Bush's Speech

“"Phaedrus, give us your opinion of the initial hesitance of the US to go along with the UN program compared to the US willingness to allow UN involvement under US leadership."
StickmanWalking

I think, when the president is being compelled to ask for 80-some billion dollars out of the budget to rebuild Iraq, the administration is a lot more likely to be willing to share a bit of the cost with UN countries, now that the military action is completed.

And the initial hesitance, IMO, can be pointed back to a severe lack of statesmanship. If we had been better able to convince the UN of a viable political reason to overthrow Saddam, we might have taken that route, but it seems that the admnistration believed in it's skeleton numbers of troops to rebuild. Because of that, they felt the UN was irrelevent to what they wanted to accomplish.

In other words, I think we bit off more than we could chew comfortably.”

“I give Bush credit for swallowing his pride and going to the UN for help in fixing the results of his colossal miscalculation.

I’d give him a lot more credit if he ‘pulled an LBJ’ and announced that he was not going to seek another term.”

“Now, let's take this point of Sadaam hidng these WMD and look at it from the view the Prez gave us in the SOU speech. Much of what I have learned over recent history has come from reading points made by former U.S. inspectors and, on the other side of the coin, information fed to us by members of the current adminstration. I am , at best, skeptical. It has been repeated that the U.N. inspectors did not do an effective job in finding the weapons and that their ineptitude has given Sadaam time to spread them out and hide them. Now, let's say this is true.

According to the State of the Union address of 2003, Sadaam had significant quantities of [weapons grade] uranium from Africa, along with mass amounts of anthrax, botulinum and nerve gases. Furthermore, according to Britain, Sadaam had 30,000 weapons capable of launching that nastiness in just 45 minutes.

I don't claim to know a lot about weaponry, but I can think of some questions concerning this that don't seem to gel here. How easy is it to hide these weapons? Are they sizaable? Is it possible to clean them up on short notice without leaving any trace that they were there? How much does he have? How readily available are they that they can be hidden so well and teams of US military experts cannot find a trace of them? Answer: I don't know. According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, the U.N. destroyed lots of their weapons through 1998. Questions: what does he have left? What was he able to develop while his movements were scrutinized under a microscope since then? Answer: I don't know. Now, there are two schools of thought here. There is the word of men like Scott Ritter, who, by all rights, SHOULD know what he is talking about in revealing his facts. Then there is the word of those who are motivated by the politics at hand. Our chief executive said that Sadaam is capable of launching an attack in a matter of 45 minutes! Now, given the fact that we can't find d__k here, doesn't that raise a red flag in anybody's head that this man is capable of launching an attack within an hour, but at the same time, we can't find any evidence of these weapons. How can they be THAT accessible if they are hidden so well? Are we overestimating these capabilities? And what about the means of delivering these weapons that will put Americans in such imminent danger? If these weapons are so easily at hand, then how can they be launched within an hour and put us in such danger and be totally invisible? Answer: I don't know. It's just things like this that make me so skeptical of everything that comes from political people. And this goes for all parties. So, I am not picking solely on the republicans here. Politicians are people who are motivated by pushing their agenda through at great costs sometimes and have been known to give lucrative awrads to special interests. We can fit that in the puzzle here to if we use our imaginations. What I am trying to say is that there are questions in my mind as to whether a lot of the mass hysteria and what has become popular belief may be way over exaggerated. Should we have left Sadaam alone? Absolutely not. It just could have been approached differently and a larger coalition could have been created if it were handled less arrogantly.”

“Now, let's take this point of Sadaam hidng these WMD and look at it from the view the Prez gave us in the SOU speech. Much of what I have learned over recent history has come from reading points made by former U.S. inspectors and, on the other side of the coin, information fed to us by members of the current adminstration. I am , at best, skeptical. It has been repeated that the U.N. inspectors did not do an effective job in finding the weapons and that their ineptitude has given Sadaam time to spread them out and hide them. Now, let's say this is true.

According to the State of the Union address of 2003, Sadaam had significant quantities of [weapons grade] uranium from Africa, along with mass amounts of anthrax, botulinum and nerve gases. Furthermore, according to Britain, Sadaam had 30,000 weapons capable of launching that nastiness in just 45 minutes.

I don't claim to know a lot about weaponry, but I can think of some questions concerning this that don't seem to gel here. How easy is it to hide these weapons? Are they sizaable? Is it possible to clean them up on short notice without leaving any trace that they were there? How much does he have? How readily available are they that they can be hidden so well and teams of US military experts cannot find a trace of them? Answer: I don't know. According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, the U.N. destroyed lots of their weapons through 1998. Questions: what does he have left? What was he able to develop while his movements were scrutinized under a microscope since then? Answer: I don't know. Now, there are two schools of thought here. There is the word of men like Scott Ritter, who, by all rights, SHOULD know what he is talking about in revealing his facts. Then there is the word of those who are motivated by the politics at hand. Our chief executive said that Sadaam is capable of launching an attack in a matter of 45 minutes! Now, given the fact that we can't find d__k here, doesn't that raise a red flag in anybody's head that this man is capable of launching an attack within an hour, but at the same time, we can't find any evidence of these weapons. How can they be THAT accessible if they are hidden so well? Are we overestimating these capabilities? And what about the means of delivering these weapons that will put Americans in such imminent danger? If these weapons are so easily at hand, then how can they be launched within an hour and put us in such danger and be totally invisible? Answer: I don't know. It's just things like this that make me so skeptical of everything that comes from political people. And this goes for all parties. So, I am not picking solely on the republicans here. Politicians are people who are motivated by pushing their agenda through at great costs sometimes and have been known to give lucrative awrads to special interests. We can fit that in the puzzle here to if we use our imaginations. What I am trying to say is that there are questions in my mind as to whether a lot of the mass hysteria and what has become popular belief may be way over exaggerated. Should we have left Sadaam alone? Absolutely not. It just could have been approached differently and a larger coalition could have been created if it were handled less arrogantly.”

