A disturbing State of the Union speech

[BaliBabyDoc]

Noob, why don't you burn some C6H12O6 and answer those questions yourself?

 

[Ferocious]

Reminds of me when I was 18.

Young and dumb.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
If what Bush said last year about Iraq were half-truths how come the UN didn't lift the sanctions in the mid-90s? Why did the US maintain a no fly zone? Why did regime change for Iraq become US policy in the late 90's? Why does President Clinton maintain the info on Iraq being true. Why has Gen. Clark all of a sudden change his tune on Iraq now that he is in politics? What about the terrorist attacks that Iraq was planning on the US just weeks before started the war but Navy Seals prevented? Why did the dems authorize war? Many dems have full access to docs that CIA provides to the president.

Why didn't the rest of the world deem it necessary to invade Iraq? Why didn't Bill Clinton decide to invade during his term? Why is Wesley Clark running for President? Why did 100+ members of the House and 27 members of the Senate vote against the war authorization?

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
If what Bush said last year about Iraq were half-truths how come the UN didn't lift the sanctions in the mid-90s? Why did the US maintain a no fly zone? Why did regime change for Iraq become US policy in the late 90's? Why does President Clinton maintain the info on Iraq being true. Why has Gen. Clark all of a sudden change his tune on Iraq now that he is in politics? What about the terrorist attacks that Iraq was planning on the US just weeks before started the war but Navy Seals prevented? Why did the dems authorize war? Many dems have full access to docs that CIA provides to the president.

1. Why didn't the rest of the world deem it necessary to invade Iraq? 2. Why didn't Bill Clinton decide to invade during his term? 3. Why is Wesley Clark running for President? 4. Why did 100+ members of the House and 27 members of the Senate vote against the war authorization?

1. We don't need a permission slip to defend our country.

2. He sure didn't hesitate bombing on a regular basis. 9/11 changed things

3. I don't know...Tom Brokaw sure made him look like and idiot

4. Why did 300+ House Members and 70+ members approve the war? must have been something there.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
If what Bush said last year about Iraq were half-truths how come the UN didn't lift the sanctions in the mid-90s? Why did the US maintain a no fly zone? Why did regime change for Iraq become US policy in the late 90's? Why does President Clinton maintain the info on Iraq being true. Why has Gen. Clark all of a sudden change his tune on Iraq now that he is in politics? What about the terrorist attacks that Iraq was planning on the US just weeks before started the war but Navy Seals prevented? Why did the dems authorize war? Many dems have full access to docs that CIA provides to the president.

1. Why didn't the rest of the world deem it necessary to invade Iraq? 2. Why didn't Bill Clinton decide to invade during his term? 3. Why is Wesley Clark running for President? 4. Why did 100+ members of the House and 27 members of the Senate vote against the war authorization?

1. We don't need a permission slip to defend our country.

2. He sure didn't hesitate bombing on a regular basis. 9/11 changed things

3. I don't know...Tom Brokaw sure made him look like and idiot

4. Why did 300+ House Members and 70+ members approve the war? must have been something there.

Well I've been obviously pwned.

Anyway, this war argument has been done to death here. I'm not gonna waste my time to go over it. Search the forum for answers. I look forward to debating the policy proposals of the Dem. candidates that you claim they didn't have, but I'm not gonna rehash a nearly year old argument.

 

[Moonbeam]

I turned it off because my radio started to smell.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
If what Bush said last year about Iraq were half-truths how come the UN didn't lift the sanctions in the mid-90s? Why did the US maintain a no fly zone? Why did regime change for Iraq become US policy in the late 90's? Why does President Clinton maintain the info on Iraq being true. Why has Gen. Clark all of a sudden change his tune on Iraq now that he is in politics? What about the terrorist attacks that Iraq was planning on the US just weeks before started the war but Navy Seals prevented? Why did the dems authorize war? Many dems have full access to docs that CIA provides to the president.

1. Why didn't the rest of the world deem it necessary to invade Iraq? 2. Why didn't Bill Clinton decide to invade during his term? 3. Why is Wesley Clark running for President? 4. Why did 100+ members of the House and 27 members of the Senate vote against the war authorization?

1. We don't need a permission slip to defend our country.

2. He sure didn't hesitate bombing on a regular basis. 9/11 changed things

3. I don't know...Tom Brokaw sure made him look like and idiot

4. Why did 300+ House Members and 70+ members approve the war? must have been something there.

Well I've been obviously pwned.

