He said what?

[heidi]

He'd still have given the 'mission accomplished' speech? just_kellie, babe, I think you have a "wutevere" (except this is more extreme than the usual).

Comments

[themorningstarr.livejournal.com]

Ugh. ::headdesk::

Why? Why? Why?

[bkdelong.livejournal.com]

Because he simply doesn't give anyone a chance to question him. If he wavered, he'd look weak and regardless of how wrong & pigheaded he is...he appears to Joe American as someone who is firm in his commitments. He's playing the the average person who doesn't follow politics and actively research the Web. Therefore regardless of whether he is telling the truth or not becomes less important to that constituency than being firm in his choices. Sigh....

[nihaochan.livejournal.com]

>>Because he simply doesn't give anyone a chance to question him.

Huh? He just had a press conference (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040923-8.html) where he took questions. The Yahoo! article linked in Heidi's post says he took questions in an interview with Fox News... *confused look*

>>If he wavered, he'd look weak and regardless of how wrong & pigheaded he is...he appears to Joe American as someone who is firm in his commitments.

Just MAYBE, B.K., just maybe, some people actually agree with him on these issues. And if those people agree, that must mean they are glad he hasn't wavered, and he stands strong. Maybe those people agree with him when he says "And I believe a leader must be consistent and clear and not change positions when times get tough. And the times have been hard -- these are hard times. But I understand that -- what mixed messages do. You can embolden an enemy by sending a mixed message. You can dispirit the Iraqi people by sending mixed messages. You send the wrong message to our troops by sending mixed messages. That's why I will continue to lead with clarity and in a resolute way, because I understand the stakes. These are high stakes. And we'll succeed."

Not everybody agrees with you, BK. And just because of they have differing opinions, you don't have to go out and call your president "pigheaded". There is nothing wrong with people with differing views. We all know people with different ideas about things but that certainly doesn't mean that we have to start such attacks on the people. That's so childish. To me, when you call President Bush "pigheaded", you are calling everyone that agrees with him pigheaded, and I don't appreciate that at all. You can attack ideas all you want, but let's not attack the person.

[nihaochan.livejournal.com]

Well why should he have regrets? Our ideas on "major combat" must be different.

The Iraqi Prime Minister said Thursday (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040923-8.html) "
Let me explain something, which is very important. I have noticed -- and the media have been neglected and omitted several times -- in the Western media -- Iraq is made out of 18 provinces, 18, 1-8. Out of these 18 provinces, 14 to 15 are completely safe, there are no problems. And I can count them for you, starting from Basra moving into Iraq Kurdistan. There are three areas, three provinces where there are pockets of insurgents, pockets of terrorists who are acting there and are moving from there to inflict damage elsewhere in the country.
[later, he went on to say]
I know that some have speculated, even doubted, whether this date [for the general elections in January] can be met, so let me be absolutely clear that elections will occur in Iraq on time in January, because Iraqis want election on time. In 15 out of 18 Iraqi provinces, the security situation is good for elections to be held tomorrow.
Here, Iraqis are getting on with their daily lives, hungry for the new political and economic freedoms they are enjoying. Although, this is not what you see in your media, it is a fact. The Iraqi elections may not be perfect; they may not be the best elections that Iraq will ever hold; they will undoubtedly be an excuse for violence from those who disparage and despise liberty, as we – the first elections – as were the first elections in Sierra Leone, South Africa and Indonesia. But they will take place, and they will be free and fair.
"

"When Bush gave his May 1 speech fewer than 150 Americans had died in the war. Since then more than 900 have died." I find that interesting because on May 1, we were there 2 months; with an average of 75 deaths a month. The article says that since then (which comes out to 17 months, if I'm correct) another 900 Americans have died. That's about 53 American deaths a month on average. This is actually down approximately 22 deaths per month (on average) from the infamous "major combat" months. Sounds like fewer and fewer Americans lives are being lost to me. Thus resulting in combat getting less and less severe.

