February 3, 2007

Bush says the war is "sapping our soul."

He was speaking in a closed meeting of House Democrats. And before the press was shunted out:
He said disagreeing with him over the war — as many in the room do — does not mean "you don't share the same sense of patriotism I do."

"You can get that thought out of your mind, if that's what some believe," the president said. "These are tough times, but there's no doubt in my mind that you want to secure this homeland as much as I do."...

Bush said, "We don't always agree. That's why we're in different parties. But we do agree about our country. We do agree about the desire to work together and I really appreciate you letting me come by. I felt welcomed."...

"I listened to many members here, I listened to members of my own party, I listened to the military and came up with a plan that I genuinely believe has the best of succeeding," the president said....

"I do know we agree on some things and that is that the Maliki government is going to have to show strong leadership," Bush said. "There's benchmarks that they have got to achieve."...

The president also had a little fun at his own expense, hoping it would prove his willingness to find bipartisan consensus. His reference in his State of the Union address to their party as the "Democrat majority" — as opposed to the "Democratic majority" — caused grumbling and offense and he sought to make up for it.

"Now look, my diction isn't all that good," Bush said to laughter. "I have been accused of occasionally mangling the English language. And so I appreciate you inviting the head of the Republic Party."
Come on, even if you hate Bush, you have to admit that he handled that well. On the other hand, the war is sapping our soul.

IN THE COMMENTS: Meade wonders if Bush really said "sapping our soul." There were a lot of people there. If he didn't say that, I think we'll hear what he really said. To me, it seems that in the open part of the meeting, he reached out and clearly said that he's not blaming the war opponents for undermining morale. Then, in the closed session, there was more talk. I suspect that at some point, he said that morale was in fact undermined. If he said "sapping our soul," he -- it seems likely -- meant just that. Rather than view him as having made some devastating, tragic confession, we should probably credit him with sticking to his point of stirring up concern about the war without blaming anybody. What does this man have to do to get some support?

42 comments:

Tim said...

Yes, sapping our soul seems a reasonable enough description. Too bad the soul-sapping comes from our own doubt and irresolution to win, rather than the enemy actually defeating us, which, truth be told, he cannot do unless we let him. Too bad, again, so many are in a hurry to let him win.

Meade said...

"Sapping our soul" may not have been exactly what he said. It was a closed meeting. Anonymous sources reported that phrase.

Regardless, I'll bet he meant "spirit" or "energy" instead of "soul." After all, he himself will probably admit to not being the most... articulate guy in the White House.

Cedarford said...

There is evidence that as the Left drags Bush down, they are not getting a boost of their own. It seems to be the politics of mutual destruction. The politics of personal destruction as expressed in Iraq - seem to be sapping the country's soul for what is a war with major expense but historically light casualties compared to real wars in our past that did not "sap our souls" but invigorated us.

Part of it, of course, is the constant negativity and anti-American ethos of the NY Times, which is then picked up and magnified by other media venues.

And signs exist that whatever destruction they accomplish on Bush is Pyrrhic.

Besides Air America's failure, the NY Times stock is down 40% in a go-go marhet where other media values are soaring. They took a 860 million loss on restructuring and writing off non-performing assets.

Then two days ago, the wealthy Sulzbergers pulled their money out of Morgan Stanley because one of their Advisors urged ending Sulzberger management of the NY Times and Pinch Sulzberger's leftist overpoliticization.

. (Morgan Stanley (Charts) had been the longtime custodian of the family's assets, including its stake in the Times company - which, based on recent share prices, is worth close to $640 million.) Hassan Elmasry is in charge of Morgan Stanley's American and Global Franchise Strategies Portfolio, an $11.5 billion investment fund that owns about 7.6 percent of the Times' nonvoting shares. The stock, now around $24, is down nearly 40 percent over the past two years. His response: a proposal that the company eliminate its dual shareholder structure, which he believes fails to provide adequate oversight of management.

THe Sulzbergers, with 19% of the NY Times equity, set up 2-tier stock class where the Sulzbergers have all the votes - contained only in Class A shares Family members have. The class B shares the public has have limited vote in matters where their equity is directly used for financing acquisitions, etc. but no votes on management.

