Tony Snow’s Challenge: ‘Please Show Me’ Where The NIE Says ‘We’re Not Winning’
Tony Snow’s Challenge: ‘Please Show Me’ Where The NIE Says ‘We’re Not Winning’
In today’s briefing, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow challenged a reporter who said the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concluded that we’re not safer. Snow retorted, “Look for, ‘We’re not winning.’ Please show me. Well, the President says we’re winning.” Watch it:
We looked through the NIE for Snow. Some examples of “We’re not winning”:
“[A] large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.” [p. 1]
“If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.” [p. 1]
“We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives.” [p. 2]
“The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.” [p. 2]
“Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests.” [pp. 3-4]
Full transcript below:
REPORTER: Thanks. You said first of all that Al Qaeda has been degraded. Actually, the report said the leadership has degraded, but its ranks have increased. You also just -
SNOW: Ok.
REPORTER: You also said that you were talking about things the administration has done, and yet the intelligence estimate is taking this into account and coming up with this conclusion that the factors fueling this growth of the movement, that they report, outweigh the vulnerabilities and will do so for some time. That’s not, we’re safer.
SNOW: No, it talks about jihadism.
REPORTER: It’s not, “We’re winning.”
SNOW: Well– It doesn’t draw judgements like that. You’ve read National Intelligence Estimates —
REPORTER: I’m practically quoting verbatim.
SNOW: I know, but look for, “We’re not winning.” Please show me. Well, the President says we’re winning.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Well if the Presient says it, then it has to be true.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:46 pmYou can lead a Press Secretary and his President to water but you can’t make them drink the water of truth.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:48 pmPrezman sez alotta things
September 27th, 2006 at 12:49 pmSnow: “Oh, it actually DOES say, ‘we’re not winning’? Um.. okay. Then show me where it says that “the Islamofascists don’t hate us for our freedoms”. Can’t find that in there, can you? HA! That means that the NIE says that Islamofascists DO hate us for our freedoms. YES! Point for me!”
September 27th, 2006 at 12:49 pmOK. Tony’s right. If the measure of “winning” is increased violence, death, and chaos, then Emperor Bush wins.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:50 pmIt’s right next to the section that reads “Bush caused 911 by ignoring Osama bin Laden”.
These people are beyond dangerous. Tell you up is down right to your face. Unbelievable.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:50 pmApparently Tony Snow dropped his brain on the floor, and a dog ate some of it before he put in back into his cranium, so Tony has severe brain damage > lol.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:52 pmSnow retorted, “Look for, ‘We’re not winning.’ Please show me. Well, the President says we’re winning.â€
The president has said many things that have no base in reality. Only fools will take this as an acceptable answer. My counter arguement is that my grandmother says that we are losing the “war on terror” because of the occupation of Iraq, so we must be losing. So take that Mr. Snow and stuff it where your head usually is.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:52 pmIt must be that Bush had intended to lose this war, so that means we’re winning, because we’re losing.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:54 pm“Saying that we are making things worse does not mean that we’re not winning.” - Tony Snow.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:54 pmYou can lead a Press Secretary and his President to water but you can’t make them drink the water of truth.
Comment by Erroll
Especially when they have their own favorite brand of Kool-Aid.
A reporter should have asked the question that has NEVER been answered by BushCo = What, exactly, consitutes “victory” or “success” in Iraq? Without defining a targeted end point, it’s so much easier to keep saying “we’re winning” or “stay the course”.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:56 pmEven Cheney knew in the early nineties:
“The notion that we ought to now go to Baghdad, and uh, somehow take control of the country strikes me as, as, and extremely, uh, serious one, in terms of what we’d have to do when we got there. You’d probably have to put some new government in place. It’s not clear what kind of government that would be –how long you’d have to stay. For the U.S. to get involved militarily, in determining the outcome of, uh, the struggle over whose going to govern in Iraq, strikes me as the classic definition of a QUAGMIRE.”
September 27th, 2006 at 12:58 pmsince when has anything the President said turned out to be true?
September 27th, 2006 at 12:59 pmLiberals will be at the breaking point after the mid-terms. This liberal jumped to his/her death (I can’t tell what it is) last summer in San Francisco.
http://www.sfgate.com/ cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/ c/ a/ 2006/ 06/ 24/ MNGM1JK1MI15.DTL
I not wishing the death of liberals, but I’m a realisist and I know how negative and depressed liberals are. So I think we will start to see more stories of liberals jumping off of buildings and bridges.
I’m sure that the police will keeping an eye on the Golden Gate Bridge the Wednesday after mid-terms. I wouldn’t be suprised if they just shut it down that day.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:59 pmagain, everything is carefully crafted to obfuscate and procrastinate…
September 27th, 2006 at 1:03 pmthe qualifier: “we’re not winning”… that control-find search is very picky at times… he’s probably right…
Snow: Simon didn’t say!
September 27th, 2006 at 1:06 pmHere’s more from the NIE:
(a) “the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.”
But,
(b) there is “pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims”.
I don’t know about winning or losing, but this sure suggests we aren’t playing the right game.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:07 pmthe ‘headlines’ below ‘fox news alert’ are a study in delusion and denial…
it’s too bad the clip didn’t include her reply or further exchange…
September 27th, 2006 at 1:08 pmok,
then show us that we are winning. isn’t it you the zionist/nazis that have the burden of proof. since you are the prosecutors and the iraqis are the defenders. so prove it beyond a reasonable doubt that we are winning the war on terror.
u.s wars:
war on terror
war on drugs
war on democracy
war on principles
war on religion
war on the poor
war on constitutional rights
war on geneva convention
war on haebius corpus
war on enviorment
wtf…..it’s just a big f. war on civilization at it’s worst.
these pricks need to be tortured like they torture the world.
it’s a zionist owned, nazi ran, fascist america.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:08 pmG-Dawg,
September 27th, 2006 at 1:09 pmYour humor is so profoundly sophmoric. But your name makes you sound so cool. I bet you get all the bitches.
G-Dawg LOL go jump of the Golden Gate bridge, since Dems will retake the House of Representatives on Tuesday 7th of November!
