The Face Of The Democratic Party

I caught Nancy Pelosi on NBC, responding to President Bush's speech on Iraq.

First, the face of the Democratic Party has had one too many shots of botox, but let's set aside the cosmetic derogation.  Ms. Pelosi was partisan and divisive.  Although I am sure this was the tone that the crowd at Lost Kos was looking for, I doubt she tossed enough red meat to feed them - she didn't even mention the Downing Street memos!

To the rest of America, I suspect Ms. Pelosi will have come across as backward looking and negative.  As is often the case, Bush is in trouble right up until the moment his opponents commence speaking.

As to Bush's speech, he had a good text and delivered it with confidence.  However, if talking could get this done, Dick Cheney would have won this war by now; at this point, I am from Missouri.

MORE:  On the subject of cosmetic derogation, I was watching the speech with some kids (ages 8-11) in the room.  Key insights:

(a) Bush has big ears;

(b) Nancy Pelosi is scary;

(c) Bush linked 9/11 to Iraq.  When Bush said that the insurgents are testing our will, just as our will was tested on 9/11, the ten year old immediately asked with surprise "You mean, the Iraqis attacked us on 9/11?"

Comments

[creepy dude]

Did the 10 year old also happen to point out the President was wearing no clothes?

[TM]

I am setting up the ten year old with an account at Kos, where she will fit right in (except for the language). Everyone should be a liberal when they are young.

[Cecil Turner]

"However, if talking could get this done, Dick Cheney would have won this war by now; at this point, I am from Missouri."

ISTM the conflict is now largely political, as Iraqis (individually and collectively) decide whether to support insurgents or their new government. Our forces can help provide the environment by interdicting insurgent supply lines and hunting down foreign troops, but there's no way to "get this done" militarily.

No military force can stop individual terrorists from blowing themselves up, nor can security forces provide an airtight cordon against suicide bombers. OTOH, insurgents cannot operate without popular support. In the final analysis it's an Iraqi problem, and (one way or another) will have an Iraqi solution.

[Tom Bowler]

'When Bush said that the insurgents are testing our will, just as our will was tested on 9/11, the ten year old immediately asked with surprise "You mean, the Iraqis attacked us on 9/11?"'

And did you anwer, "No, the Iraqis are on our side fighting against the terrorists." ???

[boris]

When Bush said that the insurgents are testing our will, just as our will was tested on 9/11, the ten year old immediately asked with surprise "You mean, the Iraqis attacked us on 9/11?"

The proper inferrence would be that the insurgents attacked us on 911. Since many of them are Saudi, Syrian and Al Qaeda the inference is not unreasonable.

[creepy dude]

Well we can't relax our liberal standards even for 10 year olds, so we'll need certification that the child recommends therapy for Osama bin forgotten.

[creepy dude]

-In the final analysis it's an Iraqi problem-

Once at a bus stop, a couple started arguing and then the guy started hitting his girlfriend. When I tried to restrain him, the girl jumped in on his side and they both started pummeling me. I literally had to run away from those pyschos.

[Tom]

Bush never actually linked Iraq to 9/11 (in the sense of causation), but instead said that after 9/11, it wass time to take the fight to the next threat instead of waiting for another attack. Since this point was lost on both your ten year-old friend and the NY Times editorial board (see Powerline today) can we conclude the NY Times editorial board has the mentality of a 10 year old?

[Tom]

And by the way, in reference to the "insurgency" (20% Baathist holdouts and 80% foreign jihadis who just want to kill anyone they don't like, including Iraquis) doesn't anyone remember we had Southern "insurgents" fomenting violence against blacks and white collaborators for almost 100 years after the Civil War? Shall we conclude the Civil War, preserving the Union and freeing the slaves, was a wasted effort?

[Crank]

You might just have responded that Saddam cheered for the guys who attacked us on September 11, and was just about the only government in the world that did so. I usually point that out when I'm not in the mood for a lengthy discussion on the Den Beste Regional Strategy, the finer points of UN Resolutions and cease-fire agreements, and the details of Saddam's many ties to terrorist groups. But then, since I worked in the Trade Center, pointing out that Saddam thought trying to murder me was a good idea is usually a quick way out of an argument.

Bush could try the same thing by pointing out that Saddam hired terrorists to blow up his dad, but being president and all he's expected to take a broader view.

[Bloviate_Me]

Saddam wanted everyone to believe he had direct involvement in the 911 attacks, as this photo from LGF's archive shows, just as he wanted everyone to believe he still had WMDs and the capability to deploy them.

It's a tired, tedious exercise by now; people opposed to the war trot out the "there were no WMDs" argument, and people who support the war point out that the intelligence agencies of every country, as well as U.N. weapons inspectors were certain the regime had them.

Note to brutal dictators and thugs: If you have a history of murdering people, boast about your ability to murder, make threats of murder, and then brag about your involvement in a recent murder, then people will probably decide it's time to permanently take you out.