Hot Mic

Omakase

Amazon Search
«  
  »

Fire in the Belly

By lex, on April 29th, 2008

What took so long?

Share
April 29th, 2008 | Tags: , , | Category: afghanistan, GWOT

22 comments to Fire in the Belly

  • Jimmy J.
    April 29, 2008 at 7:51 pm

    Nothing new here. He’s been saying the same things, maybe not so emphatically, since we first went into Afghanistan. And he is correct. It’s a fight against an ideology that is so perverse and barbarous that it will take a long time. He’s said that over and over as well. Seems like few listen to what he says.

    What is arguable is the strategy. I believe it better to be on offense than to play a defensive game. If Hillary or Obama win in November we may get the defensive strategy. Then we’ll see how that works.

  • Humble1390
    April 29, 2008 at 8:25 pm

    There. No equivocation at all in that.
    Now why wasn’t that on all the headlines and leading the nightly news? And why are people still asking those same stupid questions?

  • Fast Nav
    April 29, 2008 at 9:44 pm

    THAT’S the real question. I watched this live (while getting a cup o’ coffee here at school) and I thought it was absolutely awesome. But why didn’t anyone (spoken: MSM) replay THIS one all day?

    Is it because the President essentially pimp slapped a reporter for being stupid? If the MSM loves a body count for headlines, I’d say there’s one big casualty right there on the South Lawn.

  • Max Damage
    April 29, 2008 at 10:07 pm

    Ya know, most Americans didn’t want to join World Wars 1 or 2. Felt it was “over there” and not our problem. One would think WTC 1 and 2 would have woke them up.

    The President is correct. Not eloquent on the podium, he’s not William F. Buckley, but it’s straight talk one cannot misinterpret.

    MSM? There’s a reason I disconnected my cable and read your newspapers only on-line. I don’t like to pay for stupid. I can get plenty of that at no charge in everyday life.

    – Max

  • XBradTC
    April 29, 2008 at 10:08 pm

    1. Where has this guy been for the last couple of years.

    2. Why the hell do I have to read this here and not see it on the ABC Nightly News?

  • fliterman
    April 29, 2008 at 11:25 pm

    No, the reporter (Martha Raddatz) did indeed ask a legitimate and important question – specifically about the “progress” in Afghanistan – on behalf of the public, not the ‘MSM’.

    What she received unfortunately was an emotional equivocation and an unrelated rant to her question, rather than the honest and direct answer she, and the public deserved.

    Progress in Afghanistan? Someone should tell the CiC of the resurgent Taliban, the growing poppy trade, copycat suicide bombers, increased casualties, and misplaced priorities and assets. Progress my arse! We have been sidetracked and deluded.

    In fact in early April, President Bush told that same reporter that “it’s ‘probably true’ the next terrorist attack on America is being planned and plotted right now in Afghanistan/Pakistan. ”

    That’s progress? WTF! Meanwhile, Iraq – which in now not as great a threat – remains his primary focus while Afghanistan deteriorates and its threat rises.

    Could it be Iraq and its oil are more important than the ‘oil-less’ launch pad and accomplices to 9-11 in Afghanistan, who still enjoy their continued freedom, and now their resurgence?

    Does the CiC listen to his military, as he purports? Adm. Mullen recently said, “The Taliban is growing bolder. Suicide attacks are on the rise, and so is the trade in illegal narcotics. Requirements exist there that we simply can not fill, and won’t likely be able to fill, until conditions improve in Iraq.”

    Man, where are our priorities!!!!

    And the President not only calls that “progress”, but also berates a reporter for such an honest question?

    Never confuse “fire in the belly” with dangerous senselessness……… or far worse.

  • Skippy-san
    April 30, 2008 at 3:52 am

    This is typical Bush-when someone asks a reasonable question, he simply ups the noise level and assumes his , “how dare you ask me a question?” mentality. It is an old Bush tactic and says a lot about his viewpoint.

    I watched the press conference and fortunately I was by myself so no one else could here me shouting at the television.

    No fire in the belly-just the same old arrogant buffoonery. I really loved the fact that while he wants the war funded he can’t be bothered to pay for educational benefits and other things for veterans.

    But that too is consistent for him. He’s always said one thing and did exactly the opposite. He’s consistent all right-consistently bad.

  • Kris, in New England
    April 30, 2008 at 4:02 am

    The reporter was rude – is that an oxymoron? She was told – by the President of the United States – and politely, to shut up. And she wouldn’t, so Bush gave her a chance to ask a meaningful question. And she blew it; she could have asked him just about anything and he’d have answered her. But she trotted out the same old questions the MSM have been asking for years now – and she got bitch slapped.