Hassan seeks to unify other large class B shareholders to force the end of the NY Times being used to advance the personal politics of Pinch Sulzberger, something the Sulzberger Family traditionally has not endorsed in other family members running the newspaper. The idea is that Pinch's crusade against Bush, Iraq, Christians, etc. is outside proper management and a proper matter for Class B voters and safeguarding their equity and unless Pitch is moved out, shareholder battles to save equity are possible, inc. Class action lawsuits against the Class A stockholders.

Should be real interesting to see what sort of sailing the Flagship of the Left is in for in the next few years.

vbspurs said...

Come on, even if you hate Bush, you have to admit that he handled that well.

The only reason the Bush Administration refuse to admit they're wrong more often, is that like President Clinton's term in office, it's a presidency under seige.

The difference is that President Clinton (who refused point-blank to admit wrongdoing on any number of occasions, not the least of which is Cigargate, but also the lead up to 9/11) at least, nominally, is a liberal, and therefore somewhat protected by the intelligentsia.

But Bush? From day one, certain people, important people, people with their finger on the pulse of America, have had their daggers out for him. They hate Bush, and nothing that he will say and do, will change that.

Why give these people ammo?, that's what he and his advisers think, that's for sure.

On the other hand, the war is sapping our soul.

I have to hear him say it, because this doesn't sound like him.

Maybe he said that coverage on the war, is sapping our soul, or that the agendas people have about the war (including his own, of course) are sapping our soul.

But that's it.

Cheers,
Victoria

Kirby Olson said...

It's a boxing match that has to end in a knockout of Al Qaeda or Bush. But the left would GLADLY tie Bush's shoelaces together AND one hand behind his back even though we'll all die if they do it. They don't care. They don't want him to win. That's the only concern. They would rather that there's no country left to govern than that the conservatives be able to govern it.

PatCA said...

"What does this man have to do to get some support?"

Announce an immediate surrender in Iraq. Then the Dems will demand a blitzkreig to victory.

C.J.Colucci said...

"What does this man have to do to get some support?"

Deserve it.

somefeller said...

"But Bush? From day one, certain people, important people, people with their finger on the pulse of America, have had their daggers out for him. They hate Bush, and nothing that he will say and do, will change that."

Are you implying that Bush is different from Bill Clinton in this respect? I would suggest to you that important people, people with their pulse on the finger of America had their daggers out for Bill Clinton from day one also (I was a Republican in those days -- part of a misspent youth -- and certainly saw that up close and personal). To claim otherwise is naive at best, and I certainly hope you aren't claiming that.

Anyway, it was nice of him to come by for the retreat. I hope he got a baseball hat, t-shirt or some other good souvenir for attendance.

Zeb Quinn said...

... the left would GLADLY tie Bush's shoelaces together AND one hand behind his back even though we'll all die if they do it. They don't care. They don't want him to win. That's the only concern.They would rather that there's no country left to govern than that the conservatives be able to govern it.

They don't think that a US led by conservatives is a country worth saving.

vbspurs said...

Are you implying that Bush is different from Bill Clinton in this respect?

Yes, although you could at least credit me with acknowledging that President Clinton was as targeted about his person, than is President Bush.

Many Conservatives won't do so, which is patently wrong, and serves no purpose but to self-flagellate themselves about how poor President Bush is misunderstood.

The fact of the matter is, every President is misunderstood, has his decisions second-guessed, and certainly has been targeted for death.

What makes the vitriol towards Bush is, like the one aimed toward FDR, Reagan, and Nixon, it is purely ideological.

I would suggest to you that important people, people with their pulse on the finger of America had their daggers out for Bill Clinton from day one also (I was a Republican in those days -- part of a misspent youth -- and certainly saw that up close and personal). To claim otherwise is naive at best, and I certainly hope you aren't claiming that.

I said yes, but it refers to the type of people who have their daggers out for each man.

One, the media/popular entertainment and art/academia/counterculture activists.

