"Opposition" Leader Harry Reid says USA HAS LOST THE WAR!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Is there really a war? Isn't it just an occupation by armed pawns of an illegitimate despot? How could the troops possibly win, anyway?

[SoonerGirl06]

You are a glutton for punishment....


:pop:

[usmc-sooner]

I've said it before only a hardcore liberal could think were losing. When someone comes over here and kills Bush and his 2 kids, dismantles our armed forces and retrains them, set up new elections for the office recently held by the former President that we took out, then look me in the eye and tell me were winning.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You are a glutton for punishment....


:pop: Let's have a Florida 2000 recount.

[SoonerGirl06]

Let's have a Florida 2000 recount.

No darling... 4 times was plenty enough for me.

[SoonerGirl06]

Harry Reid is spineless. He can't even stand behind what it was he originally said. Now he's back stepping... or is it Flip-Flopping? I can't keep up.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No darling... 4 times was plenty enough for me.Maybe if they counted the votes from military personnel this time..no, wait.

[Rhino]

A mod locks the thread you started about this subject.
You start another thread about the same subject five hours after the original thread was locked.

Looks like this thread slipped through the cracks due to the weekend or the South Oval mods are letting go.

Either way, I wouldn't make a habit out of trying to circumvent mod decisions. It hasn't worked well for others.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

A mod locks the thread you started about this subject.
You start another thread about the same subject five hours after the original thread was locked.

Looks like this thread slipped through the cracks due to the weekend or the South Oval mods are letting go.

Either way, I wouldn't make a habit out of trying to circumvent mod decisions. It hasn't worked well for others.With this thread, I dropped the part of the subject matter that I thought was responsible for the lock.

[yermom]

I've said it before only a hardcore liberal could think were losing. When someone comes over here and kills Bush and his 2 kids, dismantles our armed forces and retrains them, set up new elections for the office recently held by the former President that we took out, then look me in the eye and tell me were winning.

so when do we leave?

if Saddam had managed to do that here, what would you be doing?

[Scott D]

With this thread, I dropped the part of the subject matter that I thought was responsible for the lock.

the title wasn't the reason for the lock..more like the content of some posts was the reason.

and now, your moment of zen

http://www.thephoenix.com/SlopCulture/content/binary/ann_al.jpg

I hear they are expecting twins in September.

[OCUDad]

Which one is the husband?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I talked to an old friend who is a recently retired General from the Army Nat. Guard on friday. I asked him if he thought the dems were going to stonewall Bush for unencumbered funding for the troops to fight the War in Iraq. For whatever reason(s), he was pretty convinced that Bush would get the necessary money for the troops, without a guaranteed troop withdrawal timeline.

[Jeopardude]

OK, here's the full quote:


As long as we follow the president's path in Iraq, the war is lost..

So, the thread title is misleading to say the least.

And anyway, Bush has said it many times: leaving is losing. We'll still be there in the same crappy (oh sorry, "winning") situation past January, 2009.

[Scott D]

I talked to an old friend who is a recently retired General from the Army Nat. Guard on friday. I asked him if he thought the dems were going to stonewall Bush for unencumbered funding for the troops to fight the War in Iraq. For whatever reason(s), he was pretty convinced that Bush would get the necessary money for the troops, without a guaranteed troop withdrawal timeline.

we're waiting for you to explain the obvious love here

http://www.thephoenix.com/SlopCulture/content/binary/ann_al.jpg

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

OK, here's the full quote:

.

So, the thread title is misleading to say the least.

And anyway, Bush has said it many times: leaving is losing. We'll still be there in the same crappy (oh sorry, "winning") situation past January, 2009.Harry Reid's strategy is to leave ASAP, rather NOW. I don't see what's misleading. It certainly isn't intended to be. Reid says, in the middle of the troop surge, "the war is lost". He wants to fold it up and go.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

we're waiting for you to explain the obvious love here

http://www.thephoenix.com/SlopCulture/content/binary/ann_al.jpgAny love there might be could be resulting from how each helps the other make money?

[Scott D]

Any love there might be could be resulting from how each helps the other make money?

nah...pretty sure al is hittin that.....regularly.

