The New York Times: "We did not expect Mr. Bush would apologize for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war, or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation. But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks. We had hoped that he would seize the moment to tell the nation how he will define victory, and to give Americans a specific sense of how he intends to reach that goal - beyond repeating the same wishful scenario that he has been describing since the invasion. " GWB has done more harm to this country than almost anyone else I can think of. We will be decades recovering from his miscues and bad ideas.
I didn't watch the speech. Too many better things to do, like make money, see my kids, go to yoga. But I read the transcripts. Bush sucks, and so do people who still support him. The guy is a total loser, and so are the people that support him. Iraq and 9/11 never had anything to do with each other. Saudi Arabia and 9/11 had plenty to do with each other. [Insert picture of W holding hands with Prince Sh!thead, here.] W sleeps with the enemy, blames Saddam, and lets Osama live. 9/11 was a huge American tragedy. How incompetent does W have to be before EVERY American hates him? Oh, yeah. And oil is at over $60. Thanks, W.
I believe it comes from the days of sailing ships, normally if a ship was anchored and wished to sail away the crew would haul up the anchor line which in those days often took hours; if the ship was under attack and they had to get out of there (or at least be mobile) ASAP, they would simply cut the anchor line and run. As for the speech, I was at work and didn't see it, I read the transcript and it seemed good, and I don't trust any of your judgements of it because Bush could give the greatest speech in the history of speeches and you all would still bash it. He could give a 20-minute talk that would've made Winston Churchill and JFK go "wow, we really blow at public speaking compared to this guy" and you would be mocking his mannerisms.
Looks like you would've gone at least to your third drink. For the sake of everyone's liver, good thing you didn't put "freedom" on the list.
and he could give yet another of the most offensive, **************** speeches ever and you'd tell us all how wonderful he is... guess which one of us is living in the real world in 1999, i sternly warned everyone who would listen that he was going to flush the country down a toilet of course, i was living in alabama, so you all know where that got me
I was cracking up after he said that. If irony wasn't already dead before tonight, Dubya certainly finished it off.
This was, by Bush standards, a good speech. He only messed up a few times, didn't create any new words, and looked directly into the camera when talking about "freedom" and "sacrifice." I think that there is a problem here. As I watched our president I was angry, bemused, incredulous at what he was saying as he continued to claim that Iraq was part of the war on terrorism and was somehow related to 9/11. It just wasn't. We all know that -- even the talking heads kept pointing out that there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11, and that there was no WMD. It is now part of common knowledge -- the president was wrong and/or lied about this. However, the reporters instantly went to the opinions of the speech -- Fox news analyst said it was 'the best Speech Bush ever gave." I recall the Fox news analyst saying that about the last speech Bush gave -- and the one before that. There are two contries in America -- the 'Bush is ordained by God himself and can do no wrong,' and the rest of us. As has been said, Bush could nuke downtown New York and most of his base would still support him, and Fox News would report that Manhattan was housing terrorist liberal homosexuals but Georgie saved us all. The criticism of this speech is warrented. This was little more than a well-presented pep talk about the march of freedom. Some quotes I'd specifically like to refute are: "The terrorists who attacked us and the terrorists we face, murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent." -- I can't think of a particular ideology that kills people who disagree with them, rejects tolerance of other races, creeds, and sexual orientations, and requires people to sign an oath in order to participate in democratic town-hall meetings? Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression by toppling governments, by driving us out of the region and by exporting terror. -- Now, what country was it that toppled governments in order to create a new one in their own image? "Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war." - I call bullsh!t "Here are the words of Osama bin Laden: "This third world war is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation." -- Osama bin Laden? Remember him? Wasn't he the man 'responsible for knocking these buildings down?' Looking for him, aren't you? Did he give you a personal phone call about the war? "And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave." -- You think the Iraqi's haven't noticed the Halliburton-built 'semi-permanent' bases that you've retreated to over the past few months? I think we all know there are no plans to leave any time soon. I think 6-12 years is optimistic. Remember those Germans? I think we still have bases there. Again, this was a pep talk in front of a captive audience that has been specifically trained to support their CinC regardless of his stupidity. Just like their are no athiests in a foxhole, their aren't too many people in Iraq questioning what they're doing over there. Nobody wants to die for lie, but 'dying so that Iraqis can be free' seems a lot better than 'settling a score for W's dad and a few oil companies.' There is no exist strategy. I hope Americans start having more male children so in 18+ years they can go protect the new democratic Iraq.
