You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Bush Shrugs Off Spy Program Questions
2006-01-12
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) - President Bush said Wednesday that he isn't bothered by congressional hearings into his domestic spying program as long as they don't aid the enemy. ``That's good for democracy,'' Bush said, provided the hearings don't ``tell the enemy what we're doing.''

In Louisville, Bush hosted a casual, town hall-type event reminiscent of his campaign stops. 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: ``Winning the War on Terror.'' After his opening remarks, Bush fielded about 10 questions from the audience of invited groups. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the questions were not prescreened. Bush said no topics were off-limits, and even invited a question about Iran, but nobody asked one.

Instead, the audience wanted to know about the war, terrorism and a host of domestic issues, including health care, education and immigration.

Bush acknowledged differences over Iraq. ``Whether you agree with me or not, we're doing the right thing,'' Bush said, adding that terrorists or insurgents fighting democratic reform in Iraq are ``not going to shake my will.''

A 7-year-old boy's question - ``How can people help on the war on terror?'' - gave Bush an opening to score some political points against his critics and try to keep Democrats from using Iraq as an issue in this year's midterm elections. ``It's one thing to have a philosophical difference - and I can understand people being abhorrent about war. War is terrible,'' Bush said. ``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.''

It was the second day in a row that Bush warned his critics to watch what they say or risk giving comfort to U.S. adversaries. On Tuesday, before a gathering of Veterans of Foreign Wars, he said Democrats who do will suffer at the ballot box in November.

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.
Posted by:Steve White

#47  Lets all get behind President Bush and back him
in the Iraq War. The democrats are anti-american
treasonous traitors who are aiding abetting and emboldening the enemy with their anti war rhetoric. President Bush has removed a brutal
dictator and made us all safer here in the U.S.
because he was connected with Al Qaeda was going to sell wmd's to terrorist who are going to attack the U.S. The President has the right to
wiretap anyone he wants without the authority of
Congress or the Courts because it is backed by the
Constitution. The MSM deliberately slants the news against President Bush and the Republicans
because they are all liberals who hate them,
want to make look bad and influence elections against them.

We Republicans stand for truth justice and the american way.

God Bless Amnerican and good night.
Posted by: BirdDog   2006-01-12 16:47  

#46  Plain stupidity? then you need to ban 95% of your
rnc brainwashed regulars...

I'm done here...

too damn funny..

Posted by: BirdDog   2006-01-12 16:28  

#45  ltop:

no, why dont you guys give it up...
you cant show a correlation between the two numerically.

So I suppose, that if all anti-war rhetoric
ceased in this country, the insurgency would
STOP ATTACKING?

you guys are too damn funny..rotflmao
Posted by: BirdDog   2006-01-12 14:59  

#44  .com

if you dont have anything to add to the conversation why dont you run along..

I was really being facetious/sarcastic in
what i was saying about you this morning.
youre a moron.
Posted by: BirdDog   2006-01-12 14:55  

#43  Rex Mundi-Mark E.,

I think exactly the same way about you people
in here. the positions you take are absolutely
absurd, let alone ridiculous.

The notion that anti-war rhetoric in the U.S. is fueling the Insurgency is ridiculous. Those people are out to kill as many americans soldiers and Iraqi supporters as they can regardless of what is being said in the U.S.

Of course the attacks in Iraq increased after the initial invasion, but it had nothing to do with anti-war rhetoric in the U.S.. Did not thousands of recruits surge into to Iraq with the express purpose of killing americans? duh...

According to charts I am reading the Insurgency averages 60 to 70 attacks a day in Iraq. The only time there have been lulls are when the Iraqis went to vote.

So if we accept your Bush's stupid mantra on anti-war rhetoric, why wasnt there a huge surge in attacks when Con. Murtha denounced the war and republicans lost their damn minds and started this bs about "aiding the enemy and demoralizing troops?

Bush supporters are repeating this bs mantra because he wants to stiffle dissent and because Bush is losing support on the Iraq war THAT is why they are saying these things.

Furthermore, Bush keeps saying the anti-war rhetoric "emboldens the enemy because they want to break our will to accept defeat and leave Iraq"
that comment is even more absurd, because if the insurgency really wanted the U.S. to leave all they would have to do is stop fighting at this very moment and wait.

As far as thos Zarquarwi letter are concerned, did you happen to read this:

"The authenticity of the letter -- which the military said American troops found Thursday in a raid in Baghdad -- could not be independently verified"

I'm done here. people on the right in here are brainwashed beyond all hope.

Posted by: BirdDog   2006-01-12 16:10  

#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  

#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.   2006-01-12 18:48  

#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   2006-01-12 18:38  

#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.   2006-01-12 17:59  

#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  

#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   2006-01-12 17:27  

#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.   2006-01-12 17:19  

#35  Ima opressed!
Posted by: Litter Tiny Byrd Dawg   2006-01-12 17:14  

#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  

#33  That didn't last long.
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2006-01-12 17:06  

#32  
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 16:47  

#31  Done here, my ass.
Who you gonna be tomorrow?
Posted by: tu3031   2006-01-12 16:41  

#30  "I'm done here..."

God... If only it were true.

Posted by: Mark E.   2006-01-12 16:34  

#29  
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 16:28  

#28  
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 16:10  

#27  Booring
Posted by: SR-71   2006-01-12 15:58  

#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  

#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  

#24  
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 14:59  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#19  Stay out of Phnom Pen, BirdDog. The gangster monkeys will steal all your glue.
Posted by: tu3031   2006-01-12 14:44  

#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  

#17  correction: increased attacks in Iraq.
Posted by: BirdDog   2006-01-12 14:41  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#13  tu:

see post#10
Posted by: BirdDog   2006-01-12 14:07  

#12  Hey, BirdDog. Argue with the commie, not me. I didn't say it.
Posted by: tu3031   2006-01-12 14:02  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#2  Heh, heh.
Posted by: .com   2006-01-12 02:14  

#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  

00:00