Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Blunt Bow to Postwar Realities (Wash Post)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-07-03 11:01 PM
Original message
A Blunt Bow to Postwar Realities (Wash Post)
<snip>
In abandoning his go-it-alone approach, however, the president did not give significant ground to allies who had opposed him at the time of the war and who want reassurances about greater political and
economic influence in Iraq if they participate. His call for United Nations involvement was stated in declarative, not conciliatory, language. Members of the United Nations, he said, have "the
responsibility" to help, he said.

Events forced Bush's hand. Two massive suicide bombings and other attacks in the past month underscored the ability of terrorists and Baathist forces to wreak havoc in Iraq despite the presence of
130,000 U.S. and roughly 20,000 international troops and increased the pressure on the administration to seek help through the United Nations. The slow pace and mounting costs of reconstruction
fueled talk from Bush's critics that he was getting the country into a new quagmire.

The absence of any evidence of weapons of mass destruction has also been a continuing problem for the administration, whose credibility about the rationale for going to war has been challenged
repeatedly. Bush made no mention of the progress in finding those weapons or evidence of weapons programs last night.

But it was more than events in Iraq. Bush was also driven to respond to the message that members of Congress carried back to Washington from their August recess. Not only Democrats but many
Republicans returned with a warning to the White House: Tell Americans the truth about what is happening in Iraq and show there is a policy to deal with it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40228-2003Sep7.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
femmecahors Donating Member (523 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-07-03 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. Someone tell me what Bush looked like . . .
when giving his "speech." I'm sitting in a chocolate making country without air-conditioning or television or DSL so I didn't get to see him.

But in the photo on Yahoo he looks ghastly . . . has he lost his swagger? Did he seem cocky or humble? Please tell me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-07-03 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. He had that "deer in the headlights" look on his face. I think he knows
it's time to update his resume.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femmecahors Donating Member (523 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-07-03 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Good! Thank-you n/t
. . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
E_Zapata Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-07-03 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. His handlers did not even attempt to make him look good
There were no rosy cheeks.

No healthy sheen to his hair or skin.

The camera was further away than usual.

They had him surrounded by YELLOW instead of BLUE. Blue is a color of security and confidence. Yellow creates a more antagonistic tone. (It has been shown that most fights between husbands and wives start in the kitchen; most kitchens use yellow liberally. Something to think about).

Remember his talks to the nation on 9/11 (when he came out of hiding) and then when he announced the iraq invasion? Both were from the Oval Office. This speech was in a general room in the White House (not sure which one).

The camera angles made him look shorter than he is.

It is almost as if his handlers want him to take a fall; as if it is part of the plan.

And apparently the whore media does not feel too constrained with their criticisms.

Not one spin doctor played on network news on ABC and CBS before or after the speech. Just an announcement that Bush was going to speak; and afterwards, Rather just said "stay tuned for whatever might be next on TV in your area. Good night." I think Jennings did the same thing.

?????????????????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 03:07 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. NBC did some analysis according to Tom Shales - Biden was a DINO
Though the speech ended at 8:49 (with "Thank you and may God continue to bless America"), NBC News stayed on the air until 9 with trenchant analysis of the president's words and their importance -- Tim Russert calling Bush's remarks "extremely significant."...

Russert's analysis was not namby-pamby, as TV commentators' sometimes are. He said that despite Bush's call for international cooperation on Iraq, it remains "America's war and George Bush's war," and said that even under Bush's plan, there will be three times as many American troops as international troops in Iraq attempting to keep the peace.

Anchor Tom Brokaw also interviewed Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) of the Foreign Relations Committee, who gave the president a rave review, calling the speech "an incredible first step" in implementing a new strategy. Bush had "made a real U-turn here," Biden said, rejecting the counsel of his "neo-con" hard-line advisers and instead adopting a course of action recommended by Secretary of State Colin Powell.

"It took a big man to do that, and I plan to support him," Biden said. He also said of Iraq, in a much more persuasive tone than Bush had mustered, "We must win this."

