Cal – Are we working to spread freedom (democracy?) in an extremely religious Muslim Middle East? Please support that with something that seems real? I don’t make this request from an adverserial view, I just think that “freedom” and “democracy” are homegrown. I am unaware of any country coming to the U.S. and asking for blueprints of our system. It seems more like individuals leave their respective countries to come HERE and LIVE this idea …. and it has seemed to work out more successfully than imposition (or “freeing the downtrodden’)

There is a very colonial bent to the current administration that “appears” to focus this altruistic goal on countries that have an abundance of resources we would like to have. One might say that it is a strategic plan that is important to our future (and could agree with that) but I wonder at our proclivity for giving it a different name.

I watched his town hall meeting yesterday … stopped counting on the eigth “jobs that we can’t get Americn workers to do” … Pure bullsh*t.
Politics are politics and I understand that, but there comes a point when death and destruction should take precedence and a real leader speaks thruth. That is not happening with this President.

Speaking of which … if Rove is no longer performing the functions of “advisor to the President”, why should he be on the WH payroll?

Bush does not have a law degree. He has an MBA, which if anything makes him even more sneaky with his language.

True! Thanks for the correct.

Also, Cal, Bush does not have a law degree. He has an MBA, which if anything makes him even more sneaky with his language.

Cal,
Even if you are correct about the subtlety of Bush’s statement, it is dis-ingenuous to parse his words considering the current state of things. We are not playing chess … people are dying on his word … and if we are running our country on the basis of conversations with the Lord, we should fire the lot of them and give the reigns to Jerry Falwell.

Like Justin, you are confusing what Bush said with what we think about the situation. Stick to the text. Just read it. He’s simply talking about the defeat of Saddam’s military machine and the overthrow of the dictator. It’s not a subtle statement at all, unless your head is fogged up with anger over the situation.

Of course he’s speaking thus narrowly for the reason that if he broadens the context of “enough troops” to the post-war situation, he’s got to admit the error. That’s just political speech.

Even that good deist Jefferson traced “liberty” to the “Creator.” I don’t think you need to murder Bush for repeating the rhetorical trope.

Saddam had gone through back channels to try and seek asylum elsewhere

I’ve got a bridge for sale in New York. Justin and Rob, please call.

And again, what about all the other gods?

Ummmmm – no, I don’t think he did. The most obvious proof that is false is the way we have been dealing with Iran so far – “so far” being the key words. It’s so weird how definitions of “diplomatic” change when your troops are busy.

Justin,
Muslims do in fact worship the same almighty as Christians, and in fact, recognize and revere Jesus Christ (and await the second coming) but they do not recognize him as their intercedent with the almighty.

Cal,
Even if you are correct about the subtlety of Bush’s statement, it is dis-ingenuous to parse his words considering the current state of things. We are not playing chess … people are dying on his word … and if we are running our country on the basis of conversations with the Lord, we should fire the lot of them and give the reigns to Jerry Falwell.

I’m of the opinion that we should’ve had more troops. I’m not sure why the administration insists on denying it.

Turns out he could have gotten rid of the WMD with 0 troops.

Same with removing Sadam.

Saddam had gone through back channels to try and seek asylum elsewhere. Bush and company knew all of this.

As far as the meaning of Almighty…well…according to Bush, his favorite philosopher is Jesus Christ. He’s also an evangelical. There is no other god besides the Christian god for evangelicals. Sure, they’ll dialogue with those who worship other deities, but for Bush to use the word Almighty and NOT be referencing the Christian god is blasphemous. Given this, I don’t think he’s talking about Allah or Annapurna or Balrama or Bhuvaneshwari or Brahma or Buddha or Dhanwantari or Dhumavati or Durga or Ganga or Ganesha or Garuda or Hanuman or Indra or Kali or Kartikay or Krishna or Kurma or Lakshmi or Matangi or Maya or Ram or Saraswati or Shakti or Shiva or Sita or Vamana or Vishnu.

But hey, feel free to ask. ;-)

If you don’t believe me, just ask any worshipper. They’ll set you straight.

… he defended the troop level he ordered in the initial strike, …

I don’t think you read him very carefully. He may look like a chimp (as all my co-workers insist), but he does have a law degree. Just like Clinton, you have to pay attention to what he literally says.

There were enough troops “in the initial strike” to “do the job” i.e. overthrow Saddam. He’s right about that.

That was the mission accomplished. It was everything that started the minute afterward which, according to prevailing conventional wisdom, we lacked sufficient troops to contain and control.

As for “Almighty,” that doesn’t strike me as “a Christian God;” in fact, it’s a term used, even in Revolutionary times, for a generic, all-embracing, non-sectarian deity. Muslims believe that they and we worship the same deity. “Almighty” is theirs as well as ours.

And telling people that’s how he determines his foreign policy…again…it just doesn’t seem smart at all.

First, props to Justin Gardner at Donkelphant for pointing me towards this one.

Bush Admits Mistakes in Iraq, Defends Tactics

by Bill Brubaker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 24, 2006; 4:39 PM

President Bush today said mistakes we…