...and the DU spools up :jameo: (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2245552) :lmao:

Bush Taps Snow As New Press Secretary (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060426/D8H7N9L00.html)

All press secretaries come from somewhere - what's the big deal about Snow coming from Fox?

All press secretaries come from somewhere - what's the big deal about Snow coming from Fox?


Helen Thomas: "Tony, when Dick Cheney planned on wiping out New Orleans with his Weather/Earthquake/Tsunami Defibrillator and Combination over and under Shotgun Atomizer and Pocket Knife did he expect us to simply not notice?"

Tony; "Helen, come on, listen to what you're saying..."

Helen: "Now, young man, you didn't come in here planning on giving us the old Bush/Cheney snow job and just take it, did you!?"

press corp; 'eruptions of muffled, barely restrained laughter and out right guffaws, Helen's teeth pop out as she yucks it up over her clever little joke...'

All press secretaries come from somewhere - what's the big deal about Snow coming from Fox?

You're right. But it seems to confirm what they've been saying all along - Roger Ailes is Bush's buddy, and FOX is the Republican News Network.

Admittedly, anyone who has ever read Tony, listened to Tony or tuned into Tony's radio show KNOWS, he's no shill for Republicans. He's conservative, but that's probably where it ends.

Who was THEIR choice for press secretary - Al Franken?

...and the DU spools up :jameo: (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2245552) :lmao:

Bush Taps Snow As New Press Secretary (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060426/D8H7N9L00.html)

If the DU is up in arms, he must be the right choice.

Who was THEIR choice for press secretary - Al Franken?

Cindy Sheehan.


Wonder if there's going to be a sudden jump in Bushies popularity, with 100% of Republicans now approving of his job performance. :lmao:

Cindy Sheehan.


Wonder if there's going to be a sudden jump in Bushies popularity, with 100% of Republicans now approving of his job performance. :lmao:

Why would that happen?

If the DU is up in arms, he must be the right choice.
That's how I take a position if I don't have time to run down the story for myself: I go over to the DU and whatever position those psychotics are taking, I take the opposite. That method hasn't failed me yet.

But you really have to read because sometimes they'll have a sensible non-psychotic person on there with a perfectly factual and rational argument. So you have to go by the majority.

PS, Warner2008 is getting ready to be banned from the DU. :popcorn:

That's how I take a position if I don't have time to run down the story for myself: I go over to the DU and whatever position those psychotics are taking, I take the opposite. That method hasn't failed me yet.



wouldn't it be easier to go to the foxnews homepage :shrug:

If the DU is up in arms, he must be the right choice.

...the DU is a compass with one direction; Hate Bush.

They even disparage Chris Mathews, someone ANY Republican would consider left of ANYONES center, who, apparently, pushed for the job. They hate everyone IN the press to, except St. Helen Thomas, and if SHE got the job she would instantly be a 'media whore' or a right wing-bot or some such.

wouldn't it be easier to go to the foxnews homepage
Then I have to do homework. It's easier to just pop over to the DU.

...because sometimes they'll have a sensible non-psychotic person on there with a perfectly factual and rational argument. So you have to go by the majority.


...amd they're easy to find; they're the one covered in their own blood, sprawled on the metaphorical sidewalk.

Cindy Sheehan.


Wonder if there's going to be a sudden jump in Bushies popularity, with 100% of Republicans now approving of his job performance. :lmao: Here's a new one - A drive by Bush bash by Kerad! He never does this!

They even disparage Chris Mathews, someone ANY Republican would consider left of ANYONES center, who, apparently, pushed for the job. They hate everyone IN the press to, except St. Helen Thomas, and if SHE got the job she would instantly be a 'media whore' or a right wing-bot or some such.
Very true. You should hear them go after Katie Couric, who is brazenly partisan and anti-Bush. She made the mistake of not blasting into some Bush official, calling him a liar and stomping off the set. :lol:

...and the DU spools up :jameo: (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2245552) :lmao:

Bush Taps Snow As New Press Secretary (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060426/D8H7N9L00.html)
Ahem!!! That would be Tony Smow in this forum. :lmao:

Cindy Sheehan.