Only moments later, Biden bounced up on CNN during its post-speech analysis, reacting to anchor Paula Zahn's observation that the speech contained no references to that elusive search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Biden said it didn't matter, that American involvement had gone beyond that. "We have to secure Iraq for our safety's sake," Biden said.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40242-2003Sep7.html

Myself I had switched over to Hardball's analysis on MSNBC. They didn't seem to impressed except for whore Howard Fineman and even he was restrained.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-07-03 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. He looked as though he was trying to keep his head above water.
Sort of craning his neck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-07-03 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Good analogy. He also looked like he was 2 sizes too small for his suit.
He looked uncomfortable. He looked wooden - I even asked my husband if he thought bush looked sedated. Those furrows in his brow are getting deeper. He had this concerned look that seemed a little too pleading. His body and body language both look as though he's in over his head. He read without any real feeling. Just a few wan half-smiles toward the end, citing some unnamed captain (unnamed, 'eh - I wonder if he made it up) writing from the 3rd infantry or some such (3rd something, I remember) blathering on about our courageous magnificent duty and how we're proud to be fighting for freedom over there. I turned to my husband and replied that this is not remotely like what I've read in the emails and other messages home from many privates, sergeants, and captains. Wondered where he was getting it (or if he made it up).

There was NO swagger. No smugness. No "mission accomplished." No wad of stuffing in the crotch. His suit looked like it didn't fit him. His neck looked scrawny. And his uncomfortable overall demeanor indicated he didn't want to be there, didn't want to have his widdle self bothered by any of this, and really just wanted it all to go away so we could all admire his emperor's new clothes and his golf swing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fizzana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
7. He looked completely lifeless and as if keeping up with the
teleprompter was a difficult enough task by itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. his face was totally blank nearly the whole time...
...and there was no sign of life or passion. None of the usual mannerisms. He might as well have been reading the late night agricultural report from Hog Yaller Redstate.

I wondered if it had been pre-taped, but decided no when I heard him make a couple of stumbles.

People who watched on c-span said that after the speech ended he sat for about fifteen seconds with the same blank face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ichiro99 Donating Member (64 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #7
15. Behind the shrub's dreaminess ...
a richguy's faith in all the up-sides to dad's current project. ForeverWar as crucible for manufacturing obedient sociopaths, post-apocalypse employees to bought bureaucrats and shadowgovernment criminals. Yesmen footsoldiers of tomorrow, up to dealing with moscowmob, yaks etc. Now in training: immersed in amphetamine, homicide, biblestudies, friends picked off, limbs sliced away any moment. Like Quake 3 -- but lots more madness.

Outcome: a generation of useful nuts and badcop cowboys. Future doctor-killers, prison guards, heads of school boards. Tough players for employ in the neocons' culturewars. Centurian Nation replenishing, toughening-up the proles -- see 'Great Depression,' 'Pearl Harbor.' Living-room normalisation of workplace mutilation, gang rape, smoking city-scenes. Welcome to the New Order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
8. Sorry, dad can't help you this time
I get the feeling Bush has never had to live with the consequence of his actions. If George got in trouble, Dad was always there to bail him out. Money probably took care of most problems, and the family name and prestige took care of the rest.

So for once in his life, he's stuck with this morass that just keeps getting worse and worse. We're in this together. I can visualize him waking up at 3:00 am, looking up at the ceiling and thinking, "shit, what a mess. Is there any way I can get out of this?"

So for once in his life, he has to go down that long dusty road by himself. Whereas before, he created disasters but actually came out On Top! before sinking his 3 companies, plus a baseball team.

This is one time where he can't bail out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. You're right...he'll fail this test, for sure.
A career of fixes, sweatheart deals, and lazy arrogance expose him as a person of no real character, substance, or ability to accept responsibility....I'm sure he'll try to blame someone else, it's a pathological response for him.

Once Dimson and his PNAC'cle buddies realized that they can't protect the oil infrastructure, it was time to sluff off responsibility on the UN....nice try George, no sale.

May you eventually rot in a cell for starting this war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Myra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. "May you eventually rot in a cell for starting this war."
Nothing to add.
I just wanted to savor the thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lindacooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 03:29 AM
Response to Original message
13. I think he looks constipated.
That weird wrinkling of his brow no matter what he is saying reminds me of a little kid trying to go to the bathroom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinnypriv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 03:39 AM
Response to Original message
14. Notice how the lack of WMD's isn't a problem *for the media*?
You'd think they should be slightly worried, what with them whoring the WMD line non-stop, with virtually no critically commentary. But oh no...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-03 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
16. But.. but.. we have the 48 countries of the "Coalition of the Willing"
With that many countries giving us 100% full support why do we need the UN? Why can't Bulgaria put in their Ranger Division and Pango Pango could give Naval support. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC