posted
I was flipping channels while i was at a party.. and then flipped past it immediately. Anything good happen?
Posts: 332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excellent job. It’s too bad he had to even give the speech though. Shame on all the blame America first critics and those who are always against President Bush no matter what he does. They need to come with ideas instead of just shouting he’s wrong. Very well done speech as usual. Hopefully this will help with the negativism that has been spreading. We should be proud of what we’ve accomplished so far. Freedom for two countries is the spark that area of the world needs. Won’t be long till Afghanistan and Iraq are as close allies and world economy players as Japan and Germany are.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got part of the way through. I'd like to point out there is an enormous difference between claiming victory and actually achieving victory or acting in a way that is going to bring victory. The President can go to the trophy store and buy all the ribbons and awards he wants, but eventually he's going to have to deliver more than "No, we're totally winning. Trust me on this. Also, aren't terrorists evil?"
posted
Bleh. Support our troops by flying the flag on the 4th ? Please visit our website? Not very inspiring...
Posts: 349 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not always against President Bush no matter what he does. Just when I feel he's acting rashly, or against the country's better interests. Hardly my fault if that happens a lot.
And ideas have been presented. More than a few, actually. One good one might be for the U.S. to suck it up and admit we need help from other countries, and release a bit of the control we're hoarding to get it.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This didn't feel as much as a pep rally as some of his speeches in the past; much more of a straight talk than "Let's go get those terrorists! [lots of cheering]" I think I agreed with Sen. McCain more when he said we should acheive sucess, then celebrate it.
Still, he didn't really say anything that hasn't been said numerous times before. I doubt this will change much.
posted
I'm so glad I was at work instead of having to listen to that... It's just filled with lies, half-truths, exagerations. Like him trying to link 9/11 with the war in Iraq. Completely wrong. It's just filled with logical fallacies. Listening to him is so frustrating on every single possible level.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn -- and just how are you certain it is filled with lies when you don't even listen or read the speech?
I agreed strongly with this part:
quote: Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis — who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops — who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy — who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed — and not a day longer.
posted
I don't expect a timeline for getting troops. It happens when it happens. And I don't think we should pull out and leave them to their mess.
I'd like to see goals for an Iraqi government, an Iraqi army, more schools/power/etc, contributions from other countries, etc.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read through the speech. I listened to clips of it on the radio. It's the same thing he alwayssays. For example, being unwilling to bring in more troops, where is the logic in that? Where is the logic in sending troops over there without enough equipment? And what is worse, where's the logic in fighting terrorism this way? This just leads to more terrorism, more insurgents, more chaos. You can't win a war against insurgents this way. They'd never give up. He has no clue, not even a slight idea how long this war could last. Another year? Another 10 years? He doesn't even seem to have taken any of this into consideration before starting this so-called war on terrorism that will just make terrorism worse. But I just don't want to THINK about this right now, how angry and frustrated it makes me because this is the one day off before I have to work tomorrow and I should spend it having fun! Also, I heard that some of the applause during that speech was planted... I don't know if that's true, but if it is, it is somewhat disturbing, like so much of Bush's presidency.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree that this is such a wise statement. The central goal of our occupation of Iraq should be the building of a strong, resilient nation that can stand without us. Besides creating an acutal standard to measure against, that's exactly what would be expressed by giving a timeline for U.S. troops withdrawing. By such and such a date, Iraq should be a strong enough country to deal with threats on their own.
Stating goals and how we're going to achieve them when the central goal is a strong, stable Iraq does not do any of the things that the President suggests. Rather it tells the Iraqis (and the potential anti-American Crusaders or should I say Jihadists), we're here for these reasons and when they're accomplished we're going to leave. You do not need to fear an indefinite occupation. It tells the troops, we have an exit strategy for you and a well-thought out plan that can also be used as a measuring stick for how successful we are being. And it tells the terrorists, you don't control this situation. At some point, we're confident that the Iraqis will be able to handle you without our help.
Wouldn't having the terrorists think that they need only to wiat us out be a good thing, assuming that this means they'd severely ramp down their activities? We'd be able to build much more quickly and securely, while their support should be eroded by both the lack of fulfillment to their impatient members and the demonstrably good effect we're having in the region? Wouldn't a less interefered with environment to build up the defenses further hamper terrorists activities when they decide to resume operations in force?
