Showing posts with label Iraq War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq War. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Some Things Just Burn My Ass

(Contributed by Sarge Charlie, at the preceding link.)

What and old soldier thinks....





















Four years ago yesterday, the headlines were “Commander in Chief lands on USS Lincoln”, since that time the media and the political opponents of the President have besmirched this action as phoney, and grandstanding. Maybe so, but I saw it differently. I saw a president willing to meet the returning warriors and just say thank you. If that is political grandstanding then it is good grandstanding. This old soldier swelled with pride when that jet landed on the deck of the Lincoln, tears swelled in my eyes when I saw a man as important as the President of the United States willing to take the time to say thanks. A small thing, hell no, the effect this had on moral of the military forces of this country was overwhelming. Anyone who cannot understand that needs to stand the post, walk in harms way, suck it up when someone is trying to kill you, then you will understand.

Fast forward four years, the Congress passed an Emergency Funding Bill, a surrender bill, last Friday, April 27, 2007. Purely for political gain, the Congress sat on this most important piece of Legislation that they have produced in today’s Congress for four days so they could further besmirch our President. It was a truly shameful attempt to destroy the moral of Americas fighting force. What the hell is wrong with these people, are they cowards, or worse, traitors, we have men and women in harms way and while Senator Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. smirks while uttering the words “we will shove this down the presidents throat.” I consider the source and try to ignore what he said, but he is a candidate, trying to be President of the United States. I will not say what I would like to shove down his throat.

This crap is not funny folks, it is serious and deadly, soldiers are in harms way, they need what they need, and we should give it to them, no strings attached. What is happening is shameful, truly shameful.

And that is what I have to say about that.

Monday, March 19, 2007

A Classical Liberal's View on Iraq


ovelyL
ife-saving
iberals


Good Guys and Gals


There are several living Democrats whom I admire. A short list would include of course Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, Tammy Bruce, and even Bill Richardson (for his integrity and honesty), and well, let's see—I'm thinking.

A Liberal with Integrity Defends the Iraq War


There is one liberal, however, whom I admire as much as anyone, even as much as such heroes as Larry Elder, Tom Tancredo, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham.

Christopher Hitchens.

The man is the epitome of what I call the Classical Liberal. He is liberal in many of his viewpoints, but counterbalances this with being strong on defense, a lover of America, and a man who tells the truth,





without demagoguery.

A rare bird these days. He ought to be cherished.

The great one speaks about the Iraq War: So, Mr. Hitchens, weren't you wrong about Iraq? - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine: Fighting words: Hard questions, four years later. By Christopher Hitchens, Posted Monday, March 19, 2007, at 1:53 PM ET

Four years after the first coalition soldiers crossed the Iraqi border, one can attract pitying looks (at best) if one does not take the view that the whole engagement could have been and should have been avoided. Those who were opposed to the operation from the beginning now claim vindication, and many of those who supported it say that if they had known then what they know now, they would have spoken or voted differently.

What exactly does it mean to take the latter position? At what point, in other words, ought the putative supporter to have stepped off the train? The question isn't as easy to answer as some people would have you believe. Suppose we run through the actual timeline:
It's a great defense of the Iraq War, and you can go to the above link to read the article. He writes it better than I, so I'll just direct you to it.

Opportunistic Blathering


I, like you, have been hearing the demagogic John Kerry present the other side, and just about every Democrat trying to turn soldiers' lives into political capital.

Too Busy Protesting to See Reality


What is ironic, with all the anti-war protests lately, and the shameless vote-seeking, is that the surge is reportedly actually going quite well. Despite all the complaining by anti-war groups and the left, people on the ground, including Iraqi's and American soldiers, are saying that they are starting to feel safer.

Terrorists Love the Left


Of course, this is only a temporary phenomenon, as the terrorists know that the left continues its drumbeat to remove the troops, thereby ensuring that we will be withdrawing in the sometime not so distant future.

The sad thing is that much of the public is buying the left's propaganda. Too bad. If we do withdraw prematurely, then we might be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Sunday, February 18, 2007

Bush's Star and the American Future



Bush

And
merica




Bush and Bush's Progress on Some Important Issues of Our Time


There are many things going on at this time on the world news platform. Everything seems in flux. This post is a gut check on our future with Bush at this moment in time with regard to some of the important issues. It is personal and subjective. The connection with truth is just one person's view of things, and it will only be valid to the extent that other people's views are added.

Bush Overall



Bush appears to be on the upswing at this time. His poll numbers are lower than ever, yet there is something noble and presidential about him lately. He seems to be combining persistence with flexibility.




