Heroic Labor - President Bush's Speech to Troops, Anbar Province, Labor Day 2007

From NRO:

Thank you all. General, thank you very much. It’s an honor to be with you.

As you know, today is Labor Day back home — (hooah) — so I thought I’d come by to thank you for all your hard work. (Hooah.) Every day — every day — you show bravery under incredibly difficult circumstances. Every day you’re doing work on the sands of Anbar that is making it safer in the streets of America. And every day the United States of America is grateful for what you’re doing. I want you to tell your families the Commander-in-Chief stopped by to say hello, and he said, I’m incredibly proud to be the Commander-in-Chief of such a great group of men and women. (Applause.)

I’m keeping pretty good company, as you can see. I brought out the A Team so they could be with the folks who are making a significant difference in this war against these radicals and extremists. In Anbar you’re seeing firsthand the dramatic differences that can come when the Iraqis are more secure. In other words, you’re seeing success.

You see Sunnis who once fought side by side with al Qaeda against coalition troops now fighting side by side with coalition troops against al Qaeda. Anbar is a huge province. It was once written off as lost. It is now one of the safest places in Iraq. (Hooah.) Because of your hard work, because of your bravery and sacrifice, you are denying al Qaeda a safe haven from which to plot and plan and carry out attacks against the United States of America. What you’re doing here is making this country safer, and I thank you for your hard work. (Hooah.)

The surge of operations that began in June is improving security throughout Iraq. The military successes are paving the way for the political reconciliation and economic progress the Iraqis need to transform their country. When Iraqis feel safe in their own homes and neighborhoods, they can focus their efforts on building a stable, civil society with functioning government structures at the local and provincial and national levels. And that’s important, because a free Iraq, an Iraq that’s an ally against these extremists and murderers will be a major defeat for the terrorists.

Earlier today I met with some of the tribal sheiks here in Anbar. It was a really interesting meeting. And at the table were the leaders of the central government, as well. They told me that the kind of bottom-up progress that your efforts are bringing to Anbar is vital to the success and stability of a free Iraq. See, Iraqis need this stability to build a more peaceful future. And America needs this stability to prevent the chaos that allows the terrorists to set up bases from which they can plot and plan attacks on our homeland.

The very people that you helped the Iraqis defeat in Anbar swore allegiance to the man that ordered the attack on the United States of America. What happens here in Anbar matters to the security of the United States.

And so I thank you for your sacrifice. I thank you for volunteering in the face of danger. I thank you for your courage and your bravery. Every day you are successful here in Iraq draws nearer to the day when America can begin calling you and your fellow servicemen and women home.

But I want to tell you this about the decision — about my decision about troop levels. Those decisions will be based on a calm assessment by our military commanders on the conditions on the ground — not a nervous reaction by Washington politicians to poll results in the media. (Hooah.) In other words, when we begin to draw down troops from Iraq, it will be from a position of strength and success, not from a position of fear and failure. To do otherwise would embolden our enemies and make it more likely that they would attack us at home. If we let our enemies back us out of Iraq, we will more likely face them in America. If we don’t want to hear their footsteps back home, we have to keep them on their heels over here. And that’s exactly what you’re doing, and America is safer for it.

In Anbar you’re doing this hard work every day. We’ve all come to say thank you. We’ve come to tell you the American people are standing with you. They’re grateful for your sacrifice. As Commander-in-Chief, I’m proud to be in your presence on this Labor Day. I ask for God’s blessings on you and your family, and may God continue to bless America. Thank you.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

When Hillary Met Norm

Food for thought…unable to find a Time article or any other from an msm source that concerns itself with Senator Clintons first meeting with Norman Hsu; was it just a photo-op? The breaking story had Clinton all over it, however there were no accusations. The opener at WSJ August 28, 2007:

“One of the biggest sources of political donations to Hillary Rodham Clinton is a tiny, lime-green bungalow that lies under the flight path from San Francisco International Airport.”

A picture is worth a thousand words and this was no truer the case “when George met Jack;” the pictures themselves generated story after story before any real details of a relationship were known. How long this played out in the media will not likely be eclipsed by this latest campaign finance scandal. The opener at Time magazine January 22, 2006:

“As details poured out about the illegal and unseemly activities of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff,…”

The msm just doesn’t appear as interested at least in the same manner; Bush is involved it must be criminal activity. If it’s Hillary Clinton it’s more about campaign finance; the NY Times has a balanced piece about this, which is something we didn’t get from the toilet paper during the Bush/Abramoff “scandal.”

