October Surprize: GOP "Changes Course"

JohnnyBz00LS

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2004
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Indiana
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15392441/

Bush’s new tack steers clear of ‘stay the course’
Phrase became liability for GOP in election year

ANALYSIS
By Peter Baker

Updated: 8:10 a.m. ET Oct 24, 2006
President Bush and his aides are annoyed that people keep misinterpreting his Iraq policy as "stay the course." A complete distortion, they say. "That is not a stay-the-course policy," White House press secretary Tony Snow declared yesterday.

Where would anyone have gotten that idea? Well, maybe from Bush.

"We will stay the course. We will help this young Iraqi democracy succeed," he said in Salt Lake City in August.

"We will win in Iraq so long as we stay the course," he said in Milwaukee in July.

"I saw people wondering whether the United States would have the nerve to stay the course and help them succeed," he said after returning from Baghdad in June.

But the White House is cutting and running from "stay the course." A phrase meant to connote steely resolve instead has become a symbol for being out of touch and rigid in the face of a war that seems to grow worse by the week, Republican strategists say. Democrats have now turned "stay the course" into an attack line in campaign commercials, and the Bush team is busy explaining that "stay the course" does not actually mean stay the course.

Instead, they have been emphasizing in recent weeks how adaptable the president's Iraq policy actually is. Bush remains steadfast about remaining in Iraq, they say, but constantly shifts tactics and methods in response to an adjusting enemy. "What you have is not 'stay the course' but in fact a study in constant motion by the administration," Snow said yesterday.

Political rhetoric, of course, is often in constant motion as well. But with midterm elections two weeks away, the Bush team is searching for a formula to address public opposition to the war, struggling to appear consistent and flexible at the same time. That was underscored by the reaction to a New York Times report that the administration is drafting a timetable for the Iraqi government to disarm militias and assume a larger security role. The White House initially called the story "inaccurate." But then White House counselor Dan Bartlett went on CNN yesterday morning to call it "a little bit overwritten" because in fact it was something the administration had been doing for months.

The president has shifted language on Iraq before. At a news conference in August, he returned to his prewar argument that Saddam Hussein harbored terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Hussein "had relations with Zarqawi," Bush said. Weeks later, the Senate intelligence committee concluded that Hussein "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye to Zarqawi" and that the U.S. government knew that before the invasion. At his next news conference, Bush was asked about that. "I never said there was an operational relationship," he said.

Bush used "stay the course" until recent weeks when it became clear that it was becoming a political problem. "The characterization of, you know, 'it's stay the course' is about a quarter right," Bush complained at an Oct. 11 news conference. " 'Stay the course' means keep doing what you're doing. My attitude is: Don't do what you're doing if it's not working -- change. 'Stay the course' also means don't leave before the job is done."

By last week, it was no longer a quarter right. "Listen, we've never been stay the course, George," he told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News. "We have been -- we will complete the mission, we will do our job and help achieve the goal, but we're constantly adjusting the tactics. Constantly."

‘Burying your head in the sand’
Snow said Bush dropped the phrase "because it left the wrong impression about what was going on. And it allowed critics to say, 'Well, here's an administration that's just embarked upon a policy and not looking at what the situation is,' when, in fact, it's just the opposite."

Republican strategists were glad to see him reject the language, if not the policy. "They're acknowledging that it's not sending the message they want to send," said Steve Hinkson, political director at Luntz Research Cos., a GOP public opinion firm. The phrase suggested "burying your head in the sand," Hinkson said, adding that it was no longer useful signaling determination. "The problem is that as the number of people who agree with remaining resolute dwindles, that sort of language doesn't strike a chord as much as it once did."

If anything, it is striking a Democratic chord, party strategists say. A commercial by Democratic Senate candidate James Webb in Virginia shows a clip of Bush saying "We'll stay the course in Iraq," followed by a clip of Republican Sen. George Allen, saying "I very much agree with the president. . . . And we need to stay the course." A caption on the screen says "Civil War; No End in Sight; We Need a New Course."

An ad for Democratic Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. in Tennessee shows Republican Bob Corker saying "I think we should stay the course," then rewinds and repeats "we should stay the course." Ford then comes onto the screen. "I support our troops, and I voted for the war," he says. "But we shouldn't stay the course as Mr. Corker wants. . . . America should always be strong. But we should be smart and honest, too. We need a new direction."

