria and gathering in this city
Jassim: killing Shia, bombing, prepare bombing cars
Jassim: american forces reported for months about this activities but they did nothing

more at:

Hellpig said...

Jack who ever said winning in Iraq would win the war on terrorism?

Terrorism is global,we still have syria and Iran and indonesia and malayasia and east timor and southern thailand and and and and and until every last Islamic terrorist is in hell sucking pigshit off allahs dick then and only then will the world live in your little utopia where poems fight wars for us,no offence but sounds to me like your military group are of the "don't ask don't tell variety"

I still say save the time energy cash and lives and just NUKE MECCA!

Karen I suggest you do some research and not rely on one of the "lefts" propaganda tools,and I say this because I have been to your site,you are in the sheehan camp which says it all,lol.but glad to see you stop by Bogs place dont be a stranger.

Pete Bogs said...

rusty - it's the Rumsfelds, Wolfowitzes, Cheneys and other architects of the war I have the main issue with... I am pointing out that Bush himself said he would rely on their direction; when they say don't escalate, all the sudden they are out of a job...

you are desperately trying to make this a Dems vs. Republicants thing, but it's not.. if you saw Condi's Senate appearance, there was little difference between her questions from the left and from the right... Dems don't want to lose for political advantage, because we all lose... we don't want to lose at all... we just know that what we are doing now is losing... there has been a viable alternative redeployment plan floated by the left, but the president would never lower himself to implement such a plan... apparently he cares more about politics than the security of the country...

karen - nice to see you again...

rusty shakelford said...

Lets call redeployment what is is, retreat. Enough with the euphemisms. If it was such a great idea the dems wouldn't have to market it with labels that suggest progress. Not turning back and going home.

The chances of the legitimate Iraq government taking and keeping control are very slim. A very good argument can be made for stay today so we will not have to go back tomorrow when the problem is much worse and we don't even have an Iraqi government to support us. I cant think of a good reason for retreat except for the Presidents political opponents future.

I didn't get the link but after searching their site it seems they think the answer is a "Diplomatic Surge" . Good luck with that. I just don't think a radical Muslim group what has no reservations with suicide bombing and killing children will take to a "Diplomatic Surge". Perhaps thats just a euphemism for protection money.

Pete Bogs said...

rusty - I can think of 3000+ and counting good reasons why we should redeployment... Americans shouldn't be dying for Iraq... it all comes back to 9/11 and Afghanistan... so why are they dying for Iraq?

Aunty Belle said...

Bawgs, honey, Americans shouldn't dyin' in DEtroit fer drugs, or Nikes, either...whar's the tear fer the 3000 and countin' Americans murdered at home each year? Been ter D.C. recently? Everybody counts, but 3000 is nuthin' like what we kill at home wif drugs, violence, AIDS, and.....transfats to fry yore french fries, er, American fries.

Pete Bogs said...

aunt b - FREEDOM fries, thank you... ;-)

Bird said...

JFK had it right - you can't force freedom,nor sell it. you have to model it - you have to be a role model of moral authority. we aren't doing that - not well enough, not nearly well enough. and that's what frustrastes me and angers me - because we could so easily be the role model and the moral authority - we do indeed have a great notion here. but we do not practice the ethics of our better angels - instead, we lie down with dogs (no offense intended there K9) and wonder why we get up with these wretched flea bites - gigantic ones now.

by the way, condi said it - it ain't a surge and it ain't escalation
it's agumentation. now what the heck does that really mean?

oh - and um - will we provide the apporpirate equipment for these 20,000 troops - or will they have to pay for their own kevlar?

the iraqis are none too pleased with this plan - they didn't want us there to begin with. we are occupiers, not liberators. our soliders start off wanting to help but quickly have to look at everyone as the enemy.

20,000 troops will do nothing. andit's quite conceivable that three times that number won't help now anyway. we needed more than what we started with way back at the beginning - if bush was gonna "suceed" at this midadventure, he should of gone full tilt on the shock and awe all the way. he didn't.

now we have this mess.

why is bush ignoring the baker-hamilton report?

yeah - pig- you got it right - bush isn't doing a very good job of explaining - but that's because he doesn't know how or doesn't have the brain power. he is lost. and what's to explain? military power isn't going to cut it in this situation. and besides, bush has broken our military - we don't have it. god help us if something really horrible realy happens. instead of telling us to go shopping, instead of giving welfare to corporations, why didn't bush ask us to SAVE and support and build up our military?

i'm with edwards on this surge. time to stop the flow of money. support the troops that are on the ground now, but no funds for this cock-a-maney surge. but that's not what congress and the senate will do. they'll fund it all right. cause if they don't- they'll get blamed for the loss. at least if they fund it - the blame will lie squarely on the repubs and bush's shoulders. in the meantime, how many of our young people will die? be maimed? blinded? have their brains splattered onto the sand? how many iraqi civilians will have the same? and for what? nothing. this surge won't help. waste of lives is all it is.

but how about that house, bogs?
i'm ticking off on my fingers all the work the house has done in the past week or so. amazing!

Pete Bogs said...

this frustrates me too, and it’s that consternos are using all this to bash the left… we are not practicing American values here, and we are not setting a very good example as the leaders of the free world… we can torture, so how can we say anyone else is wrong for doing so?

augmentation versus escalation versus surge sounds like semantics to me… augmentation doesn’t seem right – we’re not giving the troops bigger breasts…

the Kevlar will come from where it already has – families buying it on the net and sending it to the troops… who will then be prohibited from wearing that non-standard issue gear by their superiors…

the House is looking good… I am proud of their accomplishments… sadly, obstructionist Bush has his veto pen ready…