Bias aside, Bundling and campaign finance is a mess that serves no one but those running, the bundlers and other connected people. Where do we, the public come in? We don’t, only lobbies and large interest groups – this place is slowing no longer our country and those that run for office to represent us know very little about us.

Happy Labor Day Weekend!

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Adam's Blog, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, CommonSenseAmerica, Right Voices, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Dear MSM, Vietnam analogies Cut Both Ways

Were blogger not too temperamental at times, the quote below would have been included in the previous post as a partial example of analogies cutting both ways:

"President Bush provoked liberal outrage when he cited the Vietnam war in making the case for the war in his speech at the VFW convention. Of course, Vietnam analogies cut both ways. The Iraq war is, as critics point out, like Vietnam in that we are trying to create a legitimate, capable government in the midst of a brutal war of insurgency — and learning (or re-learning) how arduous and complicated a task that is. But Bush was right to remind us of the horrific humanitarian costs of the precipitous withdrawal from Southeast Asia demanded by liberals in the 1970s. He might have mentioned another similarity with Vietnam — how Democrats were in such a fever to pullout that they disregarded any encouraging signs on the ground and abandoned all strategic sense."

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Opinion on Opinion on Bush Challenged on Iraq - an Opinion

I love opinion pieces especially when I have an opinion about one. Today’s Washington Post has a really fun one, entitled “Bush Challenged on Iraq.”

Something the public has never been able to see and judge for themselves is President Bush pissed off, angry, what ever you want to call it. Interesting because if you think about it, we don’t see a lot of politicians get pissed; it may just be passion, but that’s subjective isn’t it.

This to Dan Froomkin is an example of the president’s “bubble.”

“Bush is well known for living inside a protective bubble where accommodating staffers keep opposing views -- and those who hold them -- at bay.”

Or Bush is well known for having a bubble around him as the media sees it. Or the media, in its insistence that the president lives in a bubble continues to view him as living in a bubble. Or the media, from within its bubble believe its actually the president that is in a bubble…..

The “bristling” or “visible anger” came about when Senate Majority leader Harry Reid:

“compared Iraq to Vietnam at one point in a closed door meeting with Bush. Specifically, Reid suggested that Bush was pursuing a lost cause at the cost of American troops in order to protect his legacy.”

Though he did not receive a direct reply from the president, Bush was “visibly angered.” Oooooo…..Watch out….he’s gonna pick the beagle up by the ears!!!!! Crazy Texan!!!

The president "denied this forcefully, after which Mr. Reid touched his arm in a gesture of friendliness." A gesture of friendliness or Gotcha! A gesture of friendliness or an act cowardice; not unlike his call for withdrawal, upon having possibly popping the “bubble” surrounding the hornets nest? Kind of callous to call it a concern for a legacy as well, but hey, no, it's just friendly.

Bush in the bubble gets angry, but Reid is friendly rather than the drug store soda jerk he appears to be.

When you are in a position of leadership, as the president is (at least we think he is, but it’s the handlers of the bubble that are really in control), with Iraq, Afghanistan and the greater war on terror to deal with, wouldn’t you perhaps bristle at hearing the tired refrain of Iraq’s comparison to Vietnam for the likely millionth time?

But that’s just my opinion. Too bad I don’t have the influence the msm has.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Appearances and Perceptions: Dems and the Media

I’ve been painfully busy as of late and have had very little time to post, but yesterday I did post a couple, one of which was “When Democrats say it’s a Big Deal, it Isn’t.”

I received a really good comment from a John (no, I’m not a pro, but I do play one on TV), and is as follows:

“Obviously this blogger has never practised law. It's an incredibly big deal. Forget all the spin, it is SOP to replace all or most US attorneys at the start of a new presidency. Clinton replaced all but so did Reagan in 1981. After that it very unusual for any to lose their jobs during a president's term and they occupy a quasi monarchical position while in office. Real or apparent political interference is a complete no no. Hence the total silence on the Republican benches of congress because they realize how big a deal this is. Given what has happened, Gonzales is probably a goner and it is probable that several of these staffers are in serious legal jeopardy. Schumer has the white house and DOJ on the ropes over this and he knows it.”