‘New direction’
Juxtaposed against "stay the course," "new direction" has become the Democrats' poll-tested mantra, even if they don't define precisely what that new direction would be. "There's a reason why every Democratic candidate in the country is talking now about change in direction," said Democratic National Committee pollster Cornell Belcher. "When you ask 'change in direction' versus Bush's direction, you get solid majorities of 60 percent or so for change."

So now even some Republican candidates are changing direction, at least in terms of their language. "We can't continue to keep doing the same things and expect different results," Allen said last week. "We must adapt. We must adjust our tactics." Corker now says on his campaign Web site: "We need to fix our strategy in Iraq so we can get the job done and bring our troops home."

Oh no, we don't let the polls drive our direction. :rolleyes: :bsflag:
 
More political maneuvering by the GOP......

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15397894/

U.S.: Iraqis to take control within 18 months
Ambassador says Iraqi leaders have OK’d timeline of steps to cut violence

MSNBC News Services
Updated: 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. officials said Tuesday Iraqi leaders have agreed to develop a timeline by the end of the year for progress in stabilizing Iraq, and Iraqi forces should be able to take full control of security in the country in the next 12 to 18 months with “some level” of American support.

Even as October marked the deadliest month for U.S. forces in Iraq this year, with 89 American servicemembers killed in combat so far, the top U.S. commander in Iraq said he felt the United States should continue to focus on drawing down American forces in the country.

Regardless, Gen. George Casey said he would not hesitate to ask for more troops if he felt they were necessary.

He appeared at a rare joint news conference with U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad in the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad. A power failure in the Green Zone briefly cut off the broadcast of the remarks.

“We are about 75 percent of the way through a three-step process in building those (Iraqi) forces. It is going to take another 12 to 18 months or so till I believe the Iraqi security forces are completely capable of taking over responsibility for their own security that’s still coupled with some level of support from us,” Casey said.

With violence in Iraq at staggering levels, the United States is battling on both the military and political fronts to tame growing chaos in regions where Sunni insurgent violence now is compounded by sectarian killing.

Few details offered
Khalilzad said the Iraqi government had agreed by the end of the year to develop a timeline for progress. At the same time, he declared, the United States needed to redouble its efforts to succeed in Iraq.

“Iraq leaders have agreed to a timeline for making the hard decisions needed to resolve these issues,” Khalilzad said. “Iraqi leaders must step up to achieve key political and security milestones on which they’ve agreed.”

Details of the milestones were not spelled out, but Khalilzad mentioned several areas in which progress would be measured, including devising a system to share the country’s oil wealth among all religious and ethnic groups.

His comments came a day after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said U.S. government and military officials were working with Iraq to set broad time frames for when Iraqis can take over 16 provinces that are still under the control of U.S. troops. He said officials were not talking about penalizing the Iraqis if they don’t hit certain benchmarks.

Slow to take over
The Iraqis have taken control of two southern provinces but have been slow to take the lead in others, particularly those around Baghdad and in the volatile regions north and west of the capital city. Rumsfeld said specific target dates probably will not be set. Instead, he said there might be a broader time frame — such as a one- to three-month window — for the Iraqis to take control of certain provinces.

Rumsfeld said the United States was looking at when the Iraqis would move close to setting up a reconciliation process to help quell worsening sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites.

Violence has spiked during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. Casey said the Iraqi army lost 300 men during the fasting month ending this week.

<snip>

"A timetable will only embloden the terrorists to wait until we leave" :rolleyes: :bsflag:
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Oh no, we don't let the polls drive our direction.

Once again you fail to understand.

The media turned the saying 'Stay the Course' from [one of eventual victory if we stay committed and don't cut and run] to one of [stay the course means we will keep doing exactly what we have been doing regardless of the outcome]. Only liberals can't figure out the distinction. So, we (Me and Bush) needed a new saying to keep all you assshats from freaking out and misrepresenting our attempt to win the war against the Islamic freaks and to keep us safe at the same time.

Duh.

Suck it up Johnny. Repub win in '06 and '08.
 
MonsterMark said:
The media turned the saying 'Stay the Course' from [one of eventual victory if we stay committed and don't cut and run] to one of [stay the course means we will keep doing exactly what we have been doing regardless of the outcome].
I have to agree. Although I don't like the war in Iraq, I never thought by saying 'stay the course' they meant that they weren't going to change tactics or adjust their strategy. I always took it as "we're going to remain here to fight until we leave when we feel it is the right time." As to when that will happen, who knows...
 
