Bushwa by the Numbers

Call President Bush (and his speechwriters) linguistically resolute, but five years later whatever has changed in our world, nothing much has changed in the fearful world of Bushword, not by the numbers anyway.

On September 20, 2001, just nine days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the President addressed a joint session of Congress and set the tone for everything that was to follow. Here's just a very partial sample by word use of that speech and the world it painted:

Terror, terrorists - 33
War -12
Attack - 8
Fight - 7
Threat, threaten - 5
Murder, murderous - 4
Enemies – 3
Struggle - 3
Kill - 3
God - 3
Evil - 2
Violence - 2
Extremism (Islamic) - 1

In his 9/11 anniversary address to the nation last night, the President's first paragraph set the familiar word choice tone. Here were the key words: "… attacked us… barbarity unequaled… murdered… made war… not yet safe… the threat…"

You could, in fact, have taken that five year-old speech, shaken the words up, and simply dropped them randomly into last night's speech (which was a few hundred words shorter), with about the same effect. Here's a fuller count from last night of almost exactly the same set of words, painting almost the same terrifying picture of our world:

Terror (terrorists) - 17
Enemies - 14
War (on terror, Cold, Third World, upon the entire free world, clouds of) - 13
Attack - 13
Extremists (global network of, movement, ideology) - 6
Fight, fighting - 6
Threat - 6
Defeat - 5
Radicalism, radical (Islamic empire, dictators) - 5
Struggle (for civilization, between tyranny and freedom) - 4
Kill (without mercy, our citizens) - 3
Evil (face of) - 3
God - 3
Violence - 3
Weapons (of mass destruction, nuclear) - 3
Suffering - 2
Destruction, destroy (our way of life) - 2
Hate, hateful - 2
Risk - 2
Offensive, offense - 2
Battle - 2
And singletons of: Dangerous, aggression, firepower, arsenal, totalitarian, horror, conflict, death, tyranny, murder, fear, barbarity.

Between the two moments and speeches, so much had changed in the world, so little in the words. Some of the phrases were simple repeats. The soaring other side -- "courage," "freedom," etc. -- of the President's Manichaean world remained almost untouched (with the exception of a single uncharacteristically florid phrase, "…when the people of the Middle East leave the desert of despotism for the fertile gardens of liberty…") as did the linguistic line-up meant to indicate what a commander-in-chief presidency can do to save us from the vision of hell on Earth he always paints ("safe," "protect," "defend," "homeland").

True, "evil" had tied "God" in the word count five years later, but essentially the President has never stopped peddling the same Bushwa. The only real question is: Are Americans still taking it in?

Comments (54)

1. Obviously Bush used the same old rhetoric...probably to little or no avail.

   But I'm curious as to this idea that Bush "sells fear"...so, does that mean that the Democrats counter to it should be "terrorism is no big deal"?....or "it's a concern, but not something to really worry about"?....or what?

   Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 10:25am

2. I am humbled by Olberman's speech. Truer words are rarely spoken (and certainly not those mumbled by the Decider & Thief last night.)

   Posted by leftofcenter at 09/12/2006 @ 10:39am

3. Posted by WOODYEE 09/12/2006 @ 10:26am

   Seriously....SPACING! or better yet, clip some relevant passage and post the LINK!

   We get enough of these 5000 word C&P missives from RESE & PLUNGER!

   Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 10:39am

4. oops.....I was on the prior. Dunno how this happened?

   Posted by leftofcenter at 09/12/2006 @ 10:40am

5. Nice regurgitation of Republican talking points, Mask. No one ever said terrorism was no big deal. "SELLING fear" only yields political gain. Our borders are not secure. Ports are not secure. Nuclear power plants are vulnerable. Diplomacy is dead. But we've got Iraq and of course...FEAR. Reagan used action, diplomacy and yes, rhetoric to end the cold war. If he took a lesson from W. we'd all be hiding in bomb shelters...except to go to the polls of course.

