June 29, 2005
-- by Gary Boatwright
Think Progress has the numbers and Gergen has the analysis. Bush linked 9/11 to Iraq five times. Gergen pointed out that as offensive as linking 9/11 and Iraq was, it will probably work and buy Bush six months to two more years to get Iraq right.
As long as Kerry, Biden, Bayh, Clinton and the rest of the "stay the course" Democrats keep playing pussyfoot with Bush, they will continue to be perceived as weak. Bush just played the same card Rove played. Democrats are unpatriotic, weak and their opposition kills American soldiers.
After three more years of Bush, Iraq won't be a quagmire anymore. It will be a cesspool. "Stay the course" means Bush and Karl Rove are right. Democrats need to go after Bush the same way they went after Karl Rove.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
More comments on Bush speech here.
Posted by: dearkitty at June 29, 2005 3:38 AM
I'm curious to see if the public buys that 9/11 terrorist pitch again. Iraq's a cesspool now. Those pools you see on the news now and then are sewage because we've destroyed the infrastructure. Two more years of Bush and it's back to the stone age.
And the Taliban shot down a helicopter in Afghanistan yesterday? We still haven't defeated them either?
Posted by: MJ at June 29, 2005 5:05 AM
An interesting choice of headlines from the O.C. Register suggests they aren't buying the 9/11 pitch, Bush criticized for linking 9/11 and Iraq:House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi accused Bush of demonstrating a willingness "exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."
Demonstrating once again that if it wasn't for ovaries the Democratic party wouldn't have any balls.
The lead editorial from the O.C. Register isn't up on their website, but asks the big question and also picks up Gergen's analysis, "Buying Time: The key question the President still hasn't answered: When can our troops come home?
But he didn't tell Americans explcitly enough how we will know when things are going well enough that the coalition troops who have been on the front lines of this battle for so long can start coming home. Is it when the constitution is written? The next elections held? Or when Iraqi security forces reach a certain level of trainng? We would like to know the milestones that demonstrate success, and the ones that signal progress, and the ones that could trigger a reevaluation of troop strength. As it stands now the goals are vague enough that the U.S. can continue to stay in Iraq indefinitely.The O.C. Register Editorial Board isn't buying the line that increased attacks are a sign of how successful the war is going:
There actually are markers that Americans should stay attuned to for indications of progress. A recent Brookings Institution study found that the number of insurgent (or Terrorist) attacks in Iraq was 10 a day in May 2003, 52 a day in June 2004, and 600 in May of 2005. When those numbers start to decline rather than increase, and when there is evidence of Iraqis turning in insurgents in larger numbers, Iraq will start looking more like a success to Americans. Those markers are more important than numbers of Iraqis trained or constitutional assemblies held.
My wish is that the Democratic party was as critical of Bush's war as the O.C. Register editorial board.
Posted by: GaryBoatwright at June 29, 2005 6:30 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)