He doesn't have any. Surprised?
And after today's eye-gleaming scare rant on Iran, now I am really worried.
"A Familiar Strategy to Help Stay the Course" by Steven Lee Myers/New York Times August 27, 2007
CRAWFORD, Tex., Aug. 26 — President Bush’s Iraq strategy faces a crisis of faith these days — from the American public. And he is confronting it the way he has previous crises: with a relentless campaign to persuade people to see things his way.
[More LIES OUT the MOUTH!]
Mr. Bush interrupted his annual August retreat here last week for a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars replete with historical references to Vietnam, including a surprising citation from Graham Greene’s “The Quiet American.”
“I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused,” he quoted from the book, criticizing Mr. Greene for portraying an American character as naïve and dangerous.
Mr. Bush, back at the Prairie Chapel Ranch, went on to record a radio address that showed neither doubt nor any intention of reducing the American commitment in Iraq. On Tuesday, he will make another speech in Reno, Nev., arguing that a hasty withdrawal of troops would prove disastrous for the Middle East and for American security.
Mr. Bush said in the radio address broadcast Saturday, as if there were not those who fervently wished the country was in the later stages, preparing to bring the troops home:
“We are still in the early stages of our new operations.”
The White House’s strategy is as unwavering as it is familiar. In military parlance, it is called preparing the battlefield — in this case for the series of reports and hearings scheduled on Capitol Hill next month to debate the wisdom of struggling on in the midst of Iraq’s sectarian chaos and bloodshed.
If recent history is a guide, Mr. Bush may well prevail, as he did in January when he made a similar blitz to build the case for dispatching more troops to Iraq, despite swelling public opposition to the war and a Democratic rout in last November’s elections.
[Yup, in our faces and up our asses once again! OUCH!]
Tara McGuinness, deputy campaign manager for Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, a coalition of antiwar groups that has organized its own public-relations effort:
“If there’s one thing that they’re good at, it is their ability to campaign for something.”
That is not to say that the White House’s campaign does not face obstacles.
Public opinion remains sour. Republicans appear increasingly frustrated, chief among them Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, who last week called for at least a symbolic reduction of troops by Christmas. And a new National Intelligence Estimate concluded that violence in Iraq remained high, that terrorists could still attack in spectacular fashion and that the country’s leaders “remain unable to govern effectively.”
[And all this means what? That asshole in the WH not changing!]
The White House response was a classic look at the bright side.
Gordon D. Johndroe, a spokesman, said Thursday:
“The National Intelligence Estimate’s updated judgments show that our strategy has improved the security environment in Iraq.”
Critics have called Mr. Bush’s ever upbeat message delusional. His rationale for the war has shifted so much since 2003 that any new pitch will have skeptics. His analogy last week between the war in Iraq and the epic struggles of World War II, the Korean War and, especially, the Vietnam War was ridiculed by some as revisionist or simply inaccurate.
Max Cleland, a Vietnam veteran and former Democratic Senator from Georgia, said in a radio rebuttal on Saturday:
“I know that all the P. R. in the world didn’t change the truth on the ground in Vietnam and won’t change the truth on the ground today in Iraq.”
Even so, the White House has the advantage of consistency and being able to play defense. Mr. Bush simply has to hold on to enough lawmakers to thwart, with a veto if necessary, any congressionally mandated reductions or timetables for withdrawal.
The Democrats, on the other hand, have to make the case for a new approach that not all of them appear able to agree on. They remain torn between a passionate base that wants American involvement over now and a pragmatic middle that believes a rapid or complete withdrawal of troops would carry risks — exactly the point the White House intends to drive home.
On Tuesday, Mr. Bush is to appear before the American Legion in Reno and deliver a bookend to last week’s V.F.W. speech.
A new group with close ties to the White House, Freedom’s Watch, joined Mr. Bush’s effort last week with a $15 million advertising campaign that revives “cut and run” accusations against the war’s opponents. One of its leaders, Ari Fleischer, the former White House spokesman, said Mr. Bush was doing what was necessary to explain why he was keeping the nation at war.
Mr. Fleischer said in a telephone interview:
“Any president that fails to communicate that will lose public support. That’s where we are today.”
[He's already lost us all except you Zionist flaks, Ari!
We all know everything this shitter says is a LIE now!!!]
Within the White House, there is growing confidence that Mr. Bush will be able to withstand Democrats’ efforts to force a change in strategy.
A senior aide said Saturday:
“The end of August feels much better than the beginning of August.”
Success in this campaign, however, does not necessarily mean success in winning the war itself.
Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution recently wrote an op-ed article in The New York Times with his colleague, Kenneth M. Pollack, arguing that the troop increase should have a chance to work. The article prompted denunciations from the war’s critics and an invitation to meet with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Mr. O’Hanlon said their conversation focused mostly on tactics of the troop increase, not on the broader strategy of what happens after September. Assuming that the administration keeps a substantial number of American troops in Iraq, what then?
Mr. O’Hanlon: “That’s a very good question.”
[What then? FURTHER ESCALATION, I'll bet!]
"Unlike LBJ, Bush seems free of war doubts" by Peter S. Canellos/Boston Globe August 28, 2007
WASHINGTON -- It's possible that Bush, at night in the White House family quarters, expresses doubts about his decisions.... Bush is regarded by everyone who knows him as someone who never second-guesses himself.
New York Times columnist David Brooks recently met with the president along with other conservative pundits and wrote:
"His self-confidence is the most remarkable feature of his presidency."
Brooks later said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Bush, in his meeting with conservatives, expressed no doubts or second-guessing about "the big things.":
"I think [for] a lot of us who supported the war, the failures of the war . . . have created a whole series of serious debates . . . . It doesn't seem to have created that in the president's mind. You might think that's strong leadership. You might think he's deranged. But his basic attitude has not changed."
By showing no doubts, Bush has at least nailed down the support of conservatives who believe in the war. He probably has also given some soldiers greater confidence, showing that their president has faith in his own policies and capabilities.
[Even if he is a fucking failure at everything he has done!]
Bush, like everyone, has a conscience. But his decision not to show it is, to paraphrase Brooks, a remarkable feature of his presidency.
[You sure about that conscience, because I don't see it in the vacuous, evil, shit-headed fuck!]
