Article

2006-01-12 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2006-01-12 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11135 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Bush paced, with microphone in hand, like a talk show host in front of signs that left no doubt about the administration's message of the day:

the reporter sneered breathlessly

Posted by 2b 2006-01-12 00:15|| 2006-01-12 00:15|| Front Page Top

#2 Heh, heh.

Posted by .com 2006-01-12 02:14|| 2006-01-12 02:14|| Front Page Top

#3 Bush appeared in a Kentucky district where Andrew Horne, an Iraqi war veteran who opposed the invasion, is hoping to unseat Republican Rep. Anne Northup, a strong Bush supporter.

Forget to mention Horne's party affiliation? I'm sure it was just a mistake.

Posted by Raj 2006-01-12 08:51|| 2006-01-12 08:51|| Front Page Top

#4 "But one way people can help as we're coming down the pike in the 2006 elections is remember the effect that rhetoric can have on our troops in harm's way, and the effect that rhetoric can have in emboldening or weakening an enemy.''

You know, this is a talking point that virtually every Bushite keeps repeating over and over and over and over..

It just strikes me as totally illogical for them to keep saying this because it doesnt make a lot of sense.

U.S. troops, as i am so often reminded by right wingers, are over in Iraq to complete a mission and to finish a job, so I doubt very seriously if they all that concerned with dissenting opinions about why they are over there. I would think they are too busy with survival in a hostile environment.

I would have to ask President Busy how do you emoblden a enemy that is alread emboldened.
Apparently he doesnt read the daily reports of
death and carnage that the insurgents are inflicting on the U.S. military and Iraqi citizens. Is Bush detached from reality or what?

Posted by BirdDog 2006-01-12 11:16|| 2006-01-12 11:16|| Front Page Top

#5 "I would have to ask President Busy how do you emoblden a enemy that is alread emboldened."

You need to lay off the role playing games. This isn't something where a little star appears above a Jihadi's head indicating they are "emboldened" and therefore immune to discouragement.

When senators (falsly, to my mind) compare US troops to terrorists, they encourage and embolden those fighting against us. Similarly, those who call for an immediate pullout also encourage the terrorists. They (the terrorists) believe that they are near victory, and so will keep on fighting, fighting more than they would if they believed theirs was a lost cause. Encouragements are, by definition, encouraging. Not too hard for someone who wants to understand. Conversely, it is impossible for someone who purposefully wants to stay an ignorant troll.

Posted by Mark E. 2006-01-12 12:57|| 2006-01-12 12:57|| Front Page Top

#6 Okay BirdDog, let me make it easy for you. When the opposition party in this country make statements that undercut the conduct of the war and offer the enemy hope of eventual political success, regardless of their level of military success against us, it emboldens them. Don't want to believe me? Fine, ask General Giap about that very issue since he personally stated that American political statements after Tet convinced him and the NVA Generals to NOT ask for a ceasefire and prisoner exchange. Giap has stated that Tet was a military disaster for the NVA and VC but a POLITICAL victory, based on what the media and the Democrats had to say about it.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2006-01-12 13:13|| 2006-01-12 13:13|| Front Page Top

#7 Mark E:

You, repubs/cons or Prez bush and all those who keep echoing that bs mantra, have absolutely no proof that insurgency attacks increase based off of criticism of his policies or calls for a phased our withdrawal.

The insurgents are going to keep attacking regardless and it is naive and foolish, to think they are basing what they are doing on american rhetoric as the president says.

What Bush and his minions are actually doing with this mantra is to try to mute dissenting opinions of his policy which are dropping his poll #s in support of the Iraq War. Its just more of his
propaganda that his brainwashed followers parrot in their ignorance to reality.

Posted by BirdDog 2006-01-12 13:22|| 2006-01-12 13:22|| Front Page Top

#8 "You, repubs/cons or Prez bush and all those who keep echoing that bs mantra, have absolutely no proof that insurgency attacks increase based off of criticism of his policies or calls for a phased our withdrawal."

Yes I do. My personal military experience and training, as well as my knowledge of history tell me that that is empirically true. Only someone with no knowledge of either the military or the history of the human race would say the above.

Disputing the obvious; that encouragements are encouraging, is not a winning argument.

"brainwashed followers parrot in their ignorance to reality..."
...and as far as this ~~statement~~ insult goes, FOAD, troll.

Posted by Mark E. 2006-01-12 13:38|| 2006-01-12 13:38|| Front Page Top

#9 Yeah, it's all bullshit, BirdDog.

Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam's unconditional surrender on April 30, 1975. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, he made clear the anti-war movement in the United States, which led to the collapse of political will in Washington, was "essential to our strategy."
Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and various church ministers "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."
America lost the war, concluded Bui Tin, "because of its democracy. Through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win."

You keep thinking that...

Posted by tu3031 2006-01-12 13:43|| 2006-01-12 13:43|| Front Page Top

#10 Mark E.

That is a bs non response to my post. Show me the numbers based off of what youre saying.

What you and bush are saying is nonsense. You claim that the Insurgents are sitting around monitoring the American Media and basing their attacks in Iraq off of what is going on in the
Anti-War movement. Then prove it, show me the numbers.

The Insurgency is already emboldened. They know
they cannot defeat the U.S. military so their goal is to kill as many U.S. soldiers and Iraqi supporters as possible before they U.S. leaves.

To further disprove your point, if the Insurgency really wanted the U.S. to pull out of Iraq early,
all they would have to do is stop fighting now and wait.

Posted by BirdDog 2006-01-12 13:52|| 2006-01-12 13:52|| Front Page Top

#11 tu:

I dont think that the anti-war movement is based off of "showing weakness or resolve" that leads to "breaking the will of the american people.

The anti-war movement is about people that were opposed about going to war in the first place.
The anti-war movement is not a overnight phenomenon, it was there from the very beginning.

Posted by BirdDog 2006-01-12 13:59|| 2006-01-12 13:59|| Front Page Top

#12 Hey, BirdDog. Argue with the commie, not me. I didn't say it.

Posted by tu3031 2006-01-12 14:02|| 2006-01-12 14:02|| Front Page Top

#13 tu:

see post#10

Posted by BirdDog 2006-01-12 14:07|| 2006-01-12 14:07|| Front Page Top

#14 You've proven nothing. You've merely asserted your opinions and demanded others do more than that. They have, yet you are either disingenuous or simply stupid in your responses.

Have you hit the tip jar with a substantial donation, yet, or are you still a mere parasite spouting DU Talking Points Without A Clue?

Droll.

Posted by .com 2006-01-12 14:11|| 2006-01-12 14:11|| Front Page Top

#15 Here ya go, ~~jackass~~... Written by Goebbels himself. You might have heard of him.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb38.htm

And this was written in 1943, when the Germans had little positive to think about. Yet they fought on.... Don't you think it would have been worse and the Nazis would have fought even harder had the party in opposition in Congress constantly comparing the Nazis to our Founding fathers?

How about this little missive striaght to the Z man himself concerning the present case?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/03/iraq.main/

Also, I incorporate the argument above re: Viet Nam by reference.

If you get to any evidence, be sure to post it. I'm sure google could help you.

Posted by Mark E. 2006-01-12 14:16|| 2006-01-12 14:16|| Front Page Top

#16 Mark E.

Show me the numbers that link anti war rhetoric in the U.S. to increased in Iraq.

Posted by BirdDog 2006-01-12 14:40|| 2006-01-12 14:40|| Front Page Top

#17 correction: increased attacks in Iraq.

Posted by BirdDog 2006-01-12 14:41|| 2006-01-12 14:41|| Front Page Top

#18 I rather doubt the academic studies with case study materials and in-depth interviews have been written up yet.

But you're pretty much ignoring the evidence from history that has been presented to you.

Posted by lotp 2006-01-12 14:43|| 2006-01-12 14:43|| Front Page Top

#19 Stay out of Phnom Pen, BirdDog. The gangster monkeys will steal all your glue.

Posted by tu3031 2006-01-12 14:44|| 2006-01-12 14:44|| Front Page Top

#20 That's called being stuck on stupid, BDS.

WTF is this cretin doing here, wasting bandwidth, posting childish Kool Aid Kiddies drivel, refusing to give .01% as good as it gets?

Pfeh.

[ignore]

Posted by .com 2006-01-12 14:46|| 2006-01-12 14:46|| Front Page Top

#21 ltop.

