10/25/2006

Fore!!!! - New Spin- Same Failed Strategy



















Bush shanks another shot at terrorists ( Democrats ):

Banished from Bush's vernacular is "stay the course," which was his mantra for conveying America's resolve in Iraq until Democrats seized on the phrase as a sign that he and his fellow Republicans were unresponsive to mounting U.S. casualties.

Bush and his team are also insisting on a distinction between "tactics," which he is willing to change, and "strategy," which he isn't.

"Well, listen, we've never been stay the course...," Bush said. Liberal bloggers immediately flooded Web sites with video clips of Bush repeatedly vowing that America would "stay the course" until victory in Iraq.

Critics dismiss the shift in rhetoric as a smokescreen to hide a failed Iraq policy from voters, but analysts say it could be more than just semantics if it leads to a significant change of course.

"It shows political desperation," said Martin Medhurst, professor of rhetoric at Baylor University in Waco. "The question is whether Bush's rhetoric will come into alignment with reality in Iraq, which has not been the case before."

Read more:

"Words get in the way for Bush in Iraq debate"

or
How Borderliners learned English from their mentor.

10 comments:

Karl Rove said...

Hey, I've been listening to the focus groups. They tell me that Bush sounds out of touch with reality. For awhile we were saying "The liberal media is not reporting the good news from Iraq." But that doesn't work any more. Now we need Bush to acknowledge that there are actual problems with the war and act like he actually can comprehend that and can also "adjust" his "strategies." Thank you, focus groups. We love you. Now let's go out and win those elections!

norseman said...

There were problems before the war even started. Unfortunately, George Bush didn't listen. A point to consider, is that prior to the war a Christian coalition of churches offered a "Six Point" plan that if successful, would have avioded this war, yet accomplish the wars objectives. "Bush wouldn't even listen to this group". Check it out (God's Politics, by Jim Wallis).
Bush was encouraged to obtain UN support by other nations, yet he wouldn't listen. One person I know was acquainted with Georges family and said "his ego got in the way".
If patience had persevered, and there had been more international support, and real vs. fabricated facts, military action may have been a viable option. As it stands, we are now in a quagmire that has opened a pandoras(sp) box of sectarian violence. Though I hope, I am concerned that we may not be able to put that lid back on.
The troubling issue with all of this, is that I haven't been sold on the possibility that "OIL" wasn't always in the background as a catalyst for this whole travesty.

On the same Page said...

Norseman,

Thanks for bringing up Jim Walis.
For those who want to learn more about what he's doing.

Check out these links.


Voting God’s Politics. –A Sojourners/Call to Renewal Action Guide.


Issues guide
http://tinyurl.com/yet3f2

Action Guide
http://tinyurl.com/ya32gx

Kalvyn Clean said...

President Bush did try to get UN support, but Germany & Russia blocked it, as they were concerned about their loans to Iraq being in jeopardy.

Ask Hans Blix said...

Well Kalvyn,

Here we go again with Republican revisionist history. How did the U.S. try to get U.N. support?
I'll tell you. By sending Colin Powell
to the U.N. with false claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Republicans always find a convenient "truth" with a small "t".

norseman said...

And Collin Powell left the Bush administration, why???
Kalvyn clean; you missed the part about the Christian Coalition, why?????

ask hans blix said...

"And Collin Powell left the Bush administration, why???"

This is your argument?

I'm sure you have a different explaination than the real one.




http://tinyurl.com/y74vps

Powell's chief role was to garner international support for a multi-national coalition to mount the invasion. To this end, Powell addressed a plenary session of the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003 to argue in favor of military action. Citing "numerous" anonymous Iraqi defectors, Powell asserted that "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." [3] Powell also stated that there was "no doubt in my mind" that Saddam was working to obtain key components to produce nuclear weapons.

While Powell's oratorical skills and personal conviction were acknowledged, there was an overall rejection of the evidence Powell offered that the regime of Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). A Senate report on intelligence failures would later detail the intense debate that went on behind the scenes on what to include in Powell's speech. State Department analysts had found dozens of factual problems in drafts of the speech. Some of the claims were taken out, but others were left in. [4] The administration is currently under fire for having acted on faulty intelligence. Reports have indicated that Powell himself was skeptical of the evidence presented to him. Powell later recounted how Vice President Cheney had joked with him before he gave the speech, telling him, "You've got high poll ratings; you can afford to lose a few points." Larry Wilkerson later characterized Cheney's view of Powell's mission as to "go up there and sell it, and we'll have moved forward a peg or two. Fall on your damn sword and kill yourself, and I'll be happy, too."[1]

Powell left because after being used
by Chaney, Rumsfeld, and the other NeoCons he was no longer an asset to them.

Don't forget this man was a General in the U.S. Army, not a pacifist!!

As for the Christian Coalition?
I have no idea to what you are referring in the context of getting UN support. Perhaps you have some point to make about this but you reference to the Christian Coalition
is in what context?

norseman said...

Well hans blix; my point was that Powell left the administration bacause he was also a victim of misleading information, and saw the preverbial writing on the wall.
I don't deny what he said, but give him credit for making a moral choice.
The issue of the Christain Coalition's was an earlier post. Referring to options that Bush had, but chose to ignore. "God's Politics" by Jin Wallis.

ask hans blix said...

Norseman,

OOPs. No wonder your reply didn't make sense. I thought I was anwering Kalvyn.

Sorry Norseman, next time I'll put my reading glasses on straight before arguing against the same side I'm on.

Ask Hans Blix said...

Speaking of Hans Blix.
I hear today that he came out and actually said the Iraqi's were better off under Saddam?