What's new

President Bush's Speech

typical speech from mr bush- dodge the real issues in the country and try to "rally the troops" with notions of patriotism. :rolleyes:
 
mpisarcik said:
typical speech from mr bush- dodge the real issues in the country and try to "rally the troops" with notions of patriotism. :rolleyes:


Didnt see it but, just curious...
What are the REAL issues in the country??
 
It kinda bugs me that he's trying to make political gain from 9/11. I know they all do it but that doesn't make it right, and he is the President.
 
majkeli said:
It kinda bugs me that he's trying to make political gain from 9/11. I know they all do it but that doesn't make it right, and he is the President.

Me too! All the Iraq talk, battle of Baghdad etc. etc.
Comon George, we know there's no connection to 9/11.
 
I think Bush was in a catch-22 situation when it came to mentioning the war in Iraq. He would have been severely criticized if he didn't talk about it and, as expected, would be criticized by the media and thus those they brainwash for 'having the audacity' to mention it and politicize 9-11. The media would have pounced on anything he said as they ALWAYS do.

In all fairness I think he did a "good" job and gave a heartfelt and balanced speech. I may not agree with all of his decisions but I realize that its really easy to criticize him but it is another thing to do his job. In that, I give him my respect and support.
 
I was on the NYC subway 1 line at Rector Street at about 10am and the train stopped. The conductor asked for a moment of silence for those who perished on 9/11. The subway was full (not packed at that hour) and there were several people who got misty eyed including many large men, some firemen in dress uniforms, and a few others (including me). After that, I couldn't bear to listen to the President's speech.
 
Irrefutable FACT: Iraq had and has NOTHING to do with 9/11!

thestubblefactory said:
I think Bush was in a catch-22 situation when it came to mentioning the war in Iraq. He would have been severely criticized if he didn't talk about it and, as expected, would be criticized by the media and thus those they brainwash for 'having the audacity' to mention it and politicize 9-11. The media would have pounced on anything he said as they ALWAYS do.

In all fairness I think he did a "good" job and gave a heartfelt and balanced speech. I may not agree with all of his decisions but I realize that its really easy to criticize him but it is another thing to do his job. In that, I give him my respect and support.
 
Iraq may have had nothing to do with 9/11, but Saddam and company clearly were part of net we had to cast to deal with our safety in the wake of that tragedy. Forget the media spin and read the Duelfer report: Saddam was poised to restart his WMD programs as the corrupt Oil-for-Food came to and end, as it was about to. Next on the list have to be Iran and Syria. So far we are "playing by the rules" and using our friends the UN - working real well, isn't it?
 
Scotto,

Thank you for a much more coherent rational to why the invasion of Iraq was justified. This frankly is much more credible than the attempts I have heard to tie together 9/11 and Saddam.

Just curious what you have in mind that we should be doing with Syria and Iran. It is a fair point, perhaps, that we should be doing something. But I am intensely bothered by the fact that it is ok to invade a country because you feel it is a hypothetical, or even a very real, threat to you. Frankly this would justify a lot of actions by a lot of countries that I don't think we would want to justify. And I have a real problem with the idea that the rules are different for us, because we know we aren't trying to cause harm, or know that we are on the side of freedom and democracy, or whatever. Granted, I also have trouble with the idea that the rules are the same for us and N. Korea, but of the two, that seems more tenable.
 
Honestly, I wish I had an answer to Syria and Iran. The reality is that several of the UN's security council members have a large financial interest in those places which will prevent any real sanctions. Also forget the media spin that sanctions against Iran won't work. You can't eat oil.

Anyway, my best guess is that we have to play hardball with our "allies" more. If Russia wants to stymie our efforts in Iran, then we should be threatening them with reduced subsidies, wheat shipments, etc. We'll look like bullies, sure, but at some point right is right. If that doesn't work, I think the only alternative is precision removal of their nuclear capabilities. However, that requires on-site intelligence that I fear we don't have enough of.
 
A

AVB19Peace

Scotto said:
Iraq may have had nothing to do with 9/11, but Saddam and company clearly were part of net we had to cast to deal with our safety in the wake of that tragedy. Forget the media spin and read the Duelfer report: Saddam was poised to restart his WMD programs as the corrupt Oil-for-Food came to and end, as it was about to. Next on the list have to be Iran and Syria. So far we are "playing by the rules" and using our friends the UN - working real well, isn't it?

I've forgotten the media spin and have read the Duelfer report. As far as Saddam being poised to restart his WMD programs as the Oil for food came to an end. Straight from the Duelfer Report:
The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.

This tells me that the UN Inspectors were doing their job, but this administration had plans way before talks with the UN to go to war no matter what. They chose to cherry pick intelligence that they were informed was false or from untrusting sources to push through their agenda to go to war.