I ignore it because i dont think it applies to what President Bush is saying.

President Bush is saying that anti-war rhetoric emboldens the enemy and increases attacks, he says it undermines the troops.

I say that the enemy is already emboldened and attacks regardless of what is being said. I also
say the military is doing their job regardless of what is being said.

I'm saying prove it with numbers linking anti war rhetoric with increased attacks and numbers showing the troops are demoralized by anti-war rhetoric.

Posted by BirdDog 2006-01-12 14:51|| 2006-01-12 14:51|| Front Page Top

#22

Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the sinktrap. Further violations may result in banning.

Posted by BirdDog 2006-01-12 14:55|| 2006-01-12 14:55|| Front Page Top

#23 Your demand for simple and immediate numerical correlations shows you don't know the history that has been cited here for you.

give it up, Bird Dog. And everyone else, let it ride if s/he doesn't ok?

Posted by lotp 2006-01-12 14:56|| 2006-01-12 14:56|| Front Page Top

#24

Posted by BirdDog 2006-01-12 14:59|| 2006-01-12 14:59|| Front Page Top

#25 un-effing-believeable. Is this what we turn out in our schools today?

As for the correlation you require: Have attacks against the coalition forces gone up since the end of the invasion? Yes. Has anti-US and anti-war rhetoric increased over the same time period? Yes. Correlation established. QED.

Now for the real question that you missed; Is there causation? Check out any of the letters either to or from Zarqawi, and his soldiers; He himself says it.

If you don't think foreigners respond to what is said here, what about those riots in Pakistan when newsweek printed the false story re: the Koran desecration. As I recall, people there seemed to hang on every word.

Posted by Mark E. 2006-01-12 15:17|| 2006-01-12 15:17|| Front Page Top

#26 BirdDog, you are without a doubt the the biggest idiot I've ever witnessed on this site..except maybe for Antiwar (spit). Quit with the "So when tid yo stop beating your wife arguments" YOU are the one who needs to back your talk up - and as you demonstrate daily, you've only got your own ignorance to fall back on. Noone is stifling dissent - there's plenty of it from both parties. What the likes of Murtha and Pelosi offer is not dissent - it is surrender. Being a good little LLL moonbat in good standing, I'm sure you can understand the nuance.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2006-01-12 15:46|| 2006-01-12 15:46|| Front Page Top

#27 Booring

Posted by SR-71">SR-71 2006-01-12 15:58|| 2006-01-12 15:58|| Front Page Top

#28

Posted by BirdDog 2006-01-12 16:10|| 2006-01-12 16:10|| Front Page Top

#29

Posted by BirdDog 2006-01-12 16:28|| 2006-01-12 16:28|| Front Page Top

#30 "I'm done here..."

God... If only it were true.

Posted by Mark E. 2006-01-12 16:34|| 2006-01-12 16:34|| Front Page Top

#31 Done here, my ass.
Who you gonna be tomorrow?

Posted by tu3031 2006-01-12 16:41|| 2006-01-12 16:41|| Front Page Top

#32

Posted by BirdDog 2006-01-12 16:47|| 2006-01-12 16:47|| Front Page Top

#33 That didn't last long.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2006-01-12 17:06|| 2006-01-12 17:06|| Front Page Top

#34 Bird Dog -- I've made no response on any thread where you have been involved, 'cause all that you say, I have already read in my daily newspaper, or from some article from the NYT or WaPO that someone quotes. In fact, I don't read much of anything you post. But glad you have had so much time and fun here, practicing your skills of cut, copy and paste.

Posted by Sherry 2006-01-12 17:07|| 2006-01-12 17:07|| Front Page Top

#35 Ima opressed!

Posted by Litter Tiny Byrd Dawg 2006-01-12 17:14|| 2006-01-12 17:14|| Front Page Top

#36 Redacted... good deal. We've had a few idiots wander through Rantburg over the last few years, but this BirdBrain/Cassini/LeftAngle character is uncommonly stupid. Jeez!

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-01-12 17:19|| 2006-01-12 17:19|| Front Page Top

#37 hey! is it dark down there in the sink trap? Moldy? Cold? Smelly? Just like a DU thread....buh bye

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-01-12 17:27|| 2006-01-12 17:27|| Front Page Top

#38 President Bush is saying that anti-war rhetoric emboldens the enemy and increases attacks, he says it undermines the troops.