The other businessmen/lobbies, religious leaders/conservative activists.

The first, is much more in your face than the latter -- which is behind the scenes because of their very nature is not to protest publicly.

It's a visceral difference, which you can say anything about, but you can't deny its impact on our national stage.

Cheers,
Victoria

vbspurs said...

They don't think that a US led by conservatives is a country worth saving.

I've used my phrase to describe this before, but...

It's because progress, for some people, is inconceivable without progressives leading it.

Cheers,
Victoria

reality check said...

He handled that well? For four years (including this very week) he's been saying people that disagreed with him were appeasing the terrorists, were emboldening the terrorists, were making the country weaker, were cut and runners, wanted to see the country fail....

Now that he's a lame duck, with incredibly low approval ratings, he claims he has changed his tune.

And you say, that he has handled this well.

Ann, I found your warhol picture in the dictionary, it's next to the word "shill."

vbspurs said...

Deserve it.

No, earn it.

The difference is existential, and therefore, all-important.

Cheers,
Victoria

Simon said...

"What does this man have to do to get some support?"

Be the alternative to an even less-acceptable candidate on theother side, to judge from 2000 and 2004.

monkeyboy said...

For four years (including this very week) he's been saying people that disagreed with him were appeasing the terrorists, were emboldening the terrorists, were making the country weaker, were cut and runners, wanted to see the country fail....

Now I ahven't been paying attention but got link?

While I may beleive this, I don't recall the President saying it.

AJ Lynch said...

My My- as dumb as the Dems believe Bush to be, it would seem he is the only one looking at the big picture. But could he be so dumb as to dare to use the word "soul" in a room full of Democrats?

BTW, it should make all of us sick that our Congress has wasted the last 4 weeks hemming and hawing about resolutions to withdraw support for a president's war plans.

Invisible Man said...

BTW, it should make all of us sick that our Congress has wasted the last 4 weeks hemming and hawing about resolutions to withdraw support for a president's war plans.

That's really rich! I mean Iraq was just bliss before those Democrats took office and wasted all of our time as the Republicans during the previous 200+ weeks made sure that the war was going so swimmingly.

And Ann, you can't be serious that a President who has REPEATEDLY accused critics of the war as appeasers and sympathizers now makes a trip, a speech and we are now supposed to sing kumbaya. Talk about Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations. The Democrats weren't the ones questioning people's patriotism, that's Bush, his administration and its followers as evidenced by the previous posts in this thread. He poisoned this debate and he will have to do a little more than a simple speech to deserve the respect that he has yet to be willing to give.

DCWilly said...

Ann: Your incredulity that more people aren't supporting the President is amazing. You would really benefit from reading "Fiasco" and "State of Denial" (both best sellers) to find out why people (inlcuing Republicans) have abandoned him. And before your or someone in your pro-war hit squad bemoans mainstream journalism's treatment of the war, Woodward's prior GWB hagiography insulates him from any charge of being reflexively anti-Bush, and John McCain's strong endorsement of "Fiasco" makes clear this is no left-wing indictment.

The point is, Ann, you are so willfuly blind to how mis-managed the war was and is, that you can't seem to fathom that some people are skeptical of Bush's current pronouncements about it......

Jimmy said...

The reason Bush has low approval ratings is because he has been doing a bad job.

Look around the world, American power is receding and Chinese, Russian and Iranian power is increasing.

The war in Iraq has not improved our national security.

Despite leftwing opposition Bush has had a free hand in pushing his agenda on this country.

The right needs to deal with the bad consequences of their ideas which have been enacted into law. Instead the right is tossing around insignificant red herrings. "The left is negative", "Democrats are cowards", "NYTIMES is biased", "Domestic legislation isn't getting enough committee time before the votes", yada yada yada.

The main issue is the Iraq War. It was begun by George Bush, totally funded, and managed by his administration and it is going badly.

That Liberal Democrat X made some snarky remark about Bush is not important.

Seven Machos said...

I think Bush is in some ways happy to be part of a split government. That's the way it was for him in Texas, and it seems to have served him well. I don't think the ostensibly conservative majority in Congress was very effective, or very united around being conservative.