    Good for Dubya.

  • Skippy-san
    April 30, 2008 at 4:26 am

    The reporter was doing her job. And I’m glad she did not back down-the fact that the President of the US told her to shut up did not deter her from pressing home her point. Good for Martha Radditch-who by the way is not just another left wing hack.

    Because her question got to a good point. The President’s appointees created a lot of the current mess by refusing to resource the armed forces for the multiple conflicts that have been demanded of it, and the President has used the same words year after year after year.

  • Chap
    April 30, 2008 at 6:06 am

    Pfft. The reporter’s question broke no new ground, had no new answers, wasn’t going to do anything other than to provide a gotcha moment or a sound bite of Reporter Looking Tough. There’s a subgenre of guys like that in the WHPC: no substance save an Oppositional Attitude and contempt towards the person from who they get their repertorial (sp?) positional power.

    If the reporter was wanting to find out something new or interesting, she wanted to do it at a presidential presser? And with that kind of line of questioning, which isn’t what you said it was? It is to laugh.

    Seriously. It’s been done, and by more effective annoying left wing reporters in the WHPC who think they are the news instead of the actual news.

  • XBradTC
    April 30, 2008 at 9:01 am

    Skippy, your antipathy toward the President is sliding into BDS. Martha was going for a gotcha, not bringing any new information to light. She may not be a left wing hack, but she’s still a hack.

    Afghanistan was the war where we didn’t go it alone, and appealed to our allies to pull their share of the load. It was a disaster. Now the Marines have to go into Helmand province and try to make progress where the Brits sat on their asses for the last couple of years.

    Bush didn’t say it was sunshine an unicorns and he never has. He tells you it will be tough, and guess what? It is. How many times does he have to tell people that before they realize it really is tough?

  • STEVEC
    April 30, 2008 at 9:29 am

    Her question was, more or less verbatim: “You said in 2006 about Iraq that we were winning . . . How can we believe what you say about Afghanistan?” And what she meant was: You lied or were stupid about Iraq, so maybe you’re lying again….

    SO: To people of the mindset of Flit* and Skippy* – how can you support her question so vociferously? Given where we are today in Iraq…where good progress has in fact been made in an effort that this administration, and this President said from Day One would be long, hard, and in which we would suffer setbacks, how can she use Iraq to basically say Bush was wrong? The evidence is that we’ve made great progress…you all want to ignore that? And Afghanistan is, like Iraq, a long term project – as is the entire region.

    If you guys / gals don’t want to resolve the problems that have been allowed to fester for far far too long in the middle east into the giant problem that Bush’s administration has had the guts to deal with (and I think that everyone would have to agree with the proposition that the middle east festered under both Republican and Democrat administrations and nobody had the guts to deal with it – and even the current administration hasn’t gone far enough, yet), then you are putting your heads in the sand so that someone can kick your exposed butt sometime down the road. (Which would be ok with me, except that, unfortunately, I live where you do and would be at-risk like you. So, no thanks.)

    I think that you guys/gals don’t like Bush, don’t want to see progress under his administration or any Republican administration, and that you think and treat this whole thing as a giant debate, to be won on speaking points, and to hell with what is best for this country long term. I’m fairly disgusted with your approach and stylistic arguments. And the whole time, while we are engaged against the people Bush properly describes as thugs and murderers, people of your stripe and who agree with your points of view are whole-hog arguing to send the military to strategically worthless places like Darfur . . .no doubt “for the children,” so that makes it ok……but without an explanation of how it’s ok for Iraqi children to be sacrificed to the Islamofascists?

  • FbL
    April 30, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    While not agreeing with everything Steve C writes above, I do love this:

    you think and treat this whole thing as a giant debate, to be won on speaking points, and to hell with what is best for this country long term. I’m fairly disgusted with your approach and stylistic arguments.

    That is a perfect description of most of the non-reactionary national politicians these days who pretend they are oh-so-reasonable, and especially people who manage to calmly argue for the wrong side as if this is all some kind of intellectual exercise without real-life consequences. They drive me bananas (and that’s putting it gently).

  • Skippy-san
    April 30, 2008 at 2:24 pm

    Steve C,

    Because the bottom line is it does not solve the problem, nor does it really advance the interests of the United States in the long term. You point out Dafur is strategically worthless-you are correct. So are other places that we are involved in. For every problem Iraq supposedly solves-it has created just as many problems. This is not about good vs evil-its about promoting American interests over those of Arabs. That is the only things that matter to me. And Bush has made very serious mistakes in his perception of where the national interest lies.

