I Don’t Want to Do This

-->
Bush Administration, Iraq War

I’m liveblogging this turkey. I haven’t read the advance speech release. I want to be surprised.

Iraq is surviving for its survival, he says. Well, who the hell’s fault is that? Petraeus and Crocker say the surge is working. The goal of the surge is to provide security. Our success in meeting these objectives allows us to bring some troops home, he says. That and the fact that we’re running out of troops.

He’s bragging about Anbar province again. He’s not mentioning the death of Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha.

Oh, sorry, he’s mentioning Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha now, although not by name.

Anbar Anbar Anbar Anbar.

He’s trying ver hard to look sincere. So far I haven’t seen him smile at inappropriate times.

Got this in email:

* This year is worse than last year for U.S. troops – more were killed every month this year compared to the same month last year. See Icasualties.org/
* Independent investigations by the Associated Press and Los Angeles Times showed sectarian violence is up–not down as Petraeus and Bush have claimed. Bush and Petraeus claim violence in Iraq is down, with 960 civilians dead in August. But AP found 1,809 killed in August, up from 1,760 in July. LA Times found similar numbers, with August worse than July and June.
* As the Washington Post reports, experts “accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators” — such as only counting the deaths of people shot in the back, not in the front.
* A USA Today-Gallup poll shows 53% of Americans don’t trust Petraeus to deliver an independent and objective report.

He’s not saying shit we didn’t already know.

He said that people who saw Iraq as central to American security and those who want the troops home have been at odds. Not to He didn’t mention those who realize Iraq is not central to American security.

He still wants a free Iraq. I want a free America.

Now he’s speaking to Congress and asking for their support for Petraeus’s recommendations.

He said freedom is not free. Now I know I have to take a drink.

There’s a dog show on Animal Planet.

Oh good, it’s over.

Jack Reed is giving the Dem response. I don’t think Reed was the best choice. I would have liked to see Jim Webb again.

Reed is making good points, though.

I’m watching on MSNBC, so Olbermann and Matthews are doing post-game. Matthews says Bush said there are 36 other countries fighting in Iraq. I missed that. That’s hallucinatory.

Matthews: Bush said we are kicking ass. If we’re kicking ass, how come there’s no government coming together. No mention of why we should be fighting; just the dangers of leaving.

Olbermann: Nothing like making a bad self-fulfilling prophecy work for you.

Howard Fineman: The president talked about a permanent presence in Iraq.

Pat Buchanan is on saying that the President did what he needed to do, which is what he is paid to say.

Olbermann: The changes in Anbar didn’t have anything to do with the surge.

Rachel Maddow: People in Anbar no longer fear being beheaded. Instead, they fear being blown up.

Olbermann said Bush was supposed to be restrained in his certitude. Was he?

Joe Biden: Both Petraeus and Crocker acknowledged there was no political movement. By the President’s own standards this whole thing has been a failure. He’s just trying to keep the soldiers there for the next administration. Bizarre.

Biden says the speech was an insult the American people.

Matthews: We’re given a picture of a nation that is an ally fighting for its life against al Qaeda. No mention of the insurgence. When you meet with the President, does he live in this world?

Biden, short version: No.

Mike Huckabee is on speaking the GOP party line. And I’m missing a good CSI rerun on ABC for this. Appreciate it.

Here’s John Edwards’s response:

Here’s the rebuttal from the Center from American Progress:

Discuss, if you feel up to it.

Share Button
16 Comments

16 Comments

  1. Sachem  •  Sep 13, 2007 @9:23 pm

    Boosh blather. 17 min and 20 sec closer to 1.20.09.

    He has nothing to say. Nothing.

  2. KingGeorgeTheTenth  •  Sep 13, 2007 @10:00 pm

    One thing I noticed was that even his speech writers tend to use bad grammar. I guess I couldn’t give you a specific example of this without actually re – reading the speech (and I love my life too much to do that), but it is apparently meant to preserve Bush’s preposterous folksy image to the down home crowd. Now, anyone with a brain on there heads can realize how absurd this image is since he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and loves having lunch with French Presidents in his summer home in Nantucket – but most of us don’t have a brain on our heads so I’m sure the good old boy routine will still work for too many people.