Wonder if there's going to be a sudden jump in Bushies popularity, with 100% of Republicans now approving of his job performance. :lmao:


...that would actually be a hoot.

Media hoarde; "Cindy, what does the President have to say about the recent loss of a soldier who cut himself shaving? Does he even care? Did he go see this brave warrior or even send a card?"

Spokesperson Sheehan "Well, David, that's an interesting take on the subject. Perhpas you are being a bit over the top, hmm? Actually, it wasn't shaving and it wasn't just one trooper and it wasn't an accident. The real truth, which they REFUSE to allow me to tell you and the American people is that (guards start making a b line for the podium) President Bush himself leaps out of shaving kits (the guards now have a handful of Cindy and are dragging her away) AND SLITS THE VERY THROATS (shouting now, barely hanging on to the mic) AND DRINKSTHEIRBLOOOOOOOODDDDD!!!!!!!!..."

Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just keep him at Fox news? He'll be saying the same stuff, why not just let fox pay the bill?

Who cares about press seceretaries, we need a new Defense Sec. Rummy needs to go.

Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just keep him at Fox news? He'll be saying the same stuff, why not just let fox pay the bill?

...to do it this way. We pay Fox out of your taxes anyway. They'd never survive in the real world where real, unbiased journalism reigns supreme.

Who cares about press seceretaries, we need a new Defense Sec. Rummy needs to go.


...of???

Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just keep him at Fox news? He'll be saying the same stuff, why not just let fox pay the bill?

Why not just replace McLellan with someone who can actually do the job - than pay for a guy who just can't do it effectively?

He may be a nice guy, but Scott isn't the kind of guy I'd want speaking up for me. He just leaves you with the impression that he's probably lying to you, and that's just when he says "good morning".

Anyway, at least one of the news bits cites stuff I already know - Snow has been known to be very critical of Bush. What he's not, is rabid and nutty like some of Bush's detractors. Snow once referred to Bush's timid behavior as "an embarassment" to Republicans. Yeah, he's conservative, but it doesn't mean he likes everything Bush does. I don't either, but I'd still vote for him over Kerry or Gore.

...
But you really have to read because sometimes they'll have a sensible non-psychotic person on there with a perfectly factual and rational argument. So you have to go by the majority.But they'll be banned in no time for not drinking the kool aide.

...of???
Being underqualified for the position and an ineffectual leader.

Being underqualified for the position and an ineffectual leader.


...so?

Being underqualified for the position and an ineffectual leader.

Ineffectual is a matter of opinion.

*UNDERQUALIFIED* is perhaps the stupidest comment on his credentials I've ever heard. His resume is very long and distinguished, and unlike a lot of SecDef's -

He's been one *BEFORE*! How qualified does he have to be?

Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just keep him at Fox news? He'll be saying the same stuff, why not just let fox pay the bill?


:killingme :killingme

:killingme :killingme
It wasn't that funny.

Ineffectual is a matter of opinion.

*UNDERQUALIFIED* is perhaps the stupidest comment on his credentials I've ever heard. His resume is very long and distinguished, and unlike a lot of SecDef's -

He's been one *BEFORE*! How qualified does he have to be?

Well

"[Rumsfeld] has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important misson in Iraq." -- Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton

"the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missons - or bury the results." -- Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold

"When decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision-making, sound planning, then we're bound to make mistakes." --Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste.

"[Rumsfeld and his advisors] made fools of themselves, and totally underestimated what would be needed for a sustained conflict." -- Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs.

"We need to continue to fight the global war on terror and keep it off our shores. But I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam in Iraq." -- Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack.

It's all fine and good to have nice things on paper, but the military is losing faith in him from the top down. We have the men, materials and will to have crushed this thing long ago, but for some reason it hasn't happened.

I'm curious exactly what they think the mistakes were? And how they think it should have been done differently?

Nobody ever wants to talk about that - they just want to say Rumsfeld sucks.

We went in, liberated Iraq and captured Saddam within a matter of months. I think that's pretty impressive. Much better than WWII, when we had several other major countries helping us and lost significantly more lives.

