posted on January 28, 2003 07:37:15 PM new
I'll start.
I was surprized at the Centrist tone of his speech, which he delivered very well, I thought. I later learned that this is the official beginnng of the next Presidential Election Cycle (Hi! I'm a Compassionate Conservative from Texas, ya'll!) Then, what sounded like very good support for Americans I learned that it was necessary to read the fine print (doesn't the Devil always trick you with the fine print?) I guess that a lot of fine print readers will be posting on here for the next week. I'm just sorry that he really had cheat cards up his sleeves when he was telling us just what it is that we wanted to hear.
posted on January 28, 2003 08:20:36 PM new
I did not see the cheat cards.
I think he did a good speech.
(what else did you expect me to say right? )
The Dem response from our own WA Gov. well... did he EVEN listen to what Bush said? he mimicked most every point that the President said.... hello? Like it was his own original idea...
posted on January 28, 2003 08:33:41 PM new
Centrist?
He attacked Abortion
Pushed Tax Cuts that favor the wealthiest 1% of Americans.
Came within inches of declaring war.
Advocated legislation against all human cloning (which includes research into theraputic cloning for transplant) and research into diseases such as MS, Diabetes, Parkinsons etc.
Endorsed the funding of charities with the tax payers dollars run by religious groups with a specific religous agenda.
He just candy coated it, the only thing centered was the grin across his face
posted on January 28, 2003 10:43:23 PM new
I think that he was being very centrist, which center right now is right of center in this country. There were good things that he mentioned along with the B.S. I liked the thing about the hydrogen fuel cell deal. I wonder what is wrong with that.
I also thought that he made a very good case for attacking Iraq and removing Saddam Husein from power. I did not think that we were being told the whole truth about it, and I certainly didn't believe the Al-Queda connection, but it is likely that Saddam has WOMD and given his record on things, he may very well be planning on upsetting the apple cart in the region in a takeover bid for the arab pennensula. Of course, if Saddam did that, being secular, the radical fundamental Islamic regeimes would all have to go. He'd put all of those crazy mullahs up against the wall and that would end the Fundamentalist threat to the world. And that would also put a very big threat towards Israel, a threat which is not there right now. So, all in all, we ought to go and have his milliatry do a coup-det'-tah on him and then we can go back to getting hip deeper into Viet-nam . . . I mean, Afghanistan.
posted on January 28, 2003 11:38:20 PM new
It was a great speech. Bush means business and he's leading instead of worrying about polls. Fuel cell research and funding charities are great ideas, as are banning ghastly partial birth abortions and human cloning. We're all going to be heros in Africa. And no one's investments (dividends) should be taxed twice, no matter how rich they are. Bush also seemed to be hinting that if Iran doesn't behave, they might be next on the list.
As for evidence of WMD's in Iraq, Bush knows there will be plenty of evidence after we attack. We've got to protect the few intelligence sources that we have over there. Iraq will use the WMD's against our troops or Israel, or we will find lots of them after they are defeated.
posted on January 29, 2003 05:58:12 AM new
He has finally been coached enough to deliver a speech without looking like a moron. He still isn't exactly a college professor, but he's up to at least the speaking at the local Elk's club level.
However that was not a speech. It was a pep rally. The constant standing ovations get old real quick.After a point they lose all meaning.
The basic theme is - Trust Us - we know stuff you don't and we can't tell you how we know it little people.
Well I don't trust them. Government has a horrible history of huge lies. I havn't forgotten. I haven't forgotten his daddy made sure HE wasn't one of those that sacrificed in the military. He has no moral ground to be Commander in Chief calling on others to do what he would not. He is a royal in fact if not title. I don't swear fielty. Put not your trust in Princes.
posted on January 29, 2003 06:08:59 AM new
His speech came across to me as sincere. He put forth his plans to work on many areas we ALL are concerned about.
gravid - If you don't trust our government do you give any trust to others who say the same thing Bush is saying? Like:
U.N. chief inspector Hans Blix also complained of Iraq's "disturbing harassment" of his inspectors and alluded to Saddam's concealment strategy in his status report to the Security Council this week.