[Jerk]

If we do end up winning the war (and this is totally depending on whether or not the American people have the will) ..there will be some splainin' to do.

[usmc-sooner]

so when do we leave?

if Saddam had managed to do that here, what would you be doing?


I don't know if a lot of you know this but we haven't left Bosnia (under former President Clinton) we haven't left Germany or Japan after WWII, you guys have some really ridiculous ideas about things that Bush should do. War is a dirty ugly business but it serves it's purpose. A lot of you gripe and bitch about stuff you know nothing about.

If Saddam managed that over here I'd be dead. It's kinda of a silly question because there is no country with the kinda power it would take to overthrow us. The only one who might overthrow this country is the Democrats. :D

[Flagstaffsooner]

Harry Reid ought to have his little wee-wee spanked.

[SoonerGirl06]

The Democrats are going to do anything and everything in congress to give Bush hell about Iraq because they think that's the main reason they were elected.

They basically have nothing else to give the Republicans a hard time about, so this is their soapbox and they're gonna stand on it as often as they possibly can.

[jk the sooner fan]

the american public had two lessons to learn from vietnam........they got one of them, but have failed miserably at the other

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

I locked it because after all points are made and all opinions have been expressed *some* of you guys seem determined on it turning ugly. Every...single...time.

When the actual participants of the thread are saying it's craptastic and should be locked...yeah...it should.

And, yeah...challenging mods isn't cool. Ever. And calling one a cute little name because you're mad about your crappy thread getting deleted isn't, either. I think we've all gotten used to seeing threads like that go on and on and on until Dean finds his way on and sees it or one of the other mods stumbles on it. But there are more of us now and we're on more. And those threads have a very short lifespan because people are passionate about those controversial topics and it's hard to not get all fired-up. And that's how they turn into a giant, steaming pile of crap.

I'm gonna leave this one open just to see what happens. Please continue on...

[jk the sooner fan]

for the record, i called you a sexy name under my breath.....

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

Heh.

[Jeopardude]

It's kinda of a silly question because there is no country with the kinda power it would take to overthrow us. The only one who might overthrow this country is the Democrats. :D

So any war we start we automatically win???

(that's my sillier question.):D

[usmc-sooner]

So any war we start we automatically win???

(that's my sillier question.):D

automatically :D

[Hatfield]

for the record, i called you a sexy name under my breath.....

and it was dirty.

his breath not your name

[Hatfield]

So any war we start we automatically win???

(that's my sillier question.):D

it is actually "automagically"

[85Sooner]

I locked it because after all points are made and all opinions have been expressed *some* of you guys seem determined on it turning ugly. Every...single...time.

When the actual participants of the thread are saying it's craptastic and should be locked...yeah...it should.

And, yeah...challenging mods isn't cool. Ever. And calling one a cute little name because you're mad about your crappy thread getting deleted isn't, either. I think we've all gotten used to seeing threads like that go on and on and on until Dean finds his way on and sees it or one of the other mods stumbles on it. But there are more of us now and we're on more. And those threads have a very short lifespan because people are passionate about those controversial topics and it's hard to not get all fired-up. And that's how they turn into a giant, steaming pile of crap.

I'm gonna leave this one open just to see what happens. Please continue on...


I understand where your coming from , but you have to let some of the conversations go on otherwise it will be a mess of WAYLT threads. Which are IMHO the biggest waste of space on the board. I noticed you deleted my post when I said I though they were ridiculous to do over and over again. Was I mean? Was I rude? nope You just deleted it for whatever reason. That is what I think some are refferring to as the new situation here on the board.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

I understand where your coming from , but you have to let some of the conversations go on otherwise it will be a mess of WAYLT threads. Which are IMHO the biggest waste of space on the board. I noticed you deleted my post when I said I though they were ridiculous to do over and over again. Was I mean? Was I rude? nope You just deleted it for whatever reason. That is what I think some are refferring to as the new situation here on the board.

No - we don't have to let them go on. And no, it won't become a mess of WAYLT threads. And one has NOTHING to do with the other unless you're just being a hater and wanted to take a shot at something you know I enjoy. Which makes you a turd.