We're not even at war with Iraq anymore, really. That part is over. Now we're helping rebuild (or build, period, because the Iraqi people have more infrastructure now than they had before), training the Iraqi Army and dealing with random terrorist leftovers.

I thnk it's gone very well and and Rumsfeld has obviously done a great job.

We went in, liberated Iraq and captured Saddam within a matter of months. I think that's pretty impressive. Much better than WWII, when we had several other major countries helping us and lost significantly more lives.

We're not even at war with Iraq anymore, really. That part is over. Now we're helping rebuild (or build, period, because the Iraqi people have more infrastructure now than they had before), training the Iraqi Army and dealing with random terrorist leftovers.

:shrug:


The State Department's annual terrorism report, being released today, finds that Iraq is becoming a safe haven for terrorists and has attracted a "foreign fighter pipeline" linked to terrorist plots, cells and attacks throughout the world, a senior State Department official tells CNN.

I thnk it's gone very well and and Rumsfeld has obviously done a great job.

Hey, don't forget the total disaster that was Afghanistan!

I'm curious exactly what they think the mistakes were? And how they think it should have been done differently?

Nobody ever wants to talk about that - they just want to say Rumsfeld sucks.

We went in, liberated Iraq and captured Saddam within a matter of months. I think that's pretty impressive. Much better than WWII, when we had several other major countries helping us and lost significantly more lives.

We're not even at war with Iraq anymore, really. That part is over. Now we're helping rebuild (or build, period, because the Iraqi people have more infrastructure now than they had before), training the Iraqi Army and dealing with random terrorist leftovers.

I thnk it's gone very well and and Rumsfeld has obviously done a great job.

That's the thoughts that are screwing us up. WE ARE STILL AT WAR. We just had a major offensive go down a few months ago. We have the UK helping us there and some other smaller countries. This thing is not near being finished.

That's the thoughts that are screwing us up. WE ARE STILL AT WAR. We just had a major offensive go down a few months ago. We have the UK helping us there and some other smaller countries. This thing is not near being finished.

Yeah, that surprised me that Vrai said that, because the non-recognition of our involvement in Iraq as being AT WAR is generally the underlying principle guiding most of what's said on the left. Most of their comments tend to betray that; that, since we're not *really* at war, what they say and do is perfectly 'acceptable'.

Yeah, that surprised me that Vrai said that, because the non-recognition of our involvement in Iraq as being AT WAR is generally the underlying principle guiding most of what's said on the left. Most of their comments tend to betray that; that, since we're not *really* at war, what they say and do is perfectly 'acceptable'.
Yeah, and try and tell my friend and his wife and kids we're not really at war. He's off to Mosul next month.

Yeah, that surprised me that Vrai said that, because the non-recognition of our involvement in Iraq as being AT WAR is generally the underlying principle guiding most of what's said on the left. Most of their comments tend to betray that; that, since we're not *really* at war, what they say and do is perfectly 'acceptable'.
I consider the War on Tara ongoing, but Iraq is pretty much just clean-up at this point. Wars typically have a purpose and a goal - what's the goal in Iraq? Saddam is gone, they've got free elections...now we're just helping them get back on their feet, sort of like the Marshall Plan after WWII.

The reason we're still there (and should STAY there) is because the Iraqis aren't strong enough to defend themselves against the leftovers yet. It's kind of like the US still having bases in South Korea, even though we're not at war with North Korea and neither are they.

But I'm willing to either revise or change the verbiage of my position.

Yeah, and try and tell my friend and his wife and kids we're not really at war. He's off to Mosul next month.

But you know what I mean - try to re-cast what folks like Pelosi and Dean and Kerry etc. have to say, by regarding Iraq as a Kosovo like police action, rather than engaging in actual war. Try to look at their criticism and that of the pop culture with how it might have been during, say, WW2. Imagine movies critical of our engagement in D-Day and Europe being played in theaters in 1944.

