Re: Deer in headlights

Yeah it was pretty funny -  especially their subtitles. Lots of Um..  
Uhhh.. etc.

If deadlines force decisions, why don't we set a deadline for figuring  
out who we are going to hand over power to?  If we fail to meet the  
deadline, Bush gets fired.

On Apr 7, 2004, at 2:38 PM, Jon wrote:

> Bush that is... trying to explain the transfer of power cum June 30rd.
> Anyone watch the Daily Show last night? Hirrarrious!
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/07/international/middleeast/07CND- 
> PREX.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=
>
>
>     Bush, in Texas, Confers Long Distance on Fighting in Iraq
>
> *By DAVID STOUT and CARL HULSE*
>
> WASHINGTON, April 7 — President Bush, vacationing in Texas, conferred
> with his advisers today on the surge in bloodshed in Iraq and what to  
> do
> or say about it. On Capitol Hill, several senators readily expressed a
> range of concerns at the events unfolding across Iraq.
>
> There was no indication from the president's Crawford ranch that Mr.
> Bush planned to comment publicly on the worst violence in Iraq since
> Saddam Hussein was overthrown a year ago, claiming the lives of more
> than 20 Americans and scores of Iraqis since Sunday. But the very fact
> that a session was taking place, during what was supposed to be an
> Easter Week respite at the presidential retreat, illustrated the
> seriousness of the situation.
>
> Details of the discussions, which took place partly by teleconference
> and included L. Paul Bremer III, the civilian administrator in Iraq,  
> and
> Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of American troops there, were  
> sketchy.
> But based on recent remarks from Mr. Bush and his closest advisers, and
> comments today from several senators, two questions seemed unavoidable,
> and political pressure seemed to be mounting for the White House to do
> something besides remain silent.
>
> The questions, raised anew today, are whether the United States should
> proceed with plans to transfer sovereignty to a new Iraqi government by
> June 30, and do the American commanders in Iraq need more troops? Those
> questions sparked debate among lawmakers today.
>
> Senator Joseph R. Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate
> Foreign Relations Committee, said today that the campaign in Iraq was
> "worth the price" America must pay for despite any misgivings over how
> the administration got involved in Iraq or its postwar planning. "We
> have now engaged it," Mr. Biden said on "The Early Show" on CBS. "We
> have to win it."
>
> But Mr. Biden criticized the administration, as he has before, on the
> conduct of the war and its planning for the peace. The senator said  
> that
> there should be more United States troops in Iraq (there are just over
> 130,000 now), that the planning for peacekeeping had been inadequate,
> and that the United States should not lock itself into a June 30  
> transfer.
>
> "John McCain, myself and others have been arguing we needed more troops
> from the very beginning of this, once the Saddam statue went down," Mr.
> Biden said, alluding to Senator McCain, Republican of Arizona. "I don't
> know what the plan is. I don't know who we're going to turn power over  
> to."
>
> Asked whether he thought it was wise for the United States to stick to
> the June 30 deadline for handing over power, Mr. Biden replied, "It may
> be wise if we knew to whom we were handing it over."
>
> But a Republican colleague on the Foreign Relations panel, Senator  
> Chuck
> Hagel of Nebraska, said it was essential to adhere to the June 30
> deadline. "Deadlines force decisions," Mr. Hagel said on CNN. "I think
> the symbolism is important."
>
> Mr. Hagel said the latest bloodshed in Iraq, and the graphic pictures
> and vivid new reports about it, had simply underlined a harsh reality
> for the United States: "There will be many unknowns. This is  
> complicated
> and dangerous."
>
> Mr. Bush has said as much, declaring repeatedly that the campaign in
> Iraq was part of the overall effort against terrorism, and that America
> had been carrying out a mission for history.
>
> Just one day ago, at an appearance in El Dorado, Ark., Mr. Bush
> expressed sympathy for the Iraqi people as he vowed that the United
> States would not be deterred. "They've been tortured and terrorized and
> traumatized by a tyrant," Mr. Bush said. "And it's going to take awhile
> for them to understand what freedom is all about. We will pass
> sovereignty on June 30. We will stay the course in Iraq."
>
> A group of Senate Republicans took the floor this morning, urging
> Americans to stay united during the unfolding crisis in Iraq and not
> engage in assigning blame.
>
> "It's incumbent upon all Americans to rally around the leadership of
> this country in times of great crisis in the world, when are we the
> leader of the free world, and not to incite the other side," said
> Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia.
>
> Nevertheless, Mr. Chambliss said that he had come to believe that the
> administration "underestimated just how difficult and complex the job  
> in
> Iraq would be."
>
> He added that "we need to learn from our tactical mistakes and to  
> ensure
> that our posture in Iraq is flexible and we can adapt to fluid and
> developing circumstances."
>
> Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, a member of the Republican
> leadership, said she believed that the current insurgency could be the
> work of Saddam Hussein loyalists that had been biding their time since
> the invasion last spring. She said the initial conflict had almost been
> "too easy."
>
> "This is one person's opinion, but this person believes that when
> history is written about this war, that it will say that we are meeting
> the Republican Guard right now, that they faded into the woodwork and
> they strengthened their numbers and they're coming back," Senator
> Hutchison said, referring to the best-trained Iraqi forces.
>
> She added that the uprising was being fueled by those with an eye on  
> the
> calendar, seeking to disrupt the transfer of power scheduled for June  
> 30.
>
> Ms. Hutchison and others said that they believed that the United States
> needed to boost its military presence in Iraq, an idea roundly  
> dismissed
> by Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, a forceful
> opponent of the war from the start.
>
> "Surely I am not the only one who hears echoes of Vietnam in this
> development," said Mr. Byrd, referring to the possibility of an  
> increase
> in troops. "Surely, the administration recognizes that increasing the
> U.S. troop presence in Iraq will only suck us deeper into the maelstrom
> of violence that has become the hallmark of that unfortunate country.
> Starkly put, at this juncture, more U.S. forces in Iraq equates more
> U.S. targets in Iraq."
>
> But the Democratic minority leader, Senator Tom Daschle of South  
> Dakota,
> commented off the floor that if the Pentagon demonstrated that more
> troops were needed, "then I don't think there's any question but that  
> we
> have to support additional troops." Mr. Daschle emphasized that he  
> would
> rather see a larger commitment from other countries.
>
> Today's discussion among the president and his senior advisers took
> place in the middle of a crucial week for the administration. On
> Thursday, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, is to
> testify before the bipartisan commission investigating the attacks of
> Sept. 11, 2001.
>
> One question she will be asked, one way or the other, is whether the
> administration diluted its efforts to eradicate Al Qaeda terrorists in
> Afghanistan and elsewhere by unnecessarily choosing to wage war
> somewhere else: in Iraq.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> heads mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
> http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/
>


_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/