And there's only one of those going on at any given time, anyway. We don't fight in them or try to make others feel stupid or resort to name calling when someone's listening to something we think is craptastic. We actually have a really good vibe in those threads where we share good music and turn each other to stuff we know others would enjoy. Same as the golf threads - they talk about golf on a level I do not understand because it's not a passion of mine like it is to them. Doesn't mean it sucks. Or your stereo/electronics threads - those are awesome because they're positive and helpful and some of the stuff I read is almost like reading Japanese. But I would never say it sucked simply because it ain't my 'thing' or I don't understand it.

You can't police topics on this board but you can try and keep it somewhat civil.

And I deleted your post in that thread because we have a fun little rule about not posting in it unless you post a song...or what you are listening to. 'Bossy Mod Edition' - get it? We did it to a few others just being funny...but I realize you don't know that.

And popping in just to say it sucked was rude. So I had no problem getting rid of it.

Mods have a responsibility to keep the board from getting too negative/offensive - that's all. It's not like we all of the sudden have the power to get rid of all the crap we don't like so we set out to mess with people. But when threads start turning into something that will upset others or make them angry and it's expected and intentional we're supposed to try our best to keep it under control. Ask Phil - he'll tell you.

This 'new situation' you speak of is an attempt to stop all the crap that's gotten out of hand over the past year or so. If you don't like it then...I don't know what to say. But I'll tell you this: any time I'm on and thread has gotten reached a point of wankery where nothing good or funny or even halfway decent is coming from it (and whoo-boy that's saying something) and people have started telling others that they're stupid and retarded and acting like they know everything about everything and are just daring and baiting others just for sport - I'm gonna lock it. And any one of you would, too.

And if anyone has a problem with it then give an admin or Phil a holler. I'm not gonna fight about it anymore on this board I love so much.

[Sooner24]

the title wasn't the reason for the lock..more like the content of some posts was the reason.

and now, your moment of zen

http://www.thephoenix.com/SlopCulture/content/binary/ann_al.jpg

I hear they are expecting twins in September.


I wonder if they will be nappy headed?

[85Sooner]

No - we don't have to let them go on. And no, it won't become a mess of WAYLT threads. And one has NOTHING to do with the other unless you're just being a hater and wanted to take a shot at something you know I enjoy. Which makes you a turd.

And there's only one of those going on at any given time, anyway. We don't fight in them or try to make others feel stupid or resort to name calling when someone's listening to something we think is craptastic. We actually have a really good vibe in those threads where we share good music and turn each other to stuff we know others would enjoy. Same as the golf threads - they talk about golf on a level I do not understand because it's not a passion of mine like it is to them. Doesn't mean it sucks. Or your stereo/electronics threads - those are awesome because they're positive and helpful and some of the stuff I read is almost like reading Japanese. But I would never say it sucked simply because it ain't my 'thing' or I don't understand it.

You can't police topics on this board but you can try and keep it somewhat civil.

And I deleted your post in that thread because we have a fun little rule about not posting in it unless you post a song...or what you are listening to. 'Bossy Mod Edition' - get it? We did it to a few others just being funny...but I realize you don't know that.

And popping in just to say it sucked was rude. So I had no problem getting rid of it.

Mods have a responsibility to keep the board from getting too negative/offensive - that's all. It's not like we all of the sudden have the power to get rid of all the crap we don't like so we set out to mess with people. But when threads start turning into something that will upset others or make them angry and it's expected and intentional we're supposed to try our best to keep it under control. Ask Phil - he'll tell you.

This 'new situation' you speak of is an attempt to stop all the crap that's gotten out of hand over the past year or so. If you don't like it then...I don't know what to say. But I'll tell you this: any time I'm on and thread has gotten reached a point of wankery where nothing good or funny or even halfway decent is coming from it (and whoo-boy that's saying something) and people have started telling others that they're stupid and retarded and acting like they know everything about everything and are just daring and baiting others just for sport - I'm gonna lock it. And any one of you would, too.