There is a man from Iraq, living there today, seeing so much of what is going on in that country and saying that most of Iraq is secure and peaceful. Yes, there are small pockets of terrorism in Iraq. So many people are focusing on these small pockets, and the fact that most of Iraq is much better off is being overshadowed.

[selinakyle47.livejournal.com]

Sounds like fewer and fewer Americans lives are being lost to me. Thus resulting in combat getting less and less severe.

Check out the actual statistics before making these claims. According to this, the military death toll at the end of "major combat operations" (3/21/03 to 5/1/03) stands at 139. Within the last 3 months (end of June to end of Sept), 194 military deaths were recorded, more than during the combat months. BTW, these numbers refer to US military personnel only.

[nihaochan.livejournal.com]

I was talking American deaths, and was basing the claims directly from the Yahoo! article linked. If your information is disagreeing with theirs, you might want to bring it up with Reuters (where the story originated), not me.

[hedwig-snowy.livejournal.com]

I tend to agree that a majority of Iraq is better off now than when Sadaam was in power, specifically the Kurds and the Shiites. Of course, there seems be alot of opinions about the war. It is difficult to discuss it without putting in some and that makes it even harder to describe what is happening on the ground there.

From CNN.com:

"There have been 1,186 coalition deaths, 1,051
Americans, 66 Britons, six Bulgarians, one
Dane, two Dutch, one Estonian, one Hungarian,
19 Italians, one Latvian, 13 Poles, one
Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two
Thai and eight Ukrainians, in the war in Iraq
as of September 27, 2004."

The opinion comes in when people discuss whether or not the casualty list statistics (which don't even include Iraqi casualties and deaths) matter in that the results are what matter. It is not difficult to argue facts on the point of whether the war was justified (either by U.S. or International Law), but it gets fuzzy when deciding if the outcome will lead to a better world. We might not know this in our lifetime. Is it better for some Iraqi's? Yes. Will it get better there? Yes. Has it made US safer? That is yet to be determined. Do I agree with Mr Bush's reasoning for going into Iraq, when he did, the way he did? No. I do tend to agree with the idea that Sadaam would have to be removed at some point. It didn't have to be 10 years down the road ... I do think that we have moved away from our principal target (Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida) in moving on Iraq. The question is: Will the Bush Doctrine make the world a safer place in 10, 20, 30 years??? A great Nation isn't only great because of it's military strength. We are a Country of laws. I do find it disturbing the number of times that this administration has broken or skirted U.S. and International law. This is something we cannot allow. Whether it's Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib or the Patriot Act (the way it is) or the spying and super-profiling of U.S. citizens. This IS disturbing. We can do better. The one question that I would like to ask people who support Mr Bush is: Could the adminstration have done things differently? Could they have done it MUCH better? Haven't they made a great many mistakes? Are they truly standing up like men and taking responsibility for those mistakes?

[nihaochan.livejournal.com]

>>I do find it disturbing the number of times that this administration has broken or skirted U.S. and International law. This is something we cannot allow. Whether it's Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib or the Patriot Act (the way it is) or the spying and super-profiling of U.S. citizens. This IS disturbing. We can do better.

The Patriot Act isn't really that bad. I too thought it was a bad idea until I started looking more into it. But, that being said, a government can change laws. That's pretty much what the patriot act does. The Patriot Act makes some things that could have been illegal legal now, doesn't it?

And you can't blame Abu Ghraib on President Bush. Just because there is a select FEW people in the U.S. military are sick and disturbed, doesn’t mean President Bush is at fault.

>>We can do better.
Yeah, you know what, your right. We can do better, in my opinion; the person to do better is not John Kerry though. I would choose President Bush anytime over John Kerry.

[hedwig-snowy.livejournal.com]

I understand that alcoholics are sometimes delusional but that's almost psychopathic. See that Colin Powell said that the situation in Iraq is getting worse? Glad that we have a Cheerleader in Chief to tell us how good it's all going...hate to be depressed by the truth...