You want to know something interesting? This week, there were some interesting polls regarding both Congress and the President, and his approval ratings, which are way down, have BEEN down for months, and are down lower than normal because his OWN BASE is digruntled with him. They don't want him to withdraw - they want him to deal with immigration once and for all. They don't want him to institute a windfall profits tax - they just want lower friggin' gas prices by repealing the stupid federal tax. They don't want us pulling out of Iraq. They want him to go in with more numbers and kick the insurgent''s ever-living behinds. His base disapproves, because they want something different from what the left wants. Disapproval is kind of a broad term.

But that's not what I found interesting - they mentioned that his length of disapproval below 40% is the second worst in the history of the polls. Even worse than Nixon.

But NOT worse - than Harry Truman. His was, at worst, as low as 23%, and remained below 40 for most of his time in office. But modern measure, one of the most unpopular Presidents, while in office.

History, however, seems to have exonerated him. I wonder why?

It's kind of like the US still having bases in South Korea, even though we're not at war with North Korea and neither are they.

But I'm willing to either revise or change the verbiage of my position.

It's nothing like Korea. We don't have ongoing combat in Korea.

History, however, seems to have exonerated him. I wonder why?
He dropped the bomb that ended WWII. Other than Teddy Roosevelt, no vice pres that has become pres. has done really well.

I consider the War on Tara ongoing, but Iraq is pretty much just clean-up at this point. Wars typically have a purpose and a goal - what's the goal in Iraq? Saddam is gone, they've got free elections...now we're just helping them get back on their feet, sort of like the Marshall Plan after WWII.

The reason we're still there (and should STAY there) is because the Iraqis aren't strong enough to defend themselves against the leftovers yet. It's kind of like the US still having bases in South Korea, even though we're not at war with North Korea and neither are they.

But I'm willing to either revise or change the verbiage of my position.

The more conventional means of conducting a "war" - rolling tanks, pitched battles, capturing cities - that's been over for years. Ironically, the loss of life during that phase was trivial compared to what's happened since then. Since then, a figure ranging from perhaps ten thousand to many more is the force engaging in guerrilla warfare against the troops. You know, when they report some IED blowing up Americans, they don't always mention the engagement where Americans got a few dozen insurgents, except maybe in Bush's speeches, where he comments as many as 30 to 40 thousand killed. War over? Hardly. When you have those kinds of numbers, it's friggin' war, alright. That's more casualties than the US has had in some of its full-blown wars.

It's become a different phase in the war, and as much as I do support what they've done, I think they really didn't anticipate how strong it would still be by this time. I think they thought the Iraqi civilian support would be stronger, that Iraqi police and military would be fiercer in their engagements with the insurgents, and that Iraqi nationalism would be broader. Most of the material I've read in the last several weeks have suggested "the possibility of civil war is very weak at this point". THAT at least, appears to be averted.

As others have mentioned - they have NOT stemmed the flow of foreigners supporting and supplying the insurgents. Seems to me from the news, there are still whole strongholds where entire cities belong to the guerillas. That's still war, to me. When the British took OUR cities of Philadelphia, New York, Charleston, and the coastal cities - our rebels shivered in the woods in Valley Forge. It was still war, even while it was fairly unpopular amongst the civilian population. That's how I see this. What I fear, however, is that this kind of war eventually becomes unwinnable, because incremental gains exceed what people are willing to pay to get them. We won the Revolution partly because of Yorktown, but a lot had to do with the English being sick of fighting after 6 years.

He dropped the bomb that ended WWII. Other than Teddy Roosevelt, no vice pres that has become pres. has done really well.

Liberals might argue that LBJ was. I don't, and at the end of his second term, he was completely unelectable. When he assumed office, his approval rating was in the 70's. It just went downhill every month after that.

Approval ratings are interesting. Here's an interesting chart:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/436/1538/1600/AllPresApproval20060413.jpg

Interesting to note that after 9/11, Bush's popularity was higher, and remained higher, than Clinton's was during his entire tenure. Only four Presidents show sustained support through their time in office - Reagan, Ike, FDR, and Clinton. Everyone else got more unpopular with time - even Kennedy, although his "lows" were still pretty high.