Saddam is a bad man, but this administration lied to all of us, Republicans and Democrats because of a personal vendetta, control of oil, defense contracts and corporate business, that benefits a select few.

Here's a small list to get us started. There are plenty more where these came from in this unending war on terror. Not all of them will make the list since there isn't any oil in some.

Iran
Syria
Libya
Cuba
Sudan
Russia
North Korea
 
J_P_K said:
Irrefutable FACT: Iraq had and has NOTHING to do with 9/11!
I don't think there are any "irrefutable FACTS" right now. We just don't know. Did Saddam have anything to do with 9/11? Maybe, maybe not. That wasn't the reason for going in there, anyway. I (like lots who have been there) have seen medium range launch vehicles with huge storages of CBR (chemical, biological, radiological) protective gear stored right next to them. I sortof wondered why the news cameras never came to film all that stuff. Personally, I thought it was kindof like a guy asking your sister (or daughter) out on a date, and having the box from an economy pack of condoms fall out of his jacket pocket. Maybe there is nothing to it, but it didn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy. I defer to Scotto's information, as to me, it makes sense.
As for oil, call me a blasphemer, but oil in our present world, or at least the control of it, is ALWAYS a good reason to go to war. Yes, I know Iraq is the world's second largest producer of oil, and I also know none of it goes to the United States (although I think it should). Iraq, had it entered in a large scale war, with Israel or any of their other enemies, would have had a choke hold on the economy of the planet. Had there been an exchange of WMD's, many, not just Iraq and whoever she was fighting, could have suffered greatly. Americans, and perhaps others in the world, scream no blood for oil....yet when the price at the pump goes up, or the price of plastic products or their airfares or even their electric bill.....then they scream bloody murder and riots ensue.
Now, imagine if that amount of control of one's country (or allies...) is had by its enemies....its a sobering thought.
John P.
 
J_P_K said:
Irrefutable FACT: Iraq had and has NOTHING to do with 9/11!
I both agree and disagree. I agree that it appears that Saddam had no link to Al-Queda. I disagree that when you are addressing the nation you cannot fail to mention that "elephant in the room standing next to you"- i.e. we have 147,000 troops in Iraq giving their lives to help protect our freedom- and that our military actions especially since 9-11 are to help prevent threats against our country of which Iraq was and is one. To add to the balance of his speech Bush could have also discussed our work in Afghanistan as well. If he did that he might have received a lesser degree of criticism of his speech.

The strategic implications of success or failure (how it will affect Syria, Iran, etc...) in Iraq are NOT fairly discussed or portrayed by our government or by 99% of the media. I'm sure there are good reasons for this but with the absence of good information the media and political rival speculate to the negative. That, unfortunately gets interpreted by the general population as being truth.

However, it is upsetting to me that we seem very behind in effectively stopping the threats from Syria, Iran, North Korea. Our diplomatic efforts seem to be failing miserably and you would think that our diplomatic efforts would carry more clout. Depending upon the UN is like depending upon your pet gerbil to protect you. I am eager to learn more in the future how a truly free Iraq will help quelch those threats- but I want quantitative data. I do not trust opinions of anyone not directly involved.
 
majkeli said:
It kinda bugs me that he's trying to make political gain from 9/11. I know they all do it but that doesn't make it right, and he is the President.
More along this line, I liked Keith Olberman's (MSNBC)speech much better, and he hit the hammer on the head with the use of 9/11 for political purposes. If you didn't hear it there's a transcript and video at MSN.COM.

If you're not familiar with Olbermann, he's one of the few reporters with enough guts to stand up to the administration, kind of like a modern day Edward R. Murrow. He's the guy that gave it to Rummy recently about the when he compared dissenters to the appeasers in the uK just before WWII.

He's a good guy to listen to, if only to hear something other than the benign stuff that passes for reporting and commentary these days.
 
thestubblefactory said:
I think Bush was in a catch-22 situation when it came to mentioning the war in Iraq. He would have been severely criticized if he didn't talk about it and, as expected, would be criticized by the media and thus those they brainwash for 'having the audacity' to mention it and politicize 9-11. The media would have pounced on anything he said as they ALWAYS do.

In all fairness I think he did a "good" job and gave a heartfelt and balanced speech. I may not agree with all of his decisions but I realize that its really easy to criticize him but it is another thing to do his job. In that, I give him my respect and support.
Were we listening to the same speech? The dishonesty is astounding! He admits there's no link betwenn 9/11 and Iraq in one breath and ties them together in the next. I liked the "men like Bin Laden" remark. That doesn't leave very much doubt about what the intention was?

And exactly which press is it that jumps on him? If you discount two reporters he gets nothing but softballs.
 
Top Bottom