And what the media has once again done is go way out of their way to make Bush look incompetent by spinning the truth. Anybody with a brain would know what Bush means by that statement but the media is so evil and twisted, they will use any tactic to get their people into power.

America's Civil War II. Coming to your hometown soon.
 
MonsterMark said:
Once again you fail to understand.

The media turned the saying 'Stay the Course' from [one of eventual victory if we stay committed and don't cut and run] to one of [stay the course means we will keep doing exactly what we have been doing regardless of the outcome]. Only liberals can't figure out the distinction. So, we (Me and Bush) needed a new saying to keep all you assshats from freaking out and misrepresenting our attempt to win the war against the Islamic freaks and to keep us safe at the same time.

:bsflag: :bsflag:

BuSh has done NOTHING in the last 3-1/2 years other than "stay the course" (more like "stay and die") keeping the exact same tactics, and keeping the same asshat Rumsfeld in charge (even when offered his resignation). He didn't deploy the additional troops that were sorely needed AND ASKED for long ago. He didn't pressure the Iraqi govt. into any "milestones" (that's doublespeek for dates BTW) until 2 weeks prior to the election?? Even Rummy has had a change of heart, now talkling about "timetables":

Foxnews said:
Rumsfeld said U.S. government and military officials were working with Iraq to set a broad timetable for Iraqis to take over 16 provinces still being controlled by U.S. troops. But he said officials were not talking about penalizing the Iraqis if they don't hit certain benchmarks.

How can you blame the MSM for Rumsfeld's statements?

:bsflag:

Either the BuSh administration is having their long awaited revelation and has come to grips with the fact that what they've been doing is NOT working (it's about friggin time), or this is purely political maneuvering with more empty hopes to win votes. I suspect the latter.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
:bsflag: :bsflag:

BuSh has done NOTHING in the last 3-1/2 years other than "stay the course" (more like "stay and die") keeping the exact same tactics, and keeping the same asshat Rumsfeld in charge (even when offered his resignation). He didn't deploy the additional troops that were sorely needed AND ASKED for long ago. He didn't pressure the Iraqi govt. into any "milestones" (that's doublespeek for dates BTW) until 2 weeks prior to the election?? Even Rummy has had a change of heart, now talkling about "timetables":



How can you blame the MSM for Rumsfeld's statements?

:bsflag:

Either the BuSh administration is having their long awaited revelation and has come to grips with the fact that what they've been doing is NOT working (it's about friggin time), or this is purely political maneuvering with more empty hopes to win votes. I suspect the latter.


Hey, look, I can be just as substantive and profound as Johnny:

:bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag:
 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,224779,00.html?sPage=fnc.world/iraq

Iraqi Prime Minister Disavows Joint U.S.-Iraqi Raid in Baghdad's Sadr City
Wednesday, October 25, 2006


BAGHDAD, Iraq — An angry Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki disavowed a joint U.S.-Iraqi raid in the capital's Sadr City slum Wednesday, and criticized the top U.S. military and diplomatic representatives in Iraq for saying his government needs to set a timetable to curb violence in the country.

Al-Maliki spoke at a news conference a day after U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said Iraqi leaders had agreed to set deadlines by year's end for achieving specific political and security goals laid out by the United States, including reining in militia groups.

"I affirm that this government represents the will of the people and no one has the right to impose a timetable on it," the prime minister said.

The prime minister dismissed U.S. talk of timelines as driven by the coming midterm elections in the United States. "I am positive that this is not the official policy of the American government but rather a result of the ongoing election campaign. And that does not concern us much," he said.

Al-Maliki complained that he was not consulted beforehand about the Sadr City offensive. The raid was conducted by Iraqi special forces backed by U.S. advisers and was aimed at capturing a top militia commander wanted for running a Shiite death squad.

"We will ask for clarification to what has happened," al-Maliki said. "We will review this issue with the Multinational Forces so that it will not be repeated."

Mouwafak al-Rubaie, the national security adviser, later told The Associated Press that al-Maliki's anger grew out of a misunderstanding that had been cleared up with Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

While the U.S. military said the raid had been cleared in advance with al-Maliki's government, President Bush acknowledged several hours later that al-Maliki himself may not have been consulted.