He is sticking with his positions on important issues, but is open to other ways of seeing things. I've listened to him speaking both on and off the cuff, and he is actually more eloquent than ever. He has taken the path of effectiveness. He concedes reality, that he is a lame duck president and that he might not be articulate at times; but he still wields power, and his communicating skills are improving with his self-acceptance. He certainly has a vision for the world, and he is starting to depict it with some skill.

I think this puts Bush in a good position. His poll numbers will rise.


Iraq


Bush is following through with his idea of a troop surge in Iraq despite opposition in America from most Democrats, some Republicans, and many voters. He is listening to the military commanders on the ground. One huge problem lately is American losses of helicopters, along with their personnel.

click to show/hide the rest of the post


I am reminded that this is exactly how Osama bin Laden, with American help and shoulder fired missiles, drove the Soviets from Afghanistan several years ago. The military, with Bush's blessing, is going to adjust to this new threat, however, unlike the Russians.

Democrats are the ones, I believe, in the untenable position on Iraq. Though the American people are disillusioned with Iraq and want the U.S. to get out, they are becoming aware of the bloody aftermath that will follow if the U.S. leaves. Moderate Democrats have gone on record with their votes and statements that they think the surge will fail. This puts them in the position of having to cheer for American failure in Iraq. They have always cheered for American failure in Iraq, in my opinion; but with these votes, this anti-American sentiment is exposed. Will Ted Kennedy, for example, ever say "Good job!" to Bush if the troop surge works? Never. Kennedy has committed to the failure of the surge, and will be looking for any signs that he has been right.

The Democrats have made the mistake of playing to the polls, instead of doing what is right. The American people will see through this.

If the surge doesn't work, then at least Bush will have tried. If it does work, then the world will be a better place; Democrats will be exposed as the demagogues they are; and Bush's stature will soar.

Nuclear Issues with Korea and Iran


Bush just had a major success with his "stubborn" policy with Korea. Thanks to the arm-twisting of the Chinese, Korea has agreed to stop developing nuclear weapons. This is a major diplomatic success for Bush. Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, independent as ever, thinks the United States is being bamboozled, much like happened to Clinton, where the North Koreans sign an agreement and then ignore it. In my opinion, though, this time is different, since, thanks to Bush's wisdom, China is included in the enforcement of the agreement; and North Korea does not want to cross China. Here again, the Democrats will not give Bush credit for this historic achievement, but the American people will.

If Bush is lucky, he can turn around now and use much the same tactic with Iran. In this case, with Korea as the model, he can urge the European powers, and Russia, to do the arm-twisting with Iran. This is not so far-fetched as it once seemed now that the Korean situation seems to have been solved.

Putin has been sounding hysterically critical of the U.S. lately, but Bush is not taking the bait. He is not responding in kind to Russia. This is just more evidence that Bush has matured into quite a diplomat as of late. He is acting and sounding presidential on the world stage, and his steadfastness is bearing fruit.


Global Warming


Every day now there is another scientist speaking up that the world is in hysteria about global warming, and that there is no evidence that the warming is caused by mankind's behavior. Yet, the consensus is there that Al Gore is right about the issue. To me, we are in the middle of another Copernicus syndrome. It is as if 75% of the scientists and an even higher percentage of the people were saying the sun revolves around the earth and not vice versa.

All I can do is keep expressing the truth, along with the 25% of the scientists who know what they are talking about.

This is the truth:

The earth may be getting warmer, but not as dramatically as feared. Some ice is melting on the globe, but other ice is thickening. Sea levels may rise, but only inches, and not the twenty feet that Al Gore preaches. Climate change may occur, but this is largely unpredictable. Computer models are highly complex, and bear little resemblance to reality. Plus, the effect of CO2 levels on global warming is not proven. There have been times in earth's history when CO2 levels were higher than now, and the earth was colder at those times than it is now. According to the same scientists who believe in the global warming hysteria, following Kyoto and decreasing CO2 levels will have a negligible effect on global warming anyway.

Unfortunately, Bush is buying in to the hysteria, as most world leaders have. So, we are on the verge of spending billions of dollars on corrective measures that have no guarantee of success. As I've said before, I think we ought to go green, and develop alternative forms of renewable energy, but we ought not to get hysterical about it. The sky is not falling.

Bush is wrong on this one. Let's hope he doesn't become a lemming.


Social Security


The Democrats have successfully demagogued this issue, and it is dead. The left have frightened Americans and especially seniors that privatizing Social Security would mean fewer or less secure benefits, while the opposite is true. Bush never did a good job of explaining this issue to the American people, and it appears as if his time is running out on it.

Capitalism

The Social Security issue is emblematic of Bush's inability to preach capitalism to the people. This is why the socialist left is rising, with people like Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy taking center stage. It would be very easy to use socialist countries as illustrations, for example, of the kind of bureaucratic nightmares that occur with socialized medicine. Bush, the first president in history with an M.B.A., is just not teaching capitalism effectively.

click to hide most of this post


The Future


I deliberately deferred some important issues to another time, like immigration.