That said, I don't think Bush is very conservative. Historians are going to look back at the era from 1992 to 2008 and they are going to see these see major legislative enactments: NAFTA, substantial repeal of welfare, federal money pouring into failing local schools, and simply enormous subsidies for elderly people buying drugs. Will they really look at Bush as conservative and Clinton as liberal?

Finally, you need only to breeze through the comments above to see why Bush can't build any bipartisan agreement. Left-liberals are committed to seeing the Bush administration fail. And if that means losing an important battle in the Long War on Terror, well, it's worth the price.

Sloanasaurus said...

The war in Iraq has not improved our national security.

If so, why haven't we been attacked in America since 9-11? Since, you don't have being attacked as a fact to base your statement on, what facts do you rely on?

Prior to the Iraq war, four rogue nations were aggressively pursuing nukes. Three of them were able to fund their programs through oil wealth. After the fall of Saddam, only two of the four remain... Iran and North Korea, and only one, Iran, has any economic means.

Sloanasaurus said...

At the beginning of the war on terror, when asked how the people could sacrifice in fighting it, Bush responded that they may have to sacrifice a bit of their souls.

Apparently, the majority of the country is unwilling to sacrifice.

We sit here in times that are the most prosperous ever to exist in the history of human civilzation and we live in the most prosperous nation to have ever existed. Today in 2007, the citizens of the United States are better off than the citizens of any society in history.

Yet, we can't even stand to fight a small war with the noble goal to spread freedom. How pathetically weak we are.

Sloanasaurus said...

At the beginning of the Iraq war, I think Bush expected to eventually lose the paleo-conservative but retain support from some Liberals. The war is partly a liberal crusade, and the votes in congress (25 dems voting for the war in the Senate hinted towards this). However, Bush did not realize that the liberals hated Bush more than they cherished wilsonian ideology. We know this to be true because a sizable group of liberals support action in Darfor and wanted action in Rwanda; the same groups also supported action in Bosnia. Yet these liberals oppose the war in Iraq. Why? It's almost entirely because they don't want Bush to win the war. It's sad, but politics are politics, and humans are humans.

I think Bush is wrong to cozy with some of the dems by referring to their patriotism. Many of these dems are not patriots - they are selfish brutes.

During the war of 1812, the anti-war types (the federalist party) called themselves patriots also (while they actively worked against the efforts). Ten years later the party ceased to exist, largly because when the dust fell, people saw opposition to the war as unAmerican.

Democrats of today will have to work hard to explain to a new 18 year old voter 10 years from now why they were willing to surrender to the enemy and why such bitter partisan opposition was not disloyal or unAmerican. The new 18 year old voter will have the luxury of not knowing hatred for Bush - without the hatred, the argument becomes more tenuous.

Invisible Man said...

We know this to be true because a sizable group of liberals support action in Darfor and wanted action in Rwanda; the same groups also supported action in Bosnia. Yet these liberals oppose the war in Iraq. Why? It's almost entirely because they don't want Bush to win the war. It's sad, but politics are politics, and humans are humans.

What about lying about reasons to go to war is a liberal vision? Your revisionist history about this war completely distorts your point. This war wasn't a humanitarian effort. This was a war of choice based on trumped up facts about Saddam's capabilities of "mushroom clouds" in the US and ties to the attacks of 9/11. The goal of intervention in Rwanda and Bosnia was to spare millions of lives. This war hasn't spared Iraqi lives, its cost them and this includes the fact that Saddam has killed many of his people. The humanitarian aspect of this war, doesn't hold up when you consider the civil war that we have helped create. If Bush's goal was some liberal goal of trying to help the Iraqi people, he's done about as piss poor of a job as was possible.

Seven Machos said...

Invisible -- What was the U.S. war on Iraq between 1991 and 2002 that was the obvious proximate cause of the deaths of thousands of Iraqis? Was that a humanitarian effort "to spare millions of lives"? Are more or fewer Iraqis dying now as the result of sectarian violence and American military efforts than died when Clinton was president?