   Posted by kimbo1 at 09/12/2006 @ 10:49am

6. Woodyee, your drift is that the Us has not been attacked since 9/11/01. True in the sense that the continental Us has been attack free. But that is a weak criteria, and the only one ya'll seem to be able to hold up as a positive outcome in your wars of choice. Remember, by YOUR own criteria Clinton was a raging success. From 93-00 there were NO attacks on US soil. And we had not lost 2600 Americans on foriegn soil, or killed 100,000 Iraqis, losing the "hearts and minds" campaign.

   "Those who whine that we haven't offer no specific solutions themselves "-this is crap, I have addressed it ad-nauseum recently.

   "The terrorists are now on the defensive"- What about the attacks in Afghanistan lat week, or the 1500 dead in Iraq in ONE month? That does not sound like defense to me. Maybe your world is different.

   "First, the unscrupulous nature of those in the media who always discover a dark cloud in the brightest silver lining. They're terror's cheerleaders." That's it, attack the freedom of the press, one of the things that make America different, and better, that our enemies.

   "If there's one thing all responsible citizens, conservative, centrist or liberal, should agree on, it's that all extremism is un-American" this I agree with. I think a war of choice is pretty extreme, same with cutting taxes during a war, or jailing US citizens without access to an attorney or the courts. Just me.

   "On this September morning, let us dedicate ourselves to living for the values the hijackers feared: freedom, tolerance, human dignity - and the invincible strength of our democratic society"- But who has voided the very freedoms you hold so dear? Who has decided that torture is the way to go, ignoring human dignity, which party has been proven guilty in courts of bribery, graft, election fraud? Which president ordred up the arrest of 5000 Arabs because they were Arabs? Is that tolerant.

   Big words Woodyee, maybe you should pay a little more attention, instead of reading talking points and repeating them. Are we safer? Just about every independent analysis says no. Are our ports safer? No. Are we winning the minds of the Muslim nations? No. Is Afghanistan better off than when we got there? Not really, unless you like your heroin fresh and cheap.

   So, lets see a big cheer from you for Bill Clinton, he kept us safe for 8 years, by your criteria, not mine. Have a nice day.

   Posted by crabwalk at 09/12/2006 @ 10:55am

7. The hell with the danger, is the president a great orator? Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/12/2006 @ 10:41am |

   Great big belly laugh!!! NO! He is not. Actions speak louder than cheap words.

   I bet Usama was chuckling all day at the vast mental masturbation that was the 5th anniverssary.

   Posted by crabwalk at 09/12/2006 @ 10:57am

8. mask- still farting in the wind. Butthead.

   Posted by crabwalk at 09/12/2006 @ 11:06am

9. mask, how about a frank and complex characterization of the enemy, and not a vague and intimidating one?

   Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2006 @ 11:07am

10. and furthermore, how about a frank and complex characterization of what this so-called "war" actually means for most americans who have been repeatedly left in the dark with their constant lies and distortions of reality?

    Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2006 @ 11:09am

11. Posted by KIMBO1 09/12/2006 @ 10:49am

    KIMBO, I didn't realize that listening to the criticisms of Bush "selling fear" and asking a LOGICAL question was a "Republican talking point".

    If Bush is "selling fear" or "keeps hyping terrorism" or whatever....then the OBVIOUS counter to that would be NOT "selling fear" or NOT "hyping terrorism", right?

    Ergo, I ask....what IS the response from the Democrats going to be as far as fear of terrorism?

    That it's a "concern, but no cause for alarm"? What DO Democrats tell Americans about terrorism and the United States???

    (BTW, "Reagan used action, diplomacy and yes, rhetoric to end the cold war"?....you're going to get a bit of a fight on THAT one here....but not from me...stand by!)

    Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 11:11am

12. No one has addressed the important question from the article: "True, "evil" had tied "God" in the word count five years later, but essentially the President has never stopped peddling the same Bushwa. The only real question is: Are Americans still taking it in?"

    I don't even watch President Bush's speeches anymore. I have completely tuned him out. I wonder what the ratings are for his speeches nowadays in comparison to those earlier in this presidency? Do any of you still pay attention to him?

    Posted by trabaris at 09/12/2006 @ 11:11am

13. Yes, and as VA Senate candidate James Webb asked, "What about the Clinton years did you hate the most? The peace or the prosperity?"

    Bush wants to take credit for these 5 "safe years". Of course we have no idea what the hell's being plotted against us as we speak because bin Laden is loose, there now 1000 "bin Ladens" and we're distracted by Iraq. We had 7 safe years after the 93 bombing on Clinton's watch. How proactive against terrorism was the Republican Congress during the Clinton years?

    Here's a word count for the Republican Congress of the 90s: Blow Job/Impeachment - 1,000,0000, Terrorism - 0.

    But Republican Congressman are willing to campaign on terrorism now! Why not run on how well your party distracted a President over a blow job instead of joining the fight against terrorism!

    Posted by kimbo1 at 09/12/2006 @ 11:12am

14. Posted by DARLADOON 09/12/2006 @ 11:09am

    DARLA, is that going to include your analysis that 9/11 was "less damaging" (or whatever term you want to use) than "cancer, natural disasters, american bombs, etc"?

    Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 11:12am

15. they are unrelated issues masks.

    or, i'm simply not understanding what you're asking.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2006 @ 11:17am

16. oh boy, liberty goes off the deep end again.

    yo liberty, it's not the emotion we're looking for, though it would help. bush has been trying really hard to look like he gives a sh*t, but has failed miserably.

    what we're looking for is frank, open and honest, and complex discussion.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2006 @ 11:24am

17. liberty would just rather have the same old tired rhetoric of fear.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2006 @ 11:25am

18. I am humbled by Olberman's speech. Truer words are rarely spoken (and certainly not those mumbled by the Decider & Thief last night.)

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 09/12/2006 @ 10:39am

    Olbermann's was the best speech of the day, for certain.

    Posted by New Dawn at 09/12/2006 @ 11:42am

19. Mask,

    We're reeled in by the Republican talking points if were conned into thinking in terms of opposites regarding terrorism. "Fear/Selling Fear" must be the opposite of "Not all that concerned". Culture of Life/Culture of Death. Good/Evil. Patriotic/Unpatriotic. Supporters/Appeasers.

    Since you asked, here's my suggestion for a Democratic Message: We're so concerned about terrorism that we will truly defend against it and not perpetuate it. Borders/Immigration (which Repubs are running from like cowards). Ports. Effective foreign policy. Less cronyism. Putting money into defending the homeland and building up the strengths of our country, not just our deficit.

    Or: Getting Further (Farther? Where's my 6th grade English teacher?) than Fear. Where exactly did this fear tactic get us? Chaos in Iraq. Resurgence of the taliban. Collecting lip balm from 8 year olds at the airport?

    What are you saying? I'm going to be attacked by "my own" on the Reagan comparison?

    Posted by kimbo1 at 09/12/2006 @ 11:42am

20. liberty, why are conservatives so anti-intellectual?

    i have never stated that terrorism isn't a threat. i have stated that the threat has been grotesquely exaggerated; i have also stated that terrorism isn't a "significant" threat, i.e. as significant as, say, cancer or natural disasters. i was basing this assessment on sheer statistics.

    now, the impact of 9.11 was certainly significant--we saw people jumping from buildings on fire. but that is the mere image, the statistics would only report 3,000 deaths. that's how many innocent people who died in iraq last month.

    comments?

    Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2006 @ 11:45am

21. "I don't even watch President Bush's speeches anymore. I have completely tuned him out. I wonder what the ratings are for his speeches nowadays in comparison to those earlier in this presidency? Do any of you still pay attention to him?"

    Frankly, Trabaris, I avoid what the man has to say. He steers every opportunity, every question, it seems, into a defense of his morally bankrupt foreign policy. After a while it all becomes, 'blah, blah, blah.'

    Posted by javaman222 at 09/12/2006 @ 11:47am

22. to say to the american people, with a serious face: "we live in fear of another attack by religious extremists" is a deliberate mischaracterization of the play of forces which produce them.

    anyone with even a shred of intellectual curiosity would have to ask: "why is this happening?" bin laden has said on video tape: "they are stealing our oil." well, could bin laden be right? are we stealing their oil? bin laden has also said: "they only support israel." well, is this true as well? "they have military bases all over muslim lands." what about this statement?

    and bush can only say: "they want to kill you and your family."

    hmmm.......i think we need someone who can put some historical perspective into the speech.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2006 @ 11:50am

23. most americans are sick and tired of president bush's lame rhetoric of fear. they want honesty. they want results. and we ain't getting them. i'm shocked that more of the conservatives on this site aren't calling for his resignation.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2006 @ 11:52am

24. Javaman222, I hear it as "blah, blah, tyranny, blah, blah." (Like the teacher in the Charlie Brown specials, only with more "tyranny.")

    Posted by kimbo1 at 09/12/2006 @ 11:55am

25. Do any of you still pay attention to him?

    Posted by TRABARIS 09/12/2006 @ 11:11am

    when I see him on the telly all I can think of is Alfred E. Newman. And chimps. I tune him out. He has nothing new to offer. Isn't that a sad state of affairs for a country to be in? I wish he would get his rocks off with an intern already!

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/12/2006 @ 11:56am

26. Darla, there are few, if any, "conservatives" that visit this site. What we have is a collection of neo-con apologists that are afraid of their own shadows, unwilling to face reality.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/12/2006 @ 11:59am

27. Posted by DARLADOON 09/12/2006 @ 11:17am

    DARLA, you want "a frank and complex characterization of the enemy" and I asked about the "frank and complex" point you made the other day about how 9/11, compared to "cancer, natural disasters, american bombs", was less worrisome.

    Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 12:07pm

28. mask, they are totally unrelated issues.

    i NEVER said that terrorism was "less worrisome" than cancer. i said cancer was far more significant at threat.

    look, if bush harps endlessly about this so-called 'threat', then the least he should do is give us an accurate, frank and complex characterization of who is causing it.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2006 @ 12:11pm

29. and i'll tell ya why he doesn't do that:

    cuz then americans would know that terrorism isn't really a significant threat at all!!

    see my point?

    Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2006 @ 12:12pm

30. most americans wake up every morning and do their thing. the vast majority of us don't think about terrorism AT ALL. now why is that? CUZ WE HAVE A GREATER CHANCE OF WINNING THE LOTTERY THAN BEING IN A TERROR ATTACK!

    i almost got hit by a car this morning. i also shattered by french press, cut my finger.

    see my point? ain't significant man. it's almost a tad bit exciting thinking about the possibility of flying into a large building, and being incinerated in less than a nanosecond.

    where would your soul go, travelling at 700 mph, crashing into a building?

    Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2006 @ 12:15pm

31. Posted by KIMBO1 09/12/2006 @ 11:42am

    KIMBO, I agree Dems could use those points, but my point is, they have to "base it" on "something".

    WHY are they "Borders/Immigration ... Ports. Effective foreign policy. Less cronyism. Putting money into defending the homeland and building up the strengths of our country"?

    Because we're still threatened by terrorism, right?

    Okay....so they are going to HAVE to say we're still threatened by it, ergo...."fear".

    Or put it this way, "President Feingold" come 2009 says "I need to spend $50 billion on port security" Why? "Because we're threatened there, with dirty bombs, etc. coming in".

    Okay...so he's using "fear of terrorism" to push an agenda for heightened security at the ports.