Or if we're not expecting the terrorists to settle down a bit, then what would the idea of there being a defined list of objectives with an associated timetable do for them really? Having a simplistic "We're leaving by this date." yeah would be an encouragement, but we'd be pretty stupid to implement that. Rather, if we said, here are the things we need to accomplish and here's the date ranges that we think that we could accomplish them by, I think our ability to follow this schedule would seriously dishearten the terrorists and dampen their power fantasies.
Regardless if you agree with all that or not, I really don't think that it's anywhere near as cut and dried as that makes it sound.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel like he DID outline other goals in the complete speech -- I only quoted a snippet of it here, of course.
quote: For example, being unwilling to bring in more troops, where is the logic in that?
Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don't you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job
So, Syn, are you saying that the ground commanders are wrong -- or that Bush should go directly against the advice of the ground commanders?
posted
I believe it depends on what you mean by ground commanders. I'm pretty certain I recall relatively high level officers who had been with the marines we deployed saying (after they came back) that they needed more troops.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On Ornery, we've actually got a full word count on the speech and have discovered that it's actually quite easy to write a program to assemble Bush speeches using his most commonly-used keywords. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It really is nothing new. It's a recycled pep talk. Except he goes even further.
He claims credit for Hariri being assasinated in Lebanon and for Arafat dying in Palestine. Free elections and action there would not have taken place without these totally non-US actions. Unless he killed both those leaders, it's stupid to take credit for them.
All the 9/11 references are also inappropriate and misleading. As is referring to a foreign nation as a battle ground. Granted, it IS a battle ground, but how will the Iraqis feel about that? "We're blowing crap up in your nation so OUR nation is safe, sorry, but hey, you've got freedom, and did you hear that it's on the march?"
Bill Clinton made a good point a few days ago, he half defended half attacked Bush saying something along the lines of 'Yes, Iraq is the center of terrorism now, but it wasn't before the war when Saddam kept them out.' WE opened Iraq to terrorism, and now Bush is trying to claim we're being the good guys by fighting it out there.
If anyone is reassured by that speech, which told us nothing really substantive, and wasn't even partially candid, and only partially honest, then good for you. But I highly doubt it changed anyone's mind.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rather than comment on the speech itself, I'll say this: his speaking ability has definitely improved.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: On Ornery, we've actually got a full word count on the speech and have discovered that it's actually quite easy to write a program to assemble Bush speeches using his most commonly-used keywords
I can see the Ornery people doing that....
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. Considering the clouds of suspicion tainting his motivations for the Iraqi invasion, I don't think this rather sad attempt at a pep rally is going to inspire people to overlook the bodies being shipped home, the complaints about not enough material to wage the war effectively, shutting down bases predominately in States that didn't support him and so on.
Stop marking my leg and telling me it's raining.
I will agree now that we've started this mess, we should actually own up and see it through as much as we possibly can. Although if this isn't wrapped up by the next election, I sincerely doubt the US will stay the course necessary.
I missed McCain's comments, but I gotta love his perspective.
quote: CBS 5.8 [million] NBC 5.3 ABC 5.0 FOXNEWS 3.4 FOX 3.1 CNN 913,000 MSNBC 313,000
Wow.... CNN is really hurting.
Heh. I read that and thought, "Wow! 'Faux' News is really hurting!" I browse CNN's website at least twice a day, so I agree with adam. Better content online. Oh, and I read faster than they talk. Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: It sucks that so many people on this board hate peace and freedom.
It's not that they hate peace and freedom. They love it. They just hate Bush more than they love the freedom.
J/K, well... sort of. I really don't know about the people on the boards they seem generally very intelligent people, but it seems apparent that some politicans do and those in the media do.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: It sucks that so many people on this board hate peace and freedom.
is he talking about the peace and freedom of the iraqis? who are currently in worse shape then when Sadam was still around, or the peace and freedom of americans, who are currently subject to the freedom-removing patriot act?
EDIT: oh i wanted to say, wasn't it hillarious when Cheney said that america was in the "last throes" of the war, and then rumsfeld was like, well the insurgency might go on for another 12 years! and then they were all debating the definition of "throe" on CNN the next few days.. oh man, its too good
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some things I liked. I quite agree with the President that choosing the battlefield on which we would fight international terrorists was a very good idea. Sure, low-level recruitment for terrorism (according to a report I listened to today on NPR) is up, but middle-management and upper-management (so to speak) is scattered and down.
I just don't think that was the message he tried to send, at first. It was on the list, but it wasn't at the top of the list. I think he needs to own up and just admit, "We were wrong about our intelligence concerning WMD in Iraq. We thought we knew precisely where they were and who had them, and obviously we were wrong. We're sorry. Unfortunately we relied too heavily on the wrong sources, and Saddam Hussein exploited that reliance."
