He voted for it before he spoke against it Or How the Hell did Bush get re-elected part N

The American people disapprove of the US involvement in the war in Iraq and of Bush and, especially of Bush policy in Iraq. Bush attempts to turn the tide with yet another speech. Democrats criticize this speech. Can Democrats shoot fish in a barrel ? Well some can but one can't. from the WAPO

"The president," Reed said, "failed to answer the question that all Americans are asking: how do we know progress is being made there?"

Kerry accused Bush of resorting to "straw man" arguments in denouncing his critics' calls for a drawdown of U.S. forces.

"This debate is not about an artificial date for withdrawal," Kerry said. He said a Nov. 15 Senate resolution, which called on the administration to hasten an eventual U.S. pullout by turning over more control to Iraqis, did not advocate "an artificial date for withdrawal" but sought to "set an estimated timetable for success which will permit the withdrawal of our troops." The resolution, which passed 79 to 19, said 2006 should be "a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty," creating conditions for "the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq."

"No one has ever suggested or believes that we should run in the face of car bombers or assassins," Kerry said, referring to a passage in Bush's speech. "No one is talking about running in the face of a challenge. We're talking about how to win, how to succeed, how do you best achieve our goals? That's the choice here. And what the president did not do today again is acknowledge the fundamental reality of the insurgency."

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called the resolution two weeks ago "a vote of no confidence in the president's current policy in Iraq" and said Bush in response today merely "recycled his tired rhetoric of 'stay the course.'"

In a statement, Reid said, "After nearly 1,000 days of war in Iraq, our troops, their families, and the American people deserve more than just a Bush-Cheney public relations campaign. They deserve a clear strategy with military, economic and political measures to be met in order to successfully complete our mission. The president's continued refusal to provide that plan does nothing to support our troops or their families. Simply staying the course is no longer an option, we must change the course."

The top Democrat in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi of California, today threw her support behind a proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) for a prompt pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq. Murtha, a former Marine with a reputation as a hawk on military issues, stunned Washington two weeks ago when he said U.S. troops have done all they can in Iraq and should be withdrawn within six months.

"We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha, who has put forth a plan to make America safer, to make our military stronger, and to make Iraq more stable," Pelosi said in a news conference.

She also sharply criticized Bush's speech, dismissing the "Plan for Victory" slogan that appeared behind him today as "no more accurate than the 'Mission Accomplished' backdrop he used two and a half years ago on the USS Abraham Lincoln."

Which one here is not like the others ? Which one here just doesn't belong. Bush tried to make the argument about whether Democrats want an artificial date for withdrawal. That is he set up what he sees as a straw man (I bet polls will soon show a solid majority in favour of a arbitrary and date for withdrawal so long as that date is soon). Bush tried to get the Democrats to argue with each other, since most of the Democrats in congress aren't there yet. 3 Democrats as quoted in the Washington Post refused to fall for this and, instead kept on the attack. One said "This debate is not about an artificial date for withdrawal," and explained the nuances in the resolution for which he voted, whose meaning depends on the exact wording (it's not the impression the public has of a sense of the Senate resolution that matters but rather how it is interpreted in a court of law when ... hell freezes over).

Now Kerry might have hammered Bush in parts of his response which weren't quoted, but that's not winning according to the rules of the game. You don't speak so that some sound bites lead to victory, you have to speak so that all possible sound bites lead to victory. This means the full speach is dumb and repetitive. This is the way it is done. You have to make the same point again and again. You can't discuss anything else you find interesting. Politicians must not act like bloggers. Just say the same thing again and again so they have to quote that (rinse repeat).

How the hell did that guy get nominated? We should have put all our chips on Reid and rolled the dice.