Bush's STRAW MAN in his speech "Do not give in to despar"

[liveoaktx]

Bush is a big proponent (or, rather, whoever writes his speeches is) of putting in straw men to knock down. Because he addressed people who don't agree with him last night, this particular straw man deserves to be thrashed, wrestled to the ground, and throttled till it dies.
<snip>
I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt. Yet now there are only two options before our country -- victory or defeat. And the need for victory is larger than any president or political party, because the security of our people is in the balance. I don't expect you to support everything I do, but tonight I have a request: Do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom.
</snip>

First, who says there are only two options for the country? Who defines victory or defeat? I have to believe this LIAR just because he says so? But the strawman that is the MOST OFFENSIVE is the last line.
WHO F*CKING SAYS I AM GIVING INTO DESPAIR????? And the "giving up on the fight for freedom" is a straw man. I have NEVER been giving up on the fight for freedom because I don't consider that the US is fighting that at all and neither am I. I don't even see the fighting in Iraq in those terms, which are intrusive, arrogant, and imperialistic.

I REFUSE to be defined by this creep as one who is *despairing", "defeatist" or is against freedom in some fashion, simply because I don't agree with or buy into his dictatorship like idea of the world.

[Punkingal]

1. He has just found a new way to say

"You're either with us or against us." Now he says you're a defeatist if you disagree with his sorry ass. The fact of the matter is, Murtha is right. You can't win an occupation, and that is what all Democrats should be saying, over and over, every day.

[linazelle]

14. Bingo. "With us or agin' us." Pfffffffft. nt

[panader0]

2. Amen!

It reminds me of those stupid bumper stickers-- "Annoy a Liberal, Work, Succeed, Be Happy"
Well, I'm a diehard liberal, I work (bricklayer), I succeed (Own my own house with 16 acres) and I'm usually happy with the exception of this administation.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

3. I know, I caught that, too. As soon as he said, "only two options" my

BS detector went into overdrive.

Don't you just love being treated like a mindless child at the beck and call of an authoritarian parent?

MKJ

[liveoaktx]

4. Maybe that's how it is for lockstep Republicans-the world as defined

in only Right and Wrong, Black and White, Victory and Defeat, because they don't have a mind sophisticated enough to deal with complexity.

I also think that his straw man painting those who dissent is an attempt to wussify his opposition. It isn't, You're angry that I'm doing this, it's You're boo-hooing in the corner because you've given in to despair.

Bullshit.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

5. Giving into despair is, in itself, a pretty desperate phrase.

It's not going to resonate, since most of us who oppose him, and his ilk, are fired up and feeling better all the time!

MKJ

[liveoaktx]

7. I'll feel best when he's brought to justice.....

[mwb970]

10. I gagged on the "only two options" bit too.

Iraq is a tremendously complex situation. There are many, many possible outcomes, some of which feel mostly like a victory, some of which feel mostly like a defeat. None of the possible outcomes are "pure victory" or "pure defeat". Ironically, Bush claims that these two non-existent possibilities are the only ones that can occur.

I assume they are counting on Americans to not be able to figure this out. It's like something you would say to a roomful of young children, simplifying and "dumbing it down" until 6-year-olds can understand it.

Bush is a condescending jerk.

[liveoaktx]

6. Another Straw Man - "If you think the terrorists would become peaceful

if only America could stop provoking them"

WHO THE HECK THINKS THAT? Is there ANYONE that thinks *terrorists" would become peaceful if America stops killing people in Iraq? It is a FALSE argument. (Geez, this pisses me off). C'mon, who agrees with that premise? More like, the people who don't want us in their country, insurgents, patriots, etc will STOP when we leave. Will the hard core terrorists who have their own agenda? I don't know, who knows? But of course Bush can knock down this argument but it is NOT an argument people are making.

[TheFarseer]

8. Same old democrats = gloom and doom

the problem is this tactic works.

[ProfessorGAC]

9. If I Have Any Despair, It's Because HE Screwed Up So Badly

That's not defeatism. It's realism. Given the track record of screwups, so far, there is no reason to believe we will win this thing. They've been wrong about so much of this affair, that i'm just expecting things to "stay the course". Meaning, obviously, a continuing series of screw-ups.
The Professor

[ultraist]

11. I agree, it's a faulty premise

"Do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom. "

This is another comment that qualifies for " I reject the premise." "Giving into despair" does not equate to withdrawing from Iraq.

You do have to hand it to them, whoever writes Bush's speeches is well versed in framing.

Democrats could reframe it and just as easily say, "Do not give in to despair and do not give up on bringing an end to this war."

[SpiralHawk]

12. I reject the premise

I reject all the premises that Bush put forth.

The war was started wrongly based on lies. Anything he says now about "freedom" to justify his amoral actions is based on a false premise.

I reject all of the BushCo NeoCon Republican propaganda points.

And I reject them with vigor.

[gratuitous]

13. All right, Mr. President, I won't give in to despair

Would you consider giving in to reality?

[trogdor]

15. Like a bad movie remake.

I prefer the old-school "nattering nabobs of negativism." Spiro Agnew knew how to use alliteration.

[sweetheart]

16. I'm glad i have his permission

What would i do without that!

I would rather give in to despair. The world has 6 billion people on it,
going up, they're fucking it up major league, and really the political will to stop
is not enough, simply not enough to prevent a tragedy. The overpopulation alone,
that has only been tested for a couple of decades now, will prove the factor that
levels. What is a fair wealth and energy distribution for 6 billions? Are they
shifting towards this model even remotely? No. The world is ruled by a bunch of
stupid men, really stupid, and the political classes that govern are driven by
greed of material kingdom and control. They are completely corrupt, worldwide,
with a few exceptions of "less corrupt".

What is a future worth ruled by the southern man? No, as long as such evil kings
are about, there is good reason for despair. Like a depression, these men live
to disenfranchise the millions, like the landlords of the scottish clearances.
THey reserve for themselves the same royal perogative that turned the peasants
out of their houses from a life of rural idyll to a life of city/industry. So
radicals are in charge, re-engineering society by driving people in to poverty
with a malice. Hatred and worldwide distrust are on the rise due to it.

Oh, i don't want to sound depressing, but despair has a pretty good argument as
long as the BFEE are about. Hunter S. Thompson was right, tragically, right.

So i guess the way beyond despair is to become dissonant, and to not-see the
world of the bush-reptiles, to coexist in it, act like a reptile, and
shake reptile flesh, but going home to warm blooded creatures. Then you
can take off the fake moralism implant, the fake smiling-nice customer service
implant, the commuter robot that sees nothing implant... and after all the
implants are removed, what is left but no opinion, no despair, no inspiration either,
but fully conscious. And at the root of that, the will to identify knowledge
with a thinking self, the witts end of writing.