September 27th, 2006 at 1:09 pmever notice how the questions are asked so politely and almost scared to ask a question ???? thats not right eh
September 27th, 2006 at 1:09 pmI would love this administration to actually list the things that they believe point to the US is “winning”.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:12 pmThe problem, as I view it, is that virtually all the actions of this President in the region are fomenting instability and hostility that may soon reach a point of no return. Even worse, the efforts of this administration are failing to create a wedge between extremist leaders and their populations. On the contrary, the language used by this administration, coupled with the perception that the U.S. is engaged in unwarranted and ideological aggression, has served to push otherwise moderate populations into alignment with radical governments and extremist organizations.
As I attempt to grasp the magnitude of allowing this President unfettered authority between now and the end of his second term, I can’t help but wonder what it would take to dissuade a man with his level of certainty and conviction from undertaking the actions that will facilitate the ideations he seems convinced have been presented to him through a mix of fate and faith.
History may well record this chapter as a period of unparalleled extremism. Worse yet, the United States may well be viewed as the primary force in facilitating that eventuality. George Bush, when asked about his legacy, seems content to respond that while he can’t predict the future he believes his actions will prove to be pivotal. He may well be correct but, in this instance, I would suggest he recall the expression, “Be careful what you wish for”.
Read more here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
September 27th, 2006 at 1:15 pmThe problem with G-Dawgs assertion is that Liberal states have much lower suicide rates than Republican states.
In fact, you can put the 2000 vote map right up to the suicide map and they are almost identical.
http://www.boston.com/ yourlife/ health/ mental/ articles/ 2004/ 08/ 22/ a_suicide_map_of_the_us/
Right wingers love to kill themselves. They hate living in America.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:19 pmstrong>Rice says she would not back gas embargo on Iran YAHOO FRONT PAGE
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she did not support a gasoline embargo on Iran as a way of punishing Tehran for refusing to give up its uranium enrichment program.
this says everything about Americas foreign policy ???? Bloody joke
September 27th, 2006 at 1:20 pmlets see ok - no medicine - no food - no airplane parts - BUT YES WE WANT YOUR OIL ….. HA HA HA HA HA
Showing the truth to a bush gang spokesman is like saying to a blind person…’LOOK LOOK….SEE THIS!!!’
September 27th, 2006 at 1:20 pmYes, but in the eyes of Bush and Snow that IS winning!
War is big business, so the Bush Administration’s goal is the war to end all peace and the evidence suggests that they’ve successfully started it.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:20 pmActually he said called the war The Middle East Freedom Agenda”.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:22 pmClose enough for me.
G-Dawg, what’s the ‘G’ stand for? Gay? C’mon admit it. There’s been a lot of discussion about what seems to be a growing epidemic in the republican party: self-hating, war-loving, closet gays. Your party is riddled with them. Do yourself, and us, a favor and accept who you are. The world will be better for it.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:22 pmBUSH IN A FEW YEARS FROM NOW
September 27th, 2006 at 1:23 pmA UN tribunal has sentenced a Bosnian Serb politician to 27 years in prison for committing crimes against humanity during the 1992-1995 Bosnian war.
Momcilo Krajisnik was a former assistant to Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb wartime leader.
He was found guilty of murder, extermination, deportation, persecution and forced transfer of non-Serb civilians.
fyi: dick will be in montana on 2 oct. supporting burns and rehberg. i called the dems to see if there is a rally/protest going on outside the billings hotel for his arrival. shockingly no. and what is even more shocking is the response i recieved from her. ‘we have other things we need to do and that is not important’. wtf………you mean to tell me the mastermind of the iraq war is not important and this is what the dems are running on. so that showed me that the dems are the same. so i’ll be voting for a third party. not dem or repub. f. all these cowards.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:23 pm[…] Think Progress details the damage: REPORTER: Thanks. You said first of all that Al Qaeda has been degraded. Actually, the report said the leadership has degraded, but its ranks have increased. You also just - […]
September 27th, 2006 at 1:24 pmMost of the “suiciders” in the United States are right wingers.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:25 pmWas it just me or didn’t FOX News pull out of the press conference quite early as Tony Snow was getting the snot pounded out of him by his foil….logic? Granted, I tuned in at the middle of the conference but CNN continued for quite a while as FOX had some Democratic Strategist that was throwing a bunch of talking points that were easily dismissed by the host and guest double team. i am sure he will be a regular on FOX since he did so poorly for the dems. WHEN DID FOX DUMP OUT OF THIS PRESS CONFERENCE AND WHEN DID OTHER NETWORKS DUMP OUT????
September 27th, 2006 at 1:28 pmPssst, Tony, c’mere. Maybe you should check the still UNreleased parts of the NIE. I’m guessing there’s nothing negative in there.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:29 pmI know the overall point Snow’s trying to invent is wrong, but to be fair, the reporter says she’s quoting “practically verbatim” and then Snow says “show me where it says ‘we’re not winning’ and technically it doesn’t say those specific words.
Let’s not start down that shady parsing road.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:30 pm“Winning” means “not losing” in this case, as it means in most all cases of “battle”.
“Losing” would be being actively oppressed by the enemy.
During a fight, very often the only gauge of the fact that you’re “winning” is that you’re “not yet feeling as if you’re being forced into doing what the enemy wants you to do.”
Now, all “fighters” (those engaged in battle of any sort) are perfectly free to interpret their combat situation as they please.
The “progressive” crowd chooses to interpret the fact that terrorists still exist (even though they SHOULDN’T exist because that’s terribly rude of them to continue to exist in direct contradiction to the “left’s” fantastic desires), and the fact that “if you swat a wasp nest the wasps get pissed off”, means that we’re “losing”.
That’s fine,.. as it’s a perfectly rational and valid choice.
It’s also a cowards choice, and the choice of one determined to give up the fight and allow the enemy to succeed MUCH before the enemy is force to PROVE that they’ve actually won the battle.
To say, much less imply, that “we’re losing the war” when no such fact has been FORCED UPON YOU is the act of someone with an active hope, or at least a pathological desire, that they be ALLOWED to submit, gracefully, to the superior strength of the enemy, in the hope that the enemy will “be kind and generous” in their future treatment of them as the conquered.
