W's upcoming "New Way Forward" speech

[mburbank]

There is so much about tomorrow nights speech I don't get.

I don't mean I disagree, I do, but I don't get it, either.

The first thing I don't get, is that absolutely everybody now knows everything that's going to be in the speech. It's all been 'leaked' to the press drip by drip until it's a total non event. Why even ask for network time? This is supposed to be the big moment where W shows the doubting public that he is indeed engaged in Iraq, he knows it's not working, but he has a 'New Way Forward'. Why all the delay and leaks, why all the time leaving the media nothing to cover but who thinks the ideas the President has yet to reveal but everybody knows are stupid?

Secondly, what purpose did the Iraq report serve? It's ironic that the only thing he took from it was the Phrase "A New Way Forward", since it isn't the way they suggested. He should call it "Another New Way Forward."

Why were Baker and O'connor willing to participate? Did they have some belief that W. would take up their face saving program, or do they just feel guilty that they are arguably the two people most responsible after katherine Harris for W being President at all?

[kahljorn]

maybe he has some big surprise and the leak was just supposed to set us up for the surprise like tapping on someone's shoulder and as they turn around slapping them in the face and yelling "SURPRISE" into their shocked eyeballs..

[FartinMowler]

I just watched a CNN special report with Kennedy saying he wants the American people to vote on whether or not Bush has the right to put more troops into Iraq. Things get leaked for a reason.

[Abcdxxxx]

Baker's participating because he's double dipping. You're folling yourself if you think he's some whistle blower taking a stand for anything besides his pocket book, his oil interest friends, and his clients after 9/11 - the Saudis.

[mburbank]

I'm not thinking of Baker as anything like a whistle blower. I'm wondering what he stood to gain by agreeing to be on the comission. I'd assumed initially that there had been a request for the Bush family Consiglieri to provide face saving cover for W.

It seems to have been a huge waste of nine months time, and I have to wonder what Baker and to a lesser degree Oconnor thought they'd get out of it.

[Abcdxxxx]

Huh? Baker's dirty. What did he get from representing the Saudis against the 9/11 families? Check the commission report and he's pushing the Saudi's agenda from start to finish, including Israel and Iran. Baker Botts takes in 180-365 million anually from the Saudis. The commission was hand packed with people who had Saudi or at least Arab oil money type connections.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/...he_case_o.html


That commission told you what you wanted to hear, or what you wanted to believe was an honest summation. You were hoodwinked.

[Preechr]

There really hasn't been so many leaks as there have been the media buying their own conjecture. I did hear that the speech might contain some long needed presidential illumination of some key concepts in the War on Terror, or whatever he plans on calling it.

That to me is the single most important thing that needs to change: The administration needs to spend more time selling what they are doing to the people that are paying for it. Any debate on the issue is useless since the side with all the actual information generally just smiles and says, "Trust Us." I don't like it. I've never liked, though I have gone along with it so far. At this point, however, that political strategy has failed here at home moreso than any military strategy has in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Just as we have done in our discussions here, Bush needs to be defining the terms used in describing this war. What is the War on Terror? What does winning it or losing it look like? What is peace? To make decisions, his administrations has already had to define the terms. Why not share them? By not doing so, detractors are left to argue against the war using whatever definitions of these key concepts they wish, which makes honest debate impossible.

I hope this serious misunderestimation is rectifidoodled with tomorrow night's addressification, though I've grown pretty damn pessimistic about any hopes I might have had that Bush would ever start actually communicating effectively. When it's all said and done, I suspect I'll be agreeing with Max that it was a waste of air-time.

[mburbank]

I think I'll wait for the text of the speech, the newspaper is bound to give a more lifelike presentation.

Alphaboy... I don't even know what to say to you. I'm pretty sure I write clearly, and yet you always see stuff I'm sure I didn't say.

Hoodwinked? What would make you think I thought Baker was anything but a scumbag? Was it where I called him the Bush Family Consigliere? 'Cause that's not a good thing. That's insulting him.

I thought what Baker was trying to do is what the family has always done for junior, ie. bail him out of a mess he's made. Now I'm sure Baker had other desires as well, and I'm fairly certain none of them were altruistic. Even though Baker and I both want US troops out of Iraq, I doubt we want it for the same reasons. I hardly think Baker has had some sort of Grinch Finding Christmas experience.

Since W seems disinclined to do a single thing Baker recomended, it seems like he wasted his time.

Baker Bad Man. Baker self interested. Baker not get what he want. Why Baker try in first place? Why Baker think he get anywhere with junior? Baker very close to Bush family. Why he invest time on panel if he not think outcome be better for him? It puzzling.

Now you go: "Wow Burbank. I can't belive you think Baker's a good guy. He sure fooled you."

[DehydratedPorkMan]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Why were Baker and O'connor willing to participate? Did they have some belief that W. would take up their face saving program, or do they just feel guilty that they are arguably the two people most responsible after katherine Harris for W being President at all?

Friends stick together. It is quite sad.

And what's this I hear about her wanting to run because of Hillary or is that a big old joke?

[Preechr]

Katherine Harris has absolutely no political capital left to spend. That may have been a rumor at one time, but there's no truth behind that now.

Max, do you remember sometime last year Dubya's dad also saying he felt going into Iraq was a mistake? Junior's on a political island when you look at those not currently involved in government. I think that has something to do with Baker's sentiments too.

[Abcdxxxx]

Burbank...is it Wednesday or something? Is that the day your brain stays at home with the kid?

I recall you thought Baker's findings were on the up and up. You liked the recommendations. You talked about it like it was anything but a smoke screen set up to accomodate Saudi Arabian lobby dollars and promote their voice.

Of course you don't like Baker....he wears the wrong color. You did like the findings and that makes you a rube.

[Sethomas]

Rube:
–noun Informal.
an unsophisticated person from a rural area; hick.

Actually, I think most rubes support Bush because Jesus says they should.

[Abcdxxxx]

Then look up the word "Mark" and it might define how stupid you are. Get some slang.

[Sethomas]

you're cute when you say dumb shit, you know that? Because you're incapable of being wrong, you're now a master of the English informal lexicon. I can't really escape the mental image of you peering over a slang thesaurus in unbridled eagerness for a context to use "rubbernecking". I'm sorry, I forgot that your background qualifies you as an expert on slang. I guess I really do need to go get me some of that.

[Abcdxxxx]

Could someone other then Sethomas repost that. It sounds silly coming from him, and I so wanted to be put in my place. K, thanks.

[kahljorn]

you're cute when you say dumb shit, you know that? Because you're incapable of being wrong, you're now a master of the English informal lexicon. I can't really escape the mental image of you peering over a slang thesaurus in unbridled eagerness for a context to use "rubbernecking". I'm sorry, I forgot that your background qualifies you as an expert on slang. I guess I really do need to go get me some of that

handshakes all around!

[Abcdxxxx]

Good dog.

[kahljorn]

Happy to please, rube.

[Grislygus]

Wow. I was very impressed that he took responsibility for "any mistakes made". Call me naive, but I didn't expect that.

[DehydratedPorkMan]

Originally Posted by Grislygus

Wow. I was very impressed that he took responsibility for "any mistakes made". Call me naive, but I didn't expect that.

He doesn't understand responsibility. Remember that. This is all a dream happening. I am a dream. Not really though, nobody would dream about me. I may not even exist. This is going nowhere.

I need waffles.

But in the end, W needs to stop digging himself into this 500 mile-deep hole he's made and stop apologizing and creating Vietnam 2.0.

[mburbank]

How is it I keep forgetting that exchanges of any kind with Alphaboy that have an intent beyond humor are pointless?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Can somebody Cliffs Notes the speech for me?

[DehydratedPorkMan]

Is there by any chance it will be on YouTube?
Seriously, I'm not aiming for humor. I just dislike TV. And Bush.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It wasn't last night, but maybe by now.

[kahljorn]

They had it on foxnews.com along with a transcript, which is what I read. I was considering posting it here ;/

it was basically, INCREASE TROOPS BECAUSE WE DIDNT HAVE ENOUGH TO SECURE AREAS AND BAD GUSY WOULD COME BACK IN AFTER WE CLEARED THE AREA. GOTO TERRORIST REGION WITH 4,000 TROOPS AND SOME IRAQI GUYS AND FORCE THE TERRORISTS OUT.
HELP TURKEY WITH BORDER STUFF.