quote:President Bush says the increased attacks on our forces in Iraq is proof that we’re making progress. He also said the increase in global warming shows we’re doing a better job of cleaning up the environment and the increase in the poverty rate shows the economy is improving.
Though I couldn't find the quote in a true online quotable source,
quote:President Bush says the increased attacks on our forces in Iraq is proof that we’re making progress
actually did happen. My husband heard it on CNN.
This really bothers me. It makes me feel like our administration feels that the increased violence is part and parcel with calculated and acceptable losses.
What exactly are we still fighting for over there? Turkey hasn't been a very hospitable landlord, are we looking for a new, permanent base in the Middle East? Is it really just about having an offshore source of oil? Is it just to keep Chaney's cronies in high volume contracts?
I don't know. But when I hear statements like this, it makes me feel like our troops are merely pawns or screennames to a less than sympathetic moderator.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
I disagree Turkey has been a very good host in the middle east when one takes in account that the feeling of the turkish people do matter, particularly to the turkish government. Most things that the turkish goverment has done that were not what we requested or would benifit from are to keep there people happy, and not rioting in the street. The simple fact that turkey is a democracy alone makes them a worth friend.
Posted by Spektyr (Member # 5954) on :
I suppose the quote could be a "good" or "bad" indicator of the leadership's thinking, depending on the context.
Obviously, the "bad" context has been illustrated by the media's tendency to look for ways to ridicule public figures they don't like. Anyone can unintentionally misuse or mispronounce words, especially when staring into the baleful eye of a live television camera. Even the best public speaker makes mistakes for live TV to immortalize.
However, if it was meant to be taken another way the quote could be indication of a smart way of thinking in the administration. For instance, if you work from the assumption that a large amount of "bad" people in Iraq really hate the idea of the American military doing "good" things in Iraq, the more vehemently they oppose the military, the better "good" is being served.
Yeah, it may not be the best example of an alternate context, but it is valid. The more violent the opposition is, the more assured you are that your actions are working against the wishes of the opposing force. It could also have been meant to indicate that because the military was making good progress in stabilizing the country that those waiting extremists are losing patience and faith that they'll be able to take over again once the American military withdraws.
I didn't see the CNN broadcast and haven't actually been following the news so I don't know what else might have been said to put that individual statement in context. I'm just playing Devil's advocate.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Bush was quoted in the Newsweek before last, I believe, stating that more terrorist attacks are a good thing. From what I could extrapolate, it looked like he was saying that because the US was making so much "progress" in Iraq that evil Muslim terrorists bombed the US out of desperation, in order to convince other Muslims that the US is evil.
In keeping with the logic of the above, it will also be a good thing when terrorist attacks decrease, because then the US will be more welcome. In other words, the US does well no matter how many of its soldiers are killed.
I don't know if Bush has been repeating that statement over and over again, or if Leno's just late on the news.
Posted by Doug J (Member # 1323) on :
quote: But when I hear statements like this, it makes me feel like our troops are merely pawns or screennames to a less than sympathetic moderator.
Soldiers have always been political pawns for politicians, by all political parties since ancient times. Sometimes it is a bitter pill to swallow without its usual sugar coating.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
I was referencing comments such as this:
quote:Turkey's new prime minister {Ecevit} made it clear on Tuesday he would not allow Turkish bases to be used for any prolonged bombing of Iraq.
quote:The United States is offering to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade military bases in Turkey for use in the event of war against neighboring Iraq. The offer comes in spite of the fact that Turkey has made no firm commitment to allow the U.S. to position troops inside the country. On Wednesday, the government in Ankara withdrew what appeared a day earlier to be an offer to make its bases available.
What I’m suggesting is that our military may resent having to ask permission to use the base as they choose. They may even look to own rather than rent, and have Turkey as a neighbor rather than landlord.
Posted by Spektyr (Member # 5954) on :
I'd seriously doubt that the military presence in Iraq has anything to do with Turkey's lack of enthusiasm about having scores of American GI's scampering about their bases.
From my experience in the US military there is no animosity born from the tension of using another nation's military bases. It's their country, it's their base, and most American soldiers genuinely appreciate whatever hospitality they're shown. Military personelle are shown, on average, far more disdain by the civilian population (even in their own nation) than they are by the military of other countries.
Certainly it is a strategic advantage to have land bases in the Middle East. However this advantage completely evaporates if the method of obtaining them creates undue tension in those nations. We Americans may have a reputation for being overbearing and otherwise heavy-handed when it comes to the internal dealings of other nations, but long-term military presence is most definitely more trouble than it's worth unless it is well-received.
Better to be viewed as invited guests than an occupying oppressor.