And if anyone has a problem with it then give an admin or Phil a holler. I'm not gonna fight about it anymore on this board I love so much.

First and foremost. I never said it sucked. I said that I would be happy if we never saw another WAYLT thread. No biggie. THere have been tons of them through the years. So I was not rude. I don't think that my threads are anymore important than any others. Guys in general tend to be more aggressive in the way we talk. Sorry, its in the DNA and I don't think anyone on here hates anyone else and I don't think anyone hear would wish harm on anyone else. Just because the debates get heated , so what. Guys like to spar. I was just replying to your post, not trying to start a fight with you.

By the way MS MODERATOR I believe the only one here to call names
was Y O U. Am I right or wrong.:)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Holy Toledo!

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

By the way MS MODERATOR I believe the only one here to call names was Y O U. Am I right or wrong.:)

:les: TURD!!!

[85Sooner]

:les: TURD!!!


Nappy Hea.............. wait I've never seen you.;)

[sanantoniosooner]

I was under the impression that all political threads sucked.

Not this one:D

[Sooner24]

:les: TURD!!!


You forgot to add......http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/icons/bsgtongue.gif


:D

[TUSooner]

Legit question, no snarkiness, ridicule, or sarcasm intended:

When will we know we have won this war? I mean, what counts as "victory" in this situation? Complete (or 99%) end to intersectarian or anti-US violence? More? Less? I'll slip into my bunker and peep out later to see what everybody says.

[Jerk]

Legit question, no snarkiness, ridicule, or sarcasm intended:

When will we know we have won this war? I mean, what counts as "victory" in this situation? Complete (or 99%) end to intersectarian or anti-US violence? More? Less? I'll slip into my bunker and peep out later to see what everybody says.

I think it's when their democratically elected government can sustain itself against the insurgency.

[jk the sooner fan]

you cant look at this like a conventional war - right now its more a security mission - once the iraqi army is able to protect themselves, protect the citizens and function in a manner thats not 100% reactive.....then i would say we can start drawing down.....

personally i'd love to see us put troops on the iranian and syrian borders and let the iraqi's have baghdad

the problem with leaving now is that the place would become an all out free for all.......i think iran is chomping at the bit waiting for a quick withdrawal

you think gas prices are high now........phew

thats just my opinion on your question

[yermom]

i'd agree with that JK... i mean we need to do something about who gets into Iraq

but obviously, we can't even do that in our own country, so...

[bri]

Holy crap, I wish I could be a mod again for five minutes. Banning 85's pointless *ss would give me rage wood.

[OCUDad]

Jerk's answer and jk's answer are remarkably similar. I don't think too many people would argue with their definition of "victory."

This is a gross oversimplification, but it seems to me the farther right you are, the higher you perceive the probability of achieving that definition, and the farther left you go, the lower the perceived probability.

Of course you also meet some very strange people at the far ends of the spectrum. :D

[yermom]

you cant look at this like a conventional war - right now its more a security mission - once the iraqi army is able to protect themselves, protect the citizens and function in a manner thats not 100% reactive.....then i would say we can start drawing down.....

personally i'd love to see us put troops on the iranian and syrian borders and let the iraqi's have baghdad

the problem with leaving now is that the place would become an all out free for all.......i think iran is chomping at the bit waiting for a quick withdrawal

you think gas prices are high now........phew

thats just my opinion on your question

is there actually any oil coming out of Iraq right now?

is the plan still to take cash off the top to pay for the war?

i'd imagine we'd have to stay there in pretty full force for a while for that to occur...

[Vaevictis]

The main worry I have over that definition is that it sounds an awful lot like Nixon's Vietnamization. And in that case, I think we'll probably just end up repeating history -- the decision to withdraw becomes highly politicized (already there), and pretty soon, we'll have overly rosy estimations of the Iraqi army's capabilities and progress, and a premature withdrawal.

Personally, at this point, I'll settle for a corrupt government -- democratic or otherwise -- dedicated to maintaining its own power base, which is too damned scared of us to go against us overtly or covertly.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

... and pretty soon, we'll have overly rosy estimations of the Iraqi army's capabilities and progress, and a premature withdrawal.

