The President Who Doesn't Listen?

[Jason Tate]

I don’t think he really thought a lot about it (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070129-2.html),” said White House Press Secretary Tony Snow today when asked about President Bush’s reaction to the weekend’s march on Washington.

Approximately 100,000 people from around the country (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rallies28jan28,1,5148914.story?coll =la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true) converged on the National Mall on Saturday to protest Bush’s escalation in Iraq. Nearly 70 percent (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070120/nysa009.html?.v=80) of the American public opposes President Bush’s plan to send more U.S. troops to Iraq.

And -- he doesn't even notice. :shake:

[The Matt Kaufman]

wow

[thejetstolehome]

Tony Snow is so full of shit it's not even funny.

[Lueda Alia]

That's one of my biggest problems with him: he does not listen. This is just one of the many examples. He didn't really care about what the independent panel had to say about the war in Iraq either. If you don't agree with him, he just won't listen. It's ridiculous.

[thejetstolehome]

Eda, that girl was on my floor this weekend haha. on saturday night, i left my friend's room to go chill in the hallway and eventually go to bed and she walked in as i was walking out.

[Lueda Alia]

Eda, that girl was on my floor this weekend haha. on saturday night, i left my friend's room to go chill in the hallway and eventually go to bed and she walked in as i was walking out.
Maybe she's stalking you? :-D

How much does she look like me? I'm so curious.

[thejetstolehome]

Maybe she's stalking you? :-D

How much does she look like me? I'm so curious.

haha her face kinda looks like yours but her hair's a little darker.

oh and to get back on topic for a second, i think that Bush obviously has reactions and thoughts on these things but for some reason, if he showed those thoughts and his reactions on said things, people might think he would come off as "weak" in a way, as if he was letting these things get to him. it is, however, incredibly dis-heartening to hear the President essentially ignoring something so massive. does anyone know how LBJ responded to the massive protests? i'm gonna look this up if i can...

[entrepy]

[quote=JNearly 70 percent (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070120/nysa009.html?.v=80) of the American public opposes President Bush’s plan to send more U.S. troops to Iraq.

And -- he doesn't even notice. :shake:[/quote]

If only 70 per cent of the American public had voted against him. If only 70 per cent of the American public had actually voted...

[thejetstolehome]

okay my search is yeilding no results; i'll keep trying, though.

[thejetstolehome]

goddammit, you have to sign up for all this shit to get access to the historical NYT databases.

[and we whisper]

If only 70 per cent of the American public had voted against him. If only 70 per cent of the American public had actually voted...

that's so true. people complain and complain about the situation we're in but year after year they don't vote. if you don't vote (unless you aren't allowed to), don't complain. but that is amazing that he didn't pay attention to so many people protesting. is he blind? or deaf? or just oblivious?

[thejetstolehome]

I think he listens, but believes in whatever his cause is. I think pulling out of Iraq is giving up on terrorism and all that. so you really want Iran taking over Iraq and blowing Israel off the face of the earth? If that happened, the entire middle east would be a breeding ground for terrorists, and i don't really know how we'd be able to get in the middle east to stop it then.

talking points, talking points, talking points. it's very arguable that our presence in Iraq and the Midlle East as a whole breeds terrorism.

and everyone talking about impeaching Bush. Impeach him, then Chaney's president.
...

...

Do the people really want that?
I don't get it, the war was going on when His re-election was going on. He got re-elected.

impeachment =/= resignation. way to know how that system works. i'm not saying the President should not be impeached or there are not grounds for impeachment, because there are and i would support an impeachment. but impeachment does not mean resignation.



I support the surge. 300 insurgents were killed today. Most of the insurgents are terrorists from US opposing, neighboring countries. I think good progress can be made from this surge, and the troops would get home faster.


Sorry for jumping to 3 topics at once, haha.

again, can you provide us with something that says they're from outside countries? yes i'm well aware that there are most likely Iranians or any number of outsiders fighting in Iraq but i'm sure most of them are, in fact, Iraqi. the word "insurgent" also gets to me. we're fighting in THEIR country. it's THEIR land. how that makes them "insurgents" is beyond me.

and to those that support the escalation of the war, how does adding 21, 500 more soldiers make it more possible for the Iraqi government to stand on its own?

