Bush's Continued Use of Straw Man Arguments

Notice how Bush always narrowly characterizes the criticisms of the Iraq war as concerns over whether we can "win" the war. For example, in his speech yesterday he said:

"In the face of continued reports about killings and reprisals, I understand how some Americans have had their confidence shaken. Others look at the violence they see each night on their television screens and they wonder how I can remain so optimistic about the prospects of success in Iraq. They wonder what I see that they don't."

What exactly does it mean to "win"? Because that word is so ambiguous, it is easy for the Bush administration to gloss over all of the administration's horrendous decisions to ultimately claim "victory" of some sort. Most Americans don't have the time to do a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the war was really worth it. So all the administration has to do is trot out a few anecdotal examples of "success" to make it appear that the entire war is a success, just as Bush did in his speech, touting the "success" of "Tel Afar." The administration does the same thing by touting the capture of Saddam Hussein. While his capture is certainly significant, and a good thing, it hardly justifies the colossal human and financial loss that it took to get Saddam.

By analogy, if a madman were holding a group of people hostage in a building, one would hardly call the capture of that madman a "success" if it resulted in the deaths of scores of more building occupants than were being held capture; the deaths of numerous people attempting to capture the madman; the destruction of the building; countless grave injuries to building occupants and rescue workers; the expenditure of so much money that it breaks the city's budget; and the birth of numerous other "madmen" who are understandably angry about the deaths of their innocent family members caused by the city's attempt to get the single madman.

The above analogy fits perfectly here. Do the anecdotal "successes" in this war justify all of the following:

The lies used to justify the invasion;
The unreliable support for the war, virtually all of which turned out to be wrong;
The billions and billions of dollars (and by recent estimates, the need for at least a trillion when all is said and done) expended on the war - FAR more than the administration said it would cost;
The deaths of nearly 3000 soldiers;
The deaths of tens of thousands of innocent iraqis;
Permanent serious injuries to countless soldiers and innocent iraqis;
The birth of NEW so-called "insurgents" and "terrorists" who are understandably angry about the deaths of their innocent family members, the lies used to justify the war, and the destruction of their country;
The destruction of the United States' reputation throughout the world; and
The inability to focus on the real threat of terrorism here in this country because our resources are stretched so thin.

Oh, and one more thing. Keep in mind that those who have PROFITED THE MOST from this war are . . . who? Military contractors and oil companies - the industries directly tied to Bush and his administration. Makes you wonder about the Administration's true motives, right?

No Mr. Bush, our concerns are not about "winning" the war in Iraq, as you have mis-characterized the term. We already know that the United States is the most powerful nation in the world. We already know that we can beat up on just about any country we want (at least, we used to be able to do that before the Iraq War. Now that we have abused the "big stick" that Teddy Roosevelt said we should carry, who knows whether we can respond appropriately to real threats that might arise). So stop oversimplifying the issue to create yet another strawman for your own political gain.

resist a war of aggression.

tell there is a "war" in Iraq. We see NOTHING! These thugs are totally delusional. They make up their own reality and stick to it. It's just amazing to me. Rummy and Deadeye Dick have all used the same lines, trying to blame the media and falsely believing this is why we are against this invasion. Idiots!

They have always had a large number of people against the Iraq invasion/occupation for a variety of reasons. They seem most concerned with the ones they have lost most recently. And the flip side is those people should be the easiest for the Admin to "win back." This frame about "win the war" seems to be directed at them.

Segmentation is a term used in marketing. It usually entails crafting different messages for different groups (segments).

And WTF is this "Plan" you have ???