  3. kerryinalaska  •  Sep 13, 2007 @10:16 pm

    nothing this idiot says matters. He is a liar. Once a liar always a liar. He seems to not know this salient fact.
    GWBushit is a liar. GWbushit is a pathetic liar. Pathetic.

  4. erinyes  •  Sep 13, 2007 @10:35 pm

    I just hope he gets to be the mayor of Baghdad when his term is over. It’s obvious that he won’t be impeached, but I wouldn’t be surprised if an Iraq war vet takes a pop at him.I, like mr. cundgulag, was hoping for impeachment, but I guess it just ain’t in the tea leaves. This is through-the -looking glass fantasy at its worst.Democracy my ass…………….

  5. Swami  •  Sep 13, 2007 @10:41 pm

    Bush was in the full blown delusion mode. He rattled off deceptions faster than my ears could take them in, so I didn’t get the full benefit in appreciating his lies. I know he said something to the effect that local reconciliations are leading the way national reconciliations,and at that point, my brain synapses misfired from an overload of lies

    I couldn’t rebound.. and with the steady barrage of Bush’s deceits and lies my brain just kicked in to a protection mode..WARNING,WARNING..LYING SACK OF SHIT. DO NOT BELIEVE!

    What Bush has to say really is of no consequence. Whether the disgrace and defeat of Iraq is acknowledged now or in the future doesn’t change the fact that it has already happened. God gets the victory on this one..” no weapon formed against me shall prosper”

    Oh, it now appears clear that the Democrats are going to be wearing the defeat of Iraq.. If I were a Democrat politician I would prefer to put on the garment of defeat before the 2008 elections,because that would make it a lot easier than to try to take it off after the election. It’s time to start screaming.

  6. Swami  •  Sep 13, 2007 @11:07 pm
  7. mamameow  •  Sep 13, 2007 @11:41 pm

    thank you maha for watching that pile of steaming shit. cleaning cat litter boxes is enough, i took a nap. i wish one or all these dem candidates would say that even if the bush criminals are out of office, they will be tracked down, as dumb shit said, dead or alive. bring them to justice, 21st nuremburg trials, bring em on!!!!!

  8. uncledad  •  Sep 13, 2007 @11:48 pm

    Maha,

    I didn’t see the speech (don’t need to seen it before I would bet). Just completed a 714 mile road trip back from an Air NAtional Guard base in Fargo N.D. Quit a drive (11 hours a new record). I talked to more than a few “military types” during my 2 day stay, and not surprisingly they don’t care for bu$hco any more than us “liberals”. Not one of them had a good word for the “decider”. All I heard was we aint got no money to fix our base, cause it’s all in Iraq. I was there evaluating some of their basic infrastructure needs. Anyway this whole “war” has become a little more relevant to me (a relative of mine just arrived at camp slayer for a 15 month tour). So far this is what I have heard: a $100.00 phone card will only get you $20.00 worth of phone time (phones are controlled by U.S. contractors), internet access is quite expensive (also controlled by contractors), I don’t have the $$$ figure off hand but they (our soldiers) are charged by the minute. Support the troops=send them some cash so they can at least communicate with their friends and family back home. Anyway I don’t understand why the Dems keep wringing their hands about what to do. They should just come out and state the truth: this is bu$hco’s war, and it aint gonna end until one of two things happen. 1. The righties in the house and senate get a clue and start signing on to some real war ending legislation. 2. Wait till next year, and if you want the war to come to a responsible end, vote for a president that will do so. Very simple, end of story.

  9. Bonnie  •  Sep 13, 2007 @11:50 pm

    I am so happy I missed it. Is there anything I can do for you, Maha, after surviving that slop.