[aolsux]

My parents went to this rally, funniest story my dad told me: someone had a protest sign that said, "Impeachment, it's not just for blowjobs anymore."

[Love As Arson]

I think he listens, but believes in whatever his cause is. I think pulling out of Iraq is giving up on terrorism and all that.
Bush's persistence has created far more terrorism. In fact, in the years since the beginning of the Iraq war, terror has increased significantly, both abroad and in Iraq.

so you really want Iran taking over Iraq and blowing Israel off the face of the earth?
Iraq's government is primarily Shia, so they will have a close relationship with Iran, despite the current government staying in place. The rulers of Iran have said they do not desire to kill Israelis, but to democratically allow the Palestianians to receive justice.

If that happened, the entire middle east would be a breeding ground for terrorists, and i don't really know how we'd be able to get in the middle east to stop it then.
The Middle East is a breeding ground for terrorism, not because of Iran, rather it is due to imperialism. Ironically, Iraq was a secular state and groups like al-Qaeda despised his secular attitudes. The invasion of Iraq made it a breeding ground for terrorism.


and everyone talking about impeaching Bush. Impeach him, then Chaney's president.
There must be popular struggle so as to force Bush to listen.


I don't get it, the war was going on when His re-election was going on. He got re-elected.
The democrats put forth an impotent candidate and the republicans used fear of terrorists and homosexuals in order to rally their voters.


I support the surge. 300 insurgents were killed today. Most of the insurgents are terrorists from US opposing, neighboring countries. I think good progress can be made from this surge, and the troops would get home faster.
Actually, a report states that 99.9% of insurgents are Iraqis. Moreover, the surge has been tried repeatedly, with a corresponding increase in violence and civilian casulaties, and little results. As for the three hundred insurgents killed, many more are being created simply by the occupation.

http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/05/06/09/168406.html

[falloutboy.]

My parents went to this rally, funniest story my dad told me: someone had a protest sign that said, "Impeachment, it's not just for blowjobs anymore."
hahaha

[Shatter590]

I feel in the case of Bush that its his arrogance that drives him. He must always be right in his own mind, even when he's unpopular or wrong.

[aminorthreat55]

I feel in the case of Bush that its his arrogance that drives him. He must always be right in his own mind, even when he's unpopular or wrong.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stubborn

[Shatter590]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stubborn

that too. but what turns it into arrogance is that he thinks hes better than everyone else.

[Jason Tate]

Admiral William Fallon — Bush’s nominee to replace Gen. John Abizaid (http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/16583687.htm) as head of U.S. forces in the Middle East — yesterday refused to endorse Bush’s escalation strategy in Iraq.

[aminorthreat55]

Admiral William Fallon — Bush’s nominee to replace Gen. John Abizaid (http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/16583687.htm) as head of U.S. forces in the Middle East — yesterday refused to endorse Bush’s escalation strategy in Iraq.
I'll give it 72 hours until that nomination is withdrawn.

[thejetstolehome]

I'll give it 72 hours until that nomination is withdrawn.

i'll take the under.

[tambam]

I think President Bush is absolutely ridiculous. He's trying to shove democracy down Iraq's throat, or so he says, but he doesn't even listen to his own people.

[Jason Tate]