Do you seriously argue that our military efforts in Bosnia did not cause many, many civilian deaths? If so, you prove yourself to be a fool.

Who are the people deluding themselves?

Peter Palladas said...

It's a boxing match that has to end in a knockout of Al Qaeda or Bush.

Not, to my mind, the best of analogies with its implications of a 'clean fight' under Queensbury Rules etc.

But if one allows the metaphor, then you have to say Bush et al. turned up in the wrong ring completely. Al Qaeda weren't a potent force in Iraq until the war gave them their great opportunity to appear there for a title bout.

Keeping Saddam was the safest means of excluding Al Qaeda from Baghdad and environs. He may have been a monster, but he was your/our monster for decades.

Kept Iran occupied, held his own country together like a particularly vicious Tito. A Sunni leader to counter-balance other Shia states. Made a big blooper in invading Kuwait, but soon shunted back in his box and no doubt amazed he wasn't pursued as he retreated North. Allowed long since to massacre Iraqi Kurds without anyone in the West lifting a fat finger, except to provide more weaponry. Post-Kuwait the Marsh Arabs rise in revolt expecting, believing in, depending on, Western support that never came. They too were slaughtered and we did nothing other than to encourage them to die.

Then suddenly, after years of ineffectual 'sanctions', he's the 'enemy' in this so-called 'war on terror' (might just as well conduct a 'war on cancer' with tanks), with false and spurious accusations that he had had a part in 9/11, and that he was was just waiting for the right missile parts to arrive before nuking Israel/Cyprus[we Brits being there]/Iran/UK/USA anywhere else you care to mention.

That simply wasn't true. Repeat NOT TRUE FOLKS. Wrong frigging fight altogether.

What is there now left to win? Sufficient reduction in the mutual slaughter of Sunnis and Shias to allowing a Nixonite withdrawal a la Vietnam - 'peace with honour'? A few more troops, Petraeus does a Patton, the 'enemy' crushed and you/we can all go home?

And what do we find now at home? Half the young Muslims in this country [UK] now actively supporting terror, bombs on the London Underground, plans to kidnap, torture and then decapitate a British Muslim soldier on the Internet. Radicalised, revitalised White and Asian racism. 'Paki bashing' given a new political meaning and purpose. An Asian taxi driver beaten and kicked to death by White youths. 150 Black, Asian and White youths fighting a pitched battle with bottles, knives and sticks not a mile from my home - as dull a suburb as you could ever wish to see. (That was no 'boxing match', it was a riot of hatred.)

We are seething with fear and loathing. We are being torn apart.

That's the poisonous sap in the soul.

Bissage said...

We've got one of these in the backyard almost every day. We’ve also got one of these. The two seem to get along just fine. No great surprise there.

Now where was I? Oh yes, sapping souls, . . . , sapping souls.

These be the times that ensappens men’s suckers, ehn dayah.

Yeah, that’s the ticket.

bearbee said...

What does this man have to do to get some support?

An earlier thread on Roosevelt political cartoons had some interesting ones relating to the war, expressing sentiments that seem to ring true today. They provide some perspective on today's political divisiveness. Circumstances might differ but truculent attitudes will endure as long as we have *thank God* a two party system. They also impress upon me on how much damn hard work it is to be president.

Roosevelt to blame
Home Fires
Fear Roosevelt not Hitler
Divided we fall

These aren't war related but interesting nonetheless:

Apropos the recent 'surge' vote.
Senate Foreign Relations
Same ole divisiveness
Harmony
Another country's view of us.
Dressing up

Paco Wové said...

He may have been a monster, but he was your/our monster for decades.

P. Palladas - I see this claim again and again, without attribution, all over the internet, but I see precious little support for it. Aside from minor support in the early-to-mid '80s, for the purpose of sticking it to Iran, in what way was Saddam 'our/your' monster? He was the USSR's and France's monster, if anyone's.

Freder Frederson said...

At the beginning of the war on terror, when asked how the people could sacrifice in fighting it, Bush responded that they may have to sacrifice a bit of their souls.

When on earth did he say that?

