Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
I agree with you on this. The Bush administration has been the worst at PR on all aspects. When Karen Hughes took over things went from bad to worse, in my opinion. She's way too sympathetic to Islam, for one thing. Too afraid to offend.
This will be a nice change in the right direction.
Yes it will be and about time.
It has been my major complaint about how the war in media has been fought from our administration and I am glad to see them fixing it.
The questions of al Qaeda's use of media and the Internet have been no secret, even from the "so-called" mainstream media outlets. Almost from the outset, it has been covered by the Counterterrorism Blog (based on media knowledge).
But anyway...
From the beginning this war has been about perceptions. The only possible way we can lose is to have the American people demand that we leave. The only way the American people would do that would be if they truly saw no reason to fight either the war or AQ.
The leftist media in this country has been fighting this war since the beginning, and only in the last few months has the Bush administration realized that the true front has always been here, on the American media stage. Our fighting men and women were always able to handle things on the ground in Iraq. But to do so they need a clear goal, a clear strategy to achieve that goal, and clear support from the homefront.
The war on the ground we have been winning. The war on the airwaves and across the internet we have not been doing as well with.
The worst part of all of this is that an entire political party in this country has invested itself in our defeat. They have traded their souls and their country in for ephemeral political power. They have banded together to preserve this fleeting power by doing everything they can to bring about America's defeat....and they have drafted millions of Americans to help them.
While I'm more than grateful that the Bush administration finally realizes we're at war, they still have yet to openly deal with the enemy so plainly among us. 2008 may be the last chance we have to do so.
Well if Bush-bashing is not tolerated, then opinions are not welcome, contrary to your post. We need to start over with an new administration, whether it be Democratic or Republican; it just can't be Bush. He needs to go.
Only for people that do not know how to have a civilized conversation and find the need to bash.
I just criticized him, but didn't have the need to bash.
Some of us know how to speak without ranting like a fool.
You are MORE than welcome to bash Martin Lewis over on my "Stupid Virus" thread, if you wish, Kaye.
That's been highly amusing.
So am I Lightwave. Many are too full of BDS to be able to be rational and acknowledge the good he has done for our economy AND in keeping us safe.
LOL Hawk, they only feel the need to bash Bush, NOT to have a rational conversation.
OH
well
Never mind, then.
Are you pretending to be rational? Is this a good trip?
Considering WE weren't the ones complaining that they couldn't "bash" Bush, yeah, we are rational. We back up our facts with links, data and documentations while all you acn give is opinion.
Have a good night. There are plenty of sites where you can bash away, head on back to Daily Kos, you will fit right in.
"When a liberal cries 'not fair' it's because they've been beaten according to the rules, and the rules MUST be wrong since they lost."
That's one of mine, by the way...
You've crossed the line, mark, and that mouth has earned you a ban.
Ciao.
Hawk
Edited By Siteowner
As long as we have a strategy going in Iraq we won't run. Yes, people are tired of the bad news we hear day after day , I know that, and I feel very bad about it as well.. It goes on and on without sign of ending and with very little if any progress But now there are some signs of us kicking ass So i think that we are on the right track. Lets see the report next month.
It will be interesting to read the report and later see how the MSM tries to spin it.
Despite the euphoria about progress it seems that the civilian death toll across the country is actually running at twice the level it was a year ago (about 66 a day versus 33). The reality seems to be we have reduced the level of violence in a few pockets as a result of putting a lot more troops and securing certain areas and by buying the loyalty of some Sunni militias with cash and guns. I have no problem with bribing folks if it stops them shooting at us but there is no escaping the contradiction that these Sunni militias are opposed to the predominantly Shiite govt we are trying to bolster so in the longer term it seems a highly suspect maneuver. The overall consequence seems to be that violence has simply moved elsewhere. Meanwhile on the political front which after all was supposed to be the point of all this, nothing has happened, in fact things seem to have got worse. So what we've got is maybe a bit of tactical improvement in places but no real strategic change. In spite of all the bluster above this doesn't look like a formula for success to me. Moving to the domestic political front it's obvious Bush is going to try and run out the clock and it also looks like the Republicans are going to join him in going into 08 with the continuation of the war as a major issue. This seems a formula destined to ensure the election of Clinton to me but I'm sure many here wouldn't agree. Unfortunately, they are as much in denial about this as they are about the strategic situation in Iraq. They seem to prefer simplistic bluster and turning snapshots into motion pictures. The reality is about two thirds of the country thinks this is a disaster and wants to wrap it up. With this war around the Republican neck next year they are going to suffer one of the greatest electoral defeats in US history.
I take great pride in the efforts of our men and women in Iraq. I would readily believe that the 'surge' IS making a difference. We have won the military battle and proven the strength and resilience of our armed forces. I would likely support keeping our troops in Iraq IF Iraq gave a darn. This whole issue is being played as a "don't pull the rug out from under the troops". When do we say enough is enough? The Iraqi parliament went on vacation, in the MIDST of the surge. Right during the most critical moment for progress. It is clear that they have no intention of ever solving their political issues. They were given an ultimatum by Congress and basically said "whatever". How many more of Americans must die or sacrifice for a regime that has places no value on these deaths? If they want us to remain, as is being promoted, then let's do just as Sen. Warner suggests. Let's withdraw some troops and call their bluff.
