The President would have done far better to not have mentioned Idiot Son at all last night

[Stinky The Clown]

The whole notion was a set-up, with Fox Nooz at the center of it. Gretchen Carlson's fast loop screeching at Gibbs was the obvious tip-off. The ugly little gnomes in the repubican back room think up shit like this to make us look bad. They're very good at it. Gretchen, playing the part of the rabid Shih Tzu with a bone, was scripted. She was simply doing her job.

No matter what Obama said or didn't say, they would be in his shit about it. Or they would gloat about it. No matter how Obama played this, he was destined to lose (in the eyes of the right wing). I think he would have done far better to say nothing and maybe gain a little more respect from his BASE. As it is now, his words hang there like flatulence in a movie theater.

For their part, the right wing has already started. Lady Blah Blah's babysitter, Johnny McCain, has already talked trash about Obama. He will, no doubt, be just one of many.

The right wing does this to Democrats EVERY FUCKING TIME. And every fucking time, we fall for it.

Charlie <---> Lucy <---> Football

What would have happened had he NOT mentioned Poppy Bush's dry-drunk-turned-wet idiot son?

From the right, nothing different. Oh sure, the words and theme would be different, but the trash talk volume and relative meaningfullness or meaninglessness would be the very same.

The difference, however, is would have been the reaction on our side. Obama would have taken less shit from the left had he simply not mentioned the man many think is an unindicted war criminal.

So what was the point?

[BeyondGeography]

1. Political closure for Obama; he can move on

The media never moves on, nor do his opponents.

If he had followed your advice, they'd be screaming even louder and he'd be forced to address them.

He played it right.

[mike r]

2. Another exercise in political masochism

Happens every time.

[ejpoeta]

3. doesn't matter what he says they'll bitch. if he didn't mention bush

they would bitch that he didn't mention bush. they probably have a script for either situation no maatter what it is.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. My point, exactly

[bdamomma]

8. very true.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. It's not about Bush.

It's about the millions of voters who used to be for Iraq, but are still going to be voting next November.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. You forgot the child tax credit lobby.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Because people who have children are a bunch of deadbeats and freeloaders.

Lousy welfare queens

:crazy:

[eleny]

9. Had he not mentioned him it wowuld have been easier for left wing talking heads to argue the point

For instance -
Isn't it better that Obama not mention * because we were taken to war based on lies?
Do you want your base to be reminded of all the lies and death so close to an election?

You get the picture.

The right wingers would try to admonish as Ari Fleischer tried to do on CNN last night. Zakaria made short work of Gergen but Begala had a tougher job dealing with Fleischer who was beyond appalling. View it here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x500625

And besides, W has stayed off the public stage since he left office. So why not take a hint and ignore his sorry ass last night especially if there will be no prosecutions.

[indepat]

10. The words hang in there with me for I had thought junior were only implementing a long-held far RW

PNAC agenda of pre-emptive wars of choice (aggression) while gutting constitutional protections and the rule of law, that these pre-emptive wars were always job #2, following job #1, the tax cuts which mostly benefited the most affluent. Oh silly me, what a wuss, what a nattering nabob of negativism, oh why am I so slow to get the drift? :)

[wmbrew0206]

11. As President Obama was filling his role a Command in Chief, he had to speak to the whole country

not just his base.

A lot of people will see what they want in Iraq. Some will see it as a win, others a complete waste of life, time, and resources. As the C-i-C, Obama had to play this as a win for the US military. He didn't think it was worth the effort personally, but as the leader of America's armed forces, he couldn't say that. So when playing it as a win, he had to mention Bush in some way, due to Bush implementing the Surge strategy that the majority of Democrats were against.

President Obama was playing to the middle of the political spectrum last night and I thought he did a pretty good job in doing it.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Let's talk . . . . .

He was speaking as president, not cic. Just as an example (don't get stuck on this point) he spoke a lot about economic stuff.

You know his personal feelings, how?

The surge didn't do shit and there was no need to mention bush at all.

More important were the lack of lies mentioned.

[wmbrew0206]

14. This speech was mainly about Iraq and he was wearing his CinC hat for most of it.

Obama has talked repeatedly about how he felt going into Iraq was not the right decision and he was against it. That is well documented.

The Surge, along with the Awakening, did what it was designed to do. Saying it didn't do shit is laughable. I was in Iraq in '07 and saw what it did. I know that is something a lot of people here don't want to hear, but it is the truth.

Seeing as this is being portrayed as a victory for the US and Biden has said it could be one Obama's biggest achievements, Obama had to play it up as a win. The American people don't like it when you play up a win for the military and then shit all over it and the troops by claiming it wasn't worth it.

Obama had a tough line to toe, and I think he did a good job.

[Poboy]

13. Lmao, the "SURGE" was bullshit cover, and you want to elevate it as some

grand solution.

Its like when your team (USA) is down 50 to nothing, all your players (soldiers)get hurt in the game, but at the very end of the game your team scores a touchdown on a hail Mary pass (surge).

You want to cheer about the touchdown?
Not to mention, we did not have to play this 'game', but were lied into it in the first place!

Goofy.

[wmbrew0206]

17. Once we broke Iraq, we had bought it, and couldn't leave it shattered on the floor.

When the Surge started, Iraq was in shattered pieces all over the floor. By the time it ended, most of the pieces were backed together being held together with duck tape, and a few pieces were still missing. That is what the Surge was suppose to do.

Right now, the a lot of the duck tape (US forces) s being removed, and all the pieces are still holding together. Its up to the Iraqis now to determine if the pieces hold together or fall apart.

[bullwinkle428]

19. An hour a day of electricity still seems awfully broken to me, and

who knows how many more years it's going to be that way for the people of Iraq?

[wmbrew0206]

21. Not considering where Iraq was in '06. Iraqis were worried about living through the week.

Worrying about how many hours of electricity the grid provides is a big step up.

Also, most Iraqis have generates that provide the majority of the electricity for Iraqi families.

[EC]

15. I disagree,

in essence he reminded people WHO PUT US THERE without making it sound like soldiers wasted their lives...

[RadiationTherapy]

16. That was a coded message for all left activists: W. Bush will never be prosecuted for Iraq.

We cannot admit that one of america's great leaders made such a criminal move. I don't know what else it could mean.

[gkhouston]

18. We figured that one out some time ago. He would have done better to skip

the Iraq speech altogether and given a meaty speech on job creation.

[ladjf]

20. I don't know why Obama would worry about pissing off the Right,

he certainly doesn't appear to give on Damn about how the Left feels on his positions. nt

[wmbrew0206]

22. I think this was a case of worrying about pissing off the center.

Most Americans are glad this war is winding down and most of the troops are now out of the country. Iraq is somewhat stable and a lot better off than it was in '06. I think most of middle America considers it or at least wants to think of it as a win. They can feel good about the US Military winning or at least not losing. Looking back and throwing blame around is not going to help.

Middle America wants to move forward and feel good about a win and have someone worrying about their job. If Obama came out and threw a lot of blame at Bush, it would cause a lot of news cycles to be dedicated about the war. Who said what when, and who was right, etc. That is not what middle America wants right now. They want to hear about jobs and the economy. Getting into a pissing match with Bush and Co about Iraq is not going to help Democrats in the mid-terms and that is what we need to concentrate on.