Are more or fewer Iraqis dying now as the result of sectarian violence and American military efforts than died when Clinton was president?

More

Do you seriously argue that our military efforts in Bosnia did not cause many, many civilian deaths?

Are you serious? We went into Bosnia as peacekeepers and never fired a shot in anger. I hope you meant Kosovo, where you are right, dropping bombs from 30,000 feet to spare our pilots any possibility of being shot down did cause unnecessary civilian deaths, but did stop a much greater slaughter.

Freder Frederson said...

Prior to the Iraq war, four rogue nations were aggressively pursuing nukes.

Please. We know now that Saddam's programs were non-existent and Libya was negotiating to end its WMD programs regardless. To tie the success of years of careful negotiation with Libya (going all the way back to the presidency of Bush's father) to George Jr's. little adventure in Iraq is to diminish the efforts of many people and countries.

bearbee said...

... in what way was Saddam 'our/your' monster? He was the USSR's and France's monster, if anyone's.

Then why in 1998 did the United States conduct air strikes on Iraq?

Air Stikes on Iraq

Paco Wové said...

Ummm, Bearbee, your question strikes me as a complete non sequitur. We conducted airstrikes "...to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors", as the link says. Do you mean to imply that our conducting airstrikes on Iraq somehow proves that Saddam was our creature? What am I missing here?

monkeyboy said...

P> Pallas, you can either condemn the lack of action to support the Kurds, or the current war, not both.

If the left believes that Saddam was keeping the wogs in line, then why demand support for the marsh arabs? You cannot hve it both ways.

bearbee said...

"...strikes me as a complete non sequitur."

Yer correct......should have taken the time and read more thoroughly.....

Cedarford said...

Jimmmy - Instead the right is tossing around insignificant red herrings. "The left is negative", "Democrats are cowards", "NYTIMES is biased"

But all those are indeed true, Jimmy. Democrats are indeed cowards peeing in their panties about "unbearable losses of our hero troops that we cannot endure as a nation" when in truth casualties are orders of magnitude lighter than in any previous war, in proportion to our population. The Left is negative about everything except their passion for enemy rights and liberties. The NYTimes HAS waged a battle Al-Jazeera would have been proud of.

Jimmy - The main issue is the Iraq War

No, only to the Left. America is a complicated superpower with a host of major issues and problems it is trying to deal with. Part of our decline HAS been Bush making Iraq the main issue occupying his attention while America declines on a host of other fronts. Iraq is a shitty little war involving only 1/2000th of our population at any given time, and with 2.1 million American deaths a year, 600 troop deaths is tragic, but absorbed in the death pool without a statistically meaningful ripple except to hysterical Lefties who don't honestly care if soldiers live or die...they care they may have to fight oneday and risk their own asses. 60 times more Americans are killed by medical errors each year than have been lost in combat since 2002.

Peter Palladas - And what do we find now at home? Half the young Muslims in this country [UK] now actively supporting terror

That is not because of Iraq. It is because they hate infidels and sense much of the British male population are weak poofters obsessed with enemy rights and liberties and thus easily intimidated and pushed around by Mujuhadeen holy warriors until the UK is theirs.

And will continue to be a problem until they are beaten down into being civil or Europe chucks their sappy suicidal human/enemy rights laws and either straightens the Islamoids up or ships all the radical Islamoids back to the Ummah (along with Lefty lovers of Jihadis) when the battle for Europe becomes existential.

The longer Europe waits to address the cancer within, the harder and bloodier the fight will be. We have seen how well groveling and appeasement of Muslim radicals demands has worked out in the UK.

Freder Frederson said...

Part of our decline HAS been Bush making Iraq the main issue occupying his attention while America declines on a host of other fronts.

You can blame the pansy left and the homosexual Europeans (maybe that is why their birthrate is so low) all you want, but please don't tell me that the Bush Administration or the right HAS (emphasis yours) been making Iraq the main issue. Sure he talks tough and gets Cheney to pop up and spout his delusions once in a while, but Bush has never once, for all his talk, acted like the war in Iraq or the war on terror in general is the struggle of a generation. At every turn, he has consciously avoiding requiring, or even requesting voluntary, sacrifice from American public. In fact he has gone out of his way to encourage Americans go about their business as usual (go shopping, "its my job to worry about these things").