Chris, I want you to do something for me here.
Call this a homework assignment.
Other than the actual declaration of war itself, where in the chain of command of our nations military can you find any congressmen or senators?
If you cannot state an opinion in a civil manner, or your parents didn't teach you the difference between debate, discussion and bashing, then head on over to Daily Kos where they allow bashing.
.
Edited By Siteowner
If you cannot state an opinion in a civil manner, or your parents didn't teach you the difference between debate, discussion and bashing, then head on over to Daily Kos where they allow bashing.---spree
.
Edited By Siteowner
I just wrote a blog today very fitting and similar to this one. This is the part I wanted to post here.
There are many of us that claim President Bush inherited most of what we've been going though the ineptness of Bill Clinton, Maddie Albright, Janet Reno and Al Gore. and that bunch Clinton did nothing after the first WTC attack and the attack on the USS Cole amongst others to fight terrorism. He missed the Islamic threat completely! Attacks all over the world, Clinton did basically zilch, but just enough to antagonize OBL into declaring war against us, twice. Clinton ignored it and Bush paid for it.
But at least Bush knows who the enemy is and he's fighting to keep America secure. We know that there hasn
’t been any attacks on our soil since 9/11. And we know there has been countless amounts tries that were foiled before they got off the ground. We are supposed to give credit to the likes of Jimmy Carter and give him one of the most respected awards in the world, the Nobel Prize, When he was by far the worst President we ever had
In the years since terrorists attacked us on 911, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled Al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 800,000 of his own people and killed both of his miserable Sons. Perhaps that will be his legacy
Well said DD2
Hawk,
For the record, I do not need ANYONE to give me homework in the Constitution of the United States. I take great pride the document that is the essence of this nation.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress broad authority over the military. You are correct, that they have no 'chain of command' of the troops at war. However, the President's role is STRICTLY carrying out the will of Congress. Congress defines the mission (declares war, issues letters of marque...etc), the President carries it out. This is a concept that has been eroded continuously over the last 50 years with the concept of the imperial President. Quoting section 8
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
The ultimatum was to start showing Congress progress on specific items or Congress would reduce funding for this action. Hawk, it is clearly within the purview of Congress to limit the resources for any military action. The Commander in Chief must operate within the financial constraints placed on him/her by Congress.
Now, Hawk, what surprises me, is your question. I am not really quite sure where its origin comes from except to question Congress' authority to fund the military actions in Iraq. My comment was directed at the Iraqis. It has nothing to do with Congress. It is American blood that is being spilled in Iraq. There is no impetus from the Iraqi parliament to do anything. What difference does it make to them if it is our blood and our treasure that is being spilled in the sands of Iraq? It makes no difference to them. Not until they are faced with consequences for their inaction, will they do anything. I am sorry to say this, but it is high time that the Iraqis take responsibility for their own future. Our military has done EVERYTHING that has been asked of them. My hat goes off to them, and they should return proudly and honorably.
I'll definitely agree that the Iraqi's have to take charge of their future and their destiny. To that end, a people that is unaccustomed to doing so have to be given a little more latitude in learning HOW to govern themselves, wouldn't you think?
Our own government is based upon precepts established in England long before our ancestors ever set foot on the shores of our own nation. Our ancestors, our forefathers, were "hard wired" for liberty. It was the next logical step for us to take when we broke away from Mother England.
The Middle East doesn't have that background. The entire concept, the entire process, is new to them.
WE OURSELVES underwent two forms of government in our earliest stages. We rid ourselves of the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitution. But again, our forefathers were better versed in these concepts.
Can we deny a fledgling government the helping hand that they so desperately need?
I beg to differ with you on this, Hawk. Who are we to define what order a people should live under? Ancient history originated IN the Fertile Cresent (Iraq). I would agree that they have no concept of democracy or liberty for that matter. 'Civilization' arose in the Fertile Crescent. Their concept of liberty and 'government' is just as foreign to us as ours is to them. It is not a mission I want to take, nor is it possible to force democracy on a people that do not want/understand it. The best we can do is act as a shining example of democracy and freedom. To stand as a beacon for all peoples so that as they mature, they can CHOOSE democracy.
Lend a hand, most certainly. Prop up a non-structured morass, no. I think of the current situation in Iraq like an amorphous jellyfish. We can prop it up in Bagdad, we can prop it up in Anbar, and yet we can not force it take shape, without the will of the people (and their government). I take certain hope in the recent dialogue that it is time for the leadership in Iraq to change. It may even be a less than ideal democracy (look at Pakistan, for example), but there MUST be a leader in Iraq that has the courage, strength and resolve to lead. Without these men in our past, we would not exist. We can not hope to be the forefathers of a stable Iraq. That will require someone from within.
Respectfully,
Commenting by HaloScan