"We need coordinate with him. That makes sense to me. And there's a lot of operations taking place which means sometimes communications are not as good as they should be. And we'll continue to work very closely with the government to make sure communications are solid," Bush said at his own news conference.

Military action in Sadr City is especially sensitive for the prime minister.

Until Wednesday, U.S. and Iraqi forces had largely avoided the densely populated slum, a grid of rutted streets and tumble-down housing that is home to 2.5 million Shiites and under the control of anti-American cleric Muqtada's al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

Reining in the Mahdi Army and the other major militia, the Badr Brigades, remains one of the thorniest problems facing al-Maliki. His fragile Shiite-dominated government derives much of its power from the al-Sadr's faction and from the Supreme Council for the Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, which operates the Badr Brigades.

The U.S. military said Mahdi Army militiamen fought back in the Sadr City raid and that the Americans called in an air strike and cordoned the sprawling east Baghdad region.

Late Wednesday the military said it had killed 10 suspected militia fighters and wounded two in the battle. It did not identify the wanted militia leader or say whether he was still at large. Earlier, police and hospital officials said four people were killed and at least 18 wounded.

The military also said it had raided a mosque in Sadr City looking for a missing U.S. soldier and his kidnappers. The soldier was not found but three suspects were detained.

Residents living near Sadr City said gunfire and air strikes began about 11 p.m. Tuesday and continued for hours. The neighborhood was sealed to outsiders before dawn.

Groups of young men in black fatigues favored by the Mahdi Army were seen driving toward the area to join the fight. Explosions and automatic weapons fire were heard above the noise of U.S. helicopters circling overhead firing flares.

Crowds of Shiite men, some carrying pistols and others hoisting giant posters of al-Sadr, swarmed onto the district's streets Wednesday morning, chanting, "America has insulted us."

Throughout the day and into the night, U.S. F-16 jet fighters growled across the Baghdad sky, and at one point the report of tank cannon fire echoed across the city five times in quick succession.

Streets were empty and shops closed, although the district still had electricity from the national power grid.

Well after nightfall, residents said all roads into the slum remained blocked by U.S. and Iraqi forces. U.S. soldiers were searching all cars.

A frustrated motorist waiting at one checkpoint jumped out of his car and called for al-Maliki to resign.

"Where is al-Maliki? It would be more honorable for him to resign. Why is he letting the Americans do this to us," the driver could be heard to scream.

Falah Hassan Shanshal, a lawmaker from al-Sadr's political bloc, said women and children had been killed, although videotape pictures of the bodies from the neighborhood taken at the local morgue showed only male victims.

"If there was an arrest operation, it should have been carried out by the Iraqi authorities, and not like this where air cover is used as if we were in a war zone," Shanshal said in an interview with the government's al-Iraqiya television station.


:rolleyes:
 
You know what GW's mistake was?

You wont believe I said this...

We dont have enough troops in Iraq. Never did.

It the first IRAQ war, we had 500,000 troops. This time around, 150,000.

The mistake made was to be politically sensitive and not call up all the reserves, etc. I understand that GW didnt want to call up people that he didnt think we needed, but thats the same mistake made with Vietnam.

When you go to war, you GO TO WAR. All hands on deck. You need overkill. Americans dont want long, protracted fights, we want quick decisive ones.

Thats his biggest mistake IMO.
 
Joeychgo said:
You know what GW's mistake was?

You wont believe I said this...

We dont have enough troops in Iraq. Never did.

It the first IRAQ war, we had 500,000 troops. This time around, 150,000.

The mistake made was to be politically sensitive and not call up all the reserves, etc. I understand that GW didnt want to call up people that he didnt think we needed, but thats the same mistake made with Vietnam.

When you go to war, you GO TO WAR. All hands on deck. You need overkill. Americans dont want long, protracted fights, we want quick decisive ones.

Thats his biggest mistake IMO.