He has only just asked for an increase in troop strength. Actually cut taxes, for the first time in American history (maybe in the history of the world), in a time of war. He has not bothered to equip our military with the kind of vehicles it needs to fight the kind of war it finds it self in (i.e., purpose built armored cars designed to withstand blasts from mines and IEDs, not Humvees with bolted on armor). He has even refused to fully fund the Army maintenance depots to keep up with the refurbishing of equipment worn out by the war (e.g., there are over a 1000 M-1 tanks backlogged at the Anniston Army Depot, the only overhaul facility for tanks, yet they are still working one 8-hour shift a day).

So while Bush might talk a good game, his actions fall far short of his words. It is obvious that there is an attempt afoot to shift the blame for the failure in Iraq onto the lily-livered left. Bush wanted this war, he sold it as cost free and easy. When it didn't turn out that way he tried to continue it by hiding the true cost from the American people and by trying to achieve his goals through half measures. Now that the policy has failed, and he continues to pursue the same old failed policies, the right is trying to blame everybody but themselves and the very people who supported this misguided and ineffective policy.

It's despicable.

Seven Machos said...

The Left: We call for Bush to call for sacrifice.

The Left: Don't violate our civil rights or the civil rights of enemy combatants in your so-called war on terror.

The Left: We call for Bush to call for a draft.

The Left: The idea that our young people are dying in this immoral, illegal war is despicable.

vbspurs said...

Seven Machos wrote:

The Left: We call for Bush to call for a draft.

The Left: The idea that our young people are dying in this immoral, illegal war is despicable.


I couldn't have written this in digest form better myself, 7 Machos -- kudos!

This is what kills me.

The squirrelly, circular logic used by certain others, in which to cudgel Bush over the head.

Partisan leftists ask for one thing (increase troops! fire Rumsfeld!) and when you do it, they then use that self-same improvement they were calling for, which they used simply in order to criticise the Administration, in their newer complaints about it.

(In a related way, it's like the Boston-bomb scare.

God help the police, if it hadn't been a prank, but the real thing. Then gripes would have been heard that "we're not prepared!", it's "Bush's fault, we're still in the same disorganised state we were pre-9/11!".

But react the way they theoretically woud've wanted, and you just get called a Fascist state for your troubles]

One day, someone is going to write a history of this Administration very similar to the points raised by a certain person here.

And those who didn't live through the moment, will never know the real facts that happened, just the circuitous logic used by some to describe it.

In fact, I've just described the whole of history as we know it, haven't I?

Cheers,
Victoria

Freder Frederson said...

Nice try, Seven Machos, but you just mocked the left without addressing my substantive point, which is that Bush has done exactly what I accuse him of. And all the things you accuse the left of doing (calling for a draft, asking for the president to ask for sacrifices) we can safely do because we know he won't actually do them.

Even with the suspension of civil liberties, he is too afraid to actually out and actually ask for it. No, he would rather pretend he isn't torturing anyone or suspending anyone's civil rights. Everything he does is perfectly within the law and not extraordinary at all. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Just go shopping and don't worry your sweet little heads about it.

Almost forty years later, "Fortunate Son" by Credence Clearwater Revival is probably more appropriate than when it was written. It starts"

"Some folks are born made to wave the flag,/
ooh, they're red, white and blue./
And when the band plays "Hail To The Chief",/
oh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,"

Freder Frederson said...

it's "Bush's fault, we're still in the same disorganised state we were pre-9/11!".

Actually it is, you would think more than five years after 9/11, police in one of our largest cities would be able to differentiate between a PCB with a few LEDs and a legitimate threat. You have to wonder what all that money has been spent on

jas said...

And all the things you accuse the left of doing (calling for a draft, asking for the president to ask for sacrifices) we can safely do because we know he won't actually do them.

True. Name a conservative who has moved to enact the draft? It is much more likely that a draft will occur under a democratic president.