I am not yet convinced, as are many, that the Bush Administration acted in bad faith beyond placing too much certainty in their intelligence sources. I do not believe they were certain and didn't give a damn that there were no WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion-and I frankly laugh at those who are.
Bush passes 50% adequacy with me at any given time, unfortunately, not much further.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush wouldn't apologize if terrorists were on the lawn of the White House storming his office. Because A. He doesn't negotiate with terrorists (unless it's high ranking insurgents in Iraq), and B. He never admits he's wrong.
If he accidentally said that 2+2=5, he'd try to get Congress to pass a bill to officially change 2+2 to equal five. He thinks that if he continues to act tough, it won't matter what happens around him, people won't oppose him.
As far as I can tell though, his administration is falling down around him. You've got Rumsfeld at the Pentagon spouting crazy gibberish and doomsday scenarios, you've got Cheney holed up in the White Houst spouting crazy gibberish saying that in fact everything is going according to plan. Condi Rice is AWOL, except for when she pops her head up to defend Cheney. And every now and then they wheel Bush out, pull his string, and he says one of four preprogrammed phrases.
::pulls string:: "Freedom is on the march!" ::pulls string:: "Terrorists hate freedom!" ::pulls string:: "Democrats are obstructionists!" ::pulls string:: "Remember the lessons of 9/11!"
Does he have a kung fu grip too? Comes with accessories?
Had he come out in his speech last night and said: "We did things wrong, but from this moment on we start doing them right. From this moment on I'm going to be honest with you. From this moment on, I'm going to stop the bickering, and I'm going to compromise."
Had he said that, I'd fall in line and support him, just for the sake of ending all this crap that I'm already sick of, and it's less than a year into his second term. But this I blame on a fatal personality flaw of his. He can't adapt to a situation, and he absolutely cannot cede ANY power or authority to anyone else.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there was a part of Bush's speech that is troubling.
quote:And we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens — and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there … we will fight them across the world — and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.
Is it the nature of terrorism to pick a spot and make a stand? Does defeating "someone" in Iraq equate to defeating terrorism? Of course not. But does it even come close to defeating Islamist-terrorism? I don't see how.'
There's an insurgency in Iraq, and there are terrorists in Iraq. We are supposedly fighting both. I'm not sure anyone could tell a dead insurgent from a dead terrorist or vice versa, but both activities share a kind of decentralized, small-scale approach to dealing with an enemy. You don't really defeat them in open warfare, do you?
I mean, sure, you could locate and destroy training bases, and keep whittling away at their leadership so there are fewer and fewer experienced organizers. But a pitched battle in a particular locale? Not really feasible, is it?
It wasn't really a major point of his speech, I suppose, but it stuck out like a sore thumb to me. It was also a bit odd in the context of Rumsfeld's remarks a day (or was it two) earlier about how we want the Iraqis to solve the insurgency and do it through political means.
I'm not sure what the administration wants me to believe. That Iraq's insurgents will be coopted into the government or that Iraq has turned into the OK Corral of Islamic terrorism.
I think I need a new deck of cards to tell me which ones are terrorists we are going to kill and which ones are insurgents we're hoping to co-opt. For instance, are we going to exchange gun fire or words with Zarqawi? (sp?)
Sounds like we still want to kill him. But is that 'cuz he's a terrorist or because he's more of an unreconstructed insurgent?
I hate the smell of quagmire in the morning.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I continue to criticize Bush for his failure to admit past serious errors, I also don't place much faith in those who despise or have contempt for him already to support him if he did so. You might very well do so, Lyrhawn-but let's be real. It would be political hayday for his opponents if he did so.
Note that that's what I think would happen, it does not excuse his failure to admit failures.
Bob, I see little practical difference between the Iraqi-born insurgent who kidnaps and beheads foreigners and the Saudi-born terrorist who instructs and aids him in doing so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not yet convinced, as are many, that the Bush Administration acted in bad faith beyond placing too much certainty in their intelligence sources. I do not believe they were certain and didn't give a damn that there were no WMD in Iraq prior to the invasion-and I frankly laugh at those who are.
Rakeesh, How do you account for the information in the Downing Street memos? To me, they seemed to pretty strongly confirm the impression of bad faith actions of the Bush Administration.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still wondering how Cheney and Rice (and Powell to a lesser degree because of a tiny qualification) saying that the evidence was incontrovertible aluminum tubes were being used to work towards nuclear weapons despite having been briefed that the energy department (the ones who, y'know, are the experts on nuclear refinement) considered the evidence laughable isn't a bad faith action.
