Have you noticed the scripted responses from the White House re: criticism of the Bush Plan?

Question

When listening to the White House apologists pay attention to how many times you hear the words "succeed" and "fail" or "lose". The unspoken message here is if you oppose Bush's latest plan of inserting 20,000 troops in Iraq, that means that you want to lose. (Ya loser ya!!). Also, it's interesting to hear how many times the Bushies are saying that they want to hear alternative solutions to the mess in Iraq from their critics. They insist that critics are quick to point fingers of blame, but have no plans of their own.
In other words, Bush and Co. have not had the brains to deal with their own blunders, so they want somebody else to do it. That's baloney!! Hey, GW, you got us into this and it's up to you to get us out. And that's not by sending 20,000 more troops into a city of 6,000,000 to quell sectarian violence that has been going on for hundreds of years. Are you NUTS? Never mind....

Answer 1

well, the major detriment to the democrats right now is that they dont have a strong solid answer to fixing the Iraq problem right now. i cant blame them, because i dont think that theres really anything that ANYONE can do to fix the mess that GW started.

Bush is the most inept leader in the history of the country. for a few brief seconds i thought i might be able to regain some respect for him when he said "the responsiblity rests with me". but when he said the "new" plan was to send more men to iraq, despite the overwhelming majority telling him that it wouldnt solve anything, i knew it was going to be more of the same BS from him and his boys.

i do think its childish to say "well, you cant criticize if you dont have another plan", because he himself never had a Plan B. and they wouldnt have been criticizing him at this point if he'd have listened to our foreign allies and our military leaders all along telling him to do things differently. the reason they're criticizing him is because the whole world knew that it was a bad idea ever since we found out there were no WMD's.

I DO FEEL, however, that for our country, not for Bush, the democrats should come up with some kind of plan that they can stand behind to minimalize the carnage thats going to happen in Iraq/ Iran/ Somalia, etc.

and no, you cant stop something in a year thats been going on for so long. its like saying "well, this volcano is going to erupt, so we'll just fill it up with live human bodies until theres no room for the lava to come out". you cant hope to accomplish it, and you're going to kill thousands of men in the process.

and btw, more troops would have been a good idea 3 years ago, before the level of violence was this high. now, a 15% increase in troops in ONE CITY isnt going to stop the war. if we'd have gone in as strong as possible, secured the country and trained the Iraqis in huge numbers they'd be running their own country now, and bush would be praised as a hero, instead of derided as an embarassing failure.

at least he's keeping his streak unbroken.

Answer 2

I am a bit tired of the Bush haters being willing to sacrifice our security and the lives of our troops by shreiking "We have to leave now!" via their lackeys in the media every waking minute of the day. Do they care about what will happen if we leave too soon? NO it's all about saying Bush failed.
Lets say we leave tomorrow, just pull up:

1. Iran sends in it's military almost immediately to bolster Al-Sadr's Mahdi army with the plan of killing all Sunnis.

2. Genocide begins at an epic scale with millions of Sunnis slaughtered.

3. Iraq becomes an extension of Iran in a short bloody time.

4. Now that Iran has Iraq this precipitates the very real threat of further conquest of Saudi Arabia.

5. The world Oil market goes up from day one, the price tops over $150 dollars a barrel and gasoline at 8 dollars a gallon.

6. The New York stock exchange experiences a "black monday" and loses 25% of it's value.

7. The President (Rep or Dem) delivers the state of the Union and declares that the US is in a going into a deep recession, and the only way to stop it is to stop Iranian actions in the Middle east.

8. We have a national draft and over 1 million soldiers go to retake countries with oil interest to the US.

9. the NYTimes has the headlines: "WW3?"

10. The war costs us at least 25,000 soldiers and we are now in several countries, including Iran and Saudi Arabia.

This must sound good to you I guess....

Answer 3

to the guy who's saying that leaving now would cause WW3, you're 100% correct, but the thing is, its coming now anyway. thats the problem ppl have with him is that he put us into a situation that will resolve with WW3 no matter what happens.

and the answers are scripted, because they knew that no matter what they did they werent gonna solve the problem, and they have no leg left to stand on. all they can do is say "oh yeah, well, why dont you solve the mess i made then? huh? not so easy to get outta my catastro-f*ck is it?".

Answer 4

I think that Bush's not taking the advise of the experts for four years is proof that Bush doesn't want to win and just have a never ending war that drives up the price of oil and Haliburton stock.

Answer 5

Much like the script form liberals.
Bush doesn't want to send more troops liberals say send more troops.
Bush wants to send more troops liberals say don't send more troops.

Answer 6

yes that is typically the way a bully talks.