Saturday, January 13, 2007

Bush's Impossible Challenge Places Us In A Rhetorical Stalemate

In true W, Rove and Co fashion, W sets up another rhetorical stalemate that serves to do nothing more than divide us further.

During Saturday's Presidential Radio Address (admit it, you listen in a closet so no one else knows you do), we see W, present yet another rouse designed to deflate his political adversaries, and leave no wiggle room for opponents of his "new way forward (which, incidentally, it is arguable that this plan really isn't a new way forward at all, but simply more of the same)."
Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible.
Look, the President of the United States usually operates with better intel (baring a few outstanding and outrageous intel failures like WMD in Iraq), more information, and complete access to the big picture. To suggest that those without equal access to that kind of information come up with a better plan in a "put up or shut up" rhetorical argument is to effectively shut down any one with a viable alternative.

But really, are there no other alternatives? Didn't the President spend the better part of the last month or so listening to alternatives? Aren't most of the Democrats in Congress presenting alternatives? Really, the argument presented by the President is nothing more than smoke and mirrors designed to lead again by faith over fact.

The President's weekly radio address proves once again that he, and the whole of the W, Rove and Co, is not listening (to those with better ideas and true new ways forward, and the American people in general).

Thank you for the stalemate Mr. President: Are you satisfied?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...


Bush's tautology, the plan to stay in Iraq

''Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible.''

The alternative to staying married is divorce. Divorce isn't 'nothing.' It separates the warring parties. All Bush is saying is that a couple has a better chance of staying married while married. He thinks he's said something profound.

Bush's sets up a straw man, 'Those who refuse to ... offer an alternative.' The alternative is to leave. Blithely ignored by the liar in chief.

More marriage. More war. For Bush to propose more of the same as something new is irresponsible.

enigma4ever said...

okay...the marriage thing confused me...but I love that bush now thinks anyone who opposes him has to present an alternative...WT ?????he is nuts...no doubt about it...none...

( I don't really love the alternative thing- it is just sooooo perdictable , isn't it??)

Anonymous said...


On Iraq, U.S. Turns to Onetime Dissenters

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 14, 2007; A01

The 'Comments' are priceless.

Anonymous said...


The Decider is not the only empire-minded dumbass to advocate for a surge of troops in Iraq; in fact, empire-minded dumbasses have been doing exactly that for thousands of years. A handful of non-dumbasses have been successful - Ashurbanipal, Alexander, and the Mongol Horde spring to mind - but the vast majority have bungled in some way or another. In joining that latter list, George W. Bush finds himself in the company of some otherwise pretty august personages - one which includes triumvirs of Rome and CB, DSOs of the British Empire.

Invading Iraq with underwhelming numbers and tactics not suited for the battle at hand is a stupid decision, whether you're talking about 20,000 American soldiers or 30,000 Roman legionaries - the men who followed Crassus learned that the hard way. But you know our History Major Chief Executive: he never met an historical maxim he wouldn't mockingly disparage. "Never fight a land war in Asia," you tell him, only to have him reply, "Hell, I'll fight two at the same time!"