To anyone still engaged, in what they consider to be a worthwhile battle, this attitude is precisely described as treasonous, and to be punished as one would punish a traitor.
To disagree as to “tactics” and/or “strategy” is fine.
To state your case that continuence of current strategy will produce “bad results” while also stating the strategy that you would replace them with, is the act of a patriot.
To state that “our side is losing” is simply traitorous.
(( My definition of “winning” in Iraq, by the way, would be to break-up Iraq into it’s “ethnic” provinces, establish in each a “quasi-demographic” puppet government whose prime occupation is to NOT PISS OFF the US, and is given direct orders to keep things under control in their area (however they choose to do that subject to our “judgement” as to their “humanitarian-ness”) or we will anihilate their infrastructure (remotely) and they will have the opportunity to “start over again.” ))
September 27th, 2006 at 1:31 pmSo what does it mean to win a war anyway? Is it like playing a video game? Do you win by killing the most people? Do you win by torturing the most? Do you win by creating the most hate and suffering? What sane person would want to win a war like this one?
September 27th, 2006 at 1:33 pmTony Snow’s Challenge: ‘Please Show Me’ Where The NIE says ‘We Are Not Winning’
“We assess that thE Iraq jihad is shaping A new generation of teRrorist leaders and opEratives.†[p. 2]
“The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US
involvemeNt in the Muslim world and cultivating suppOrters for the global jihadisT movement.†[p. 2]
“If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad Will become more diverse, leading to Increasing attacks worldwide.†[p. 1]
“[A] large body of all-source reportiNg indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small perceNtage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographIc dispersion.†[p. 1]
“Anti-US and anti-globalizatioN sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideoloGies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests.†[pp. 3-4]
September 27th, 2006 at 1:37 pmIt doesn’t say “we’re not winning.” Does it say, “we are winning?” No, but Bush says it, so that makes it so. Black is white, up is down, war is peace: see, short sentences, and single syllables.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:40 pmThe intellectually challenged Bush needs to see it in words he can understand: single syllables preferred, short sentences. But even then it can be “vague.”
“Osama bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States” see, that sentence is too long, and that big word in the middle doesn’t pass the syllable test.
Re: #39 Willy-
You win by not allowing your “opposition” to force you to do things as much as possible.
Your juvenile mind (comparing war to video-games!?) shows precisely where the VAST majority of the people who are “pro-thinkprogress” are coming from.
Those here NOT juveniles, which I contend are actually none in terms of both worldview and emotional/mental maturity, are just simply evil manipulators of the aforesaid “juvenile” occupants of this forum.
But back to the point,.. if you can’t figure out the difference between winning and losing a conflict, you need more experience with conflict that doesn’t consist of “Mommy! Jimmy’s picking on me..!!”
September 27th, 2006 at 1:41 pmSuperChrist, post 40 was nothing short of beautiful. Bravo!
September 27th, 2006 at 1:41 pm#14 G-Dawg
Yeah, you’re a “realisist” alright. Your posts might be considered taunting if they weren’t so damned pathetic. In fact, they’re so pathetic, they’re almost funny. Come to think of it, they’re so pathetic, they’ve gone all the way around past funny and back to pathetic again.
(Props to Rebecca and Enid)
September 27th, 2006 at 1:43 pmThe reporter should have replied with, “How can we be winning a war to stop terrorism if our very actions are increasing the number of terrorists and terrorist attacks? The President says we are winning? What criteria does he use to back up that claim? The NIE may not say we are NOT winning but it doesn’t say we ARE winning either. So let’s stop playing these little word games and stop treating the people like idiots.”
September 27th, 2006 at 1:45 pmp.n.a.c. #12
That was BEFORE he all but “privatized” our military for…
…then became head of…
…Halliburton…
…increasing Halliburton’s (and HIS) profitability…
…by hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars!
September 27th, 2006 at 1:49 pm#38 Why don’t you just sum up your rambling windbag post by saying “anyone who disagrees with Bush is a traitor”.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:49 pmThe statements made by Snow are ridiculous on thier face. To even attempt to engage them in debate is an excercise in futility. One cannot win an argument with an insane person(s).
September 27th, 2006 at 1:50 pm#38 Iakeo
“Winning†means “not losing†in this case, as it means in most all cases of “battleâ€.
“Losing†would be being actively oppressed by the enemy.
Wow! Great argument! How about this:
Iakeo is not a horse’s hoof.
A horse’s ass is not a horse’s hoof.
Therefore, Iakeo must be a…
What’s a nice way of saying you suck at deductive logic?
September 27th, 2006 at 1:51 pmhrm … why can’t i post
September 27th, 2006 at 1:51 pm#14 - “I’m sure that the police will keeping an eye on the Golden Gate Bridge the Wednesday after mid-terms. I wouldn’t be suprised if they just shut it down that day.”
Why? to keep all the Republicans and regresives from hurling themsleves to their deaths when they get news of how more Democrats get elected than Republicans?
Oh, we’d better put a suicide-watch on you so you don’t go jumping when you hear about how fewer Republican have been re-elected.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:52 pmSnow’s comments are ridiculous. One cannot win a debate with crazy people.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:52 pm#42 Iaeko
What an idiot you are? Don’t you recognize irony when you read it? I’m making fun of the idiots that think that “winning” is everything. Give youself an A+ for being a dunce.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:52 pmSorry if i double post but im not seeing my posts here
September 27th, 2006 at 1:53 pmI truly hope that somewhere in that collective sheep of reporters is someone who will point out the same as what TP has already shown.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:54 pmI don’t understand what all the fuss is about. Isn’t this report coming from the same “intelligence” sources who didn’t see 9/11 coming?
Why are interpretations by these people given any credence at all (regardless of whether they point the finger at Bush or support him)?
September 27th, 2006 at 1:55 pmRe: #45,
The war is NOT to “STOP” terrorism, because terrorism, like insect infestation, never sleeps and persists as a natural process.
The war IS about targetting those forces (people and processes) that organize and support terrorist ACTS that have the potential to do REAL damage to the “happiness” of the people of the world.
The fact is that if the “insect infestation” has accelerated recently, due to not being very hygenic as well as a newfound “boldness” (population explosion) of the infesting insects, is a good sign that we need to be more hygenic, that we need to remove the presently infesting insects, and that we need to find a way to keep THIS PARTICULAR “bug” out of the house.
If you’re presently infested, and trying to hunt down the nests of the bugs, and trying to kill the bugs you see, and the bugs are “stubborn” and tend to bite back when your trying to kill them, do you give up and turn over the house to the bugs?
What exactly are you (leftists) arguing against? And what would you suggest?
September 27th, 2006 at 2:01 pmThe next question should have been, “Mr. Snow, what, exactly, is it that President Bush thinks we are winning?”
September 27th, 2006 at 2:01 pmPlease NIE, don’t use language that “MaxHeadRoom” can’t understand. Hey Tony Snow: We are not winning and GWB attacked the wrong country, and he did nothing about Osama before 9/11. Who needs the NIE to tell us that?. Go trick the stupid.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:02 pmBAGHDAD BOB: I know, but look for, “We’re not winning.†Please show me. Well, the President says we’re winning.
Now it makes sense!
September 27th, 2006 at 2:02 pmSubtitle of the Remaining [Classified] NIE:
WE’RE WINNING, NOT!!!
See, even the unredacted version does not say “We’re not winning!” It says, “We’re Winning…!!!”
September 27th, 2006 at 2:06 pm56 - It’s not the data but how Bush, Tony and the rest of the WH decide to interpret it that is so telling. They’ve had this report for almost half a year and yet have consistently tried to keep it under wraps while loudly proclaiming that things are the opposite of how the report depicted them to be. Your tax dollars at work.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:08 pmRe: #53: Willy-
What you were arguing was that “What sane person would want to win a war like this one?”
If that is your thinking, then you have a perverse view of that this war is about.
If losing is as acceptable to you as winning, then you obviously don’t care about the stakes on the table in the conflict.
To not care about the stakes involved in this conflict is to either not understand what they are, or to actually not care about losing them.
To someone who sees the issue of “economy damaging” terrorism as THE singular greatest threat to the “happiness” of mankind, your lack of care pegs you as either a child or a traitor.
You appear to be a traitor, as you’re lack of care is actually HELPING the bad guys.
You appear to be a child, because you are willing to TAKE the benefits of our society (such as your computer) while actually helping those who would take it away from you, and (to be generous) only a child would possess logic like that.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:11 pmbecause terrorism, like insect infestation, never sleeps and persists as a natural process.
Comment by Iakeo
So you are a biologist? Please, tell us where can we found about this “natural process”.
The fact is that if the “insect infestation†has accelerated recently,
Oh, sorry, you are an entomologist.
and the bugs are “stubborn†and tend to bite back when your trying to kill them, do you give up and turn over the house to the bugs?
Oh, no, you are the bad guy from the Silence of the Lambs.
What exactly are you (leftists) arguing against? And what would you suggest?
September 27th, 2006 at 2:12 pmComment by Iakeo
The way you see life wont help you to understand any suggestion. You are full of shit. Im so sorry for you. You must have been beaten a lot when you were a kid.
Re: #47,
Then I’d have to call myself a traitor, as I utterly disagree with letting the people of Iraq get away with the BS that they’ve been allowed to get away with, which is disagreeing with Bush.
It’s not the “disagreeing with Bush” that makes one a traitor, it’s saying “We’re losing!” when that is not a demonstrated fact.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:15 pmWinning isn’t about a medal or a trophy. We can not lose this war. The people we are at war with will just keep coming until every person in the US is dead. That’s what they say they want. It’s not a political issue. It’s an issue of survival.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:17 pmI don’t understand what all the fuss is about. Isn’t this report coming from the same “intelligence†sources who didn’t see 9/11 coming?
Comment by Concerned+Conservative — September 27, 2006 @ 1:55 pm
Obviously you don’t know about the Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001 that predicted the events of 9/11, but which Bush chose to ignore. Are you really that ignorant?
September 27th, 2006 at 2:17 pm#57, the leftists have no ideas or plans. They just read the headlines everyday searching for new reasons to justify their hate towards President Bush and the GOP. Their stance on how to fight in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror is exactly the same as the GOPs, so they can’t distinguish themselves there. And then on the econonmy, they just want to raise taxes, which is not an election year winner.
Fortunately, they won’t win the House or Senate back in 2006. Polls are against ‘em at this point. Maybe 8-10 House seats go to the Democrats, and maybe 2 Senate seats. At the most. No worries. Sucks to be them.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:18 pmYou cannot “win†in war or violent conflict. It is not a game and only in the minds of simpletons does such context have merit.
Every true and honorable warrior throughout history has acknowledged such, without exception. In war there are only two potential outcomes, success or defeat. Success in war is not to kill off or change the will of the enemy, but it is to defend the outlined position, whether ideological or territorial (or both) against the attack of your opposition.
Of course, the intricacies of the philosophies of war are incredibly complex and literally volumes of work have been produced on such. It is an issue that would take virtually an entire lifetime to achieve a reasonable understanding of and it is an affront to every soul who has been lost in war to attempt to reduce it to simple sound-bite analysis or by applying sports analogies.
These are not my opinions but rather the culmination of the experience and wisdom gained throughout the history of mankind. It is well known that in war there are only losers. There is no way to “win†in war.
tony snow illustrates how monumentally stupid he truly is with his comment. And then there will be those here who will argue that we are winning and then blame their political opponents for having a “loser†mentality or attempt to use the age old cry of the oppressor, that of identifying those whom you wish to control as “traitorsâ€. Despicable is too small of a word to describe such individuals.
What is being missed in this thread is the obvious. The “war on terrorâ€, putting aside for the moment the debate about whether such is a fools errand or a noble cause, has really only one clearly definable objective – to reduce or eliminate acts of terrorism. It is irrefutable, and I really don’t think that anyone has to read the NIE to know so, that the US is NOT succeeding in its efforts towards that objective.