That said, I sense that the future for Bush will be positive, with some setbacks along the way. Iraq will work out better than expected, although not ideal. Bush's Korean policy will succeed, and even Iran will come around. America will go green, hopefully not hysterically. Because of Bush's rising stature, at home and around the world, the U.S. will even take one last look at some of Bush's overlooked programs, like Social Security.

In short, I believe the worst is over for Bush, and for America. Bush's star is rising. I believe historians will agree that we have just now reached a positive tipping point. They will judge that Iraq was worth it. They will perceive that the world was made a better and safer place thanks to Bush, the American military, and a steadfast diplomacy that can only come after a demonstration of resolve.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Die Soldier, Die!


Hatred




Peace Rally


I was watching coverage of the anti-war rally in Washington, D.C., on the O'Reilly Factor last night, and heard the vacuous ramblings of Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins and Jane Fonda.

I'm paraphrasing, but when asked about the 3 million people who died when America left Vietnam, Ms. Fonda said that America caused their deaths by going there in the first place. In other words, we, America, forced the Viet Cong to murder their own citizens. This kind of anti-America thinking was on display throughout the protest.

Also, this morning, on Fox and Friends, I saw an American Iraq War vet, Joshua Sparling, who had lost his leg to amputation, who described his experience when he went to the rally to protest the protest; in other words, to support the war in Iraq. He got a get-well card from one protestor that on the inside said, "Die soldier, die!" Hundreds of protestors gave him the finger,



screaming, "You should have stayed in Iraq," "You're just a murderer," "You have blood on your hands." Police had to intervene when several in the crowd gathered clubs and were going to jump him. Others were spitting on him, cursing.

This is your typical pro-peace crowd. You can even see the hatred in the eyes and faces of the main speakers.


Negotiate, Negotiate, Negotiate


I could pick any number of tenets to debate with this crowd, but I want to focus today on one central myth that they believe. See also my post, The Usual Suspects Smell Blood.

Countries are People Too

The peace at any cost crowd believes that countries behave like human beings. This leads them to imagine that negotiation is always the best policy when dealing with anyone, including expansionist, totalitarian, fanatical nations.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.

Negotiating with Hitler

The classic example of their kind of philosophy in action was when Neville Chamberlain, fearing Hitler, went to negotiate with him. Hitler was all smiley and back-slapping, and gave in to Chamberlain, promising he would not wage war against Europe—in exchange for one minor concession, the bloodless annexation of the nation of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain was ecstatic. He came back to England claiming he had achieved "Peace in our time." Then, Hitler, having digested Czechoslovakia, went on to gobble up the rest of Europe.

A Negotiating Success

Can the personal touch ever make a difference? Yes, rarely. The shining example of negotiation working was when Jimmy Carter, by dint of will, forced the Israeli's Menachem Begin and Egypt's Anwar Sadat to make peace, following the 1978 Camp David Accords, in the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty; with Israel returning Egyptian lands, and Egypt pledging not to attack Israel. This peace has held, no matter how chilly relations have gotten between Egypt and Israel over the years.

The Differences

Self-Interest
Why did Neville Chamberlain fail while Jimmy Carter succeeded? The answer is that it was not in Hitler's Germany's perceived self-interest to honor the negotiation with Chamberlain. It was, though, in Sadat's Egypt's perceived self-interest to honor the peace treaty with Israel.

Hitler was intent on conquering Europe, and perhaps then, the world. Negotiation, for him, was part of a chess match, where he knew he had duped his opponent into surrendering pieces without a fight. No amount of backslapping, good cheer, sincerity, or making nice would have gotten any different results. Hitler was going to try to take over Europe, period.

Sadat, however, was tired of losing every war with Israel. This was not only humiliating, and emasculating, but also disastrous to the Egyptian economy. Sadat got peace, 3 billion dollars in American aid a year, and he was able to save face by promoting the positives of the whole thing. If he had known he would be assassinated for his trouble, perhaps he would not have gone through with the treaty. On the other hand, he seemed like a courageous fellow, and was well aware of the danger. He may have done this thing truly as an act of heroism for the sake of his people.


Negotiating with Good, and Evil
Notice, too, the differences between Hitler and Sadat. Hitler was a monster, a raving fanatic. Sadat was a good man.

You can negotiate with a good man. You cannot negotiate with a monster.

The monster will, by his very nature, be looking to use the negotiation for his own sordid agenda.


All People Are Good
Except Americans
Which leads to the left's other mistake, when speaking of the power of negotiation. They believe that all people are good.