A study released today by the Congressional Budget Office shows that the real troop increase associated with President Bush’s escalation policy could be as high as 48,000 (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7778&sequence=0), more than double the 21,500 soldiers that Bush has claimed.
As DefenseTech notes, extra forces are expected because the combat units being sent into Iraq “need to be backed up by support troops (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003239.html), ‘including personnel to staff headquarters, serve as military police, and provide communications, contracting, engineering, intelligence, medical, and other services.’” The CBO’s low estimate envisions at least 15,000 additional support personnel. The alternative scenario “would require about 28,000 support troops in addition to the 20,000 combat troops.”
Additionally, the cost of the escalation could be as much as five times higher (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003239.html) than White House estimates:
According to the study, the costs for the “surge” would also be dramatically different than the President has said. The White House estimated a troop escalation would require about $5.6 billion in additional funding, the CBO now believes “that costs would range from $9 billion to $13 billion for a four-month deployment and from $20 billion to $27 billion for a 12-month deployment, depending upon the total number of troops deployed.”
Read the full CBO report HERE (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7778&sequence=0).
UPDATE: A release from Rep. John Spratt’s (D-SC) office notes that the CBO report also predicts addition burdens on U.S. forces:
An average of 170,000 military personnel has been maintained in the Iraq theater of operations, and this high deployment level has taken a toll. Last year, CBO reported that the Department of Defense had reduced the amount of ‘dwell’ time for many troops from two years to one year in order to sustain troop levels. ‘Dwell’ time is the time troops spend in training at bases in the United States while living with their families. CBO questioned whether such a high pace of operations was sustainable over the long term. The President’s proposal will increase this level to above 200,000 troops, and to reach this level, the Pentagon will probably have to relax ‘dwell’ time standards even more.

[Jason Tate]

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117029822839894550.html?mod=opini on_main_commentaries), President Bush acknowledged that as early as “September/October” 2006, he realized a major change was needed in Iraq:
WSJ: Was there a moment in the war when you said we have to make a major change in the way we’re doing things in Iraq?
GWB: Yes, there was.
WSJ: When was that?
GWB: September/October.
But even after Bush realized that a major change was needed — in the weeks just prior to the midterm elections — he continued to knowingly mislead the American public and claim U.S. was “winning” in Iraq and that the strategy was “working”:
QUESTION: Are we winning?
BUSH: Absolutely we’re winning. … We’re winning and we will win, unless we leave before the job is done. And the crucial battle, right now, is Iraq. [10/25/06 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061025.html)]
BUSH: But I believe that the military strategy we have is going to work. That’s what I believe. [10/25/06 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061025.html)]
QUESTION: But just to be clear: When the commanders on the ground tell the president, in the large picture, we are stepping closer to chaos, he believes that can also be a picture of winning?
SNOW: Yes. [11/1/06 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061101-3.html)]
BUSH: We’ve got a lot going for us. We got a strategy that helps us achieve victory, and we got a military that is the finest military any country has ever assembled. [11/3/06 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061103-2.html)]
Previously, Bush acknowledged lying (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/08/bush-lied-rumsfeld/) about Rumsfeld’s resignation for political purposes in the lead-up to the elections.

[aminorthreat55]

A study released today by the Congressional Budget Office shows that the real troop increase associated with President Bush’s escalation policy could be as high as 48,000 (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7778&sequence=0), more than double the 21,500 soldiers that Bush has claimed.
As DefenseTech notes, extra forces are expected because the combat units being sent into Iraq “need to be backed up by support troops (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003239.html), ‘including personnel to staff headquarters, serve as military police, and provide communications, contracting, engineering, intelligence, medical, and other services.’” The CBO’s low estimate envisions at least 15,000 additional support personnel. The alternative scenario “would require about 28,000 support troops in addition to the 20,000 combat troops.”
Additionally, the cost of the escalation could be as much as five times higher (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003239.html) than White House estimates:
According to the study, the costs for the “surge” would also be dramatically different than the President has said. The White House estimated a troop escalation would require about $5.6 billion in additional funding, the CBO now believes “that costs would range from $9 billion to $13 billion for a four-month deployment and from $20 billion to $27 billion for a 12-month deployment, depending upon the total number of troops deployed.”
Read the full CBO report HERE (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7778&sequence=0).
UPDATE: A release from Rep. John Spratt’s (D-SC) office notes that the CBO report also predicts addition burdens on U.S. forces:
An average of 170,000 military personnel has been maintained in the Iraq theater of operations, and this high deployment level has taken a toll. Last year, CBO reported that the Department of Defense had reduced the amount of ‘dwell’ time for many troops from two years to one year in order to sustain troop levels. ‘Dwell’ time is the time troops spend in training at bases in the United States while living with their families. CBO questioned whether such a high pace of operations was sustainable over the long term. The President’s proposal will increase this level to above 200,000 troops, and to reach this level, the Pentagon will probably have to relax ‘dwell’ time standards even more.

I love the CBO.