Personally, at this point, I'll settle for a corrupt government -- democratic or otherwise -- dedicated to maintaining its own power base, which is too damned scared of us to go against us overtly or covertly.Sounds like you would prefer we stay, and try to help strengthen the Iraqui govt?

[sanantoniosooner]

I spoke too soon.

The thread is political again :(

[Hatfield]

I've said it before only a hardcore liberal could think were losing. When someone comes over here and kills Bush and his 2 kids, dismantles our armed forces and retrains them, set up new elections for the office recently held by the former President that we took out, then look me in the eye and tell me were winning.

i don't think it is fair to judge the happenings and situations of today by limiting it to those parameters. What you speak of were tremendous accomplishments but they happened years ago and the climate of the conflict we find ourselves has shifted somewhat. What you point out were tremendous accomplishments in the early goings.


i am not saying we can win/can't win. and I am not trying to antagonize. Just pointing out that your comparison is a bit flawed...unless you are stating that when we accomplished those points you lay at we at that point "won" which I don't think was your intention.

[85Sooner]

Holy crap, I wish I could be a mod again for five minutes. Banning 85's pointless *ss would give me rage wood.


I hearby dub Bri the nickname of "rosie" Because I want to help him get his "wood " Bigger than a twig :eek:

[85Sooner]

Seems like a few peeps are upset Heh

[TUSooner]

The only reason this thread hasn't disappointed me is because I had such low expectations. :)

[usmc-sooner]

i don't think it is fair to judge the happenings and situations of today by limiting it to those parameters. What you speak of were tremendous accomplishments but they happened years ago and the climate of the conflict we find ourselves has shifted somewhat. What you point out were tremendous accomplishments in the early goings.


i am not saying we can win/can't win. and I am not trying to antagonize. Just pointing out that your comparison is a bit flawed...unless you are stating that when we accomplished those points you lay at we at that point "won" which I don't think was your intention.

I understand, I think you make a good point here.

[85Sooner]

I understand, I think you make a good point here.


I would love to have you over for drinks and discussion because I too am a sloid american but I do have alot of questions about the whole situation. Not like we can save the world but W has retreated to his home and "i feel" kinda left us and the US hanging.

[usmc-sooner]

I would love to have you over for drinks and discussion because I too am a sloid american but I do have alot of questions about the whole situation. Not like we can save the world but W has retreated to his home and "i feel" kinda left us and the US hanging.

I think he's a good man trying to make the best of bad situation. I think it's got to be hard when everything he does he gets blasted, whether he's right or wrong. I'd hate to be POTUS.

[Vaevictis]

Sounds like you would prefer we stay, and try to help strengthen the Iraqui govt?

I would like for us to successfully strengthen the Iraqi government to the point that it's self-sustaining. If all we're going to do is "try", then let's stop throwing good after bad and just get the **** out.

I think the first step is to stop throwing out statements like, "Our goal is a free and friendly Iraq", and break the problem down into smaller accomplishable goals on the path, and to reward and laud success and publically punish failure.

EDIT: And the next step is to recognize that security comes before democracy. If the place isn't fundamentally secure, democracy is a ****ing farce. Which is what that cluster**** they call the "Iraqi government" is -- a total ****ing farce. Wipe that **** clean, get medieval on their asses, lock it down. And then when everyone starts behaving like adult human beings, THEN we can have a democracy. Until then, dictatorship for you, mother****ers.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I would like for us to successfully strengthen the Iraqi government to the point that it's self-sustaining. If all we're going to do is "try", then let's stop throwing good after bad and just get the **** out.

I think the first step is to stop throwing out statements like, "Our goal is a free and friendly Iraq", and break the problem down into smaller accomplishable goals on the path, and to reward and laud success and publically punish failure.