Of course, this does not, for some reason, include America, nor anyone on the right, nor even those in their own party who are not left enough.

So, to them, George Bush is evil. America is evil. Corporations are evil. Capitalism is evil.

Russia, China, Cuba, and Venezuela, though, are de facto good. Hugo Chavez is marvelous. Fidel Castro is wonderful. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just has an anger management problem. Terrorist bombers are exactly like you and I. Merely sit down and talk with them and they will give up their arms. After all, it was America that made them into killers. The most murderous KGB member was just a regular guy underneath. Why, if you'd have given the peace crowd the chance, they could have charmed Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, you name him, into giving up their nasty behaviors and joining the world community. All it takes is face time. A smile. A cocktail or two.


Model for the Peace Crowd


The ultimate plan for peace with the peace crowd is the Tibetan monk's model, nonviolence in the extreme. This is the Richard Gere strategy for world peace. These docile ascetics, according to Buddhist principles, did not resist the violent takeover of their nation by communist China. Instead, they negotiated. They chanted and prayed, burned incense, and smiled a lot. They were nice to the Chinese. They made them wonderful vegetarian dinners.

The result? They were slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands, and Tibet remains occupied and ruled by a foreign power.

click to hide most of this post


Every War is Vietnam

The left have long memories. Every year, to them, is 1972. Every war is Vietnam. The solution, for them, is to march on Washington and spit on the flag. They will go on demonizing America, idealizing evil, and minimizing the results of American withdrawal from the world. Just let them sit and drink their lattes while bashing America and planning their next hate event, and they'll be happy.

God bless them, for, literally, they know not what they do.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Saturday, January 27, 2007

American Democracy at War



War



Srategies





Iraq War Strategies under Hitler, Roosevelt or Truman, versus Bush


I want to compare how a dictator would wage the War in Iraq, versus how our democracy must wage it.





Furthermore, I want to compare how Roosevelt or Truman would wage the war versus how Bush is waging it. There are advantages for a dictator in waging war, but also disadvantages. The same is true for a democracy, and especially for our democracy post Vietnam and post Watergate.

Moreover, there is a difference in leadership style between our leaders in WWII and our leaders now.


Hitler


How would Hitler wage the War in Iraq? He would use his own judgment and wield absolute control to effect it. Knowing Hitler, he would use overwhelming force quickly. He would also be aware that Iran and Syria are funding, training, and even sending troops into Iraq, so he would open up fronts against both these countries simultaneously, aiming to crush them and perhaps even take them over. In Iraq, he would confiscate the oil fields and use the revenue to pay for the war effort. He would annihilate neighborhoods that harbored terrorists or insurgents. He would not hesitate to ethnically cleanse either Sunnis or Shias if they continued to be troublemakers.

Results

What would the results be? Hitler sults be? Hitler would probably win the War in Iraq. He would have conquered Iraq by now, and maybe Syria too, and at least reduced Iran's influence in the region, including stopping them from developing nuclear weapons and decimating their army and warlike capabilities.


click to show/hide the rest of the post

The disadvantages?

The rest of the world would be building armies and weaponry to oppose him and defeat him eventually. A quiet insurgency would begin building within Iraq, Syria and Iran to one day take their lands back. Knowing Hitler, he would eventually open up too many fronts, and eventually be defeated.

Roosevelt or Truman


How would Roosevelt or Truman wage the War in Iraq? Actually, they would fight much the same way as Hitler, except without the ethnic cleansing, and without the permanent takeover of Iraq, Iran and Syria. Plus, after the war, they would return the oil fields to the Iraqis, and develop a Marshall Plan for that country.

Results

The results? There would be peace in Iraq, and Roosevelt or Truman would then use this as a springboard to forge a peace between Palestine and Israel.


The disadvantages?

You need strong leaders like Roosevelt or Truman to sustain a war effort that could effect such results. Such leaders are rare.

George Bush


How is our democracy waging the War in Iraq under George Bush?

America's Perpetual War Against the Peace Advocates

America always seems to have a large peace contingent. We had anti-war folks before all of our wars. So to enter any war, millions of peaceniks or neutral folks must convert to favoring war. Franklin Delano Roosevelt wanted to go to war against Hitler's Germany long before Pearl Harbor, but it took that disaster to mobilize enough Americans to favor the war. Roosevelt used Pearl Harbor to get us into the war, and then used Allied victories, carefully orchestrated propaganda, and the power of the bully pulpit to sustain American fervor for the war, all the way to victory.

Bush Handicaps

George Bush is operating under a number of handicaps compared with Roosevelt and Truman:

First, we are post Vietnam and post Watergate. Many Americans are instinctually anti-war because of the mess of Vietnam. Those same Americans, plus others, are distrustful of their government and leaders because of Watergate.