There are three horrific realities to the current state of this scenario. First is the heinous and atrocious cost in human lives. Second is that there are those who continue, either in ignorance or moral ineptitude, to support this failure. Third, and this is where the application of the term “evil†is entirely appropriate, there are those who are profiting from this abomination.
Welcome to reality.
P.S. G-dawg, what you don’t realize is that you have already jumped of the bridge of “morality†and you simply don’t know it yet because the bottom is so far down that you have not yet gone “splatâ€. It is coming, though, and I pity you for it.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:18 pm#61 — bthruthful, I guess my larger point is that the way we gather intelligence is outdated. We used to get people coming into our embassies and selling us information. Now we don’t have embassies in the very places we need to gather information (Afghanistan, Iran, etc) so our “intelligence” is not as good as it was during the cold war. Thus conclusions drawn from it would have to be more speculative and less reliable.
BTW, though I am technically a Christian (non-practicing) I do not filter my world view through that lens.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:21 pm#57 There seems to be several bugs in your theory. Which line of BS is this administration attempting to feed us now. WMD? Direct ties between Iraq and Al Qiada? Spread Democracy? Get them there so they don’t get us here? Now your Orkin explaination?
All of the above were sold (or attempted to sell) to us but none were properly executed or followed thru. I don’t speak for everyone here but this administration fed us a shit sandwich on the reasons why this mess in Iraq is so important but failed to put thru the needed man power, weapondry, resources, planning and shared sacrifice that is needed to eradicate what they claim.
I’m taking no more of this misquided smoke and mirror bullshit. You want to stand on a sinking ship and be faithful to the ones who blew the holes in the hull, go ahead but the rest of this country is awakening to 5 years of lies, distortions, fear mongering and missguided loyalties that have damaged this great country.
Don’t care if you don’t agree. Facts are facts and lies are lies.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:24 pmRe: #49, Chimp-
Wow! Great argument! How about this:
Iakeo is not a horse’s hoof.
A horse’s ass is not a horse’s hoof.
Therefore, Iakeo must be a…
What’s a nice way of saying you suck at deductive logic?
Comment by chimpeach — September 27, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
Another infantile mind in here..? (”You suck…!”)
Imagine that..! :)
My point is that there’s no good way to judge whether one is “winning” or “losing” in the midst of a battle, except by the characteristics I stated.
The “left” has the attitude, “Unless we know precisely how, and we are, CLEARLY winning, and doing so constantly, we are losing, and the battle is best not continued, or better yet never started, regardless of the reason for the battle.”
That is the definition of a coward.
Is it right, or not, to you, to fight “terrorists”?
If so, how?
(( This is especially interesting if you consider America [and the “west”] to be terrorists. If indeed I did believe that, I would still believe it right to fight terrorists. Would you? ))
September 27th, 2006 at 2:26 pmYou’re right, Tony. It doesn’t SAY “We’re not winning.” That’s just the only logical conclusion there is.
Of course, the president has really never defined “winning”, has he?
There is no “scoreboard”, Tony. War is not a game.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:27 pmOkay, let’s treat it like a game. When your favorite sports team is losing, do they:
(A) Give up.
(B) Keep doing the same thing, hoping the results will be different.
(C) Try a different game plan. If that doesn’t work (or the coach won’t consider a different game plan or making changes in staff) get a new coach.
Most progressives are suggesting plan C.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:28 pmKevin,
You sound like you’re scared shitless. Poor baby.
Well, I’d say that this war is all about killing people and that is something I oppose. I’ve never supported this war and I never will. If this war had never happened, the world would be a better place.
I can think of no one that has helped the “bad guys” (terrorists) as much as George Bush has. Iakeo, your fear, hate, killing, supporting torture and taking away American’s civil liberties has aided the terrorists much more than my opposition to the war has.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:36 pmRe: #65,
The fact that children, and adults, will always fight back against “the rules” makes “terrorism” (which is simply a special-case example of this) a normal human attribute.
Your unwillingness to state your suggestions, as is typical of leftists as they’d have to then actually STAND for something, is the only thing that stops me from (at least) trying to understand your suggestion(s).
To say I’m “full of shit” is your (the left’s) way of simply being able to ignore what you don’t want to do, which is to have meaningful discourse with people who have different opinions than your’s.
From your grade school rhetoric (which is a kind way to describe it) you simply prove my point that this forum is populated by juveniles.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:37 pmThe NIE gives a lot of evidence and expert analysis that says we’re not winning, but they don’t say the words “we’re not winning.”
The president says “we’re winning” but then he forgets all the evidence and expert analysis stuff.
Shrug. Whatcha gonna do?
September 27th, 2006 at 2:37 pmThe people in Iraq fighting our troops have no intention (or ability) to come to the US to kill US citizens. So that’s wrong (or a lie). They want the same thing that the US citizens want, our troops out of their country.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:40 pmFrom your grade school rhetoric (which is a kind way to describe it) you simply prove my point that this forum is populated by juveniles.
Comment by Iakeo
To make analogies between insects and humans in social events is the most juvenile comment Ive seen here. To keep regarding dissention as your favorite substantive or adjective (leftist) is a juvenile thing to do. Your opinion about who we are here was already made before you enter this site. If you think leftist lack of suggestions you should review your history books (check out The Chicago Martyrs, the end of slavery, French, Iranian, Russian revolutions…they were an answer for something that was happening at the time, you can agree with the methods or not, but they were doing something)
September 27th, 2006 at 2:48 pmYou appear to be a traitor, as you’re lack of care is actually HELPING the bad guys.
Comment by Iakeo
That wasnt juvenile, buddy. Keep it up. Tell us when youre done watching Rambo movies.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:51 pmHey SnowJob Tony - when Iraq becomes the “cause celebre” for jihadists, I believe that correspondingly means that we failed abysmally, doesn’ t it?
September 27th, 2006 at 2:51 pmRe: #74, hellinabucket -
You tell me what you’re not taking as BS? I state my own opinions.
The only question is whether you are conviced or not as to whether the war is a good idea.
If you’re convinced that it was a good move, regardless of the reason(s) you chose to make that decision, then the question is only how best to “carry on the fight”.