“In his speech, Bush seemed to come clean on at least one reason we went to war in Iraq: a show of strength.


"We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength. They are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans."”

“Good arguments.


Oh, and sorry about the italics.”

“Things like that just get me thinking, SW. Maybe I'm a bit of a natural skeptic, but I like to question things that don't sound right in my mind. Thanks for keeping an open mind...”

“Wow. This turned into a good thread.”

“You guys made good points, but I don't think the UN can help. I don't think that area will ever be very stable, and as I said before, the UN just doesn't instill confidence. As to Bush, right now I think he has egg on his face.”

“That may very well be the size of it, SMW. I wish to hell this thing was handled differently...”

“To be very honest, I'm real scared about what's going on. I'm real concerned about how I heard that Congress is expected to approve the money. I don't understand how we don't have the money for a precription meds, but we sure can throw a bunch of money at this situation. I'm trouble over the fact that not a lot of people think this is a big deal. Maybe I'm wrong?”

“I tis a big deal, Laq. But, the thing that gets me angry about it is that the decisions made put us in a situation where they have virtually no choice but to approve that money (and all the installments to follow). Talk about painting yourself in a corner...”

“Someone on one of the news shows last night (the ABC one after local news at 11)mentioned the fact that a large part of the cost was supposed to be covered by all the Iraqi oil that would be available. That point seems to be conspicuously absent the past few weeks. How much does it take to get the oil flowing? Wasn't one of the priorities in the war to protect the oilfields so Iraq could sustain itself and pay for the cost?”

“Yes and according to the Genvea Convention, we can use that oil to rebuild that country. That's the rule. I think you might have just hit on something...”

“You can download a scorecard to help you rate the SOTU.”

“This will be funnier than a new Simpsons Episode!


Is speach will be used to give coded instructions to the Republican cells out there. Something like...."Dean not strong enough to win nod. We're phucked...."”

“Watch for when Dubya lies.

You will be able to tell he's lyin' whenever he opens his mouth.”

“Is soneone going to keep a scorecard for how many new words he tries to add to the English language?”

“I wonder who the new axis of evil will be?

Iran, N. Korea and Michael Moore? Wait Moore’s fat azz counts as three alone…”

“Fear must be maintained!”

“Hilarity alert: http://www.thepoorman.net/2005/06/29/poor-man-exclusive-must-credit-the-poor-man/”

“Violin, why do you hate Bush?

(Thought I'd slip that in so Sarge and Stove Stomper can continue their stay on Fantasy Island)”

“"You can support the troops but not the president"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX), 1999”

“"Or you can say you support the troops just to appear benevolent when in fact you don't give a damn about those young men and women"

-Political Moderate Stephen Beyer, June 2005”

“Or you can say you support the President just to appear benevolent when in fact you don't give a damn about him”

“fuego this f'ing thread”

“Yeah but who would actually say he/she supports the President who really didn't, LOL thats like saying I like Pain because its Painful....”

“Some who "support" the president just like to be on the winning side, it's the American way!!”

“"You can't say you love your country and hate your government." - Bill Clinton, 1995 (After the OKC bombing)”

“no but you can hate/dislike who is running the goverment”

“Of course you can, Ewker.

Otherwise the Democrats would not have a political platform. Hate and intolerance is all we hear from the Left.”

“Hate and intolerance is all we hear from the Left.”
bbw
2:28:48 PM
6/29/05

I remember hearing a lot of that from the right when Clinton was President. SSDD”

“lumberzac, they tend to forget that.”

“Who here likes mustard on their hotdogs?”

“lumberzac - The word you're missing is "all".

The right at least had a counter-plan for Clinton's ideas.

The left is hate and intolerence, that's it! No solutions.”

“I like brown mustard and sweet onion on hot dogs.

They've gotta be good weenies though, strictly kosher.
last edited: 6/29/05 1:53:05 PM”

“Here's a counter-plan (yeah, right):

"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
-Senator Richard Lugar, 1999”

“Another "support the troops" flashback:

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Representative Tom Delay, 1999”

“buck - save the mustard for the horndogs - they need it more”

“Look, face it, everything liberals do SUCKS. You HAFTA know that.”

“Credit where credit is due: the right got us out of the Balkans and into Iraq. Now that's just f*cking impressive.”

“I used to like ketchup until I realized each dab was really a donation to the Democratic Party. I'm just glad cars don't run on ketchup.”

“Vile - To save you some trouble, showing that Republican's didn't like Clinton's policy proves nothing. The fact is, they had plans to counter his. The democrats don't. They just complain.

The fact is, the voters know this and that's why so many Dems got kicked out.

Remember Tom Daschle? The biggest cry-baby of them all. GONE

Where is he these days?”

“If people weren't dying in Iraq, that DeeLay quote would be laughable.

It almost fits Dubya's war and lack of planning like a glove.”

“You'll like this one even better, MarkO:

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush, 1999”

“Vile - Bush repeated it last night. You must have been watching SpongeBob.
last edited: 6/29/05 2:04:51 PM”

“Bwaaa-ha-ha-ha-ha!


Good one sarge.”

“Are you saying he didn't give an exit strategy?”

“**NEWSFLASH** Politicians from the both sides of the aisle say whatever they want regardless of past positions. It's called "Politics". No, really, I'm serious.”

“Actually, John Kerry did have an op-ed published in yesterday's NY Times outlining what Bush should do and say.

I guess you Könservatives were too busy goose-stepping to read it?

I'm only offering one of many alternatives that you seem to have missed in your effort to parrot the party mantra.”