    I nor anyone else should not have to back down from very real concern about the misdirection of the country from this administration. You can be disgusted as you want. I am equally disgusted with the inabilty of people to see and understand the facts as they are-not as they are idealized to be.

  • Jessica
    April 30, 2008 at 3:15 pm

    These “Islamofascists” are spreading around the world like wild fire. If someone doesn’t do something about it and act on it they are just going to continue pushing their agenda. They want all of us dead. Liberal and Conservative doesn’t matter to them nor does reasoning or debate. They have made that quite clear through their actions. American’s better have “Interests” over those Arabs. Since this is one of the core places that these “Terrorist” groups are coming from. Is it nasty? Yeah! Is it easy? NO This is a different type of “War” we all know that already. It is not going to be easy or over after 1-2-3. This is WAR it is the nature of the beast for it not to work out exactly as planned. Progress IS being made, sadly lives WILL be lost. We are doing the best we can and we are doing what we should be doing! Why people choose not to see that is beyond me. The enemy is SICK and they HATE you and they want you DEAD. We are just protecting ourselves from them and helping other innocent folks and I see no wrong in that.

  • badbob
    April 30, 2008 at 4:19 pm

    Proof in the pudding- despite all the off the subject talk above re B.D.S. symptoms and such:

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jnypM0YI4qSc3-IpcxPYSOj9t4KAD90BMEF01

    Of note- between the onligatory “wounded boy story” courtesy of the AP, and this:

    “Attack helicopters “obliterated” a compound used as a base by the insurgents, said Clinton, 36, of Swampscott, Mass. He said he didn’t if anyone was killed by the airstrike.”

    Not reported is the fact that that 30 Taliban were killed.

    Are we winning? It depends what the meaning of winning is, I reckon…..

    b2

  • Tom G.
    April 30, 2008 at 4:41 pm

    Jessica, you’ve clearly strayed from the path of dialogue. Please recover and join us to parley with the opposition in accordance with our reasonable and gentler natures. After all, we all desire the same things, right?

  • Jessica
    April 30, 2008 at 6:03 pm

    Tom G.- My comment was completely within “Context” I just say it like I see it. Plain, Blunt, Simple & to the point . It is your freedom to take it or leave it. Sorry, no “sugar coating” here! (Referring to your comment of “Reasonable/Gentler natures” here). My point in being so blunt was to convey that these terrorist don’t care. They are harsh just as that. No need to sugar coat the truth. I could agree with your comment “Strayed from the path of Dialogue” if I were using expletives or making personal attacks towards others with opposing views (which is very uneducated) but saying things how I see them is just what I did and rightfully so. Thanks!

  • Cassandra
    May 1, 2008 at 5:00 am

    Bush has given several versions of this answer, with the same force and (on several occasions) far greater coherence. It’s just that his entire press conferences are rarely carried during prime time, and even if they were, how many people would bother to watch? He’s given some outstanding ones.

    How many people watch his entire speeches when he’s on TV? I tune into the comments sections and half the time what I see is people saying “I only watched part of it”. And this is the President of the United States” And his speech won’t be in the papers the next day either. So they will never know what he said.

    And yet these same people have no problem voicing an opinion about the speeches and press conferences they don’t listen to :p

    The press cover what they want to, which is mostly the opposing party’s rebuttals to whatever the President has to say and any stray gaffe they can catch on camera. Sorry for the rant, but this is a pet peeve of mine.

  • Tom G.
    May 1, 2008 at 5:29 am

    Hehe…Jessica…I like your “dialogue” just fine – was only practicing in the event a new administration compels “national gentleness”…

  • unkawill
    May 1, 2008 at 6:53 am

    I, for one am doing what I can in Afghanistan, after recently transferring from Iraq.
    I have to be honest here, I am bored out of my skull, as are most of everybody I am stationed with here in Bagram.
    We have had recent comments alluding to how barbaric and wasteful this war has been.
    IMO it has not been prosecuted properly. Screw the collateral damage, There is no way that this should have taken this long to come to a satisfactory conclusion.
    We know where they are, let us quit pussyfooting around and get after the bad guy’s and kill them. Problem Solved.
    Some people “Just need killing”

  • Jimmy J.
    May 1, 2008 at 10:04 am

    unkawill,
    Just like a trigger puller. Just want to get the job done and head on home. Don’t you realize, man, that we must be nuanced, and humane, and politically correct, and diplomatic, and so on and so on.

    Hopefully, someday, someway we’re going to take your advice to heart. As you say, “Some people just need killing.”

    Thanks for what you’re doing over there, even if it is boring you to death.
eXTReMe Tracker

View My Stats