Or, to step it up a notch, do you think Iraq will be used as a launching pad into Iran as yet another political diversion for teh 2006 elections?
Nice post - Blog on brother.
Thomas, If as many people so publically hated me, as hate George Bush, I would quit trying. I would say it's not worth it to try.
How would you have fought terrorism, after 3,000 civilians were slaughered?
Or would you have dared to try?
Knowing all I know now about how those that attempt to fight terrorism are portrayed in the media, and treated by the left, if I had been Bush, I would have said.....Screw You, you don't like this plan, forget it.
President Bush knew that he would become a more hated man, than Bin Laden, in the leftist circles of America. Still, he tried. BUT
In my opinion, President Bush has quit trying. Why should he try?
Never in the history of our fine nation, has one man who tried to do so much for America, been treated so badly. Think about it. George Bush did not fly planes into the WTC. But you would think he had, listening to the virol hatred being spewed out by fat slobs living large in the USA.
I don't think anyone could have done any better trying to find and kill the ones who want to kill us, than GW.
BUT.....the media has won. They hate Bush, and he has quit. The human spirit can only take so much hatred before it shuts down, goes into a defensive mode. Me? I don't blame him one bit, for throwing in the towel. I would too. Take retirement, and let the Kennedys, Pelosi's and Bidens save us from the killers of Islam.
Hopefully you have prepared to fight the Islamafacist's in the streets of St. Louis.
The terrorist's will not stop killing us, even if we quit fighting them.
Thomas, I know your military training did not suggest to you, that the way to win a war, is to wait to see where and what your enemy will do.
Ponder this my friend.
Bush has thrown in the towel.
Let future history judge him.
I don't blame him for saying.
"OK, what's your plan to win???"
And the sad sad thing is, there has not been one suggestion of how to win this war against terror coming from the mouths of Kennedy, Pelosi, Byrd, Biden, or that loudmouth mentally deranged Dean.
It's only 3 years until Hillary gets to fight terrorism.
I can hardly wait.
Scary Stuff Mister Knapp
I have this fantasy life where, suddenly, as President Jay, I get to hand every Neocon chicken hawk and coward their own personalized invitation to serve national greatness out in the sand in Iraq.
The sad part is, of course that people who haven't been there, or don't know enough to go find old-timers who have been there will buy this meme
"we could have won, but for the press/liberals/politicians/easter bunny/santa claus/etc who undercut us at home."
As if killing more Iraqis more indiscriminantly would make them love democracy and the U.S. harder.
I guess the only valid response to this sort of thought process is "Okay, when do you ship out?"
sad.
But thank you for the enlightening and entertaining analysis, there Mister Knapp
Jay ~Meow!~
So, Mister Webloafer -
When do you ship out to go support Mister Bush?
Talk is cheap. Go pick up a rifle and act like you really mean it.
Jay ~Meow!~
webloafer,
As always, a detailed comment deserves a detailed reply:
-----
How would you have fought terrorism, after 3,000 civilians were slaughered?
-----
This is a question I've answered in detail elsewhere, but I'm not sure I've answered it on this blog. I'll check, and get back with you either with a link or a full-article response.
-----
Or would you have dared to try?
Knowing all I know now about how those that attempt to fight terrorism are portrayed in the media, and treated by the left, if I had been Bush, I would have said.....Screw You, you don't like this plan, forget it.
-----
This implies that Bush has been fighting, or trying to fight, terrorism. I've seen no evidence to suggest that that's the case.
----
President Bush knew that he would become a more hated man, than Bin Laden, in the leftist circles of America.
-----
Correction: In some leftist circles. Since his response to 9/11 was to adopt the a hard-left foreign policy (the Trotskyist "neoconservative" line), it's fairly obvious that he's not on the bad side of all leftists. What's surprising is that so many conservatives went hard-left with him (although not the paleos).
-----
Me? I don't blame him one bit, for throwing in the towel. I would too. Take retirement, and let the Kennedys, Pelosi's and Bidens save us from the killers of Islam.
-----
Are you by chance referring to the Kennedys, Pelosis and Bidens who ran the country for forty years with precisely ONE significant Muslim terror event on US soil (the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing?)
With that single exception, the major Islamist terror attacks on the US have all occurred since the GOP took over congress ... so if you want to open up the partisan aspects of it, sure -- let's do that.
-----
Hopefully you have prepared to fight the Islamafacist's in the streets of St. Louis.
-----
As a matter of fact, I am fully prepared to do so if necessary -- and Bush makes it look more and more likely to become necessary every day.
-----
The terrorist's will not stop killing us, even if we quit fighting them.
-----
I never suggested they would. As a matter of fact, I've suggested we START fighting them, instead of fighting everyone else.
-----
Thomas, I know your military training did not suggest to you, that the way to win a war, is to wait to see where and what your enemy will do.
-----
It also did not suggest that the proper response to Pearl Harbor would be to invade Ecuador.
-----
It's only 3 years until Hillary gets to fight terrorism.
-----
Presumably she is doing so right now as a Senator -- and I have little doubt that she'd do a better job at it than Bush as president. However, I consider it unlikely that she'll be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008, nor would I support her for the nomination or the presidency if she was.
Tom Knapp
The whole point of "the Leader principle" is that the self-designated sheep get to absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions, since they were merely 'submitting'. The upside for the leader is power, the downside is that the sheeple get to blame him and only him, to absolve themselves, if things go badly enough.
This is a very interesting development. I hadn't envisioned the possibility of a pro-war backlash against Bush, at least this quickly.
Well, then you simply haven't been keeping up with current events. I've been complaining about the laxity of our effort in Iraq for about two years now. I've always thought we were trying to be too delicate in Iraq, and have from the beginning.
So, it's kinda curious that you're acting like this is something new.
Some times a comment is better than the post. I'm linking up here and using your suggestion - howsabout fighting the terrorists rather than everyone else!
Well said. Let's start fighting some terrorists.
Yes, let's fight terrorists but let's be smart about it this time. Instead of invading countries, why not start something within. You can make a case and say Iraq wouldn't be the best country for a covert change of government, but Iran. Iran is ripe for the pickening. I am convinced that freedom and democracy require REVOLUTION in Iran.
IRAN AZADI
Dale,
"Complaining about the laxity of our effort" is not the same as attacking the president of the United States for the laxity of that effort. I admit that I don't follow your stuff as closely as I should (I only get by Q and O once or twice a day unless I'm following a comment thread I'm participating in), but I'm perceiving a shift of target ...
... and although I linked to Q and O in reference to that shift, that was more in terms of wanting to send some traffic your way than in terms of considering you the biggest exemplar of the trend. Q and O is a fairly successful blog (and deserves to be), but the shift I'm talking about is more prevalent in (and more influential coming from) The Weekly Standard and other GOP centers of polemic. The neocons (as opposed to the neolibs) have raised their sights. Instead of going after Powell, or after Rumsfeld, they're going after Bush.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
---"Complaining about the laxity of our effort" is not the same as attacking the president of the United States for the laxity of that effort.---
Well, I've been happy to attack the president for that laxity for a couple of years now. In the final analysis, he's the big guy--the one who can make it happen.
Our president has granted our military to go to war in Iraq without the adequate resources to win the war.
No big secret...the neocons are just looking NOW to find a reason to turn on him because we cannot win the war and they are realizing it.
CYA, neocons.
Snarl.
I admire GW more than I admire most of his constituents. LOL.
I truly would like to hang out with him at a southern bbq...and talk.
Commenting by HaloScan