"Inspections are not a game of catch-as-catch-can," charged Blix, who said that inspectors had been given information by member states about the concealment of "missiles and chemical weapons and mobile units for biological weapons productions."
posted on January 29, 2003 06:21:38 AM new
Good speech.
I just wonder where all this money is going to come from.
Good idea to help all the third world African Country's with Aid's Aid. That will bring down the cost of Aid's medication for the suffering in the US. Our government will be paying a ton to the drug companies, that should drop the drug prices here.
I'm all for tax cuts for rich and poor but mostly for the working middle class.
In order to pass any bill our senators and Congress will have to have their pet projects (PORK) taken care of. That should jump the deficit a Trillion or so. Our Sons and Daughter's can take care of that.
Don't get me wrong. Makes no difference what party your talking about. They are both the same. May lean a little more one way or another but are all the same.
A war is coming.. get use to it. We'll do what we have to. If he wages a war, and nothing is found he would be committing political suicide. He, and the people behind him are not fools.
Amen,
God Bless President Bush,
Reverend Colin
[ edited by colin on Jan 29, 2003 06:23 AM ]
"For 209 years, it has been the president's duty to report to you on the state of the union. Because of the hard work and high purpose of the American people, these are good times for America. We have more than 14 million new jobs, the lowest unemployment in 24 years, the lowest core inflation in 30 years, incomes are rising and we have the highest home ownership in history. Crime has dropped for a record five years in a row, and the welfare rolls are at their lowest levels in 27 years. Our leadership in the world is unrivaled. Ladies and gentlemen, the state of our union is strong."
end quote
Poor George, He couldn't evaluate the state of the union as it really is right now. The state of the union, the economy and domestic issues along with foreign policy and international relations has declined at a rapid pace since Bush took office and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. He used this address, just as he used his address last year to build his case for war and to deliver a warning to Saddam. Didn't we hear this same speech last year???
posted on January 29, 2003 07:38:23 AM new
Oh my....and here I've been told that we aren't supposed to make comparisons between Clinton and Bush....my, my... so....it's only allowed when YOU try to make points?
And clinton didn't have to deal with the aftermath of the WTC either....nor an economy that was headed down before clinton's administration left office.
posted on January 29, 2003 07:43:16 AM new
Nor a Liberal, W. Is a Liberator Saddam finally hit upon a president who knows how to beat him.
BY LAWRENCE F. KAPLAN AND WILLIAM KRISTOL Wednesday, January 29, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
WASHINGTON--It is a deceptively simple question: How did the U.S. arrive at the brink of a second war with Iraq? President Bush went a long way toward answering that question in his State of the Union address, and will no doubt make an even stronger case for military action in the days and weeks to come.
What the president will not do, however, is draw direct comparisons with past administrations' (including his father's) failed attempts to rid the world of Saddam Hussein. It's a question worth asking: Why did the first Bush administration and the Clinton administration fail to achieve what our current president is so firmly committed to--a new regime in Baghdad?
---------------
Bill Clinton's Iraq policy reflected very different assumptions about America's role in the world. By the time he entered office, the reflexive suspicion of American power that had plagued the Democratic Party after Vietnam had receded along with the threat of communism. But the "come home America" sensibility that it had encouraged still lingered. As Peter Tarnoff, President Clinton's undersecretary of state for policy, explained in 1993, "we simply don't have the leverage, we don't have the influence, we don't have the inclination to use military forces." When Mr. Clinton's focus did wander abroad, the result was a world view that reduced a complex and dangerous world environment to a simple narrative of material progress and moral improvement. Thus he famously gave state sponsors of terrorism a linguistic cleansing, changing their official title from "rogue states" to "states of concern."