  10. Dan S.  •  Sep 14, 2007 @3:35 am

    . . . Bush was supposed to be restrained . . .

    That I can certainly agree with.

  11. c u n d gulag  •  Sep 14, 2007 @6:32 am

    Listening to that speach, I thought that I could make it less painful if I stuck my private parts in a blender and put it on frappe. Thankfully, I talked myself out of that option. But, let me tell you, it actually took some serious argueing… Luckily, having vodka on hand helped me to calm down.
    When I heard the number 36, I thought to myself that Shrub must have had to take off his shoe’s at least once. Maybe three times – because he forgot to use his fingers.
    I haven’t seen lying like this since Nixon. What’s next for King George IV, “I am not a Schnook!”
    I wish we could clone Dante so that he could create ‘a new circle of Hell’ just for these evil, undemocratic imbecile’s.
    IMPEACH! Then, let the Hague sort them out.

  12. Chief  •  Sep 14, 2007 @7:40 am

    uncledad’s comment “a $100.00 phone card will only get you $20.00 worth of phone time (phones are controlled by U.S. contractors), internet access is quite expensive (also controlled by contractors), I don’t have the $$$ figure off hand but they (our soldiers) are charged by the minute.” This the first time I have heard this, but it does not surprise me in the least. Making money on the backs of the troops is easy, transparent, what good contractors are supposed to do and utterly dispicable.

    But ‘good’ contractors have been doing it for centuries. Again, no surprise here.

  13. erinyes  •  Sep 14, 2007 @7:49 am

    Hey Gulag, read this before you frappe your lower unit……..

    http://sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/09/14/notes091407.DTL&nl=fix

  14. c u n d gulag  •  Sep 14, 2007 @8:16 am

    erinyes,
    Great thanks!
    I needed a shot of optimism after many shot’s of vodka last night:-)

  15. Pat  •  Sep 14, 2007 @2:43 pm

    yes, erinyes. I’ve blogged and posted on all those points and cannot agree more. That was excellent. Thanks.

    That article referred to a “reat humiliation that is ours forever.” The only redemption is renouncing what engendered the humiliation. It is unfortunate that others have seen bloodlust as being redemptive.

    I do believe that a collective humiliation plays a key role in what comes next. We should not lose sight of how prominent yet denied that will be in the intransigence that so many will have in opposing change that needs to happen. There are strategies for dealing with these types that will be more or less effective to the degree that we recognize that their squirmings and twistings are indicative of their own internal struggle to deny their humiliation.

    Did anyone notice Matthews blank stares (deer in headlights? stuggling for comprehension? competitive fear of being outdone) as Olbermann produced final closing comments?

    Matthews was uncharacteristically focused, possibly due to the helpful presence of Olbermann. I head nothing resembling his wierd gender musings regarding what Hillary wore and other such nonsense. His remarks on circular logic and a certain creepiness (can remember his exact characterization)

  16. Doug Hughes  •  Sep 14, 2007 @9:33 pm

    Disconnect! The truth is that Iraq has degenerated into a huge number of feifs – small kingdoms which are secured by militias. These militias owe little or no loyalty to the national gov’t. Patraeus has adopted the novel strategy of contacting and supplying those militias who say they will support our goals (but once we release arms to those guys, we have no control) and the strategy has had some short-term results in security.

    Here’s my point about the disconnect. These little kings we are arming have no incentive to build a national unity government with real binding elections and laws from a ‘federal’ branch. Why would they? So soldiers of what they view as a puppet gov’t can march in and remove them from power?

    Our guns make the little tyrant stronger, and to get thse weapons he will for the short-term – support US goals. On the political side, building a national unity government is NOT in his interest, and he can and will kick holes in the bottom of that boat, even as he shoots ‘terrorists’ for the USA, in exchange for guns.

    Building a national unity government from the bottom-up is a crackhead fantasy.



    About this blog

    About Maha
    Comment Policy

    Vintage Mahablog
    Email Me
















    eXTReMe Tracker













      Technorati Profile