Well

"[Rumsfeld] has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important misson in Iraq." -- Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton

"the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missons - or bury the results." -- Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold

"When decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision-making, sound planning, then we're bound to make mistakes." --Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste.

"[Rumsfeld and his advisors] made fools of themselves, and totally underestimated what would be needed for a sustained conflict." -- Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs.

"We need to continue to fight the global war on terror and keep it off our shores. But I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam in Iraq." -- Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack.

It's all fine and good to have nice things on paper, but the military is losing faith in him from the top down. We have the men, materials and will to have crushed this thing long ago, but for some reason it hasn't happened.Aren't these guys all retired and all Democrats? I think so.

They should listen to Omar.“I am convinced that the best service a retired general can perform is to turn in his tongue along with his suit, and to mothball his opinions.” —General Omar Bradley

Aren't these guys all retired and all Democrats? I think so.



Military law forbids generals from publically criticizing the Commander in Chief and his cabinet while they are still active military.

But while active all these generals were involved in the Iraq War.

So yes, I would say they all have grounds to criticize Secretary Rumsfeld now that they are retired.

Military law forbids generals from publically criticizing the Commander in Chief and his cabinet while they are still active military.

But while active all these generals were involved in the Iraq War.

So yes, I would say they all have grounds to criticize Secretary Rumsfeld now that they are retired.

...from resigning whether it be in protest of how things are being done or for personal reasons.

Funny, they didn't resign, yet they want him to.

Huh.

Military law forbids generals from publically criticizing the Commander in Chief and his cabinet while they are still active military.

But while active all these generals were involved in the Iraq War.

So yes, I would say they all have grounds to criticize Secretary Rumsfeld now that they are retired.
I think everything they say should be taken with a large helping of salt. You agree with them because they say what you hope for.

Well

"[Rumsfeld] has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important misson in Iraq." -- Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton

"the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missons - or bury the results." -- Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold

"When decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision-making, sound planning, then we're bound to make mistakes." --Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste.

"[Rumsfeld and his advisors] made fools of themselves, and totally underestimated what would be needed for a sustained conflict." -- Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs.

"We need to continue to fight the global war on terror and keep it off our shores. But I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam in Iraq." -- Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack.

It's all fine and good to have nice things on paper, but the military is losing faith in him from the top down. We have the men, materials and will to have crushed this thing long ago, but for some reason it hasn't happened.



...when one reads all of that one would expect that we'd have, what, 50,000 dead, maybe more? That we'd have an enemy growing ever stronger. That we'd have anarchy in Iraq.

Then, we see Saddam in a cage. So, what war is Swannack talking about, his access to Doritos?

Many of these people are of the 750,000 man Swarzkopf school of 1991. Maybe that was the way to go; Wait until we'd built back up the 400,000 man reduction of the Clinton years. Maybe.

When Turkey screwed us and did not allow the 4th ID to come in from the north, which was the original plan, things went awry.

Should we have stopped? Maybe.

Should we have delayed? Maybe.

That was the Presidents call.

It's amazing that these people claim to want Rumsfeld gone, yet, by there little PR stunt, they guarantee he stays. No President can be seen as taking orders from generals. Especially retired ones. Especially ones with axes to grind and especially when the thing is not going all that bad given a broader view.

Military law forbids generals from publically criticizing the Commander in Chief and his cabinet while they are still active military.

But while active all these generals were involved in the Iraq War.

So yes, I would say they all have grounds to criticize Secretary Rumsfeld now that they are retired.
Actually any officer can criticize or disagree with our civilian officials (including the President) as long as he/she doesn't use contemptuous words in the process. ( UCMJ ATICLE 88 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000888----000-.html) ) That is why you will hear them start off in a manner such as "With all due respect Mr. President, ...."

Granted it isn't very good for one's career, but at times it is the duty of said officers to offer up honest opinion and information even if it is contrary to what the public officials position is.

No President can be seen as taking orders from generals.
And there I think your wrong. I don't see it as orders at all, and to completely ignore it reeks of arrogance. The CO of a ship regularly asks opinions from the senior enlisted of a ship and there is a process to relieving a CO by appealing to his senior officer due to a lack of confidence. I see no difference in this instance.