I say that the enemy is already emboldened and attacks regardless of what is being said.

Apparently, the enemy doesn't need to know whether their tactics/attacks are working. They just keep on anyway.

Yeah, right. Even nutbags blindly following their beliefs need to know whether their efforts are producing results.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2006-01-12 17:41|| 2006-01-12 17:41|| Front Page Top

#39 .com said it best: "WTF is this cretin doing here, wasting bandwidth, posting childish Kool Aid Kiddies drivel, refusing to give .01% as good as it gets?"

Damned good question.

When and if I ever feel like debating witless, left-wing, BDS-afflicted submorons-- and I don't-- I can damn well go over to DailyKos or DU or Huffington's site and do it; there's no need to let clueless idiots like this BirdBrain/Cassini/LeftAngle asshole clutter up Rantburg with their brainless bullshit.

There's plenty of room for argument on HOW the GWoT should be fought, and what it will take to win it; and there's no danger whatsoever of Rantburg becoming an "echo chamber" if fools like BirdBrain are quickly shown the door.

So far, the only argument he's been able to present to anyone who's tried to engage him, is an accusation that we're "parroting rep/cons talking points." But it apparently hasn't yet penetrated his dim little doggie brain that there are more than a few of us here at Rantburg-- maybe even a majority-- who are VERY dissatisfied with how GWB is managing the war (not aggressively enough), dealing with the UN (far too deferential), dealing with the menace of Iran (hello, George, anybody home?), and dealing with the treasonous opposition at home (Lincoln had the right idea).

Sorry, but this BirdBrain jerk isn't tall enough to go on this ride. Ban him, so the rest of us can get back to proper Ranting.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-01-12 17:59|| 2006-01-12 17:59|| Front Page Top

#40 Thank you, DD! If you look at Bird Dirt's comments, they use the same style and words as LA and Cassini. Nothing new - maybe the same person - or maybe just shared DU/KOS Kidz fever dreams. Have any us ever really had any success engaging the moonbats? A waste of time and energy. At least Aris brings an original perspective to the discussion.

I don't fault BD/LA/Cassini. We are the ones who are fulfilling his need to disrupt. If we didn't respond, his fun would be gone. If we waste our time trying to argue with moonbats, CW II comes closer.

Posted by SR-71">SR-71 2006-01-12 18:38|| 2006-01-12 18:38|| Front Page Top

#41 "If you look at Bird Dirt's comments, they use the same style and words as LA and Cassini."

The moderators can view the IPs of commenters here, and IIRC, several of them have said those three are indeed one and the same: same IP, same idiot, same idiocy.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-01-12 18:48|| 2006-01-12 18:48|| Front Page Top

#42 I don't have documented evidence of increased attacks in Iraq after some Senator or Representative gave a speech or spoke negativley about our war effort but there is some annecdotal evudence. I have talked to several soldiers who returned here recently who told me in person they felt betrayed and "sold out" by those people.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2006-01-12 19:41|| 2006-01-12 19:41|| Front Page Top

#43 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by BirdDog 2006-01-12 16:10|| 2006-01-12 16:10|| Front Page Top

#44 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by BirdDog 2006-01-12 14:55|| 2006-01-12 14:55|| Front Page Top

#45 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by BirdDog 2006-01-12 14:59|| 2006-01-12 14:59|| Front Page Top

#46 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by BirdDog 2006-01-12 16:28|| 2006-01-12 16:28|| Front Page Top

#47 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by BirdDog 2006-01-12 16:47|| 2006-01-12 16:47|| Front Page Top

16:47 BirdDog
16:28 BirdDog
14:59 BirdDog
14:55 BirdDog
16:10 BirdDog
12:07 BirdDog
11:22 BirdDog
08:01 ARMYGUY
00:00 2b
23:49 2b
23:48 tipper
23:18 Old Patriot
23:07 Hank
22:38 ed
22:32 Phil
22:16 Spinese Clealet3760
22:13 Ebbeagum Cleque4324
22:10 Nimble Spemble
22:10 Jake
22:09 gromgoru
22:07 doc
22:07 Jake
22:06 gromgoru
22:06 trailing wife