Article

2007-01-15 Home Front: WoT

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 Bobby 2007-01-15 07:02|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Saw the interview and really think that the entire Bush team needs to play offense instead of defense with respect to Iraq. Some to like:
"We are there, we aint going to allow the terrorists to win, and if you think we should let them win then tell why." Too much pussy-footing around for me and how about some probing question to the naysayers and detractors? "Ok you want our troops out of Iraq, if that happens how to you see things in that country is say 12 months? Would that be good for the world?" They need to hire Laura Ingraham, Melanie Morgan, or Ann Coulter as a PR person and unchain them. In about a week the MSM would FEAR press conferences.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2007-01-15 12:05|| 2007-01-15 12:05|| Front Page Top

#2 Folks should be mad about Iraq - but they are mad about the wrong things. Iraq is a critical front in the greater war on Islamofascist terror (WIT). The US (if not the West) must win the WIT and the American people should be outraged that we are losing in Iraq. Yes there should be congressional investigations, not about the fabled "lies" that got us into the war, but into the reasons why we are losing. Meanwhile, our military leaders (from the commander-in-chief on down) should be figure what is necessary to win, and then do it.

But of course this will never happen. Congress cannot investigate what went wrong lest the investigations seek explanation for why our ruthless 8th century enemies openly and publicly cheer on the "loyal" opposition here and elsewhere in the West. For all the investigations that will be forth coming, they will seek only the desired answers. Now this is Bush's war, and to many people, the worst possible outcome in Iraq would be to have success there. The '08 elections will guide every decision, and by then the outcome in Iraq must be unquestionably bad, and unquestionably Bush's fault - all else pales in comparison - even the ramifications of actually losing Iraq.

Posted by Hank 2007-01-15 15:18|| 2007-01-15 15:18|| Front Page Top

#3 Cyber I cannot agree more! If Bush had just somewhat competent skills to rally and speak we would still be rolling with 60+ approval of the WOT. He has the right ideas and plans but just absolutley falters in the rally the people part.

My question to every pansie would be "If we pull out can you garantee we wont have to go back?" "so since you can't when the next generation has to go back in this time with NO PRO US Iraqi's left alive at ALL how bloody will it be then?" Is Afghanistan not a living testoment example of why we would have to return anyway "To force tommorows generations to sacrifise horrificly becuase the current generation of leaders cannot stomach the current HISTORICALLY MINOR SACRIFISES is the definition of deriliction of duty and I will not allow such under any circumstances PERIOD". "our current generation of military have the will, if only the current generation of So Called leadership could just match such maybe the next generation can be saved the slaughter".

Posted by C-Low 2007-01-15 16:06|| 2007-01-15 16:06|| Front Page Top

#4 Folks should be mad about Iraq - but they are mad about the wrong things

Sing it Baby.

Posted by Shipman 2007-01-15 16:53|| 2007-01-15 16:53|| Front Page Top

#5 nailed it Sarge.

offense instead of defense with respect to Iraq. Some to like:

"We are there, we ain't going to allow the terrorists to win, and if you think we should let them win then tell why."

"Ok you want our troops out of Iraq, if that happens how to you see things in that country is say 12 months?

Would that be good for the world?"

They need to hire Laura Ingraham, Melanie Morgan, or Ann Coulter as a PR person and unchain them. In about a week the MSM would FEAR press conferences.

my pick for the individuals who have both the talent and fierce moral clarity to see Mortal Danger to our existence on the planet and to our way of life.

1) Big Picture,

2) Know the difference between strategy and tactics.

3) a studied background therefore an empirical knowledge of the enemy, consequently having a force of insight and perspective of their character and nature.

4) Have the skill to put in writing/words the big picture, the critical strategy and tactics for winning. concise compact yet poetic prose.

first picks; Fred, John, writing and final edit.

writers: RBees [naming just a few] Army of Steves, .com, Dave D, Zen, phil_b, ExJag, Verlaine, Frozen Al, Joe

Sarge's picks seem like fine group of choices to deal with drooling idjits in the media.
"They need to hire Laura Ingraham, Melanie Morgan, Ivan the Terrible's wife and Ann Coulter as a PR person and unchain them."

Posted by RD 2007-01-15 18:03|| 2007-01-15 18:03|| Front Page Top

#6 ...the entire Bush team needs to play offense instead of defense with respect to Iraq

That'll be the part of the Bush presidency that I'll never understand--they played ZERO offense for the entirety of the two terms. This President could have done something historic AND explained himself in the process--but for whatever reason, chose not to. I still don't get it.

Posted by Crusader 2007-01-15 18:31|| 2007-01-15 18:31|| Front Page Top

#7 "This President could have done something historic AND explained himself in the process--but for whatever reason, chose not to. I still don't get it."

That's the part I'm having the most trouble with, too. Sometimes I've tried to chalk it up to "terminal Nice Guy-ism", sometimes to his truly pathetic extemporaneous speaking skills (the only one in my living memory as bad was Eisenhower), and other times to the extreme constraints imposed by the unholy alliance between our MSM and a Democratic Party hell-bent on acquiring power and utterly unconcerned about what cost America has to pay while they go about grabbing it.

Regardless of why, though, the fact remains that he hasn't succeeded in doing the single most important thing needed to ensure we prevail in this conflict: getting and keeping the support of the American people.

And I fear the price our children and grandchildren will end up paying for that failure-- regardless of who deserves the blame for it and who does not.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-01-15 19:18|| 2007-01-15 19:18|| Front Page Top

#8 Dean Barnett addresses the issue of Bush's failure to win the support of the people: The Great Non-Communicator? I pretty much agree with what he says, though I'm slightly more hopeful about Bush dealing with Iran.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-01-15 19:47|| 2007-01-15 19:47|| Front Page Top

23:42 anonymous5089
23:22 Barbara Skolaut
23:19 Daryl Fatwa
23:10 Art
23:10 USN, ret.
23:03 ed
23:02 USN, ret.
22:47 Barbara Skolaut
22:45 Lancasters Over Dresden
22:44 Lancasters Over Dresden
22:43 Lancasters Over Dresden
22:41 Barbara Skolaut
22:38 Lancasters Over Dresden
22:32 Daryl Fatwa
22:30 Omeaque Ulinetle3034
22:28 SwissTex
22:25 Gratle Slainter7968
22:19 CrazyFool
22:19 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:16 RD
22:14 Eric Jablow
22:13 Scully
22:11 TZsenator
22:09 Eric Jablow