Second, the perpetual war between congress and the president over who has more power is in a stage where congress is emboldened to tip the scale in their favor. Democrats sense a weakened president, and so are pressing their case for more congressional power and less presidential power.

Third, George Bush has been less than effective in explaining the war to the people. He has not been able, as of late, to overcome the Democratic and some Republican opposition to the war by virtue of the bully pulpit. Part of the reason is that he has had a slow learning curve in giving effective speeches and communications; and part of it is that, until recently, he has not leveled with the American people about the truths of the war.

Fourth, Bush and Cheney et al made crucial strategic and tactical mistakes in Iraq, such as too few troops, not guarding weapons caches, and leaving the Iraqi army unemployed, which set up the inevitability of the insurgency and the failures in the Iraq War.

Fifth, Bush has chosen to fight a politically correct war. For example, he let Muqtada al-Sadr go when he had him cornered, so as not to anger the Shias; he would not attack the enemy in mosques; he was "careful" when going into insurgent strongholds not to harm the neighborhoods nor the "innocent" people harboring the terrorists; and he allowed Maliki to prevent the U.S. from going after Shia insurgents. Literally, George Bush has had the United States walking on eggshells, fighting a "careful," politically correct war.

Sixth, as a result, the War in Iraq has not gone well. Though the U.S. wins every outright battle decisively, we get slaughtered in the covert war, and public opinion continues to increase against the war.

Seventh, the U.S., along with Bush's ineffective championing of the war, is not engaging in any active propaganda war. Admittedly, in the age of the Internet, YouTube, and MySpace, this would be hard to do anyway, but there seems to be no massive educational campaign about why we are fighting and how high the stakes are. We just have one, lone Texas Ranger, who can't communicate well, telling us to trust him on this one.


Results?

We are winning the War in Iraq, in reality. There is no way the insurgents can defeat us. We win every battle, inflict more casualties than they do, and control the territory and the financial assets. We do suffer causalities, unfortunately. 3,000 dead is significant. Yet, compared to all our other wars, this casualty rate is low. What we are losing, as happened in Vietnam, is the PR war. The propaganda war. The war for hearts and minds.

click to hide most of this post


Conclusions


Hitler

Hitler would have won the War in Iraq by now, hands down. On the other hand, he would have continued his expansionism until he angered so much of the world that they would eventually mass and defeat him, as happened in WWII.

Roosevelt and Truman

Roosevelt and Truman would have won the War in Iraq by now, but they didn't have the handicaps that Bush has. We'd be well on our way to world peace, including in Palestine and Israel, under Roosevelt or Truman.

Bush

In my opinion, Bush was wise to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. This was a good thing for world peace and the War on Terror. It's too bad the American people don't see this and aren't patient enough to witness the resulting good things that will come from its successful conclusion.

Bush is winning the actual war in Iraq, undoubtedly, but has not won the PR nor the propaganda war, and so has lost the hearts and minds of Americans, Iraqis, and the world. Though Bush is winning the battlefield war for control of the territory and assets of Iraq, he is not winning the peace, the battle for law and order in Iraq. Due to military blunders, strategic and tactical, and through fighting a politically correct war, Bush has not been able to quash the nascent civil war and bring peace and security to Iraq. So, as in Vietnam, America is in danger of being driven from Iraq, not by the force of a standing enemy army, but by a deadly insurgency that instills fear, and by the force of public opinion.


The Solution


Bush has one more chance, the troop surge.

He needs to take the gloves off and stop fighting a politically correct war. He must fight to win, now. Plus, he must develop immediately into an effective communicator on the war, and authorize some kind of massive education campaign to teach the American people what the stakes are in this war.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Communicating the State of the Union


Clarity and




Good will






Hat Trick


I watched the State of the Union Speech last night and paid attention to the substance, but also to the tone.

First, I observed something that only I probably noticed: I received everything I asked for yesterday from George Bush on the topic of Iraq. In my last two posts, My Fellow Americans, and Pandering President Pursues the Arnold Effect, I advised President Bush:

  • Do talk about Iraq at length.

  • Level with the American people as much as you can, and give them the feeling that you have a plan for all contingencies.

  • Think of a way or ways to involve the American people in the sacrifice for this war.

In yesterday's post, I describe how I got exactly what I advised on the first two points from General David Petraeus' in his explanation of Iraq for his confirmation hearings yesterday. Then, last night, it appears that President Bush continued to communicate about Iraq with more depth and subtlety than he has in the past. And my personal hat trick was delivered when Bush added this suggestion:
A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. And it would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.

This partially answered my point three about involving the American people in the sacrifice for the Iraq War, although Bush didn't make a big deal about this, just including it in his laundry list of things he wants to do. I would have preferred he did make a big deal about it, but at least this is a start.