    Not saying it's wrong; it's certainly laudable...but fear of a terrorist strike via the ports IS the impetus for it, right?

    And if Republicans balk at it, he says "Those Repubs are blocking money for port security...don't they know the RISK that we are facing at our ports?"

    My point is Bush is wrong...in his policies. But would a Democrat say anything DIFFERENT as far as the threat from terrorism?

    Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 12:15pm

32. i NEVER said that terrorism was "less worrisome" than cancer. i said cancer was far more significant at threat.

    Posted by DARLADOON 09/12/2006 @ 12:11am

    Okay, let's look at that...essentially you're saying "terorism ISN'T less worrisome than cancer"...BUT "cancer is a far more significant threat"?

    So if cancer is a far more significant threat, wouldn't I worry MORE (i.e. "more worrisome") about cancer, than terrorism???

    Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 12:17pm

33. "Because we're threatened there, with dirty bombs, etc. coming in".

    now THIS is a frank characterization of the situation. not "they want to kill you and your family"

    read the language mask, look deeper into the nuances, okay?

    "So if cancer is a far more significant threat, wouldn't I worry MORE (i.e. "more worrisome") about cancer, than terrorism???"

    you would, i wouldn't. cuz i never said that. you said that. you STILL don't get it.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2006 @ 12:24pm

34. Can someone press the fast forward button and make it November already?

    The lunatic President needs someone to tell him that the Constitution is not a roll of toilet paper.

    Posted by freedomplease at 09/12/2006 @ 12:29pm

35. aaawk! Stay the course. 9/11. Terrorist, terrorist, terrorist. Awwk. Wheew-hew. Georgie wants a cracker......

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/12/2006 @ 12:33pm

36. Posted by DARLADOON 09/12/2006 @ 12:24am

    Darla, tell me the exact difference between these two statements?--

    "i NEVER said that terrorism was "less worrisome" than cancer. i said cancer was far more significant at threat."

    "Terorism ISN'T less worrisome than cancer...BUT cancer is a far more significant threat."

    Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 12:39pm

37. Mask,

    I hear you. Maybe, it's not what you say but how you frameit or why/when you say it. Yes, terrorism is a threat. But we can be smart, potent and effective. Think of the money that wouldn't have to be asked for by "President Feingold" for ports or border security if Halliburton didn't have it all.

    I have yet to see BushFear motivate anything other than elections. He talks about terrorism, gets elected, then switches to social security reform, stem cell research or immigration (accomplishing nothing). Then stops and preaches fear again at elections. And so on and so on.

    A dog that's afraid doesn't hunt. How's that for a red-state message?

    Posted by kimbo1 at 09/12/2006 @ 12:45pm

38. Posted by KIMBO1 09/12/2006 @ 12:45am

    As I've acknowledged a few times (just to keep myself clear)...Bush's use of it is failing. That's obvious. He's not rallying the country anymore.

    But this new paradigm (heard it from Ms vanden Heuvel, as well as liberal pundits) that "Bush is using fear of terrorism" or "All Bush has is fear" isn't going to fly on its own.

    Democrats WILL have to address terrorism as a real and dangerous threat (and that means indicating that we should have SOME "fear" of it) or else it's going to COME OFF as "nothing to worry about folks; health care, jobs, education are MUCH more important than people trying to kill us"....which is what they came off like in 2002 and 2004.

    Some of our more "non-violent" friends on the Left may not like it...but Dems will have to have their "We're going to do things differently, but we're still going to kill the bastards" message....or the failures of Bush alone aren't going to let them win in 2008 against a McCain or whoever is "talking tough".

    Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 1:02pm

39. "We're going to do things differently, but we're still going to kill the bastards"

    probably not an intelligent way of framing the issue, mask.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/12/2006 @ 1:33pm

40. Posted by MASK 09/12/2006 @ 1:02pm

    Triangulation - How does that go again?

    I never had sex with that woman.

    Oral sex is not a sexual relationship.

    It depends on what the definition of is, is.

    Zzzzzzzz...

    Ask Gore about the overwhelming strategic success that kind of legacy conferred on him.

    Especially in comparison to Feingold, representing the most purple state in the union who won re-election with about a 20% margin. Birthplace to both Joe McCarthy and to perhaps the last true Republican progressive; Fighting Bob LaFollette. He speaks from conscience and conviction with consistency and common sense from a social democratic perspective.

    A great many Wisconsinites may not agree with him philosophically on a any number of issues, but we respect his integrity and his ownership of the consequences of the positions he represents. This stength of character is the antithesis of the mealy mouthed triangulation that the Republicans successfully characterized as lack of conviction as they leveraged it against the Clinton legacy in 2000 as their campaign to restore ethics to Government. (I need Dramamine quick....ah, that's better).

    The same triangulating wizardry of the DLC is really bearing fruit with the public's endorsement of such stolid luminaries as Hillary et. al. (We're for the war too! We just want it done right) while 60% + of the public is demanding an end to the grand old party's grand old war without end in Iraq (There is no problem or difficulty that a good old fashioned ass kicking won't fix. Right Johns, Rio, LL, B25, etc.?), as the country continues to ask what separates the Congressional Dems from the Repubs.

    Posted by canaar at 09/12/2006 @ 1:37pm

41. Posted by CANAAR 09/12/2006 @ 1:37pm

    CANAAR, we ran "Feingolds" (i.e. NE/North Midwestern true-blue liberals....McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis) once....

    and what did it get Democrats?

    Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 2:06pm

42. probably not an intelligent way of framing the issue, mask.

    Posted by DARLADOON 09/12/2006 @ 1:33pm

    Didn't say it was. But framing it as "terrorism is bad, okay...but cancer and natural disasters...and what WE stupid war-mongering Americans do with our bombs is MUCH more 'significant', even worrisome"....isn't either.

    Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 2:08pm

43. Posted by MASK 09/12/2006 @ 2:06pm

    Missed my point entirely while constructing that straw man. The point is not necessarily to run Feingold. The point is to run a candidate that has similar strength of character and stop treating the American public like it's an infirm senior citizen on a massage table.

    Posted by canaar at 09/12/2006 @ 2:30pm

44. Posted by CANAAR 09/12/2006 @ 2:30pm

    SORRY...you mentioned Russ a few times, I ASSUMED you were talking about him....sheesh!

    If not him....who?

    Posted by Mask at 09/12/2006 @ 3:53pm

45. Posted by MASK 09/12/2006 @ 3:53pm

    Not so much a who as much as a what and how is my concern. Being right with conviction, or at least willing to risk being wrong and subjecting conviction to the court of public opinion.

    As much as I despise their agenda and their undemocratic and totalitarian attempt to remove the last vestiges of representative government, I still have to give some grudging respect to the Bushites for being straightforward, in your face assholes.

    But since you asked, I could generate some passion behind an Edwards, or Wesley Clark campaign and perhaps behind a Gore re-election so long as he maintains his current re-incarnation as a policy maker willing to work to implement his convictions, rather than being handled by a legion of niche marketers selling soap to the gullible.

    Posted by canaar at 09/12/2006 @ 7:17pm

46. Posted by MASK 09/12/2006 @ 1:02pm

    Take the normal and accepted run-up to passage of a spending bill. Your Rep or Senator does not fly back to your constituency and hold Town Hall meetings to discuss every bill before congress.

    Someone tables it, they debate it and vote on it. Voila. It's done and money (or whatever is appropriated).

    With this in mind, A democratic, or republican member of congress does not need to create an aura of "fear" to pass such a bill.

    Half the time, spending bills are attached to massive appropriations packages which act as very dense smoke screens.

    To answer your point yet again, and yes it's been answered by other psoters many times before, there is no need to "create" and "manipulate" the fear factor. there is even no need to evne bring it up. Everyone knows that funds need to be alocated to those sleuthing organizations. Who's gonna complain if it's done the right way and not strictly for political reasons during an election year.

    Posted by doumer at 09/12/2006 @ 8:54pm

47. Just on the basis of American casualties alone (even worse figures obtain for Deputy Dubya's poor Iraqi and Afghan victims) the Dimwit Decider lost 3,000 killed and/or wounded "here" ON 9/11/2001 and 23,000+ killed and/or wounded "there" AFTER 9/11/2001. So it would appear obvious to the casual observer -- just on the basis of the factual data -- that the radical religious retard and his Repugnant Political Party can't fight "them" HERE or THERE either. It therefore should come as no surprise why "they" haven't had to bother paddling their little assault craft armadas across several oceans to attack Continental America yet again. Why would anyone have to bother, when America's bungling blowhard-in-briefs and his pusillanimous political posse keep sending American targets "over there" where "they" can do their killing and wounding of Americans so much more cheaply and easily?

    I know. The rebuttal from the Rear Eschelon Mother Fuckers (or REMFs, as we called the absent likes of Bush and Cheney during Vietnam days) will maintain that American service men and women "volunteered" to die or get their arms blown off for $30,000/year and food stamps; thus the fools don't count as "real" Americans. Only the stay-at-home Repuglican REMFs taking ever-bigger tax cuts for themselves count as "real" Americans -- and these Deputy Dubya has indeed kept "safe" from even the faintest hint of discomfort or sacrifice.

    9/11 changed nothing about REMF Americans -- nothing except the swelling of their chests and bloating of their mercenary carpetbagging corporate profit margins. Rich man's war; poor man's fight. 9/11 changed nothing.

    Posted by Michael Murry at 09/12/2006 @ 11:43pm

48. Marine Calls Situation in Anbar Province Dire By Thomas E. Ricks The Washington Post

    Monday 11 September 2006

    US military can do little to secure region in western Iraq. The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq recently filed an unusual secret report concluding that the prospects for securing that country's western al Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there, said several military officers and intelligence officials familiar with its contents.

    The officials described Col. Pete Devlin's classified assessment of the dire state of Anbar as the first time that a senior U.S. military officer has filed so negative a report from Iraq.

    One Army officer summarized it as arguing that in Anbar province, "We haven't been defeated militarily but we have been defeated politically - and that's where wars are won and lost."

    ------

    Missed this in the presidential address. Remember, the Viet Cong never won a battle, either.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2006 @ 09:00am

49. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14757615 for full text.

    Boy, this Marine must REALLY hate America, eh, CPT? Right up there with the Senate.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2006 @ 09:04am

50. More America hating, from National Review, of all places!

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjFiYjlhOGVkMTAxMGEyNjVjOWEwNzQ1MmM yOGY5NmM=

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2006 @ 09:16am

51. It does seem pretty darned clear that The Bush administration is "selling fear". What really worries me is that the American public, you "liberals" included, seem to have forgotten that this country is supposed to be a democracy. Government by the people...???? Remember???? Which means that "we the people" are responsible for the behavior of our elected leaders. So..... The real question we should all be asking is "why are the poeple buying fear"? Are they so ill educated? If so, who's fault is that? Are Americans so damned absorbed it the sit-com culture that they can't be bothered? Who's fault might that be? Could it be that the right is inspiring and the left is passive? Who's fault is that? Americans are buying fear. We need to figure out why and counter-act that. Time to quit blaming the seller and take responsibility for our own purchases.

    Posted by akdamm at 09/13/2006 @ 7:22pm

52. Posted by AKDAMM 09/13/2006 @ 7:22pm

    Yea! What he said.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 09/13/2006 @ 9:25pm

53. thanks. she.

    Posted by akdamm at 09/14/2006 @ 5:07pm

54. opps.

    oh...uh...yea...what she said!

    Posted by Malcontent at 09/14/2006 @ 6:40pm