Beyond the point that I don’t “practice” anything and without a doubt law; for that I would point John and/or anyone else to someone that has and perhaps does still practice law, Andrew McCarthy, “Playing Politics with Politics.” Please argue this case with him and not me; however you may do this by commenting at this post. Also, the editors at NRO do have a few words to speak of in regard to the subject here, with “Mismanagement of Justice.”

All of the above aside, with the exception of the comment; I commented back that I agreed with the assessment of, “Real or apparent political interference is a complete no no.,” as it speaks to how it can or may appear.

The comment struck a nerve as far as appearances go and what it is politics and/or politicians do with appearances. Appearance goes hand and foot (in mouth) with perception, but an appearance or perception does not make it true nor false for that matter. We all may see the same thing, but walk away with a different impression based upon our perception(s) of an event. In this case the administration did something that appears to many as something scandalous and/or criminal, while others, which include myself whether through ignorance or not, although it is ignorance in the sense that I am ignorant of why in reality it has taken place; perceive it as standard operating procedure for politics.

Again as I began this mess, the use of the term appear as appropriate to appearance is what really bothered me and got me to thinking (something else I don’t practice). Appearance is exactly what the Democrat party and msm has had to work with and has done so with a feverish passion ever since George W. Bush took office. Granted, they at the least are just playing politics or hawking “news” and it appears to me that that is all they are doing (endless debate here), however I believe what they have done is to everyone’s detriment.

NSA Surveillance is the government spying. Katrina happened because Bush is/did not sign on with Kyoto. The Federal response to Katrina was racism in action. The supposed leak in the Joseph Wilson episode was just in retaliation for “speaking truth to power,” forget about Wilson’s lies, Iraq is just for oil, for Dad, for the military industrial complex, for imperialistic reasons……..I could go on and on, but won’t bother.

In each of these instances the Dems and msm (hence this blogs name), took each of these scenarios and made them appear as fact; this even when each reacted and stood (in few if any instances beyond 9/11, Afghanistan, WMDs and Iraq and this may be stretching it), on the side of the perception of the administration. For the sake of this post, I won’t bother going into wordy detail about each as I would imagine perception has/is already taking place as to what kind of an *ss this blogger is; that and most instances have already been covered enough that a reader wouldn’t need any detail.

Appearance, perception and reality don’t all fit together at least as far as they lead to one seeing a reality that isn’t. I believe the msm and Dems, as well as others that feel the need to for whatever psychosis (my perception), have done much damage to this country and the world as a whole. From the msm’s “unbiased” reporting and the Dems politics as usual have come countless opportunities to see and believe many appearances that just are not so. What this has wrought is a world that will prove much more difficult to fix than either of them could ever imagine or perceive.

Most if not all readers will get the gist of what I’m saying regardless of their side of the political spectrum. We have lived each and every episode together over the past six plus years regardless of the perception we walk away with. I think many need pull their heads out of their *sses and select a new conditioner, while others will think the same of me and mine.

Others will think, what’s your point? These latter will just have to practice thinking a little bit more often. Or maybe I just need to learn how to make a point.

Please Note: this blogger is not a psychiatrist, sociologist or any other professional that may or may not be qualified to make the preceeding statements; it’s just my opinion.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Trackback for this Post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/2557739836505641663

Senate Repudiation of Bush Troop Increase - Some Quotes

From DeMediacratic Nation at Townhall:

When the going gets tough, just back down!

To Quote a statement from CNN:

"the revised policy involving a war that has lasted nearly four years, claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops"

I'm somewhat surprised CNN said the war "has lasted nearly four years," V.S. "nearing the fifth year...." Be sure to keep an eye/ear out as we close in on the end of the fourth year....it will change to "in the fifth year...." This is how it was referred to last year; the msm did not have time to keep it correctly at three years...most references were this was the fourth year.

(The legislation is) "not an attempt to embarrass the president. ... It's an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake with regard to our policy in Iraq." - Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Delaware

Hey "Slow Joe" - what the president is doing is not an attempt to embarrass the Senate; he is just trying to save you all from continuing your significant mistake with regard to your policy in Iraq. Not sure what your policy is other than to get out, but...