Anyway, this war argument has been done to death here. I'm not gonna waste my time to go over it. Search the forum for answers. I look forward to debating the policy proposals of the Dem. candidates that you claim they didn't have, but I'm not gonna rehash a nearly year old argument.

For lefty's war is never an option...but marxist execution and genocide is.

Leftys hate the likes of Bush, Reagan, Eisenhower, and Lincoln.
Leftys love Stalin, Hitler, Maoists, Castro, and the like....oh and add Saddam

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
If what Bush said last year about Iraq were half-truths how come the UN didn't lift the sanctions in the mid-90s? Why did the US maintain a no fly zone? Why did regime change for Iraq become US policy in the late 90's? Why does President Clinton maintain the info on Iraq being true. Why has Gen. Clark all of a sudden change his tune on Iraq now that he is in politics? What about the terrorist attacks that Iraq was planning on the US just weeks before started the war but Navy Seals prevented? Why did the dems authorize war? Many dems have full access to docs that CIA provides to the president.

1. Why didn't the rest of the world deem it necessary to invade Iraq? 2. Why didn't Bill Clinton decide to invade during his term? 3. Why is Wesley Clark running for President? 4. Why did 100+ members of the House and 27 members of the Senate vote against the war authorization?

1. We don't need a permission slip to defend our country.

2. He sure didn't hesitate bombing on a regular basis. 9/11 changed things

3. I don't know...Tom Brokaw sure made him look like and idiot

4. Why did 300+ House Members and 70+ members approve the war? must have been something there.

Well I've been obviously pwned.

Anyway, this war argument has been done to death here. I'm not gonna waste my time to go over it. Search the forum for answers. I look forward to debating the policy proposals of the Dem. candidates that you claim they didn't have, but I'm not gonna rehash a nearly year old argument.

For lefty's war is never an option...but marxist execution and genocide is.

Leftys hate the likes of Bush, Reagan, Eisenhower, and Lincoln.
Leftys love Stalin, Hitler, Maoists, Castro, and the like....oh and add Saddam

LOL. I like how you tried to start out with a rational, sane post, then quickly succumbed to a case of the Howard Deans...

 

[GoPackGo]

Notice I said leftys and not dems.

I really think there are some good dems out there, but they are drowned out by the leftys.

I get really angry at both sides by not working together to get the nations business done.

Look at healthcare...its not a dem or rep issue but american issue...theres a problem, lets fix it.

But the real issue lies with whats authorized by the constitution and whats left to the states.

Healthcare, Education, Homelessness, and other social problems should be left totally to the states. The feds should cut taxes accordingly and the states raise them accordingly.

Could you imagine if you lived in vermont and got bad govt services, another state could pay your moving expenses and bring you to that state.

The states would be forced to provide good government

 

[Moonbeam]

The states would be forced to provide good government

Right, almost as if they had to win our approval to get elected,

 

[Flyermax2k3]

I'm still waiting for Dubya to resurrect JFK... Oh, wait.......

 

[sandorski]

Stalin would agree.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
If what Bush said last year about Iraq were half-truths how come the UN didn't lift the sanctions in the mid-90s? Why did the US maintain a no fly zone? Why did regime change for Iraq become US policy in the late 90's? Why does President Clinton maintain the info on Iraq being true. Why has Gen. Clark all of a sudden change his tune on Iraq now that he is in politics? What about the terrorist attacks that Iraq was planning on the US just weeks before started the war but Navy Seals prevented? Why did the dems authorize war? Many dems have full access to docs that CIA provides to the president.

1. Why didn't the rest of the world deem it necessary to invade Iraq? 2. Why didn't Bill Clinton decide to invade during his term? 3. Why is Wesley Clark running for President? 4. Why did 100+ members of the House and 27 members of the Senate vote against the war authorization?

1. We don't need a permission slip to defend our country.

2. He sure didn't hesitate bombing on a regular basis. 9/11 changed things

3. I don't know...Tom Brokaw sure made him look like and idiot

4. Why did 300+ House Members and 70+ members approve the war? must have been something there.

Well I've been obviously pwned.

Anyway, this war argument has been done to death here. I'm not gonna waste my time to go over it. Search the forum for answers. I look forward to debating the policy proposals of the Dem. candidates that you claim they didn't have, but I'm not gonna rehash a nearly year old argument.

For lefty's war is never an option...but marxist execution and genocide is.

