So who's part of the 29%? (1 Viewer)

Previous Next
The “wait until the classified information is released” argument that seems to be in vogue for some of the Dubya supporters is unfortunately nothing but wishful thinking. At some point reason and logic must trump fantasy. As a rhetorical device it’s clever because it allows them to escape engaging in a rigorous defense of the administrations dubious decisions vis-a-vis foreign policy. One thing is for darn sure and that’s that there will be no declassified information to explain Dubya and Rummy ignoring the advice of the military brass about initial troop numbers. Nor will there be any classified information that justifies the numerous breaches of the Constitution (cue the lame FDR and Lincoln arguments) in prosecuting the war. I venture to say there’ll be no classified information that’s released that exonerates the administration for not sufficiently equipping the troops. There’s an even smaller chance that super secret info is released that validates the negligent oversight of troop health/welfare after they’ve returned. The list is endless.

One must be a realist and look at the number and magnitude of the missteps. It’s really quite an achievement to be so consistently wrong. We’ve got military and political leaders who are saying out loud that this was a bad idea. Those who propagate “the future will vindicate them” hogwash are unfortunately deluding themselves. I aspire to that level of delusion. Think I’ll get started right now.

:beeer:
 
philipkw said:
unfortunately nothing but wishful thinking. At some point reason and logic must trump fantasy. As a rhetorical device it’s clever because it allows them to escape engaging in a rigorous defense of the administrations dubious decisions vis-a-vis foreign policy.
We’ve got military and political leaders who are saying out loud that this was a bad idea.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you here, especially what we've seen in Iraq and out of Pentagon/military sources over the past few weeks. It's as screwed up more than Hogan's goat. But the administration itself seems to have failed on so many fronts after 2004 that you're right--the list is endless. The liklihood for at least a partial vindication is nil.
 
The error here lies in assuming that anyone is seeking to vindicate the administration.

Sounding a note of caution and providing examples based on experiences within one's own lifetime when other posters request it is not delusional.

A realist would look at the examples provided in the past eight pages of the thread and see that.
 
I've been trying to figure if I should post this on a separate thread, or just tack it on here. Here is as good as any...I thought that Tony Blair's parting shot was quite interesting.

"It is so comforting to people to say there was an error made in the planning. Someone didn't spot what was going to go on," he told the House of Commons liaison committee, made up of all the chiefs the lower chamber's scrutiny bodies.

"That is not what has created the problem. What has created the problem is that the people we are fighting have decided to give us a problem.

"What they have decided is that if they can hang on long enough in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, or anywhere else, then we will lose the will."

"If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070618135430.yww0es69&show_article=1
 
Reading what Tony Blair says, I truly yearn for a President who can speak as elogantly as Mr. Blair, or John Majors for that matter. It is a flaw in our system, a failure to find a President who can speak eloquently yet directly as Tony Blair.
 
I count myself among the 29, but mostly out of pig-headedness. As a republican, I'm disappointed in GW, he'snot the president I'd hoped he'd be. As a conservative, I'm disappointed in the republican party. They've forgotten what conservativism is all about.
 
A thousand years ago everybody knew as a fact, that the earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on it. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.
- Agent K, Men In Black
 
dapperdan said:
Reading what Tony Blair says, I truly yearn for a President who can speak as elogantly as Mr. Blair, or John Majors for that matter. It is a flaw in our system, a failure to find a President who can speak eloquently yet directly as Tony Blair.
Click to expand...


While I agree that speaking with eloquence helps, PM Blair finds himself with failing poll numbers also. Thanks for the link. I will always remember Blair's eloquent address to Congress in 2003, and his explanation for why us, why now:

"As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible, but, in fact, it is transient.

The question is: What do you leave behind?

And what you can bequeath to this anxious world is the light of liberty.

That is what this struggle against terrorist groups or states is about. We're not fighting for domination. We're not fighting for an American world, though we want a world in which America is at ease. We're not fighting for Christianity, but against religious fanaticism of all kinds.

And this is not a war of civilizations, because each civilization has a unique capacity to enrich the stock of human heritage.

We are fighting for the inalienable right of humankind--black or white, Christian or not, left, right or a million different--to be free, free to raise a family in love and hope, free to earn a living and be rewarded by your efforts, free not to bend your knee to any man in fear, free to be you so long as being you does not impair the freedom of others.

That's what we're fighting for. And it's a battle worth fighting.

And I know it's hard on America, and in some small corner of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places I've never been to, but always wanted to go...

I know out there there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, "Why me? And why us? And why America?"

And the only answer is, "Because destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do."

And our job, my nation that watched you grow, that you fought alongside and now fights alongside you, that takes enormous pride in our alliance and great affection in our common bond, our job is to be there with you.

You are not going to be alone. We will be with you in this fight for liberty.

We will be with you in this fight for liberty. And if our spirit is right and our courage firm, the world will be with us."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/17/blair.transcript/
 
dapperdan said:
Reading what Tony Blair says, I truly yearn for a President who can speak as elogantly as Mr. Blair, or John Majors for that matter. It is a flaw in our system, a failure to find a President who can speak eloquently yet directly as Tony Blair.
Click to expand...
In their own styles, Clinton and Reagan were both effective if not eloquent communicators.

Bush...:covri:
 
BullDawg said:
In their own styles, Clinton and Reagan were both effective if not eloquent communicators.

Bush...:covri:
Click to expand...

I was thinking about both of those Presidents after I wrote what I wrote, and I agree with you, both were quite effective.

A quick story about Reagan. The moment I got hooked on politics was the summer of 1976. I remember sitting at home watching the Republican convention, I seem to remember that it was late July of '76, so I would've been nearly 14 at the time. After watching most of the convention, it was getting towards the end of the convention and there was little doubt that Ford was going to get the nomination. While there was little doubt, it wasn't yet official; and then Ronald Reagan spoke to the convention. I honestly can't remember the content of Reagan's speech, all I remember is that speech was the finest speech I'd ever witnessed. To this day, it remains the finest speech I've ever seen. By the end of Reagan speech, I remember thinking how obvious it was that the Republicans were going to nominate the wrong guy. For the life of me, I couldn't figure out how all these supposedly smart people couldn't see what I could see; that Reagan was a winner and that Ford was not going to win anything. If you ever want to see a great political speaker, watch those old tapes of Reagan from the '76 Republican convention.

Anyway, maybe it's something inherent with the English educational system, or their mastery of the language, but the English leaders always seem so eloquent. Thatcher, Majors, Blair, all were extremely well spoken. Maybe it's just that after 7 years of listening to Bush mangle the english language, staring blankly into the camera, watching him limp along politically barely hanging on, maybe it's just a sign that I'm ready for 2008 and whatever changes that come with a new President.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Previous Next

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

    Share this page

    Twitter

    Back
    Top Bottom