After the president gets done lying the Democrats will be heard from. Sen. Reed (D-RI) is going to give a response. And John Edwards bought time on MSNBC for after Reed’s statement.
Thoughts on all this?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
14 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
you gotta admit
the president has balls
he just shoved his dick in the face of dems and a big portion of americans….soooooooooo….now what?
my guess is the dems will swallow.
the people are still too comfortable…gas prices are too low….there is no draft…..there just is no reason for a majority of americans to do much more than vote in polls….no striking, no protests, no great outcry.
when the people lead, the leaders follow….why should the dems do much more than swallow? why?
Because more than just edible panties taste like crap. The President’s war tastes like crap.
It seems that only his hard core fans (and those looking for material to mock him) will be watching.
and those that can’t find the remote.
I was wondering who watches him anymore. Even true believers must feel uncomfortable with his bullshit. Supporting the war doesn’t mean you have to watch him lie to you about it.
Does anyone know what kind of rating he gets for his militaristic mewling? I flip on the tv and if he’s there I start looking for Cash Cab or some Simpsons reruns. There is no point in watching him. You know he’s lying. You know that next year will be worse than this year, but not so much worse that you need to be told, not that they would tell you.
So how do you judge if he wins the debate? By the fact that no one watches him? Is that how we judge agreement in 2007?
he needs to lay off the tan in a can. As for the substance of the speech, there wasn’t any from what I could discern. More of the same
CG said the same thing about the tan.
The President basically said “We’ve been so successful in Iraq, that we’ll never leave.” It struck me that his idea of bipartisan unity was that “no matter what your political party” that you must accept the government mandated war.
Now you will wait for Petraeus to speak in march, where he will say that the next six months will be critical and that we will stay in Iraq with 130,000 troops, but beyond that we have no clue.
And as both Olbermann and Rachael Maddow pointed out, the President’s chief argument for staying is that Iraq is a quagmire, and we can’t ever leave or it’ll get worse.
I’m glad Jack Reed picked up on that, saying that there’s no way America’s going to allow an open-ended commitment to Iraq. But you know what? That’s exactly what we will do.
The Democrats can do two things to stop this war: cut funding or impeach. They will attempt neither. Therefore another six months of jerking off, and we have the same fucking “debate” in March.
Only by then, the neocons will of had six months to drum up support for that coming attack on Iran.
hey booguess what? Fox nyc network- didn’t bother showing dem response! pretty cool Huh?
I love number five.
Why do you watch?
It’s like rereading a terrible book.
Why?
NOTHING about that speech will help us to oppose him. He would have to totally lose it in front of the cameras and start screaming and drooling about the apocalypse before the appearance would mean anything.
Look away.
“Get thee behind me, Satan” said Christ.
Yup.
AG
I no longer waste my time watching the idiot. There are better ways to waste my time
The decider to the end, afraid to admit he couldn’t sustain the surge for more than year–due to troop rotation–W makes it sound it was his decision. Such a move proves W is a loser.