Leftys hate the likes of Bush, Reagan, Eisenhower, and Lincoln.
Leftys love Stalin, Hitler, Maoists, Castro, and the like....oh and add Saddam

 

[Martin]

Wow. If people like the OP ran the country, half the poeple on this board would be lined up against a brick wall, waiting for their turn.

This guy is really scary.

 

[chess9]

SyntheticOne:

I doubt there is any rush to the Republican Party given the Head Moron is doing everything he can do to destroy conservative principles.

And I'm afraid the vast majority of Americans havethe same view of the speech as the Democrats. Check out this CNN Poll:

Text

I'm sure Fox has a rosier one.

-Robert

 

[heartsurgeon]

the part i couldn't stand was the Democrats who spoke afterwards...Nancy Pelosi needs some thyroid medication, her eyeballs are buggin out all over the place, and they scare little children, give her a broom and a black pointy hat and she could be in the next Harry Potter movie..and Daschle has about as much charisma as a brick. He had this weird strained smile/smrike plastered on his mug, it looked like he had an ulcer eating out his stomach (probably does)

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: chess9
SyntheticOne:

I doubt there is any rush to the Republican Party given the Head Moron is doing everything he can do to destroy conservative principles.

And I'm afraid the vast majority of Americans havethe same view of the speech as the Democrats. Check out this CNN Poll:

Text

I'm sure Fox has a rosier one.

-Robert

Yup. Most people disapproved. Hopefully people are realizing what a complete goon bush is and coming to their senses.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

I'm with you up to that point. After that, well I hope you and King George are very happy together, because I'd suggest you must have your lips permanently attached to his posterior.

Perhaps if you had listened to his words instead of worrying about the Dems' reaction you would have noticed how much bovine excrement was pouring from his lips. What a joke. A very, very bad joke.

How typical...you...you...you...

 

[maluckey]

Looked to me like politics as usual. Nothing to see, and even less of substance from either side.

 

[Moonbeam]

What happened to putting a chimpanzee on Mars?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What happened to putting a chimpanzee on Mars?

Mars Needs More Republican Chimps!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What happened to putting a chimpanzee on Mars?

Mars Needs More Republican Chimps!

In launch vehicle, Lead Balloon.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
1. Why didn't the rest of the world deem it necessary to invade Iraq? 2. Why didn't Bill Clinton decide to invade during his term? 3. Why is Wesley Clark running for President? 4. Why did 100+ members of the House and 27 members of the Senate vote against the war authorization?

1. We don't need a permission slip to defend our country.

2. He sure didn't hesitate bombing on a regular basis. 9/11 changed things

3. I don't know...Tom Brokaw sure made him look like and idiot

1. Iraq was NOT a threat to the United States or its allies. We were not defending, we are the agressor.

2. Bombing != invasion. Not Even Close.

3. As opposed to the Chimpster in Chief who made himself look like a smirking used car salesman? What a snow job (only it wasn't snow).

4. Why did 300+ House Members and 70+ members approve the war? must have been something there.

4. First, they did not vote to approve the war. They voted to put the threat of force on the table to gain leverage with Iraq and the U.N. Bush made -- and broke -- many promises about how he'd work with the U.N., build a broad international coalition, and reserve war for an absolute last resort if Congress approved the resolution.

Second, many who voted for this resolution did so because Bush and his minions lied about Iraq's nuclear capabilities. They've since said they would not have voted for the resolution if they'd known the truth.

Third, because so many of our Congress-critters are spineless politicians who are afraid to vote their conscience in the face of strong public opinion. Americans were afraid of Iraq due to Bush&Co's campaign of deceit.

 

[DealMonkey]

Slate.com has an interesting analysis of the State of the Campaign (oops, did I say that out loud? )

1. Forward/backward. Bush's speech opened with a series of juxtapositions between going "forward" on the issue at hand (i.e., Bush's way) or going "backward" (i.e., any other way). This is the basic Bush/Rove strategy: to ruthlessly suppress alternatives so that anyone who opposes Bush's prescription drug bill appears to be against prescription drug coverage, and anyone who opposes Bush's homeland security bill appears to be against homeland security.

2. Split personality. Bush's tone was discordant. On terrorism, he cautioned against the "illusion" that the worst was over. "That hope is understandable, comforting?and false," he said. But on the economy, he promised, based on thin evidence, that the worst was over. Evidently we're supposed to be optimistic in some areas and pessimistic in others, depending on which outlook justifies Bush's policies.

3. Stat games. In situations where the data didn't bear out Bush's claims of success, he resorted to less relevant but more agreeable measurements. In Iraq, for example, he talked not about U.S. troop casualties (which have continued unabated since Saddam Hussein's capture) but about patrols and raids: "Our forces are on the offensive, leading over 1,600 patrols a day and conducting an average of 180 raids a week." In a rebuttal on NBC, Kerry complained that Bush had touted a net increase in education funding under the No Child Left Behind Act in order to duck the administration's failure to fund the bill at the level it had promised.

4. Sliding standards. Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine gets more and more slippery. In this speech, he said the U.S. would confront regimes that "could" supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. "We refuse to live in the shadow of this ultimate danger," he declared. How big or close would that shadow have to be to trigger war? Bush didn't say. Meanwhile, he continued to stretch the definition of WMD possession to justify the Iraq war. "Already, the Kay report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations," said Bush. Not WMD, mind you, but "related program activities," whatever that means.

5. Credibility. Bush suggested that Libya had submitted to weapons inspections because the U.S. had invaded Iraq for refusing to do the same. I think Bush is right. But on the larger principle he cited, he has been a disaster. "For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible," said Bush. "And no one can now doubt the word of America." Are you kidding? Even Republican foreign policy experts concede that the still-unsubstantiated Iraqi WMD claims the administration tried to foist on the world have undermined our credibility. A day before Bush's speech, the Washington Post observed, "Already, in the crisis over North Korea's nuclear ambitions, China has rejected U.S. intelligence that North Korea has a secret program to enrich uranium for use in weapons."

Bush followed that whopper with another: "Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain ..." Really? Is it hard to explain to the Japanese, South Koreans, and Spaniards why it might be a good idea for somebody else's troops to step in and start taking the bombs and bullets? Only if the person doing the explaining is Bush.

6. Values. Bush delivered, as advertised, his virtual endorsement of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. But he softened that statement by surrounding it with less divisive moral issues: drugs, abstinence, faith-based charities, and steroids in pro sports. Part of the Bush/Rove genius is the substitution of such unconventional, broadly appealing moral issues for conventional, controversial moral issues. Bush even couched the gay marriage issue in procedural terms, so that moderates uncomfortable with an assault on gays could interpret Bush's position merely as an assault on "activist judges."

7. The official Democratic response. The words, delivered by House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, were right: lots of talk about an "opportunity society" (without apologies to Newt Gingrich) and the Democrats' commitment to fight terrorism and protect the country. The presentation, however, was horrendous. With her bugged-out eyes and her embalmed grimace of a smile, Pelosi came across as a Stepford Wife, a Saturday Night Live caricature of herself. She needs to study old tapes of Fred Thompson delivering the Republican response to President Clinton.

8. The unofficial Democratic response. ABC and NBC interviewed Kerry, effectively anointing him the party's true spokesman. His debut was unpromising. With a face devoid of energy and passion, he pledged to campaign "with all the energy and all the passion that I have." He reeled off platitudes from his stump speech. When pressed to clarify his positions on the Iraq war, the Partriot Act, and gay marriage, he descended into endless nuance, going on for so long (and ending up somehow talking about race and judicial nominations) that Peter Jennings blinked with fatigue. The best line Kerry came up with was, "There are just two Americas: the America of the special interests and the lobbyists the president defends, and the America [in which] other people ... are living." It's such a good line, in fact, that John Edwards has been using it for more than a month.

9. The unofficial Democratic response to the unofficial Democratic response. Clark ran ads on at least two networks after the speech. He also did an interview on NBC, illustrating the difference between his virtues and Kerry's. Clark's appearance was perfectly staged: Behind him stood a flag and an audience of New Hampshire voters. Kerry, meanwhile, sat alone in a kitchen belonging to a family that for some reason wasn't there. But when it came time to talk, Kerry was the one who stuck to his lines, and Clark was the one who blew his cool, raising his voice in anger and interrupting Tom Brokaw. That's the difficult choice Clark and Kerry are offering Democrats in New Hampshire: If you want a nominee with military credentials, you can have the animation or the discipline, but not both.

 

[SynthesisI]

Originally posted by: chess9
SyntheticOne:

I doubt there is any rush to the Republican Party given the Head Moron is doing everything he can do to destroy conservative principles.

And I'm afraid the vast majority of Americans havethe same view of the speech as the Democrats. Check out this CNN Poll:

Text

I'm sure Fox has a rosier one.

-Robert

You might as well have just said, "here's a pessamistic poll taken by liberals with utter bias that means nothing".