So, yesterday I got everything I asked for, quite unexpectedly, on the subject of Iraq. Does Bush read my blog?




Probably not. Nonetheless, I remain dumbfounded, and grateful. George W. Bush made the first steps in adequately explaining the Iraq War to the American people, and involving them in the process. He also delivered an effective plea to Democrats to give his troop surge plan a chance.


Pandering?


I was pretty harsh on Mr. Bush yesterday. Was I correct? Believe me, I don't care to be correct. I just care about what happens. It turns out I was right, and I was wrong.

Bush did pander to the left, as I said he would, with a laundry list of leftist proposals, but I have to be honest, it didn't sound like pandering. He was very forceful, and sounded reasonable in suggesting such things as reducing gas consumption by 2017 by 20%.

Still on energy, he "snuck in" some conservative values such as building nuclear power plants, stepping up domestic oil production "in environmentally sensitive ways," and doubling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

So, I have to apologize to the President and remove my label of "pandering." I think I can characterize what he did all yesterday as beginning to really communicate with the American people; and addressing the issues that Americans, including leftists, care about. I don't think Reagan would have "given in" as much as Mr. Bush did, but I have to give the President high marks for the speech.


Tone


With regard to tone, the atmosphere in the chamber was pleasant. The Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi in her historic appearance as the first female Speaker of the House, were on their best behavior. I was grateful to her for removing all of the anger and hatred I've seen coming from the Democratic Party in recent years, and this is a major change. Of course, it's easy to be gracious when you are the winner. Still, this is one of the most significant reversals in attitude ever. Bush was treated with dignity and respect, which is how it should be. Bush, of course, was as gracious as usual. It was fascinating to hear him work the room after the speech. He is probably as good as Bill Clinton at working a room.

Conclusion


Nice job, Mr. President.

My advice for you for the future is more of what I gave the last two posts. Continue to elevate the tone and complexity of your communications. Treat the American people as sophisticated adults who can understand the complexities of war and the truth about all the issues.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Pandering President Pursues the Arnold Effect


News Alert




Breaking Story


Lo and behold, I turned on the TV just now and saw General David Petraeus' (our proposed new leader in Iraq) confirmation hearings, and heard him saying much of what I was asking for in yesterday's post, My Fellow Americans.

I am astounded. I realize that I'm not that powerful, but it's as if I sent a request out to the ether and got an answer, the very next day!

Anyway, I am happy, and dumbfounded.

Petraeus spent many minutes going over the Iraq War, speaking honestly, going into depth, explaining the risks, exploring the uncertainties, and discussing the plan in detail for the troop surge. These were my advice for Bush in yesterday's post:

  • Do talk about Iraq at length.

  • Level with the American people as much as you can, and give them the feeling that you have a plan for all contingencies.

  • Think of a way or ways to involve the American people in the sacrifice for this war.

General Petraeus answered the first two requests, in depth!

Now, Mr. Bush, if you are listening, do some of this kind of talking yourself, and involve the American people in the sacrifice for this war, and we've got something.

Now, on to my more negative tone for today's post:



Bush
ashes himself.







A Sinking Presidency


I know some of my conservative readers are not going to agree with me on this post, so I apologize ahead of time. My liberal readers might agree with me, but not for the reasons that I come to my conclusions.I reach my conclusions from frustrated conservative principles, deeply disappointed in a President who is choosing the Arnold Schwarzenegger route to popularity.





Nixon, Carter, Bush


Bush, at Low Point in Polls, Will Push Domestic Agenda - New York Times:
WASHINGTON, Jan. 22, 2007. Carrying some of the worst public approval ratings of any president in a generation, President Bush is heading into his State of the Union address on Tuesday night seeking to revitalize his domestic agenda but facing stiff resistance over the initiatives the White House has previewed so far.

According to a CBS News poll conducted Thursday through Sunday, 28 percent of Americans approve of the way the president is handling his job, and more than twice as many, 64 percent, disapprove. It is the lowest approval rating the president has received in a CBS News poll, though it is statistically little different from the rating of 30 percent he received earlier this month.

Only Jimmy Carter has received a lower approval rating, 26 percent, in 1979, in surveys conducted by CBS News or its polling partner, The New York Times. In a Gallup poll conducted in August 1974, just before his resignation, Richard M. Nixon had a 24 percent approval rating.

In a new ABC News/Washington Post poll made public on Monday, only 33 percent approved of Mr. Bush’s job performance, and 65 disapproved, tying the record for his worst marks in that poll.

Disastrous Misreading of the Polls

Asked about the new batch of low ratings, Mr. Bush’s spokesman, Tony Snow, attributed them to discouragement over Iraq that could be overcome at home.