As is turned out, the energy department was 100% completely right, and the reasons were pretty obviously ironclad from the getgo (notably that Iraq already had better methods of nuclear refinement, and that even if the aluminum tubes worked at optimum efficiency in huge banks beyond what Iraq was ordering they wouldn't have been very good at refining uranium, and that the tubes matched the exact specifications for a rocket it was legal for Iraq to have), but at the very least such information constituted controversy over the question.
posted
I'm basically supportive of anything that keeps the battle from being fought on U.S. soil.. (broken down to the most simplistic statement I can -- without details)
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: I'm basically supportive of anything that keeps the battle from being fought on U.S. soil.. (broken down to the most simplistic statement I can -- without details)
FG
So, you'ld be willing to support a wholesale firebombing of the entire Middle East, save Israel? Yes, I know it's ridiculous, and a straw man--but that's the kind of things people come up with when you're that vague. Personally, I didn't think there was much chance of 'battles' being fought on US soil anytime soon--especially not from the Iraqis.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The tube issue and trusting obviously biased sources within the Iraqi exile community are the two most troubling things to me, fugu.
I am uncertain what to make of the Downing Street memos, Mr. Squicky. There has been little comment on them at all from either government.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens — and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there … we will fight them across the world — and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.p
I thought, "Yes, of course Iraq is where they're making their stand, MORON! You destroyed the infratructure, turned the place to total chaos, pissed off the populace, and gave the terrorists the best possible rallying cry & recruitment tool they could have imagined!"
Think of Iraq as a gaping, open sore. With Saddam, and under UN control (albeit quite imperfect), the sore was healing over. Healing over fairly ugly, but still healing over. Now, Bush & Co. goes in and rips the sore open again--only this time, they keep picking and picking and picking at it until it's totally infected.
Way to go, moron.
Also, in case anyone forgot: the Bush & Co. administration has admitted (a while ago, lest we forget) that Iraq was not involved with the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Plus, we only have the Bush Administration's word that this is making it so that this is keeping the terrorists from attacking the U.S. I think that, if they actually believe this, it's another case of really poor thinking that makes me significantly less safe.
After 9/11 we had an outpouring of support from the rest of the world and a great position to call for a worldwide response to terrorism. We squandered that good-will and that opportunity by bullying and lying to people about Iraq.
Leaving that aside, as PResident Bush said, his administration, because of Iraq, had higher priorities than capturing Osama bin Laden. That's one of the reasons why we sent Afghans to capture him instead of U.S. troops.
Leaving that aside, the idea that because terrorist groups are carrying out campaigns in Iraq, they couldn't possibly be using the increases in recruitment and funding they're getting because of our actions in Iraq to plan attacks elsewhere, even the U.S. is really freaking stupid. It's not like we've dropped some irresitible terrorist magnet in Iraq that they just can't get away from.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me be clear, the Downing Street memos, which the British government certified as valid, showed that, from the perspective of people in the British government who were working with the Americans, the Bush Administration was planning to go into Iraq on whatever pretense they could come up with and were actively developing (and asking the British to work with them in implementing) ways to trick people into doing this. This is remarkably clear from the memos.
Colin Powell gave a speech before the U.N. detailing how we knew that the Iraqis had WMD programs and were pretty darn sure, from radio intercepts and other info that they were activiely hiding them from inspectors that was the centerpeice of the case for the war. Obviously this information was incorrect. Poweel himself admitted this is was so and called for an investigation into how he could have been given such incorrect and likely fraudulent information. This investigation has yet to materialize.
At a certain point, when you're calling people crazy for believing black and white information coupled with a whole bunch of deeply gray info, you're the one who starts to look crazy.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This link will only work for a few days, but this column nails down pretty effectively my views on the matter, and on people accusing me of obstructionism or unpatriotic behavior.
"The first thing I ever learned about politics was never to let anyone else define what you believe, or what you are for or against. I think for myself."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I thought, "Yes, of course Iraq is where they're making their stand, MORON! You destroyed the infratructure, turned the place to total chaos, pissed off the populace, and gave the terrorists the best possible rallying cry & recruitment tool they could have imagined!"
I've always thought that this was the POINT of the invasion. If you read the PNAC documents, they're pretty clear about the perceived need to set up a U.S. powerbase in the Middle East to function not only as a staging area but a target for local hostiles. Use of the area as a positive example is mentioned only as an afterthought.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
I can see the Ornery people doing that....
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
