• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

9/7/2003 Bush speech discussion thread

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I'm confused . . . last week we didn't need more troops in Iraq. Yesterday, Bush said we need another division of international troops. What are these troops going to do that US troops cannot accomplish? On face value, it appears Bushies are acknowledging almost 200K troops will be necessary to secure Iraq in the short term. I wonder if Shenski will get an apology?
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
71
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I'm confused . . . last week we didn't need more troops in Iraq. Yesterday, Bush said we need another division of international troops. What are these troops going to do that US troops cannot accomplish? On face value, it appears Bushies are acknowledging almost 200K troops will be necessary to secure Iraq in the short term. I wonder if Shenski will get an apology?

Bush wants to see non-US troops (especially European troops) in Iraq.
I hope that the European countries give hem the big middle finger
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I'm confused . . . last week we didn't need more troops in Iraq. Yesterday, Bush said we need another division of international troops. What are these troops going to do that US troops cannot accomplish? On face value, it appears Bushies are acknowledging almost 200K troops will be necessary to secure Iraq in the short term. I wonder if Shenski will get an apology?
No, he will probably just get the blame. I wish just once this administration would actually admit they made a mistake, and not blame it on someone else...
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
They said last night that the reason for asking for international troops is to relieve other troops.

They = MSNBC correspondents
 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,942
10
81
The news says that they prob will only get about 2,000 more troops should the International Community really come together. That's mincemeat.

What Bush is REALLY after is the $ that the International Community could contribute. He's seeing $$$$$$.

I hope to GOD the rest of the world does not allow their own economies and debt pools to go under for the sake of that Charletan Bush Regime and it's Sham war.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
They said last night that the reason for asking for international troops is to relieve other troops.
Not to put too fine a word on it but that's BS . . . to relieve current troops in Iraq we could activate further reserves (not a good choice) or deploy more active duty personnel (not a good option either) if the true rationale was to help our troops in Iraq. If relieving the troops is a priority why go through the bureaucratic and wholly inadequate/ineffective UN . . . you know that debating society.

In fact, it would be pretty hard to bomb waterlines, oil pipelines, UN HQ, police HQ, etc if more forces were available to guard/secure those facilities AND more troops available to secure the border AND more troops available to "root out" antagonists. Of course, the last item is doomed to failure no matter how many troops are in Iraq as long as the preceding items have not been addressed.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Oh yeah, Bush does want money . . . but he's not going to get it from the Europeans until the US cedes its vise grip on the civilian administration. Don't you think European countries would be better served by cutting taxes to stimulate their economies than investing in Iraq? Bush has already said America will do whatever it takes . . . so why should they send billions to support US industry in Iraq . . . including the incredibly shady concept of installing CDMA in Iraq.
 

yellowperil

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2000
4,598
0
0
I found it odd (though not surprising) that Bush said Iraq is now the center target against terrorism. Yet before the war the CIA had problems drawing a connection between Iraq and al-Queda, except for isolated groups. Apparently Bush will get the $87B he asked for, his point seems to be that if we don't spend this money and send more troops then the terrorists will get us and there'll be another 9/11. So far he's been given a blank check; after all, we must prevent another terrorist attack at all costs, even if it means spending billions to attack every attenuated connection to the terrorists, right? No doubt Iraq posed a threat, the question was, was it an imminent threat? Was it any more imminent than China or North Korea? Bush shunned the UN before the war, but now that the "quick" war is over, he demands their troops for a grinding guerilla war with no end in sight.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Dude if we gave North Korea $87B the world's most dangerous proliferator of missile and nuclear technology would probably be our beeotch for the next century.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,521
4,198
126
Bush should be recalled for radical incompetence, for complete deviance from his campaign rhetoric, and for the titanic disaster he's gotten us into. Iraq is going to become the biggest boondoggle in the history of man. What an incompetent fool. He should be handed over to the Iraqi people for trial and we should leave Iraq. He isn't worth a nickle of American money. The terrorists have won. We punched the Tar Baby just like they knew we would. We are f*cked thanks to Bush. The only question left is how many billions past the 87 billion is it going to take to figure it out. There are some slopes you can slide down you can never get back up. What a titanic disaster brought to us courtesy of the supporters of America's biggest fool.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
From the Whitehouse

How much of that $ 87 Bil will he next try to use as additional tax breaks for the companies
that make materials of war for his little adventure ? Or will he try to transfer that too to the 400
most wealthy individuals that have bought his services/
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Odd that today's headline in all the major newspapers as well as the top story on all of the major networks was, "Bush asks for $87 BILLION to fight the war on terror."

The $87 BILLION is broken down, from what I've read and heard, as $86 BILLION for IRAQ and $1 BILLION for Afghanistan.

So much for the "liberal" media.

Just another attempt to obfuscate. Like the ridiculous Bush administration attempt to change their claims of incontrovertable proof of WMD in Iraq to "a WMD program."

These people are a disgrace to our nation. And the "liberal" press is as well for regurgating the lies the Bush administration feeds them. Little wonder the FCC's Michael Powell wants to change media ownership rules. The Republicans are playing the media like a $2 fiddle and the media doesn't even bother to resist.

Liberal media my a$$. The Republicans own the media. And they are using it to foster support for anything Bush does.

That's why the American people still believe things such as Saddam was connected with 9/11. Or we will find WMD in Iraq. Or any of the other lies the Bush administration spews daily.

Lying administration + complicit press = brainwashed citizenry.

Wake up people. The $87 BILLION is to pay for the Bush administration's unnecessary illegal invasion of Iraq! Period!
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
The media isn't liberal . . . just stupid . . . but of course many Americans still think the sun goes around the Earth.

I thought the breakdown was $15B Iraq reconstruction, some change for Afghanistan reconstruction, and then the balance for military ops in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa . . .
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Odd that today's headline in all the major newspapers as well as the top story on all of the major networks was, "Bush asks for $87 BILLION to fight the war on terror."

The $87 BILLION is broken down, from what I've read and heard, as $86 BILLION for IRAQ and $1 BILLION for Afghanistan.

So much for the "liberal" media.

Just another attempt to obfuscate. Like the ridiculous Bush administration attempt to change their claims of incontrovertable proof of WMD in Iraq to "a WMD program."

These people are a disgrace to our nation. And the "liberal" press is as well for regurgating the lies the Bush administration feeds them. Little wonder the FCC's Michael Powell wants to change media ownership rules. The Republicans are playing the media like a $2 fiddle and the media doesn't even bother to resist.

Liberal media my a$$. The Republicans own the media. And they are using it to foster support for anything Bush does.

That's why the American people still believe things such as Saddam was connected with 9/11. Or we will find WMD in Iraq. Or any of the other lies the Bush administration spews daily.

Lying administration + complicit press = brainwashed citizenry.

Wake up people. The $87 BILLION is to pay for the Bush administration's unnecessary illegal invasion of Iraq! Period!
Too bad bobdn, it happenend. You want us to pack up and leave?
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Odd that today's headline in all the major newspapers as well as the top story on all of the major networks was, "Bush asks for $87 BILLION to fight the war on terror."

The $87 BILLION is broken down, from what I've read and heard, as $86 BILLION for IRAQ and $1 BILLION for Afghanistan.

So much for the "liberal" media.

Just another attempt to obfuscate. Like the ridiculous Bush administration attempt to change their claims of incontrovertable proof of WMD in Iraq to "a WMD program."

These people are a disgrace to our nation. And the "liberal" press is as well for regurgating the lies the Bush administration feeds them. Little wonder the FCC's Michael Powell wants to change media ownership rules. The Republicans are playing the media like a $2 fiddle and the media doesn't even bother to resist.

Liberal media my a$$. The Republicans own the media. And they are using it to foster support for anything Bush does.

That's why the American people still believe things such as Saddam was connected with 9/11. Or we will find WMD in Iraq. Or any of the other lies the Bush administration spews daily.

Lying administration + complicit press = brainwashed citizenry.

Wake up people. The $87 BILLION is to pay for the Bush administration's unnecessary illegal invasion of Iraq! Period!
Too bad bobdn, it happenend. You want us to pack up a leave?
Well now you've finally come to the crux of the matter. It's already happened and we CAN'T leave.

But aren't you conservatives, who constantly preach about people taking responsibility for their actions, going to demand Bush take responsibility for his? Aren't you going to demand his resignation for lying us into this mess?

Oh, it's your guy now. It's just "too bad" now. What a bunch of hypocrites. You actually deserve Bush. Unfortunately those of us who warned all of you and saw this mess coming don't but we have to share in the cost for cleaning up your mess anyway. What a disgrace.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Im a realist not a conservative, hell I would rather be independent. I dont like the idea of being associated republicans or democrats. He is taking responsibility, he just asked congress for money for military operations and the such.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb
Im a realist not a conservative, hell I would rather be independent. I dont like the idea of being associated republicans or democrats. He is taking responsibility, he just asked congress for money for military operations and the such.
Do you actually consider asking congress for money to fix your f'up taking responsibility?