“George W. Bush as a president,” Mr. Snow said, “is not somebody who is going to cease to be bold because there has been — because right now people are concerned about the progress of the war. Instead he understands his obligation as commander in chief is to go ahead and address forthrightly big problems and come up with solutions that not only are going to have political appeal, but they’re also going to be effective in making life better for Americans.”

Administration officials said Monday that among Mr. Bush’s proposals would be a plan to help states provide health care coverage to people who lack insurance by diverting federal aid from hospitals, especially public institutions. The provision is likely to draw loud criticism from municipalities across the nation and will significantly affect the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, the nation’s largest municipal health care system.

Officials said Mr. Bush’s speech would include proposals to address the nation’s energy needs and global warming, partly by promoting the use and development of alternative fuels. He is also expected to renew his call for an overhaul of immigration law and to propose altering tax policies to help the uninsured.

Mr. Snow and President Bush's advisors are dead wrong. Bush's low approval ratings are due to what this blog has been saying for months, that Bush is simply not leveling with the American people, and not communicating well with them. He is not paying sufficient homage to the Truth.

click to show/hide the rest of the post


He is not unpopular because of the Iraq War per se. He is unpopular because he has tried to be popular in the way he wages this war, and he has not explained Iraq well.

(See Breaking News at the start of this post. Is Bush finally leveling? Let's keep our fingers crossed. He definitely is changing strategies and tactics, which is a good thing.)

Nice Guy Bush


He is also unpopular because he has tried to be a nice guy, and have everyone like him, with the opposite results.

Regarding Iraq, again, he has fought a politically correct war, tying the hands of our armed forces.

(Again, is this going to change with the new commander, Petraeus? Let's hope so.)

With regard to immigration, Bush has tried to buy the votes of Hispanics, angering many conservatives, dooming our country to third-worldedness, bankrupting our hospitals, overloading our entitlement programs, and filling our jail cells.

He has outspent any Democrat.

He now is pushing phony causes like global warming, so the Democrats and Independents will like him.

They won't.

(Here, as I've said before, I don't mind our country going green. I hate mercury in ocean fish. I just don't want the hysteria and pandering that feed off fear. Al Gore is a demagogue folks, believe it.)


Why the Schwarzenegger Approach Won't Work on a National Scale


Arnold's left veer worked in California because my state is basically a leftist encampment. Many people in California are limousine liberals who want nothing but feel-good politics that make them think they are being nice to everyone, from the environment to the poor, but without really being nice to anyone.

My theory is that real goodness, really being nice, means a kind of tough love. It involves making hard choices as well as goody-goody choices. You can't have everyone love you. If you try, then you become a populist or a demagogue.

Veering left has worked for Arnold because the people are getting what they deserve, the feeling that they are nice. In reality, they are ruining the state for everyone, and this is not nice.

The Schwarzenegger approach won't work for the entire U.S.A. For one thing, half the country really is red. The left will always hate Bush. This means he'll get about 50% disapproval from America even if he is perfect. Yes, the Iraq war exacerbates this, so make that a 55% disapproval when you include Iraq. Then include another 5% disapproval for Bush fighting a politically correct war. Then, add and another 10% disapproval from conservatives as Bush veers left, and makes a shambles of issues like government spending and immigration. Add another 2% disapproval for Bush's pandering to everyone. This adds up to a 72% disapproval rating. It is Bush's perfect storm of disapprobation


One Conservative's View of Bush


I am a conservative. Ask me if I approve of the way Bush is handling his job and I will be counted among the people who disapprove.

Issue by issue, I rate him high on the decision to invade Iraq, on the War on Terror, and on the economy. I rate him the lowest of the low on his conduct of the war in Iraq, his communicating with the American people, immigration, government spending, and his pandering to the left and trying to be a nice guy.

This is the tricky part to understand: though I disapprove of President Bush's overall performance, he still has performed admirably on arguably the two most important issues for me—on invading Iraq, and on the War on Terror.

So, while I disapprove of Bush's performance overall, I do not regret voting for him, as no other politician in America, I believe, would have invaded Iraq; and no other politician, I believe, would have kept us safe from terror. On these issues, all the other politicians are wussies, and Bush is the giant.

Quite a conundrum.


2008


For the next election, I believe, with all due respect, we have had enough of Bush, and are ready to move on to new leadership. The Republicans, though, like Mr. Bush, are dramatically misreading the 2006 elections and the recent polls. They sense a need to move left and be the nice guy Republicans. They are so wrong, and they will pay for this with even more losses in congress.

The only Republican who even comes close to what I want in a leader at this time is John McCain.