If you’re not convinced that it was a good idea, then your job is to do what you can to minimize the damage caused by what has happened, and to make the best of the situation.
If you think that people who support the fight are evil, then you must actively fight against them, personally and politically.
To fight those who you consider evil is a righteous fight, but will be seen by those who don’t consider themselves “evil” to be fighting WITH the enemy.
That is the price of “righteousness”. You WILL be labelled and treated as enemies and traitors.
That will be seen at the polls.
And if “your side” takes the reins, what will they do?
All I ask is that you make as convincing a case, to as many people, as possible.
You’re only a traitor if you actively work for your side’s defeat.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:52 pmKevin: How’s your “fear agenda” coming today?
September 27th, 2006 at 2:52 pm#76 Iakeo
You have supplied all of your own custom-made definitions for everything in your arguments. You have adjusted the definitions to make your arguments work. That doesn’t constitute logic. If I say that being the Master of the Universe means eating my lunch, then I just became Master of the Universe.
To counter your argument, I can say that “losing” means “not winning”. And I can say “winning” means having defeated all enemies in that country. So, Bush isn’t winning, since he’s creating more enemies than he’s defeating. And that means, according to my definition, that he’s losing. If he’s losing, then he’s a loser. If you agree with him, then you must be on his team. If you’re on his team and he’s a loser, that makes it a losing team. Therefore, you are on a losing team and must be a loser.
Now, I hope you understand what I just demonstrated. I know Exley and Roger_Roger wouldn’t. And maybe you won’t, either. But, you can string your faulty logic and disingenuous definitions out for miles and they won’t prove a thing, because your premises are faulty. You probably thought we wouldn’t notice.
Your capacity for deductive reasoning underwhelms me. Is that better?
September 27th, 2006 at 2:56 pmIakeo is more missguided than Cheney’s buckshot
September 27th, 2006 at 2:57 pmIakeo’s more missplaced than GWB’s military record
September 27th, 2006 at 2:58 pmGeorge Bush and Rummy must be the biggest traitors of all then!!!
September 27th, 2006 at 2:59 pmIt’s not a political issue. It’s an issue of survival.
Comment by Kevin
Dont waste anytime here. Get your butt to Iraq so you can fight for your survival. You sound exactly like any Islamist fanatic.
The people we are at war with will just keep coming until every person in the US is dead.
Poor thing.
That is the definition of a coward.
September 27th, 2006 at 3:04 pmComment by Iakeo
According to ????? Just your baseless opinion. No facts. As always you rightists (so you feel comfortable with this little naming game) hold to your emotions to describe the world around you. We are the good guys and they are the bad guys. One question: Have you ever met, talk or discuss with a Muslim? My guess is no. You just have met them from the TV. Did you met any Sandinista (for example), my guess is that you also didnt. But your government told you they were the bad guys and followed along. Dont you find strange that you have had so many enemies in so little time? Why Sweden, Canada, Switzerland or other I World Country are not that hated as US is? My guess is that you dont think about this. My guess is you dont think a lot about these issues, you just feel comfortable with what youve been told. I think you think of yourself as an american. Im curious, is the definition of an american is to be faithful to its president or to the country itself? Did you get mad when Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam and gassed thousands of kurds with american chemicals? At that time, Iraq was not a democracy, why US helped Saddam then? I think you dont think too much.
Takeo:
Logic and history and common sense tells me you don’t get rid of bugs by constantly chasing them around and swatting them. What you do is you clean your house and/or yard and remove any way for bugs to get into your home or any areas that encourage bugs to gather and/or breed. If you only swat the bugs in your house you fail to solve the real problem…that being, why you have bugs in the first place.
The same is true of terrorism. They are a small minority who see the US as an aggressive danger that wants to take over the world, or at the very least their country and way of life. They see the US as a country that wants to destroy their own traditions and beliefs. If this is what terrorists think of the US…are you helping their cause or stopping it when you invade an innocent country, overthrow its government, instill your own brand of government, allow for American companies to come in and profit at the expense of massive local unemployment, and then the President chalks it up to his orders from God?
To argue that this is even a sane idea, let alone a good one, is like saying the best way to appeal to someone who thinks of you as a bully is to walk up to them and punch them in the face.
It is time for YOU to put your irrational partisan biases aside, step back, take a breath, and see things for what they really are. Remember. YOU are democracy and freedom…not the President. YOU are America. Why? Because I am assuming you are old enough to vote and think for yourself. The President is not our glorious leader. He is our elected representative and should be workign for us. INstead Bush and the current Republican party believe themselves to be OUR bosses and our leaders. That is not democracy.
Stop playing the partisan tool and ask yourself what YOU believe freedom and democracy means. Then take that answer and look at what this administration is doing for AMERICA (not Iraq or the middle east or Haliburton or their wealth, elite, donors). Do their actions fit your definition of what freedom and democracy in America is…or are you finding that you are having to change your definition to constantly fit what the Administration is doing?
September 27th, 2006 at 3:04 pmHave you all lost your minds? This thread sounds like a bunch of cheerleaders competing as to who can cheer for their team the loudest.
This is not an issue of republican vs. democrat, or conservative vs. liberal. This is an issue of right versus wrong. Human lives are being extinguished and you all want to argue about is an arbitrary and fictitious scoreboard?
Unbelievable.
September 27th, 2006 at 3:05 pm“Your unwillingness to state your suggestions, as is typical of leftists as they’d have to then actually STAND for something, is the only thing that stops me from (at least) trying to understand your suggestion(s). Comment by Iakeoâ€
Opposition IS standing for something. If you say “torture” and I oppose you and say “respect individual dignity”, I have taken a stance. If you say “stay the course” and I oppose you and say “we need to redeploy”, I have taken a stance. Just because you don’t like it or don’t agree with it or don’t even give it attention, doesn’t mean that we haven’t made suggestions.
To give BushCo more leeway than deserved, the war against Iraq was to prevent the spread of terrorism and now that terrorism is spreading because of Iraq we have to continue the war against Iraq. Catch-22 of the highest order.