:I And I'll go even further, I don't totally blame GW, but moreso Cheney, Rumsfeld and all the other neocons in his administration and that have infiltrated the GOP, for that mistake. At the time they decided to invade Iraq, the country as a whole, and even the aleged "leftist" MSM would've been behind him and sending more troops than necessary. And if they would've just finished that little job in Afghanistan first............... :rolleyes:
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
:I And I'll go even further, I don't totally blame GW, but moreso Cheney, Rumsfeld and all the other neocons in his administration and that have infiltrated the GOP, for that mistake. At the time they decided to invade Iraq, the country as a whole, and even the aleged "leftist" MSM would've been behind him and sending more troops than necessary. And if they would've just finished that little job in Afghanistan first............... :rolleyes:

:bsflag::bsflag::bsflag::bsflag::bsflag::bsflag:
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
:I And I'll go even further, I don't totally blame GW, but moreso Cheney, Rumsfeld and all the other neocons in his administration and that have infiltrated the GOP, for that mistake. At the time they decided to invade Iraq, the country as a whole, and even the aleged "leftist" MSM would've been behind him and sending more troops than necessary. And if they would've just finished that little job in Afghanistan first............... :rolleyes:

Neo-Cons infilitrated?

First of all, I would wager you can't even accurately define what a neo-conservative is.

Second, arguing that the occupation force wasn't large is enough is completely reasonable. But misrepresenting it as "evil or corrupt" or what other negative adjective you'll dig up is where you're wrong. You always have competing philosophies, Rumsfeld has long been a proponent of the light, fast military. In some cases, some applications, he's right. But, since his nomination, he's been at odds with the traditional, large ground force, traditional military proponents. In many situations, these men are right.

Had things gone according to the intelligence estimates, it would have been o.k. But, with the luxury of hindsight, few would argue that a larger more aggressive initial force would have been beneficial.

With the benefit of hindsight, everyone can find many things that could have gone better. Of course, that's only important to note in the event of the next military operation.

There's a lot to discuss regarding how Iraq has worked out. If liberals weren't interested in solely engaging in empty "gotcha" antics, we could actually have a productive dialog. But we can't. The Democrats don't want victory for America, they just want victory for their party so they can get their hands on the check books again and start expanding gov't, buying votes, and marching the country off so that it looks like the failing cultures of Europe.
 
Calabrio said:
Neo-Cons infilitrated?

First of all, I would wager you can't even accurately define what a neo-conservative is.

I would also point out that Cheney and Rumsfeld didn't infiltrate JACK. They were ASKED by Bush to serve, and they agreed to do so, unlike Al Gore, for example, without any further ambition to achieve higher political goals.

On the other hand, if anybody's been infiltrating any political party, it is definitely the far left wacko fringe moveon.org Soros Streisand Rosie San Fran Bush-haters that have taken over the once respectable Democratic Party. Case in point: Joe Lieberman was virtually kicked out of the Dem Party because he supported the President in a time of war, something unheard of back in the days of JFK, who by the way would definitely find no place in the Democratic Party of today.

So STFU Johnny.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
BuSh has done NOTHING in the last 3-1/2 years other than "stay the course" (more like "stay and die") keeping the exact same tactics, and keeping the same asshat

You are such an a$$ yourself. Bush listens to the COMMANDERS ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ. So unless you are calling our military incompetent, STFU!!!

As you can tell, I am a little tired of your incessant b.s.
 
fossten said:
So STFU Johnny.
I swear I didn't see your post until I had already posted mine. I scanned down the posts, saw Johnnys. He put me over the edge so I made my post. Then I had the luxury of reading the rest of the posts and up popped yours. Seems great minds think alike. I can't believe we both said STFU at the same time in the same thread when we have never posted those 4 letters in a thread before. Pretty funny we would react the same way to the Johnny teaser. LMAO!
 
Oh my, I must have touched on a nerve, so it MUST be true that you three must subscribe to the neocon agenda yourselves. :runaway:

http://zfacts.com/p/253.html

Todays GOP is NOT the same GOP when Reagan was in office, no matter how hard you'd wish or dream it to be.

MonsterMark said:
As you can tell, I am a little tired of your incessant b.s.

Go ahead, punk. Do you feel lucky? :ban
 
MonsterMark said:
I swear I didn't see your post until I had already posted mine. I scanned down the posts, saw Johnnys. He put me over the edge so I made my post. Then I had the luxury of reading the rest of the posts and up popped yours. Seems great minds think alike. I can't believe we both said STFU at the same time in the same thread when we have never posted those 4 letters in a thread before. Pretty funny we would react the same way to the Johnny teaser. LMAO!

LOL I'll bet the silent masses reading this thread were also thinking, "Johnny, STFU!"
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top