Has his pro-surge stance hurt him in the polls? No. Just the opposite. McCain has the reputation, even among liberals, as a straight shooter, and they respect him for this, even when they disagree with him vehemently.

click to hide most of this post


It May be Too Late for Bush


Republicans, it's not too late. Learn a lesson.

For Mr. Bush, it does appear too late. He will exhibit his pandering self tonight in the State of the Union, and his polls will not rise because of it.

(Again, add the positive caveat of what I saw today with General Petraeus. If this is a sign of things to come, perhaps Bush will rise a bit in my estimation.)


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Monday, January 22, 2007

My Fellow Americans


State

of the

Union




Advice for the Commander in Chief


President George W. Bush will be giving his State of the Union speech on Tuesday. I want to give him advice on what to say about the War in Iraq and how to say it.

I understand that Bush may essentially ignore this topic in his speech. It is rumored that he wants to concentrate more on subjects on which he can agree with the Democratically controlled Congress. This would be a major mistake. It would be a tragically missed opportunity for Bush to communicate with the American people.

Let's assume that the rumors are wrong, and that Bush will speak meaningfully about the War in Iraq.

If this were so, then I'm sure Mr. Bush has heard all kinds of ideas on what to say about Iraq and how to say it, and is deeply concerned with getting it right; but that he believes he doesn't need any extra advice from the blogosphere on it.

I think he's wrong. He's needed sound advice on communicating the War in Iraq for years. In fact, much of the good that he has done in the world gets no credit precisely because of the way he has explained himself to the American people, on a host of issues





—and the way he has explained himself is the product of his judgment and his taking into consideration the advice of his advisers and handlers. They have done a miserable job of communicating all these years. Yes, there have been some good moments when Bush rose to be a good communicator, as in right after 9/11. We were all with him then. However, he has lost us many times since then.

So, Mr. President, here is some advice from a blogger, one representative of the wisdom of your people.


click to show/hide the rest of the post



Iraq

Forthcoming and Tight-Lipped

With Iraq, the President needs to be forthcoming, and tight-lipped. He needs to give the nation the feeling that he knows the realities of Iraq. He cannot say too much, as he doesn't want to tip off our enemies about strategies and tactics. He does want to say enough, though, so that Americans know he has planned for all contingencies.

A Plan for All Contingencies

This has been missing until now. Bush has always said that Iraq would be tough, but he has seemed surprised by the insurgency and its extent. He should not be surprised by anything. He and his war planners ought to have worked out in advance contingencies for every worst-case scenario that can be imagined. Then, he needs to communicate to the American people that he has a plan for each scenario. Again, he cannot be specific, but he can prepare the American people for the worst, and ask them to be mentally prepared for it.

Strategies and Tactics

I must say that Bush often gives the impression that he is always going with one plan, and one plan only. He chooses this plan out of many proffered to him by his generals and experts. He does not seem to be aware of the unintended consequences of war. He seems single-minded in his pursuit of victory.

It's not wrong to be single-minded in pursuit of victory. He does, though, need to know that the formula for that victory might be complicated. A good general, or war leader, will attack, retreat, adjust, surround, invade, thrust, divide the enemy—a whole host of strategies and tactics, depending on the progress of the battle and the war. Bush seems to be rigid in implementing one plan at a time, instead of being light on his feet, willing to do whatever it takes to win.


Communicating

In order to gain flexibility in fighting this war, such as in adding 20,000 troops to the field, Bush needs to level with the American people enough to gain their trust. He cannot just say, "Trust me," because the America people do not trust him anymore on the war in Iraq. They need a rationale. They need to understand the stakes. They need to be partners in the decision-making and the sacrifices.

Asking for Sacrifice

This leads me to my final point. Bush has ignored a fundamental principle of waging a successful war. He has not involved the American people in any meaningful sacrifice for the war effort. His idea has been to "make it easy" on us while we fight this difficult war. He wants to keep us safe, reassure us, and let the American military do their thing to bring victory to the people.

He is wrong. He needs to engage the American people directly in the war.

Whether this means National Service, or drives to make extra armor for the troops, or volunteers to fulfill nonessential duties for servicemen to free them for essential duties, whatever.

I've heard interviewers directly ask Bush about this issue, and he has a deaf ear for it. There are some issues where he is oblivious, and this is one of them.

click to hide most of this post


Conclusion


President Bush:
  • Do talk about Iraq at length.

  • Level with the American people as much as you can, and give them the feeling that you have a plan for all contingencies.

  • Think of a way or ways to involve the American people in the sacrifice for this war.
If you do these things, your poll numbers will rise; the confidence of the American people in you will strengthen; and you will get more of what you ask from Congress and from the American people. This means we will have a better chance of winning the war.

If you accept my advice, I expect a large check in compensation. Thanks.

Good luck, Mr. President.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,