September 27th, 2006 at 3:06 pmRe: #71, Stating+the+Obvious -
“[The “war on terrorâ€]…has really only one clearly definable objective – to reduce or eliminate acts of terrorism.”
That is the goal, but occassional flare-ups of acts of terrorism does not mean that we are not “winning”.
A battle is not a lightswitch.
It does not instantaneously go the way you’d like, simply because you’d like it to be that way.
Assigning the term “losing” to the current situation (re terrorism) is simply infantile whining.
If that position is held by self-proclaimed “rational adults”, then those who, with equal justification as to the interpretation of the current “war” status, claim that we are “not losing” (at least potentially winning) will see the “losers” as actively working against “victory” by stating what they see as untruths that can not be verified as fact.
In other words, by stating something that you KNOW is not the truth, because it’s an interpretation of a situation that can’t be verified, that actively demoralizes and hampers the ongoing battle, you identify yourselves as traitors.
The only way around being identified as traitors is to not say “we are losing”, but to say “this is not working and I have an idea that I think will work.”
Can you do that?
September 27th, 2006 at 3:10 pmAll I ask is that you make as convincing a case, to as many people, as possible.
Comment by Iakeo
U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 2706
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 19945
IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS (MINIMUM): 43525
WElcome to the real life. You can use rethoric and dabeting techniques all you want. People are dying and you support that. Debate with a dead kid´s parents, please.
You’re only a traitor if you actively work for your side’s defeat.
September 27th, 2006 at 3:12 pmI forgot my Iakeo-English English-Iakeo dictionary, so I wouldnt know.
Re: #90,
The purpose of the analogy of “terrorists” to “insects” was to illustrate my opinion that they are both “things that are normally occurring” in the world.
If this use of analogy is too much for you, then I doubt your capacity to actually understand anything.
My guess (opinion) is that you are indeed a juvenile (at least in mindset) who really finds it objectionable that anyone treat you as a juvenile.
The usual retort of an infantile mind to being called “a name” is “I know you are but what am I!?”
That is true. But I deal with individuals as they display themselves to me. And guess how I interpret the “proclivities” of those in this forum, based n what they say?
I’m not talking about historical “suggestions” about improving the circumstances of humanity.
The “left” has done some wonderful things through history. Though, just like most things that have improved “the world”, they were effective because they were simply sensible things to do at the time, and were used by those who promoted them for entirely sensible (economic) reasons.
The “right” improves things through the market, and “blames” the market.
The “left” improves things through the market, and takes credit for it.
:)
September 27th, 2006 at 3:29 pmIakeo
Those of us opposed to the war in Iraq as a tactic have, from the beginning, been labeled unpatriotic, traitorous, appeasers, and enemies of the U.S. whenever we tried to convince the hawks that they were wrong. We have done so to try to make America (”our side”) the best she can be.
So,…are we traitors and enemies of U.S. or her friends and educators?
September 27th, 2006 at 3:31 pmRe: #95, chimpeach -
You’re absolutely correct. If “master of the universe” means eating your lunch, then you are MotU,.. to yourself.
But when you say that, you tell me something about how you see the world.
And when I say what I do, with these things that we sorta-kinda agree on called words, I’m telling you something about me.
Which is exactly what I’m trying to do. :)
I’m not interested in changing your minds,.. I’m just interested in giving you the opportunity to hear someone who thinks differently than you do (perhaps) so that you might take some pleasure in that.
The problem with you leftists is that you are absolutely FIXATED on changing other people into yourselves, and hearing your clones invent new ways of demeaning those like of the hive.
You’re absolutely right..!! :)
And by your saying that, you tell a bit about yourself.
You tell me your definition of “winning” is COMPLETE UNADULTERATED VICTORY, which means that you think that anyone not “winning” (which is veritably impossible as it’s an ultimate result and not a gradual accomplishment) then they’re a “loser”, and you dispise losers.
Thus, you dispise almost all people, as there are so few “winners”.
You see, I’m not interested in the LOGIC of what you say, which can be perfect sensible depending on your definitions of things, but what you say SAYS ABOUT YOU..!
I do understand that you may or may not hold those views, and I agree that “faulty logic and disengenuous definitions” can be used to “prove” anything, and therefore “proves” nothing.
What using the logic that we DO have, faulty or not, to tell others about us.
And if you’re wise you listen to the logic and definitions of others to try to see the world as they see it, and then you use that to refine your own view of the world.
I thank you for the opportunity to respond to your words.
I doubt you thank me for the opportunity that I offer, because you’ve been infected by the leftist ideal, which is that “what is not of us is evil, and has no value.”
September 27th, 2006 at 3:50 pmRe: #98, Jake -
If you believe that, then treat them as such. How dedicated to “treating traitors as they should be treated?”
How would you do that?
September 27th, 2006 at 3:52 pmWe lost more soldiers in the last days of WW2 then the rest of the war combined. Russia lost over 300k in 2-4 days, which was about a week before the Nazi’s were defeated.
For any of you that hunt. When you trap an enemey or corner them they operate just like any wild animal. You can take the nicest cute animal like a baby fawn (deer). I 100% garuntee that if you corner it and walk up to it and it has no way out, it will attack you like you have never seen. It may even kill you in the process. This enemy is the same. They are getting trapped and cornered, thus they are starting to fight even harder. This is a sign we are winning.
September 27th, 2006 at 3:57 pmSome Americans have difficulty seperating the difference between Patriotism, (love for or devotion to one’s country) and Nationalism, which is the prevalent Republican view. Nationalism is loyalty to the party above the interests or ideals of other nations or groups.
This is an insidious worldview, made manifest by Bush’s words, “You are with us or you are with the Terrorists”. One need only disagree with the position of the government to be labeled as an enemy of the state.
Now consider the ramifications of the new draconian legislation that is being passed and rethink to whom this may ultimately apply.
Consider for a moment, where your loyalty truly resides. Is it with the people of the country and our values as Americans or is it to the Republican Party and George Bush?
September 27th, 2006 at 4:07 pmRe: #99, Juan+C -
That is a useful definition of “coward” to me, personally.
I am a rightist. I LIKE to be called a rightist..!
Do you NOT like to be called a leftist? If not, why?
There is no “fact” in the definition of the word “coward” other than what one thinks of as the behavior of a “coward”.
Like all leftists, you can’t differentiate what things are “facts” and what things are “opinions”,.. because no “fact” exists (as a fact) that contradicts your opinion.
I work with several, and have nothing against muslims, or christians, or vegetarians, or blondes.
What would you like to talk about about them? :)
They’ve always been our enemies, in one degree or another, so the fact that they’ve “been stirred up” tells me nothing other than they now have some reason to be so stirred up.
The question is, what is that reason? And how should I respond to their reason?
If you don’t like how I respond, then that’s another question, isn’t it.
..and the cycle continues.
How do you deal with people who “don’t like you”?
Are you one to “think about” the validity (in your own mind) of why they don’t like you?
Or do you simply listen to others who say you are evil and need to change yourself so that you will be accepted?
Quite so,.. an what do you think of yourself as?
To the constitution (which is essentially “the country itself”).
“Shaking hands” with bad people is sometimes necessary.
It was Saddam’s actions that gassed the Kurds. Not Donald’s. And the chemicals that Saddam used to gas the Kurds were his when he used them, not the US’s.
Do you pay taxes?
Does your government do ANYTHING with your tax money that you don’t like?
Why do you allow that?
The US helped Saddam because it was “the wise” thing to do at the time,.. at least according to the “powers” at the time.
Do you REALLY think that each individual citizen has should have veto power over every action of their government?
If you do, then you thoroughly prove yourself to be quite the idealistic child, with much to learn.
September 27th, 2006 at 4:15 pmSmackTalk
Excellent point about patriotism vs nationalism - this explains why as a patriotic American feel very uneasy, insulted, and disgusted by some comments and actions that others define as patriotism. It’s really nationalism. Man, it’s nice to have a label for that “false patriotism”! Thank you very much!
Roger Roger
September 27th, 2006 at 4:24 pmSo, if we corner Muslims in an us versus them scenario, is it any surprise that they resist with violence? While I am not blaming America for starting this, we do have a responsibility for our part in pushing the Muslim world into a sociopolitical corner.
My point is that how one defines “terrorismâ€, and what tactics are acceptable to fight “evilâ€, defines you as either an enemy or a non-enemy to other people.
Iakeo
And how do you define terrorism Iakeo? Would you consider an invasion of a soverign country and an unwarranted occupation, a terrorist act. Would you consider the wholesale slaughter of men,women and children oft cited as “collateral damage”, a terrorist act??
How about 3 decades of support financially and politically for a Dictator from a country that turns a blind eye to human rights violations, abuse and murder.
Would you label that, terrorism?? How about crimes against humanity?
There has to be a definable difference and goal if the objective is to win or to lose. This conflict can not be won or lost. What is obvious is that both sides are guilty. Both sides call each other “terrorist” and at this point, both want perpetual conflict.
So your support of a won/lost result only feeds that as opposed to an agreement or concilliatory action. Your support kills people, it maims people, it destroys life.
September 27th, 2006 at 4:26 pmBut where in the NIE does it say that we are winning?
September 27th, 2006 at 4:28 pmIakeo,
I can not stand by as you revise History to suit your needs. First, you said:
“They’ve always been our enemies“.
Sorry, but the Iraqi people who comprise most of the “Insurgency” have not always been our enemies.
And:
“And the chemicals that Saddam used to gas the Kurds were his when he used them, not the US’s.”
Nice try, but although you are correct that the “chemicals” were not ours, the technology used to deliver them was.
How very disingenuous of you and yet typical of those of your ilk to twist the facts to suit your needs which is EXACTLY what this thread is about in the first place. Thank you for providing another clear example for all to see.
September 27th, 2006 at 4:31 pmRe: #100, Rosencrantz -
ABSOLUTELY..!
That’s what I’m suggesting.
*) Clean House: Make it impossible for them to hide and find food.
*) Bug Proof: Strict BORDERS.
..other things to do:
*) Find the Nests: Iraq, Iran, Gaza, Lebanon, London, Etc.
*) Continual Vigilance: “Death Squads” to hunt down and eradicate suspects.
And they are incorrect in that view, and won’t change their opinion, thus must be eradicated.
Now if the form of “eradication” is to be “reeducated”, then that is what should be done. The simple rule should be to first “entice” them to not be “wrong”, then to kill them off if they persist.
Then they’ve obviously never been to the US…!
What are the forces that keep them misinformed about the US?
I don’t blame the weaponry (the typical “believer” of this tripe), I blame the commanders (those who keep their populii “brainwashed”) and enslaved.
Innocent?
Innocent!?
Suggestions?
Expertise?
WHAT?
We won’t agree on the reasons for trying to remake Iraq.
Therefore, we have nothing to talk about here.
And your assumption is that I haven’t thought about these issues.
That’s not true. I’ve just come to different conclusions than you have.
If you were to assume, as I do, that you’ve thought about these things and have come to your own conclusions, then we’d both agree that WE are indeed the DEMOCRACY of the US. Which we are.
Where you make your mistake is in thinking that if anyone comes to conclusions other than yours, they are “brainwashed followers of the evil BUSH”.
You seem to refuse to believe that any vote that is cast that opposes yours is “undemocratic” and illegitimate.
You have no faith in democracy, as evidenced by the fact that you COMMAND others to vote as you do, without feeling the necessity of convincing them.
That is tyranny.
Freedom: The ability to trade with others in society for fair value in uncoerced and mutually acceptable ways.
Democracy: The ability to choose my representatives and to vote them out after a fixed period of time.
The present government is doing as all recent governments do.
They TRY to keep the economy moving along.
They TRY to get re-elected, usually by pandering to whomever they can that doesn’t create TOO much negative public reaction.
They TRY to do what’s right in their actions regarding other sovereign nations.
I don’t have to change my definitions of FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY to accomodate this government, or any other sensible government.
If you do, then I dare say you expect too much from the government and have too strict a definition of both FREEDOM and/or DEMOCRACY.
(( Freedom trumps Democracy, by the way