This quixotic foreign policy produced its clearest failure in Iraq. According to the administration's scorecard, it was not the integrity of containment or even the value of keeping Saddam disarmed that mattered. Far more important was the imperative of avoiding war. "We are talking about using military force, but we are not talking about war," Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said during one of numerous episodes of brinkmanship with Saddam. Advertising its fears as if they were virtues, the administration repeatedly petitioned U.N chief Kofi Annan to extricate it from these encounters. At one point, the Clinton team even devised a strategy whereby the Air Force would fill 2,000-pound bombs with concrete instead of explosives and drop them on Iraq. By the time Mr. Clinton left office, Saddam Hussein was out of the box whose confines had mostly been imaginary to begin with.
posted on January 29, 2003 07:52:40 AM new
good article, bear. And sooooo true. it was not the integrity of containment or even the value of keeping Saddam disarmed that mattered. Far more important was the imperative of avoiding war.
As was his so called containment of North Korea. Now we are seeing how well that 'containment' worked too.
posted on January 29, 2003 01:46:43 PM new"This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, other presidents, and other generations. We will confront them with focus, and clarity, and courage." - Bush -
I found this to be refreshing. I wonder how the republican party will be able to function now that they are pledged to stop blaming someone else for the problems that they are creating? How can the GOP keep up the rhetoric and still take the High Road in politics (and meet the Democrats there)? Will Rush Limbaugh have to find a new job? Will Bill O'Reily have to become a Liberal once again? Will Michael Savage have to shut down or be banned from radio for life? Can Bush actually dictate such a change in the core policy of the party? We'll see.
In the meantime, everyday that Rush Limbaugh is out there bashing and blaming the Democrats and Liberals for the problems created by the Republican party, I'll be laughing my a** off!
posted on January 29, 2003 02:00:52 PM new
Borillar! Have you ever listened or watched O'Reilly? He is not a 'Conservative or a Republican, and has stated so over and over. He is an 'Independent' and has 'bashed' Bush now and then!
Savage is good... I have not listened to Rush in a long time, I like Sean Hannity (sp?) on radio, and on TV
posted on January 29, 2003 02:14:45 PM new
If everything he said is true then it was a damning indictment of his father's administration for being suckered into letting Saddam off the hook when they had him whipped.
Will they finish it this time or wimp out?
Who knows?
I find it hard to come up with a hard case for disarming Saddam as a direct threat to the US unless he intends to do the same with a couple dozen other small counties that are at least as big a threat. Such as Korea. But they don't have oil do they?
If I were one of these other countries I would be very worried about a Pax Americana that will work to disarm everyone but the US eventually.
Even the French and British should worry about the next century.
posted on January 29, 2003 03:08:11 PM newIf everything he said is true then it was a damning indictment of his father's administration for being suckered into letting Saddam off the hook when they had him whipped.
[i]Will they finish it this time or wimp out[i]?
Who knows?
Damning indictment? No, I don't believe that's true. I watched a speech Bush Sr. gave yesterday where he addressed this issue. His take was that the job was to go in and eliminate the threat to the Kurds, protect them and drive Saddam back. And when that was done he felt if he were to head into Bagdad that would been seen by the world [at that time] as unjustified agression....more than what the mission which had gathered the International support would be willing to allow.
posted on January 29, 2003 03:40:43 PM new
It's still seen as unjustified agression....definitely "more than what the mission which had gathered the International support would be willing to allow."
posted on January 29, 2003 04:40:04 PM new
>Have you ever listened or watched O'Reilly? - NTS -
When Fox News first aired, I enjoyed watching his show. But as he became more asinine towards his guests that he didn't agree with, I stopped watching him. Because some posters in here seem to value his entertainment show, I have watched a few episodes and seen that he is even worse than before. Call it the O'Reily Style or just plain obnoxious, childish behavior.
Is he just an "Independant"? Hmm . . . lesse: he agrees with the Right-wing most of the time and he never fails to bash the Left or any Liberal on his show. That means that he's an Independant right-winger/New Conservative. He can claim that he's not affiliated with the Republican party all that he wishes, but his constant justifying and open support of what they are doing doesn't impress me in the lest. I don't think that he is crediable at all in his denial of any party affliation.
posted on January 29, 2003 05:18:40 PM new
Weren't you guys discussing 'labeling'? (in another thread) Now how do you really know what party he is affliated with?
Linda doesn't 'sound' anything like PresidentBush, Helen
)