EDIT: And the next step is to recognize that security comes before democracy. If the place isn't fundamentally secure, democracy is a ****ing farce. Which is what that cluster**** they call the "Iraqi government" is -- a total ****ing farce. Wipe that **** clean, get medieval on their asses, lock it down. And then when everyone starts behaving like adult human beings, THEN we can have a democracy. Until then, dictatorship for you, mother****ers.As always, we don't get much in the way of reports from the MSM about any particulars of activities conducted by American troops or US govt. contractors, rather just reports of American casualties, and sensationalist accounts of suicide bombers and IED's, etc. In short, the media doesn't report positive things going on in Iraq, or Afghanistan either. We don't even know what sort of succes America is having over there.

That being said, I think we agree that the ROE, as far as we know, are far too politically correct and *****-footy. Unfortunately, there has been good reason to tread lightly. But, the depiction of conduct of the war gets misrepresented by our media. (The characterization by our US media of troops and their leaders being barbarians with the silly coverage of "torture" in Abu Graib and Guantanamo, for example) I think pres. Bush thought he could pull it off by going the PC route, but it should be clear to him by now, the only hope of ending the war successfully is to get tough, as you suggest,and not worry about the MSM.

[Scott D]

As always, we don't get much in the way of reports from the MSM about any particulars of activities conducted by American troops or US govt. contractors, rather just reports of American casualties, and sensationalist accounts of suicide bombers and IED's, etc. In short, the media doesn't report positive things going on in Iraq, or Afghanistan either. We don't even know what sort of succes America is having over there.

*newsflash* what do you think tend to be the lead stories in your local news. Stories about a car accident or a robbery or any sort of crime lead off the nightly news, and about 20 minutes in they'll tell you the story about the group of building contractors that got together to fix up the home of a 75 year old woman who got hoodwinked by a pair of unscrupulous people trying to pass themselves off as contractors.

[yermom]

what good is there really that outweighs the fact that people are still blowing themselves up to kill our troops instead of have our democracy that we stood up there?

[usmc-sooner]

what good is there really that outweighs the fact that people are still blowing themselves up to kill our troops instead of have our democracy that we stood up there?

all I can say is that nothing good comes easy

honestly if you could actually go there it's nothing like what's reported in the media, which makes me very leary of our media.

[Vaevictis]

As always, we don't get much in the way of reports from the MSM about any particulars of activities conducted by American troops or US govt. contractors, rather just reports of American casualties, and sensationalist accounts of suicide bombers and IED's, etc. In short, the media doesn't report positive things going on in Iraq, or Afghanistan either. We don't even know what sort of succes America is having over there.

Look, I don't need to see a lot of reports to know that things aren't going well. There's one simple statistic which can measure the pulse of the war: How many people are the bad guys killing? If the number isn't going down over time, you're not succeeding.

And the number, last I looked, hasn't been trending down for any extended period of time.


The characterization by our US media of troops and their leaders being barbarians with the silly coverage of "torture" in Abu Graib and Guantanamo, for example

Abu Ghraib was a PR disaster of epic proportions. Gitmo too. The rules for things like Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are as follows:

1. Don't do it.
2. If you do it, don't get caught.
3. If you get caught, you need to feed someone to the wolves. Fast. And the number and power of the people you feed must be in proportion to the disaster.

If you can't follow those three simple rules, you're going to have trouble. And they didn't follow those three simple rules.


I think pres. Bush thought he could pull it off by going the PC route, but it should be clear to him by now, the only hope of ending the war successfully is to get tough, as you suggest,and not worry about the MSM.

Not worrying about the MSM enough is, IMO, what got us here. Look, you don't have to do stuff that looks good. You can do stuff that looks very, very bad... so long as you don't get caught doing it. And if you get caught doing it, you need to have separation (deniability) from the people who did it, and you need to feed those guys to the wolves.

The key is to smile, talk friendly, put on a nice show, and while people are looking at you over there, your man is knifing someone in the shadows, and quietly dragging the body away to an unmarked grave. And if he's incompetent enough to get caught doing it, you disown his *** and put it in a sling.

Referring this concept back to Abu Ghraib, our troops are the ones who stand in the spotlight putting on a nice show. They're the honorable ones. The good guys. We can't afford to have our troops looking like they did when those photos of Abu Ghraib came out. That's stuff you have the CIA do. Abu Ghraib was ****ing amateur hour, and we either looked like monsters (to the naive) or incompetent fools (to the not so naive) for letting our military do something like that. It was bad all around.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Our POTUS is either too naive about how much the MSM hates him and alll non-democrats, or somehow thinks he can win them over. I think most republicans are that way. Plenty discouraging.

