Bush's Speech

So all the dying is because of neocons lust?..lust for what?..war?..the war was brought down on us. I really have to believe you HATE this country and would love to see it come down…either that or your view of war and peace and the things we have to do to ensure it is SO myopic!
Ive said it once …and I will again…THANK GOD THE U.S WILL NOT DEPEND ON PEOPLE LIKE YOU DO KEEP US SAFE…people like you scare the shit out of me; yet I will die for your right to your stupid opinions.

If we didn’t do something to rid the middle east of terrorism (look what Libya did in turning in their chemical weapons) by going into Iraq and Afghanistan; terrorism would be in the hands of these despots with unbelievable potential catastrophic results.
just when I thought you were pretty smart Elk…you just proved your full of shit.

Gee, I guess, I kinda started to respect or like you too, because it kinda hurt when you said I was full of shit! So, you really would die for me? being scared of me and loathing me at the same time! I gotta respect that! Well even though I don’t agree with you, I still like you and maybe under the right circumstances, I would die for you too.

Oh,
I’m sorry PtrDr not die for me, but my stupid opinions. Okay, maybe sometime, I would die for your smart ones!

Clemenza, PtrDr, Vegita,

Two things are apparent to me in my two weeks of posting.

Number one: The Democrats who oppose this war cannot come up with a viable alternative. They say they are against Al Qaeda. I posted an article by a left-leaning publication that indicated that there was Al Qaeda in Northern Iraq training other terrorists with Saddam’s blessing. They were also making chemicals for Saddam’s programs in this same camp. When I pressed some of the most partisan Democrats on this forum about this issue, they were silent. There were and are about eight other reasons for invading Iraq, but the funding Al Qaeda camps by Saddam seems to me to an unarguable reason to invade.

Number two: It appears it is ok for a Democratic Senator/Representative to vote for a war. When the war starts and suffering begins, it is OK?!? to now be diabolically opposed to the same war. It is best summed up by John Kerry voting to authorize force in Iraq. Then he voted for and then against the $87 billion dollar reconstruction of Iraq/Afghanistan bill.
The Democratic candidate is like a very bad joke. I keep expecting someone to stand up and say, “OK, enough.” We were just kidding with this guy.

You know what we call that where I come from? We call that lack of character. Worse, we call that having principles that are only skin deep. Principles based on the latest Reuter’s poll shouldn’t determine much of anything. It most certainly shouldn’t determine the course of a war.

I am enriched by debate that is fair and balanced. It seems that some on this forum have allowed their hatred of George Bush to cloud their judgement.

Again, I thought his speech was full of very important content. I’m hopeful that we have given Iraq a taste of freedom. I hope it sticks,

Jeff

I’m scared of the appeasement mentality you appear to have. Appeasement is weakness. And this may sound silly; but real T-men are NOT appeasers…

Peace bro…

PtrDr
Believe me when I tell you, I am no appeaser!
If I feel justified or right about something, I will stand up for it no matter who it pisses off or offends!

Even though we disagree STRONGLY on this matter, I know you are a decent, smart, morally convicted person! Lets just agree to disagree. You know one of the hallmarks of a mature healthy friendship is when people can have opposing viewpoints and still respect each other!
Peace and health to you BRO!

Same to ya Elk!

Laterrrrr!!

“I would give him a “B” relative delivery and over all performance. And an “A” for content.”
—>This ‘A’ must stand for ‘absent’

“RSU will make fun of him saying anyone could write his speeches, True, but the key point there is that also anyone can understand his speeches. He does not put any extra flair into them, he says what he needs to say and thats it. I am glad my president is not full of shit.”
—>Kids under 7 and household pets do not count, Vegita.
—>Perhaps you’ve confused “substance” for “extra flair”

“…he is keeping with what he started with, being consistant.”
—>I ask the question again: Is “being consistent” ever just being “stubborn?” That is, we all know he’s unaware of the possibility that he’s made mistakes (he can’t name one thing he’d do differently) – couldn’t his “consistency” simply be stubborness? Is there nothing he should have changed along the way, in the face of the unforeseen obstacles that have arisen?

“If we didn’t do something to rid the middle east of terrorism (look what Libya did in turning in their chemical weapons) by going into Iraq and Afghanistan”
—>Rid the mid-east of terrorism? Are you kidding? It’s thriving like never before! Al Qaeda is still very alive and active and will remain so even when/if bin Laden is killed/captured. Let’s not forget that we abandoned our attack on the Afghan nation to invade Iraq.

Bush didn’t say anything new, except that we will bulldoze Abu Ghraib prison.

Other than that, it was the same speech Bush should have been giving a year ago.

As far as convincing the doubting public that ‘everything is on track’ it was a miserable failure.

When Bush loses this election, I’m absolutely certain that some of you (JeffR. Petrdr etc) will blame his loss on “people like Lumpy” who criticized the lack of justification for the war, and the absolutely shitty post-war planning. You won’t be able to admit that it is Bush’s shortcomings as a leader, his lack of experience, his lack of understanding on international politics, and his wrong-headed domestic policies, that sunk him.

