Reaction To The Reaction Of President's Annapolis Speech

Here are some reactions to the President's speech in Annapolis, on Wednesday found in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (which the very name of the paper itself, is the grandest of misnomers).

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Minority Leader

"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."

Like what Harry? A timetable for withdrawal? There's much more to a strategy than withdrawal and broadcasting it is NOT good strategy. But, that's all the Dems can come up with. They have no other ideas about how to attain victory. From the minority leader on down, they are clueless.

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI)

"It's a step back. The only new thing the administration gave the American people was a glossy 35-page pamphlet filled with the same rhetoric we've all heard before. This is not a strategy, and it certainly is not a plan to complete the military mission in Iraq."

Again, no alternative strategy. No ideas. Just a criticism of what Russ perceives as a "lack" of strategy.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI)

"It's going to take more than one speech to restore the credibility gap that the president is suffering. ... The president has not been candid in the last two and a half years with the American people about the situation in Iraq."

Yes, Jack is right.

The left makes numerous speeches daily that get covered heavily by the MSM. These are speeches that are primarily aimed at discrediting the reasons we went to war and the President, himself. It will take many more speeches by the President and his people, to counter the lies and distortions of the anti-American left. Jack hit the nail right on the head with that one, though I seriously doubt he meant to be right.

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)

"The truth is that the president draws a false line in trying to make his case to America. The troops don't belong to his point of view, they belong to America ... and the best way to protect the troops, the best way to stand up for the troops is to provide the best policy for success."

John is at it again. He lost this argument in 2004, but he is a glutton for losing in the arena of intelligent discourse. For John and those leftists that are having a hard time understanding this, I will try to help.

President Bush won the election. The President has a GOP led Congress. They are entitled to run the country as they see fit. John has the right to criticize it. But, it's pretty much a rule of thumb that you don't get to run the country, if you lose elections. Therefore, the troops don't belong to John's point of view, because his point of view lost the last election. Those are the rules. They were made up many years ago.

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA)

"I think it really failed to respond to what the American people want and which they deserve. ... I think what they saw sort of lipstick put on to the old administration's plan. It wasn't really anything new - same kind of rhetoric."

Does anyone really care what a drunken sot has to say? I know that I don't.

Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO)

"The president's speech in Annapolis today was a step in the right direction, and it begins to address the Senate's call for a successful exit strategy with measurable benchmarks. I look forward to hearing more, including information about the specific benchmarks we expect to achieve, and when we expect to achieve them."

Finally. Something positive about the situation, from a Democrat. But sadly enough, there is nowhere near enough sensible Democrats, like him. How many elections will they have to lose, before they realize that campaigning against something, without introducing viable alternatives, is a useless tactic?