"I am not confident that President Bush's plan will succeed," - Sen. Richard Lugar R-Indiana

Not competent? Oh, sorry, Sen. Lugar is not confident, which I guess means.....something of significance?

"There is no strategy. This is a pingpong game with American lives. These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans; they're real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder." - Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-NE

I agree, we had better make damned sure we know what we're doing when we up and pull out...sorry 'phased redeployment.' Now there is a positive/supportive victory motivated statement.

"I wonder whether the clock has already run out," - Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

I wonder about you too. Shouldn't you know? What, you're just guessing? You mean you don't know anything for sure? Shouldn't you then speak more forcefully as though you do, like the Democrats?

"I think all of us are talking about a phased redeployment which would leave American troops in the region to send a strong message, not only to the Iraqi government that we want to help them, but also to neighbors, like Iran, that we're not abandoning the field." - Sen. Barack Obama D-IL

"Troops" in the region...where? Iran won't see us as "abandoning the field?" "Strong message?" Um, yeah, this would be an extremely forceful message to Iran.....? Wouldn't remaining in the region (between borders in a place called Betwixt), be seen as an "occupation?" Can't we just continue talking? Maybe it will all just work itself out? Might we consider "Betwixt" a U.S. territory/possession and if so would it be exempt from increases in the minimum wage?

I read nothing but defeat; not in Iraq, but in our leaderships(?) comments. They know nothing and likely never will, at least not until they think for themselves rather than just working toward remaining employed.

Old Soldiers Never Die, Fade Away or Shut Up

At the NYTimes, "Retired Generals Criticize Bush's Plan for Iraq;" reports on a panel of perfumed princes speaking before the Senate.

I get quite tired of the few general officers of the thousands, that receive the media attention when they oppose the president's Iraq activities.

Sounding like the DNC or MSM, Lt. Gen Odom said:

"The American effort in Iraq has gone badly because the United States did not understand the consequences of deposing Saddam Hussein, the principal beneficiary of the war was Iran and Al Qaeda, not the United States. There is no way to win a war that is not in your interests."

Blandly says: "There is no way to win a war when you don't understand what your interests are."

Maliki: More Weapons, Less Advice - TIME

Charles Crain of TIME provides a fine example of msm "unbiased" reporting:

"Maliki — taking a page from President Bush's political playbook — said that by wavering in its support for the Iraqi government, the Administration was emboldening terrorists. Insurgents might take such comments as a sign "that they have defeated the American Administration," Maliki said."

You see, Bush doesn't actually believe in anything he says or does, it's all just part of his cynical "political playbook."

To Crain et al, there is no truth to the reality in Iraq...only politics as usual.

AP "all you need to know before," Bush speech

AP "all you need to know before," Bush speech Wednesday 1/10:

"Unswayed by anti-war passions"

"Additional U.S. forces to Iraq to quell its near-anarchy"

"He had erred by failing to order a troop buildup last year"

"Highest level and put Bush on a collision course with the new Democratic Congress. It also runs counter to advice from some generals."

"Democratic leaders of Congress met with Bush before his speech and complained later that their opposition to a buildup had been ignored."

"This is the third time we are going down this path. Two times this has not worked," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "Why are they doing this now? That question remains**."

"After nearly four years of bloody combat, the speech was perhaps Bush's last credible chance to try to present a winning strategy in Iraq and persuade Americans to change their minds about the unpopular war"

"(T)o readily acknowledge making mistakes in previous efforts to stop the relentless violence in Baghdad."

'In a now-familiar refrain, Bush was to portray the war in Iraq as "the decisive ideological struggle of our time."'

"The buildup comes two months after elections that were widely seen as a call for the withdrawal of some or all U.S. forces from Iraq. Polling by AP-Ipsos in December found that only 27 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of Iraq, his lowest rating yet."

"U.S. troops in Iraq _ now at 132,000 _ to 153,500 at a cost of $5.6 billion."

**"The highest number was 160,000 a year ago in a troop buildup for Iraqi elections."

"Also backing the president's plan were maverick Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn."

"Bush's strategy ignores key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which in December called for a new diplomatic offensive and an outreach to Syria and Iran."