[Vaevictis]

Well, if Bush would take the time to learn how to deliver a speech and stop acting like such a smug "my way or the highway" jackass when dealing with the media, and maybe put together a competent PR team, it wouldn't be a big problem. Act like a statesman, and you're more likely to be treated like one.

But Bush either can't be bothered, or just isn't capable. And someone like that shouldn't be suprised when he gets shredded in the public eye. The media either loves you or hates you, there's really no lasting middle ground there. And to make matters worse, Bush really doesn't try to give them a reason to love him.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Well, if Bush would take the time to learn how to deliver a speech and stop acting like such a smug "my way or the highway" jackass when dealing with the media, and maybe put together a competent PR team, it wouldn't be a big problem. Act like a statesman, and you're more likely to be treated like one.

But Bush either can't be bothered, or just isn't capable. And someone like that shouldn't be suprised when he gets shredded in the public eye. The media either loves you or hates you, there's really no lasting middle ground there. And to make matters worse, Bush really doesn't try to give them a reason to love him.Imagine how differently they would treat him if he was a democrat.

[OklahomaTuba]

Imagine how differently they would treat him if he was a democrat.

Exactly.

[Vaevictis]

Imagine how differently they would treat him if he was a democrat.

Imagine how differently they'd treat him if he could deliver a speech and had a competent PR team.

Think Reagan.

And I think that Democrat or no hasn't a whole lot to do with it -- the media makes money by either putting people on a pedastal or tearing them down from it. Bush makes it easier to tear him down from that pedastal, so that's what they do.

Think about post-9/11 -- the situation made it more profitable and easier to prop him up and support him, so that's what they did. Now that the worm has turned, so to speak, they're tearing him down. It's just what the media does -- the public is a fickle thing, and the media are its hounds.

[Ike]

you cant look at this like a conventional war - right now its more a security mission - once the iraqi army is able to protect themselves, protect the citizens and function in a manner thats not 100% reactive.....then i would say we can start drawing down.....

I tend to agree, however, my own personal fear with these sorts of victory conditions is that they are extremely vague, and IMHO go way farther than just training the Iraqi army and police forces. I think that there is some level of (for lack of a better word) "cultural evolution" that has to take place in order for many of these things to happen. Especially in instances where Iraqi soldiers/police officers are the ones involved in sectarian violence. I don't know how much that happens these days, but I seem to remember hearing about it a year or so ago. My point is though that more and more it seems like the line between "good guys" and "bad guys" is getting increasingly blurred over there, and under those conditions, vague victory conditions open up the possibility/probability that we make mistakes that wind up harming our mission in the long run (like, and this is purely hypothetical, killing the leader of some organization who was perfectly willing to join our side...whose followers then turn against us for revenge). Not only that, but it also opens up the possibility/probability that money, resources, and troops don't get used in the most effective manner possible.


Anyway, I don't think we can't win...and I don't think we have lost either. But I do think that we have been just been drifting over there due to, IMHO, vague goals. Of course, I haven't been there either, and this is just my opinion based on the pieces of information that have made it my way.

[jk the sooner fan]

they are vague to the american public, but much less vague to the boots on the ground

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Imagine how differently they'd treat him if he could deliver a speech and had a competent PR team.

Think Reagan.

And I think that Democrat or no hasn't a whole lot to do with it -- the media makes money by either putting people on a pedastal or tearing them down from it. Bush makes it easier to tear him down from that pedastal, so that's what they do.

Think about post-9/11 -- the situation made it more profitable and easier to prop him up and support him, so that's what they did. Now that the worm has turned, so to speak, they're tearing him down. It's just what the media does -- the public is a fickle thing, and the media are its hounds.I don't know how old you are, but I distinctly remember Reagan getting CONSTANTLY trashed by virtually ever member of the media I ever saw or heard. They hate him to this day. Reagan was such a good communicator, but he also put down the media and the democrats quite often. He knew they were trying to destroy him. He would have national televised speeches, and take his ideas straight to the American people.