To which I can only say: Guys, you’re not supposed to drop the dumbells on your head.

Lumpy,

I’m not really a betting man, however I would make a wager with you that Bush will defeat Kerry in November!

Your boy is only running even with Bush after the onslaught of bad news from Iraq. If voters really wanted Kerry he would be ahead by at least 10 points at this junture. Fact is they don’t want Kerry and are looking for a reason, any reason to vote for Bush.

The economy is turning and that will be the reason Kerry is defeated. You know people always vote their pocketbooks. There doesn’t even need to be any good news out of Iraq and Bush will win. However, you can also bet that Iraq will be looking much better by Ocotober/November.

Kerry’s a loser pal! Sorry…

“I’m not really a betting man, however I would make a wager with you that Bush will defeat Kerry in November!”

—>You must be on the Supreme Court, ZEB. Is the fix in?

—>You’ve always been so adament about this, what makes you so sure? Remember, Bush is the incumbent, which wins him some poll points right away.

Zeb
It is good to be confident, just don’t get too disappointed if it does not come to pass! Remember there are always pull ups.

Brian: Killing uninvited civilians who have entered your country while their army is invading it is NOT terrorism. If they were targetting civilian targets HERE, that would be terrorism. Killing them THERE is called “collateral damage.” It’s their country. They have the right to keep out whoever they want to keep out, and by force if necessary. And if we disagree with that, and want to change it (also by force), then that’s called WAR. Not terrorism.

What makes me so sure Bush will win? Just a hunch. I’ve seen a few elections and this one, believe it or not, is not starting out well for Kerry.

Almost everything that can possibly go wrong for Bush has already taken place. More resistance in Iraq. The prioner abuse scandal. And on and on. And he is tied in the polls with Kerry? If I were a Kerry supporter I would be very, very concerned!

I subscribe to the theory that things can only go wrong for so long and then they start going right again. It’s almost like the ebb and flow of the stock market. I think all of the Bush bad news has come way to early. What happens next? Will things get far worse in Iraq. Well, that could happen, but I doubt it.

Trust me on this, Bush will win! It’s not a matter of “if” but by how much!

Ok Lympy…in November…I don’t wanna here ANY excuse or rationalization on why John"whythelongface?" Kerry lost! I’m holding your raisins(with a looong spit) to the fire!

Nephorm,
I was referring to Iraqi civilians in both cases.

Bush said that Saddam’s soldiers had taken off their uniforms and “adopted terrorist tactics.” Where I come from, it’s called guerilla warfare.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s look at the Iraqi civilians. Do you think you have a right, as a citizen of a country, to protect that country? Say we were invaded by Cuba (yeah, right). Tons of Cubans stormed Florida with guns, with the intent of violently overthrowing our government. Do you think Bush would call Floridians who stopped those invaders terrorists? No, he’d call them patriots. Especially if the armed forces were nowhere to be found at the time. It’s a war. People die.

During Bush’s speech, he said that he had “worked with the UN every step along the way” (and would continue to do so).

Actually, that is not true. There was this one time where Bush said they would take a vote with the UN security council, then flip-flopped (LOL) and did not follow through on taking a vote:

That was the UN vote that would have given permission for the US invasion of Iraq. Bush knew he didn’t have the votes at the UN to green light the invasion, so he cancelled the vote so he wouldn’t be embarrassed, and they sent our troops in anyway.

So Bush lied when he said they’ve worked with the UN “every step of the way” since they ditched the UN on the most important vote of all, but fortunately the public isn’t really paying much attention and has a short memory.

Nephorm, I’m obviously not interested in discussing that issue with you, which involves questions of tactics and targets, and sometimes even aims (in the memo of Zarqawi, who is Jordanian, he speaks of fighting “the democracy”).

But if you want to show me how your Cuba analogy can mirror for example the attack on the Shiite festival which killed 1000s of Iraqi men and children worshipping freely for the first time on the holiest day of their year, by all means, proceed.

Lumpy –

Thank you for being an echo chamber for whatever you managed hear on CNN today. I can always count on you to regurgitate the party line with no new analysis added.

However, that said, you are correct. There wasn’t much of anything new in the President’s speech. However, I don’t recall that being a requirement. Of course, given the candidate the Democrats are putting forth, I can understand why they would want to question a consistent message.

To quote John Podhoretz:

Bush is a high-stakes player, a political gambler. And last night he took a fantastically bold gamble: In the teeth of bad polls, an atmosphere of panic in his own party and the barely concealed glee of his rivals . . . he has decided to stand pat.

Bush ran by saying he would govern from principle and not by changing with the sway of the latest numbers in the NYT poll. He said this to contrast himself with the previous administratio. And now he is actually doing it.

In addtion, the implicit suggestion that Bush should have unveiled a revolutionary and detailed plan for bringing stability to Iraq is somewhat absurd. It is the kind of suggestion that exists only in order to create impossible standards that cannot be met. The overall strategy for Iraq has been the same for quite some time now: hold things together until the Iraqis can elect their own government.

The planned hand off for sovereignty to the Iraqis is June 30. It has been June 30. The level of control the new govenrment will actually have remains to be seen.