In the event you missed it, here is the web site the President mentioned: http://americasupportsyou.mil/ America Supports You
I also LOVED how Bush linked support for the troops with support for the war. I support the troops. I wouldn't have cut their health care. I would've attended their funerals. I would have made an honest count of dead and wounded. I would've signed the letters to their families personally. I wouldn't have sent them into an impossible situation for 15 years with crappy planning for suspect reasons. But don't you dare imply that by not supporting Bush I don't support the troops. That's my right as a civilian!
Everyone should express support for the troops. I doubt there are many Americans who don't support the men and women who are in Iraq. That, however, doesn't mean we all have to agree with why they're over there. Or ignore the bull constantly thrown out by the man who sent them there.
I don't understand the logic. How can the mass of morons who let Bush get away with this ever hate him?
But they don't see that as your support They see it as being against them and what they have done By saying you want them out NOW you are invalidating everything they have suffered, fought bled and in some cases died for Why can't you understand that ? They don't want to come home. They want to finish the job they started They want you to support them in this effort Why don't you get that ?
No doubt, no doubt. I just meant the speech was reminiscent of the speeches LBJ gave in 67 and 68. Denial, rosy picture, denial, rosy picture. I'm probably too optimistic, but I think we're in conservatism's 1965 moment. The same arrogance about being in power. The same sense that any alternative is dead. The same guns and butter program (are tax cuts butter? maybe they're caviar). The only difference is they're not managing to get their legislative programs through. (Mainly because Bush understands the legislative process about 1/100000th as well as LBJ).
No. No he couldn't. That is not exactly news as I believe the President would tell you that public speaking is not his strong suit. I don't look to him for inspiration. I watched last night because it was the president giving an address, and I was interested in what he had to say. I wanted to hear some things, and if I had heard those things I would give him high marks for the speech. Shockingly, I heard virtually nothing of substance. For the first time, he made a veiled reference to things not going as well as they could have. For that little victory, he moves from failing to a D. Beyond that, we KNOW it's hard work nimrod. We see it every day and it ain't gettin any easier. I wanted some detail about how we will get out. Others have correctly said on here that there is no formal "surrender" in this war, so since it was a war where we decided the time and place, we need to define how our involvement ends. Of course, many of us were asking about an exit strategy BEFORE we actually started blowing things up as that seems to be the prudent thing to do in a "Powell Doctrine" sort of way. So here we are more than two years after "Mission Accomplished" and the guy is still fishing around for relevant justifications for the war he started, and still avoiding a plan to get us out. This guy truly defines incompetence.
The audio knob on most televisions needs to be turned to the right (clockwise) on most sets... see the Owner's Manual for technical specifications on your unit for sound enhancement...
The entire war against Iraq was a sham. It did not need to happen. When I think of the number of men and women who have been killed and wounded for nothing, it makes me sick. I cannot invalidate what they have fought and died for. It was invalid from day one. Bring them home.
You seem to catch his evasiveness (and many liberals too) regarding the issue of supporting the troops. The correct answer to question of "do yousupport the troops" should be: "Yes, I support the troops, but I don't support Bush sending them over there. Troops should not be fighting a morally wrong war because that's killing the troops, not supporting them."
And how is it exactly that you have been appointed to speak for "they"? I have seen and read interviews of varying opinions from service men and women, so why can't you understand that you can't make blanket statements for them? Second, I fully support them while they are over there and the work that they do, however, we should have a plan to get out whether that is tomorrow or in 2 years, 6 years . . . whatever. If not, we are consigning them to an endless threat, and giving the Iraqis an excuse not to take up their own cause. If we said that we were leaving in a year, don't you think they might take their own security a little more seriously? You like to link your point of view to the troops as the only way to support them, and that is just plain wrong. It's becoming clear that they should have never been there in the first place, and if they had to risk their lives in defense of our freedom, they should be in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Why can't you see that? Our troops want to come home and they want to finish the job. Why don't you understand that? If you are at work doling out assignments, how do they get done. Like this, "Bob, I need a summary of first quarter sales. No rush, I won't get a chance to look at it for a while anyway." Or, "Mary, we need an inventory update before the end of the day Friday." Bush is stupid like a fox, and the sheep are willing prey. He doesn't do the obvious to speed up our departure because he doesn't want our departure. Even if we stabilize things, if we leave, we can't control what will go on there. We will lose our military presence there. He knows that and is just dragging you along and using "them" for his own purposes in a way that doesn't make us safer. Why can't you understand that?
Air America had a general on last night, a real pro-Bush guy, who said the opposite. He said the troops are pros, and realize that the people support them, and just oppose the administration's policies. Frankly, any soldier too stupid to realize that is dangerous.