Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Dec 20, 2006 in At TMV | 13 comments

“We’re not winning, we’re not losing”

Sure, Mr. President. That’s the latest spin, I understand, and it beats the “we’re winning” nonsense that you spewed before the midterms, but only your most delusional supporters believe you now. I think I’ll take Powell’s word over yours. Of course, your spin raises the question of the meanings of “winning” and “losing,” but you can’t possibly convince me that the meanings of “winning” and “losing,” as well as the line between the two, are what you imagined them to be back when you were rushing to war and then celebrating mission accomplished. How can being stuck in a quagmire not be losing?

Regardless, I hear that you want to expand the size of the military for the sake of the Iraq War and that nebulous war on terror. I am tempted to make some obvious quip about the matter of size, but I’ll restrain myself. Besides, whatever the size, it’s what you do with it, right? And look what you’ve done with it. Would more make any difference? Not, I’m afraid, with you deciding when and where to shove it in.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2006 The Moderate Voice
  • I’m happy to know that I and countless others, including many I know who’ve served over there, are all merely “delusional supporters.” Hahahahaha.

  • I’m not sure how the President steels himself to increase the troops on the ground over the unanimous objection of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But I’m also unclear on how taunting him and his supporters — with snide references to the innuendo of size and how you use it — will do any of us any good. I enjoy reading the posts on this site as much as I enjoy writing them. But with all due respect to Michael S. — recognizing (a) his right to his opinion and (b) my own ability as a co-blogger here to lay an egg every now and then — this post disappoints me. Each to his own.

  • Davebo

    I think I’ll take Powell’s word over yours.

    I wouldn’t believe a word out of either of them.

    I’m happy to know that I and countless others, including many I know who’ve served over there, are all merely “delusional supporters.” Hahahahaha.

    And look on the bright side. Give it a few more weeks and you’ll be able to have your annual convention in the back of a taxi cab.

  • Andrew

    Dean, that wasn’t as good of a spoof as your other posts. I suggest you up the ante and say something crazy like:

    Conservative distrust of the media’s very real bias has inclined us to dismiss reports about problems in Iraq that are real.

    In the end, I think the media bears fundamental responsibility for this. Had they been less biased — had they reported acts of heroism and the many good things we have done in Iraq — I think conservatives would actually have taken their reporting of the problems in Iraq more seriously. In effect, the media’s consistent liberal bias discredits even its valid reports.

    ….It’s a terrible shame that we’ve come to the point where our ability to believe news reports hinges on a those rare cases where the record shows freedom from liberal bias. The media has discredited themselves, making it tough to take them seriously even when they are right, and that has hurt us all.

  • Matt Pearl

    How the hell do you Neither win nor lose in war? Does that mean that we are stagnant? In a stalemate? Yeesh…

  • Andrew

    Matt, not winning and not losing is the centrist position between those radical poles.

  • Paul in Austin

    I expose myself to lots of different news and opinion sources with different points of view.

    The listener is responsible to choose how open minded they are willing to be.

  • The key point is this, that regardless of whether an increase in overall troop makes sense in light of the challenges the US is facing, given his past record Bush cannot be trusted to spend their lives wisely.

  • But I’m also unclear on how taunting him and his supporters — with snide references to the innuendo of size and how you use it — will do any of us any good.

    Bush and his supporters deserve to be ridiculed.

    There are some situations that don’t deserve an even handed he-said she-said approach.

  • Chris,

    And ridiculing them accomplishes what? The overwhelming majority of the country already agrees they’ve mishandled things. They’re already down despite their obstinance.

    Rather than kicking them further, tossing semi-sexual slanders their way, why not focus our energies on encouraging Congress to listen to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, exercise their constitutional authority, and over-ride any Presidential plan that goes against what the JCS and generals on the ground are saying.

    Wouldn’t that dialogue be more productive?

  • Charles Jordan

    There as a rap song my grandson liked:

    you can get with this or you can get with that; you can get with–this or you can get with that.

    maybe that’s what Bush was thinking about (smile)

  • grognard

    Imagine World War 2 where four years into the war not one Pacific Island had be retaken and we were still bogged down in North Africa. Somehow I don’t think FDR would be considered a great leader, and I don‘t think the press and the people would have been kind to him. Other than the killing or capturing a few subordinates we have gone nowhere, Osama is still alive, the Taliban operates with impunity in Pakistan, and the situation in Iraq is deteriorating. Bush is getting the public reaction he deserves.

  • Pyst

    Actually I for once agree with Bush on something. Of course I am not wishy washy spining like Bush is in why I agree with the words he used.

    We can’t win, or lose a war which we aren’t even really considered part of. By this I mean the Iraqi civil war, of which all sides hate our guts (Iraqi puppet gov. doesn’t count as they have no control outside the green zone), and want us to go the hell home….and we should.

    Our part of any war there ended in 2003 actually, and yes I agree with THAT part of mission accomplished, because Bushco never planned anything after that, or told us of any plans for post-invasion. America just assumed they weren’t so dumb as to no have a plan for the after part of the war….stupid us….and even stupider them.

    If anything they lost the peace which makes them lousy cops on a beat that isn’t theirs to begin with.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :