It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Laura Bush: One Bombing a Day Discourages Everybody

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   
In a recent interview with Larry King, Laura Bush said that she understands how Americans feel. But Iraq is stable. It's just that "one bombing a day that discourages everybody.”

"One bombing a day"??? That pesky one bombing a day!




Despite what Mrs Bush may believe, the Brookings Institution Iraq Index, as of November 2006, states that there are approximately 185 insurgent and militia attacks every day. The fact that maybe only one gets reported on per day is not because there is only one bombing but due to the fact that there is not enough time to cover them all.


Think Progress has the video.

Are the Bushes really this out of touch with the reality in the Middle East?

Chart of increasing nymber of insurgent & militia attacks:



[edit on 1-3-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]




posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Clearly she wasn't being literal.


The point that she is making is that the US forces in iraq aren't being defeated on the battle field by insurgents, whereas from the media reports, you'd get the idea that we're being routed.

Of course, I will agree, while we ourselves are defeating the insurgents when they do fight, we've been unable to stop the insurgency over all.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Clearly she wasn't being literal.


It wasn't clear to me at all that she wasn't being literal. In fact, it's clear she was talking about the media coverage (which might only show one bombing a day - I don't know). She said, "Many parts of Iraq are stable. Of course what we see on television is the one bombing a day that discourages everybody."

She may be aware that there is more than one bombing a day, but I doubt she knows that there are nearly 200. How could she and make that statement?

I disagree, Nygdan. I think she was being literal.



Of course, I will agree, while we ourselves are defeating the insurgents when they do fight, we've been unable to stop the insurgency over all.


I'm confused. If we're unable to defeat the insurgency, then how is it that we are defeating the insurgents? I'm sorry, I'm sure I'm missing something.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   
We defeat them on the field of battle whenever we encounter them. Defeat doesn't mean 'obliterate and utterly destroy'. They get defeated, retreat, regroup, and attack again. And if any one particular militia is destroyed or made defunct, like that Sunni Death Cult that popped up a few months ago, there are still hundreds of others to fill the void.

Actually what appears to be happening is that they form up, attack and kills dozens of civilians, then fade back.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I see what you mean. Thanks for the explanation.

Their tactics seem to be pretty successful.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Actually what appears to be happening is that the US is embroiled in a civil war between religions/tribes and the word "insurgents" is used to make it look like there is a defined enemy and we have a "Mission"

In reality it is anarchy and chaos.

Poor Laura is just being used as a mouth piece to try and keep what little support for this war that exists, placated.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 09:05 AM
link   
To me Laura's statement just solidifies my thinking that the Bush'es are Callous, unfeeling, monsters that have no human compassion. It all just boils down to politics and how they are viewed in a political context.

Hey Laura, how about the people that were blown up, their wounds, their families. This includes both Iraqi's and our precious military personel.

I hope that deep in Laura's heart she is a compassionate person and is just trying to "spin" on behalf of the neo-cons.

In light of the Walter Reed scandle, I'm beginning to wonder.
Plenty of tax dollars for bombs, but not enough for bandages.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a bombing a day. hmph, i guess they hate going to the doctor as much as we do, because that's a hell of a way to keep her/him away.

obviously, she's either really naive or purposefully ignoring the evidence



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   
HYas anyone else noticed how many people on ATS learn their political views from the daily show?



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Funny you say that, XphilesPhan. I had taped the Daily Show last week for my husband because he was out of town on business and when we watched it last night and Jon said "pesky" I LOL because that's what I had said in here.


I know you know we don't "learn" our opinions from the Daily Show. But I do happen to share a lot of political views with him.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Laura Bush[/url] said that she understands how Americans feel. But Iraq is stable.


She did NOT say that 'Iraq is stable'. She said many parts are stable. That is true. She strikes me as the kind of person to see the glass as half full rather than half empty. Parts of Iraq are stable and parts are not. Her statement that 'MANY PARTS of Iraq are stable' is true.


Originally posted by whaaa
Poor Laura is just being used ...


I agree with you on this whaaa.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
She did NOT say that 'Iraq is stable'. She said many parts are stable.


You're right. I'm sorry!! I hate it when people misquote and here I've done it.


If I could edit it, I would... Please forgive me???



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If I could edit it, I would... Please forgive me???


Nothing to forgive! You just typed a piece of information too fast for your fingers to keep up with your head .... usually you are spot on and VERY exact in your quotes. No problem at all.


** It DOES change the entire meaning of the statement ... doesn't it??



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join