You seem sincere, but I'm amazed you don't think the media has a mission to destroy republicans, wherever possible. Reagan just fought them better than any republican I know of. I contend the media is an unofficial branch of the democrat party, and their main job is to get republicans. Look at Dan Rather, what he did to try to ruin Bush. It cost him his job, but he was THAT PASSIONATE about the political destruction of Bush.

[jk the sooner fan]

reagan was villified by the left for his stance on the star-wars initiative.....and quite a bit for his stance on the cold war

[Vaevictis]

shrug, it's my observation that the media for the most part is not much more than a glorified weather vane. If someone is in the public eye, the media will amplify that person's public persona, take it to the extreme, either good or bad, because that's what gets them the ratings.

Bush often sounds like an idiot, and often acts like a ****** in front of the camera. It shouldn't be any surprise that he looks like one when the media reports on him.

My point about Reagan is that as the President, it doesn't much matter what the media's agenda is when you can deliver a speech and have good PR wonks working for you. And as the President, these things are well within your power to accomplish if you would only make it a priority.

Rant and rave about the media if you like, but it's always been within Bush's ability to change the public opinion. If he is too foolish to try, or too incompetent to do it, I really don't feel sorry for him.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

shrug, it's my observation that the media for the most part is not much more than a glorified weather vane. If someone is in the public eye, the media will amplify that person's public persona, take it to the extreme, either good or bad, because that's what gets them the ratings.

Bush often sounds like an idiot, and often acts like a ****** in front of the camera. It shouldn't be any surprise that he looks like one when the media reports on him.

My point about Reagan is that as the President, it doesn't much matter what the media's agenda is when you can deliver a speech and have good PR wonks working for you. And as the President, these things are well within your power to accomplish if you would only make it a priority.

Rant and rave about the media if you like, but it's always been within Bush's ability to change the public opinion. If he is too foolish to try, or too incompetent to do it, I really don't feel sorry for him.A) The media is definitely out to get repubs., but B)Bush could indeed do a better job of dealing with them. Reagan was the only repub in my memory who has ever dealt with them in the way they needed to be handled.

[OklahomaTuba]

I agree with Vae, Bush is not a charismatic or smooth politician. He is pretty damn authentic though. You get what you get.

And since he is in the shadow of Reagan and succeeded Clinton, he just doesn't have a shot on the charisma scale.

That being said, Bush's presidency has been the toughest since FDR was President. And even with all the problems we have faced, we are doing damn good right now. No attacks since 9/11, Economy is booming, Stock Market is at an all-time high, unemployment is at a historic low, and we have given two middle eastern nations the chance at democracy while fighting terrorism on their soil, not ours.

I think the good news far out-weighs the bad in the scheme of things. But don't expect the left-wing media or the libz to ever admit any of it. They are all invested in Bush's and America's defeat at this point. That's what produces ratings and votes after all.

[soonerscuba]

I agree with Vae, Bush is not a charismatic or smooth politician. He is pretty damn authentic though. You get what you get.

And since he is in the shadow of Reagan and succeeded Clinton, he just doesn't have a shot on the charisma scale.

That being said, Bush's presidency has been the toughest since FDR was President. And even with all the problems we have faced, we are doing damn good right now. No attacks since 9/11, Economy is booming, Stock Market is at an all-time high, unemployment is at a historic low, and we have given two middle eastern nations the chance at democracy while fighting terrorism on their soil, not ours.

I think the good news far out-weighs the bad in the scheme of things. But don't expect the left-wing media or the libz to ever admit any of it. They are all invested in Bush's and America's defeat at this point. That's what produces ratings and votes after all.

I need some shades.

[OklahomaTuba]

I need some shades.
Why? Is it that bright down there in the sand?

[Hatfield]

http://www.travelizmo.com/archives/Von-Zipper-Saffron-Sunglasses.JPG

or

http://www.jonschallert.com/shared/content_objects/page_objects/blinders.jpg