When I f'up I'll ask for money and call it taking responsibility. Do you think it'll work?
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Im a realist not a conservative, hell I would rather be independent. I dont like the idea of being associated republicans or democrats. He is taking responsibility, he just asked congress for money for military operations and the such.
As BOBDN before me, you must be kidding. Taking responsibility would take a much shorter speech.

BUSH: We have a saying in TX well I think TN but maybe . . . I think we have it in TX too . . . anyway the saying is . . . "damn we really screwed the pooch this time . . . "

I spent my summer vacation raising money for my re-election campaign b/c my excellent stewardship of the economy, domestic security, and foreign policy has resulted in record national debt, rising unemployment, and a general disdain for our country throughout the world.

After raising $20m from the people that have benefited most from my policies and then tossing environmental protection out the window so my industry buddies can cash in . . . I remembered something . . . whatever happened to Iraq . . . and that other place . . . what do you call it . . . oh yeah, Afghanistan.

Rummy said all was going to plan. Condi said all was going to plan. Colin said, "this plan is fudged up!" . . . so we gagged him, put him in a burlap sack, and let the boys re-educate him. Anyway, I keep seeing all these know nothings talk about how badly its going in Iraq and Afghanistan so I sent The Wolf over to check it out. He came back and said, "Mr. President . . . I have good news and some less than good news." I said, "damnit Wolf you know I don't do well with multiple choice . . ."

"Well Mr. President the good news is that we have terrorists on the run in Afghanistan and Iraq. The less than good news is that the terrorists are running to Afghanistan and Iraq."

"So what do you want from me, Wolf."

"Oh $80B or so . . . should cover the bill . . . for the next 8 months . . . give or take."

So my fellow Americans I told Wolf to get out of my office with that BS about wasting almost a hundred billion dollars of the taxpayer money to rebuild foreign nations . . . instead we need far less . . . just $87B to continue the war on terrorism. Before you know it we will be talking about how the war has been won . . . just like the War on Drugs.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
BBD,
You wouldn't be saying all these awfull things if Clinton was in office, would you... :)
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
You wouldn't be saying all these awfull things if Clinton was in office, would you...
Well no I would have Republicans around to discuss how Clinton was ruining the US economy through poor fiscal restraint, ruining our place as the world leader by not building sustainable (and real) coalitions, ruining the US military through multiple deployments without exit strategies, ruining our hard won reputation as a fair and balanced arbiter by favoring the Israelis, ruining the moral sensibilities of the nation by not punishing the various corporate scofflaws that were cheating Americans, ruining the environment by kowtowing to the major polluters . . . well I guess the GOP wouldn't complain about that one.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
You wouldn't be saying all these awfull things if Clinton was in office, would you...
Well no I would have Republicans around to discuss how Clinton was ruining the US economy through poor fiscal restraint, ruining our place as the world leader by not building sustainable (and real) coalitions, ruining the US military through multiple deployments without exit strategies, ruining our hard won reputation as a fair and balanced arbiter by favoring the Israelis, ruining the moral sensibilities of the nation by not punishing the various corporate scofflaws that were cheating Americans, ruining the environment by kowtowing to the major polluters . . . well I guess the GOP wouldn't complain about that one.
You run, and I'll vote for ya :p

On second thought, I wouldnt wish that on you.
 

robcy

Senior member
Jun 8, 2003
503
0
0
Originally posted by: Electrode
Transcript straight from the White House.

BitTorrent download of my TV rip from C-SPAN 2. 500 kbps DivX, 352x240, 87 MB
The transcript is one thing, but when he speaks can he not pause after every 4th word. Everytime I hear the man speak, it sounds just like a bunch on sound bits put together. I guess he thinks we are all stupid, and need the time to absorb 4 words.
 

AAman

Golden Member
May 29, 2001
1,432
0
0
What a great speech- approval for the war, for bushie, etc., all dropped by an average
of 5 points or so!

roflmfao!
 

sillymofo

Banned
Aug 11, 2003
5,817
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey If he says the words, "They hate freedom" one more time, I swear I'll blast some new holes in the TV. ;)
Good - then you can help the economy out by going out and buying a new AMERICAN made TV ;) :D CkG
you're not doing the economy any good by just buying an american made TV, you'd help the economy greatly if you were aiming at the right target.
 

sillymofo

Banned
Aug 11, 2003
5,817
0
0
Originally posted by: Bigdude
Originally posted by: SuperTool Are we now supposed to trust a guy who lied to us in the State of the Union?
There was no lie! Clinton was the liar, traitor, rapist, criminal!
Man... you wish Clinton is your president now you ignurd bigdude. He is by far the coolest president in the history of Ameria, bow down. You're not worthy!

What he did to your mama is none of our bitnitz.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY