State of the Union address...

TheRogue · 01-28-2003, 07:06 PM

Anyone watch this tonight??

I have to admit, Mr. Bush has come a long ways in his ability to speak in front of people. Obviously they dug up some Clinton tapes for him to watch!!

Like most of these addresses, there was really little of substance. There were the pie-in-the-sky ideas (where's 15 billion $$$ for AIDS in Africa going to come from???), as well as the usual partisan stuff.

However, what I and I think most people were looking for, was something of substance concerning the Iraq situation. He gave no more substantial evidence about the WMD, just delivered the same rhetoric. He gave no more evidence about the link between Al Qaida and Iraq, just what we've heard before. He talked about Iraq going against the UN resolutions (which they have repeatedly), but just minutes later basically said that we would do what "needed to be done" regardless of what the UN said. You suppose Sadaam is going to play that one for all it is worth??

I thought he played the patriotic card a little too much toward the end, but you can't really fault him for that.

I was more interested in Governor Locke's response, to see if the Dem's have come up with some sort of unified direction of their own. I was a little surprised to see that it appears they have. I was actually encouraged by what I heard.

TR

lost_sailor · 01-28-2003, 07:09 PM

The money, of course, comes from MASSIVE FEDERAL DEFICIT.

Pretty dramatic, Bush is so full of $#!+. Or, I should say his speechwriters are.

So WHEN are we going to rain fiery death on the Iraqi people ??

SandySteel · 01-28-2003, 07:34 PM

The 'conomy thingy is failin..... what country can we bomb?

He has improved dramatically in his oratory skills. I still stand by Helen Thomas

"This is the worst president ever. He is the worst president in all of American history.�

Hogmaster · 01-28-2003, 07:58 PM

I thought it was a horrible speech! Same with Locke's response.

Neither of them said a single thing about fishing! :grin: :grin: :grin:

GutshotApe · 01-28-2003, 08:02 PM

SandySteel - No, that would be William J. Clinton [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] .

Will Bush get his face added to Mt.Rushmore? Maybe not - but "worst president ever"? Get serious.

Not even close.

01-28-2003, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GutshotApe:

Will Bush get his face added to Mt.Rushmore? Maybe not - but "worst president ever"? Get serious.

Not even close.

You're right GSA that would be Ronald Reagan :shocked:

[ 01-28-2003, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: Shane S ]

1pump · 01-28-2003, 08:23 PM

My vote for worst Prez would be a tossup between Johnson and Carter.

I see that George W is taking verbal potshots at Iran now. I don't disagree, but the timing is a little strange. Isn't his plate full enough? :whazzup:

speyfly · 01-28-2003, 08:27 PM

Yup, same ole rhetoric different day.
Now lets see�
No child left behind, george cut the funding. Take care of the front line home security (law enforcement, fireman, EMT personnel) won�t keep his promise that was made shortly after 9/11 for funding. 15 Billion for AIDS relief in Africa, hope he can pull it out of his butt cuz we don�t have it with our current deficits. Make prescription drugs available for all seniors, yeah if you drop Medicaid and join a HMO. Those are just a few of the lies he�s still spinning. I will come up with more as I go over the speech.

SandySteel · 01-28-2003, 08:43 PM

I just figured that Helen had a good read on this because she has been in the white house press corp since 1961. She has met and interviewed 9 of them. I will trust her opinion.

GSA... no Clinton was just the worst Democratic president. On the other hand he was the best republican president in recent history.

[ 01-28-2003, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: SandySteel ]

Trophy · 01-28-2003, 08:43 PM

The only words he himself wrote in the entire speech: "Let me put it to you this way..."

He feels restrained by the multi-syllabled words created by his speechwriters, thus he occasionally likes to inject a few words of his own. And according to William Bennett, a long time Conservative Republican, Mr. Bush commands the fewest vocabulary of any modern president.

The following are just few examples of his actual speeches without the help of his speechwriters.

� "They misunderestimated me."
� "We need an energy bill that encourages consumption."
� "I have learned from mistakes I may or may not have made."
� "I think the American people�I hope the American�I don't think, let me�I hope the American people trust me."
� "In other words, I don't think people ought to be compelled to make the decision which they think is best for their family."
� "I suspect that had my dad not been president, he'd be asking the same questions: How'd your meeting go with so-and-so? � How did you feel when you stood up in front of the people for the State of the Union Address�state of the budget address, whatever you call it."
� "But the true threats to stability and peace are these nations that are not very transparent, that hide behind the�that don't let people in to take a look and see what they're up to. They're very kind of authoritarian regimes. The true threat is whether or not one of these people decide, peak of anger, try to hold us hostage, ourselves; the Israelis, for example, to whom we'll defend, offer our defenses; the South Koreans."
� Bush said he wanted his administration to be remembered for making America ``a more literate country and a hopefuller country.'
� "They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program."
� "I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well."
� "I'm also honored to be here with the speaker of the House�just happens to be from the state of Illinois. I'd like to describe the speaker as a trustworthy man. He's the kind of fellow who says when he gives you his word he means it. Sometimes that doesn't happen all the time in the political process."
� "I understand small business growth. I was one."
� "Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods."
� "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."
� "The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country."
� "The senator has got to understand if he's going to have-he can't have it both ways. He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road."
� "I think we agree, the past is over."
� "The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case."
� "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses."
� "If I'm the president, we're going to have emergency-room care, we're going to have gag orders."
� "The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law."
� "I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun."
� "I am mindful of the difference between the executive branch and the legislative branch. I assured all four of these leaders that I know the difference, and that difference is they pass the laws and I execute them."
� "We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile.''
� "I want you to know that farmers are not going to be secondary thoughts to a Bush administration. They will be in the forethought of our thinking."
� "People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history."
� "I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."
� "Redefining the role of the United States from enablers to keep the peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an assignment."
� "I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children."
� "I don't think we need to be subliminable about the differences between our views on prescription drugs."
� "I'm hopeful. I know there is a lot of ambition in Washington, obviously. But I hope the ambitious realize that they are more likely to succeed with success as opposed to failure."
� "You teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."

SandySteel · 01-28-2003, 08:48 PM

I love the last one. It's not about reading is it? It's only about testing to him. Not to mention the "her" gaff.

[ 01-28-2003, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: SandySteel ]

GutshotApe · 01-28-2003, 08:51 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Trophy:
[Mr. Bush commands the fewest vocabulary of any modern president.

And YOU [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] are criticizing Bush?

boater · 01-28-2003, 08:55 PM

I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."

did he realy say this lmao...

boater · 01-28-2003, 08:58 PM

"The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country."

na, he didnt say this, did he ?

Kilgore · 01-28-2003, 09:16 PM

Quote:

� "I suspect that had my dad not been president, he'd be asking the same questions: How'd your meeting go with so-and-so? � How did you feel when you stood up in front of the people for the State of the Union Address�state of the budget address, whatever you call it."

One of our past presidents had a teleprompter failed on him once, but he continued with the State of the Union speech with few people noticing the malfunction.

For George W. Bush, they have two backup teleprompters in case of a malfunction, with Cheney to back up the teleprompters.

RvW · 01-28-2003, 09:17 PM

While the creators of this small gem of public speech genius probably had humorous intentions in mind, I'm not convinced that deep down, perhaps unconsciously, that W doesn't perhaps subscribe to at least an attenuated notion of the message that this short ramblings purveys. Look at the rhetoric coming out of the White House today -- W is "sick and tired of [Iraqi] games and deceptions" -- and you'll see it's apparent that our President is taking this Iraq situation entirely too personally. His reactions are visceral, emotional outbursts which certainly doesn't breed in me any sense of confidence that he can lead effectively. I would honestly prefer someone more reasoned and level-headed at the helm of the US War Machine.

What has me boggled is that I'm not entirely sure why Iraq has the President so hot under the collar. There are plenty of evil actors (state and non-state) out there who wish us ill will, who potentially have WMDs, and who also suppress and oppress their population, so why is Iraq the focal point? I have my theories, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive:

He's vengeful. Payback for Daddy. The White House is littered with his Dad's old cronies and henchmen who have been wanting to oust Saddam for who knows how long. Rolling Iraq in with the war on terror is a quick and dirty way of copping some payback against Saddam's failed assassination attempt against GHWB.

He's scared. Prior to the 9/11 attack on our country, W was hoping he'd have a smooth, uneventful Presidency where he could cut taxes for his rich, corrupt buddies and relax environmental regulations. He was wholly unprepared for actually having to be a leader, and in response to the attacks he's decided to proactively and preemptively go after anybody else who might eventually, maybe, become an issue and tarnish his legacy.

He's an idiot. He could turn out to really be as dumb as I thought he was, and a few militant hawks in his administration have convinced him that there is a legitmate link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

He's a fool. He thinks that by throwing America's weight around and using Iraq as an example that it'll scare off any potential future threats from evil actors.

There are people all over the world, not just in Iraq, that are living under the rule of a murderous dictator. So my question to the President is why Saddam, and why now? If there's evidence, have a press conference where you lay your cards on the table and convince me that he's the threat that you say he is. Don't ask me to trust you, because you haven't given me a reason to trust you recently. I need cold, hard facts. I trusted you to wage war on terror after 9/11, but you have squandered that trust with subsequent arrogance, lies, secrecy and a total disregard for domestic issues. Sure you can fight two wars at once, but can you fight two wars and not abdicate your responsibility to construct and maintain sound economic policy?

Didn't think so.

In the end, it's not that I'm anti-war advocate. War, despite it's destructive nature, can be a useful tool that I believe can and should be used under certain circumstances. I think, rather, that I'm extraordinarily cynical and skeptical of an executive branch that is so opaque and steeped in secrecy that I find it very hard to believe that they are actually capable of governing honestly, legally and with the interests of the American people in mind.
W has redefined our patriotism as an "act of faith", and his own a "faith to act".

crabbait · 01-28-2003, 09:43 PM

The longer he is in office the more arrogant he gets. His ego is growing daily. Man, this cat is scary!

What do you think the rest of the world thinks of this guy? He is about as reasonable as Hitler.

ultralight · 01-28-2003, 09:51 PM

The sad part is that there is a vast number of uninformed people who will support any war proposed by the president, regardless of the war's necessity or its consequences. They think it's a patriotic thing to do, and that it's wrong to disagree with their party's president. The MSNBC's recent poll really elevates this point. Half of the people polled believed that Saddam had something to do with the 911, when in fact there is absolutely no link to Saddam and the 911.

fishin_lisa · 01-28-2003, 10:58 PM

Bush lacks any great ideas for this country, let alone the world. So he thinks it's much easier for him to show his competence by bullying around Saddam and scaring the US citizens into thinking that there is danger all around. Most of us bought into that strategy after 911, but the world is slowly realizing that Bush is not being reasonable and that he's a warmonger. We've lost our credibility and respect in the eyes of the allies and foe alike, and the person who�s putting me in greater danger is actually Bush himself. I�m much worse off than I was two years ago, economically and otherwise. How about you?

I travel overseas frequently in my business and I feel that we're incurring more animosity even from our allies such as Brits and Germans. Despite Blair's support of Bush, the Brits are outraged by Bush�s antics and do not support his positions in virtually all aspects.

Bush needs to make at least a few friends around the world, because we've got absolutely none. Those handfuls of countries he says are our allies in the war against Iraq are doing so reluctantly in contrast to the wishes of their citizens. There is absolutely not a single country whose people think we're doing the right thing.

CATCH AND EAT · 01-29-2003, 07:42 AM

"He is about as reasonable as Hitler". Pretty cold analogy Crabbait. How do you come to this conclusion?

As a Republican listening to The President it was difficult to follow where he intended to find the money to hand out for all his foreign aid propostions. I hate deficite spending as much as anyone out there. I laughed out loud when he said government should live within it's means. I laughed even harder when the tax and spenders stood up an applauded.

Hippocrites.

There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam needs to be eliminated. He is pure evil. Crabbait if you want someone to compare to Hitler here is your man. That shoe does fit. He has committed genocide on his own people, used nerve agents and don't think for a minute that he is not stupid enough to use an atomic device.

Hopefully we will not have to go it alone in Iraq. GW really needs to put the proof on the line Feb. 5. I sure did not hear much that proved it last night other than thousands of missing munitions and deadly gas delivery systems that are unaccounted for. [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img] Saddam has to go but the world must stand together in taking him out.

Shane Reagan is #1 in my book for best Presidents. Carter is #1 for worst Presidents. But, I respect Jimmy more now than I did while he was in office. He has done more good with HFH. I certainly respect that. He is a good man, just a bad President. Now Clinton? He was neither a good President or a good person. :tongue:

[ 01-29-2003, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: CATCH AND EAT ]

The Fishing Geek · 01-29-2003, 07:51 AM

Anyone else catch him pronouncing "peninsula" as "penenchula" TWICE? He'd be cute if he wasn't so dangerous.

On the flip side, would someone tell Hillary Clinton (or any other Democrat, for that matter) that rolling her eyes while the President is speaking might just be caught by the network camera crew and make her look like an immature twit? I'd sure appreciate it.

GutshotApe · 01-29-2003, 08:11 AM

Geek - My dad used to say "peninchula". My neighbor says "arshatectural" instead of architectural. Doesn't mean they're dangerous.

As for Hillary Clinton: her presence in the US Senate is testimony to the fact that a majority of New York voters are idiots. [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] :tongue:

Crayfin · 01-29-2003, 08:14 AM

We can all complain about Bush but look @ our other option!

I will agree he seems to be getting a little cavalier though.

Crayfin

TheRogue · 01-29-2003, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Shane Reagan is #1 in my book for best Presidents. Carter is #1 for worst Presidents

I won't argue over Carter...but Reagan as #1?? Please tell me what in the world he did that makes him the best ever?? He was a grandfatherly face at a time when the US needed a grandfather figure at the helm. Yes, he was a tremendous speaker who could captivate his audience (except for near the end of his second term, when he was starting to wander)....but so was Clinton(probably the best ever).

You can't honestly believe "Reaganomics" accomplished anything but to skyrocket the deficit and our national debt??

:whazzup:

TR

[ 01-29-2003, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

CATCH AND EAT · 01-29-2003, 09:03 AM

TG I cringed when he said that and a few other words last night. [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img] I get a kick out of the Saturday Night Live crew when they spoof GW. Cracks me up. :smile: And Hilary, [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] well..... I wish they had put her in the back row or way out to the side. YUK!!!! [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] No wonder here and Willie don't even live in the same household any longer. I thought Tom Dashual was more expressive. [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] BTW who is Willie dating these days? :shocked:

speyfly · 01-29-2003, 09:12 AM

C&E, the previous administration is history and old news. You really need to get over it. I guess that the reason you hang onto Clinton bashing is cuz you don�t have anything to hang onto with the current administration.

CATCH AND EAT · 01-29-2003, 09:27 AM

Speyfly, pretty funny stuff.

[img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] The Dems. don't seem to mind bringing up Clinton so why is it a problem that I compare administration. Gotta love those double standards.

Cool Texan · 01-29-2003, 09:59 AM

[quote]Originally posted by GutshotApe:

Quote:

Originally posted by Trophy:
[Mr. Bush commands the fewest vocabulary of any modern president.

And YOU [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] are criticizing Bush?

Oh that is the funniest post I have read all morning!!

Boedy · 01-29-2003, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cirrhosis-of-the-river:
He's an idiot. He could turn out to really be as dumb as I thought he was, and a few militant hawks in his administration have convinced him that there is a legitmate link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

. [/QB]

I would point out that Al Qaeda was had chemical weapons training from Iraq. And we know at least one top level Al Qaeda was treated at an Iraq Hospitable. These are just 2 examples of it and I am sure there are many more that are not as well documented.

What kind of proof are you looking for? Really what do you think would convince you that Iraq suports terrorist organization? Would an Iraqi VX nerve agent attack on American soil by Al Qeada do it?

I think most of you are uninformed when it comes to the �Facts� and are basing your options on network TVs party line. Most of you peoples hatred of Bush is so obviously impairing your ability to make a rational decision regarding the true threat that Iraq and Saddam pose to the US that you are willing to wait for another attack before acting. I say take him out before he has the opportunity to attack us or our friends.

I would like to know what makes GW the worst president in some of your eyes. Was it his failure to save an economy that had been run up so high in the Clinton years that it had to burst at some point?

Is it the tax breaks that you are getting?

Was it is taking out the Taliban and Al Qeada in Afghanistan after 9-11?

Is it that he says what needs to be said and does what needs to be done and not because the polls tell him to but because he knows it�s the right thing to do?

Please point out to me what Bush did to make the economy go down and what he did to cause 9-11 and the effects that it had on this country.

Tell me how you deal with Iraq and its WMD?

The UN inspectors are two steps behind the Iraqis at every door and the possibility of them finding anything is remote.

You left wing elitist are all a bunch of hypocrites in my book. You all want to feel safe and secure yet you are unwilling to do the things that are needed to be done to insure that security. Good thing for you that there is someone like GW that is willing to make sacrifices to insure your freedom and way of life that you are so unwilling to fight for. Your Rose color views on the real world are clouded by your party politics and hatred for the president and I see why your party lost the house in the last elections even with the left wing bias media on your side

Cool Texan · 01-29-2003, 10:05 AM

Boedy, for once we agree on something.

TheTexan · 01-29-2003, 10:15 AM

Boedy,

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

northriver1 · 01-29-2003, 10:23 AM

Boedy, don't hold back, tell me what you really think.

Sea Nymph · 01-29-2003, 10:45 AM

Bush said Iraq has not accounted for up to 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agent and more than 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical weapons. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=30742

Maybe that is why Iraq is violating the agreement by not allowing spy planes over the desert...

81 percent of Americans said they believed that President Bush had the same priorities for American that they had. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in538360.shtml

SN

[ 01-29-2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Sea Nymph ]

monoman · 01-29-2003, 10:57 AM

CB
Hitler? You should have hit the edit button! I have lost any respect I had for you.

TheRogue · 01-29-2003, 12:13 PM

Quote:

The Rogue, Yeah Reagan was just napping the whole time in office. He slept through uniting Germany, breaking up the USSR and ending the cold war.

Reagan had very little to do with the end of the USSR and the cold war. He just got credit for it.

Just as you always say Clinton gets credit for a period of incredible growth and wealth that he didn't deserve. :whazzup: :whazzup: It was an event that was a long time in the making...and most of it came from the inside. Did the Reagan administration help things along?? Probably, but not necessarily any more than any other.

The other event which people attribute to Reagan was the release of the Iranian hostages, which I feel was orchestrated to coincide with Reagan taking office.

Sorry, pretty shaky grounds for the greatest president ever. I think I still count my vote for FDR.

TR

01-29-2003, 12:43 PM

Reagan was a joke and history will bear that out as it has already begun to do. A great communicator? Yes absolutely. A great president? No way! The guy had no clue and was out of touch with those that elected him. Bush Sr. was the same way.

GutshotApe · 01-29-2003, 12:49 PM

Yeah, compared to the great democrats like

JFK (lots of charisma, little else), LBJ [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img] (no charisma but lots of everything else), Jimmy Carter [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img] (huh?), and especially Wm. Jefferson Bligh Clinton [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] , even an old republican like Nixon looks good in retrospect.

OuhtforTrouht · 01-29-2003, 01:07 PM

What makes Dubya a poor president? Well to start with he was NEVER legally elected! Thanks to the incompetence of the Great State of Florida and his brother to hold an honest election, the election was thrown to the Supreme Court of the Right Wing Republican Party to appoint Dubya to the office of the President of the United States. I do not now and never will consider him the legitimate President!

Can anyone say Coup d' Etat by the Republican Party and their Multi-National Corporate handlers? Oh, for the record I had little or no use for AlGore either, but at least WON the popular vote!!! Just another paltry .02, just about as much as my forthcoming tax cut!

fishin_lisa · 01-29-2003, 01:36 PM

The suggestion that people who are criticizing Bush are all Democrats going along the party line is just not true. I'm a Republican who voted for Reagan, Bush Sr. twice, Dole and Bush Jr., but George W. Bush is simply the most incompetent person EVER to hold the office. My journalist friend who covers the White House tells me that other journalists have absolutely no respect for this dimwitted and inarticulate president who repeats exactly the same few sentences at every speaking engagement. There is absolutely no authentic or genuine message that he himself can utter which is of any substance. And when he does speak his mind, it becomes so obvious that he's the most uninformed and irrational person somehow got selected to the office.

By the way Boedy sounds just like the ignorant and unsophisticated dud in the White House who's oblivious to the facts, but instead acts on sheer caprice. Since when have we become so whimsical to go to war on a hunch and ignore the rest of the world...

Well, after his uninspiring speech last night, I'm even more convinced that there is no proof that Iraq is an imminent threat and we and the world is much better off devising another means of getting rid of Saddam.

CATCH AND EAT · 01-29-2003, 01:55 PM

OFT the election results in this debate is non-sequator. GW patiently waited while AL GORE taught the nation how to count, count, count. Everytime he was on the tube I thought he was the Count from Sesame Street. Ah ah ah.....ahhhhh...

Shane, you did'nt like Reagan aye?

I would have never guess that bro. :grin: BTW glad you liked Shamu.

GutZ · 01-29-2003, 02:24 PM

I for one enjoyed the Speech. It was well written and well presented.

I am thankful that we have a Leader with the Will to deal with Iraq, and soon enough the rest of those who wish us Destroyed.

I believe that Clear Evidence will be presented to the UN on the 5th and those who doubt will see the threat.

Keep an open mind. Do not be so set in your belief that the President is wrong. Proof is forthcoming.

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] Boeddy!

speyfly · 01-29-2003, 02:49 PM

Just to follow up on what Lisa said, George does not have the brains to get elected to any office let alone run this country. It's the figures behind george that scares me. They are the same people that got him elected in Texas and they do have their own agenda. Looking at george is like looking through glass. Anyone that has spent anytime around him knows that he is just the messenger. Mark my word folks; there are bigger goals in mind for this administration than just liberating Iraq. Just follow the money. BTW, the WMD used to knock down the WTC was hatred for this country and we are on the verge of greatly amplifying that hatred.

Boedy · 01-29-2003, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fishin_lisa:
The suggestion that people who are criticizing Bush are all Democrats going along the party line is just not true. I'm a Republican who voted for Reagan, Bush Sr. twice, Dole and Bush Jr., but George W. Bush is simply the most incompetent person EVER to hold the office. My journalist friend who covers the White House tells me that other journalists have absolutely no respect for this dimwitted and inarticulate president who repeats exactly the same few sentences at every speaking engagement. There is absolutely no authentic or genuine message that he himself can utter which is of any substance. And when he does speak his mind, it becomes so obvious that he's the most uninformed and irrational person somehow got selected to the office.

By the way Boedy sounds just like the ignorant and unsophisticated dud in the White House who's oblivious to the facts, but instead acts on sheer caprice. Since when have we become so whimsical to go to war on a hunch and ignore the rest of the world...

Well, after his uninspiring speech last night, I'm even more convinced that there is no proof that Iraq is an imminent threat and we and the world is much better off devising another means of getting rid of Saddam.

Lisa we try and stay away from personal attacks in here if your case is so weak you feel the need to call me out then maybe you shouldn�t post anything at all.

Now about your post

I bet your reporter friends are totally un-bias aren�t they.

Why don�t you think we should invade Iraq when we know they are hiding WMD?

Do you think the UN inspectors can find anything with the Iraqi knowing they are coming before they get there?

What is your grand plan on how to deal with Terrorist states like Iraq?

fishin_lisa · 01-29-2003, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Boedy:

Lisa we try and stay away from personal attacks in here if your case is so weak you feel the need to call me out then maybe you shouldn�t post anything at all.

Quote:

Originally posted by Boedy:

You left wing elitist are all a bunch of hypocrites in my book.

Your Rose color views on the real world are clouded by your party politics and hatred for the president and I see why your party lost the house in the last elections even with the left wing bias media on your side

Now who's the hypocrite?

Quote:

Originally posted by Boedy:

Now about your post

I bet your reporter friends are totally un-bias aren�t they.

My friend is also a biased Republican who voted and even campaigned for Bush (secretly, so she doesn't lose her job). She's not calling him a dolt, but she says that the vast majority of her colleagues have very little respect for Bush as a person and for his mind, because he has such little originality and curiosity. She said the most other journalists find it outrageous that the president is so unread and thinks that reading books is not a good thing.

Boedy · 01-29-2003, 03:36 PM

I didn�t say Fishing Lisa is a left wing elitist and a hypocrite. I don�t recall naming anyone as a matter of fact. I directed it at whomever may have fit the bill in general not by name.

[ 01-29-2003, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Boedy ]

fishin_lisa · 01-29-2003, 03:40 PM

But I'm calling you an ignorant for posting your opinions as facts.

BTW, my friend tells me that if anyone spends thirty minutes with Bush, they will see that he doesn't have the mental capacity to be the leader of our country.

[ 01-29-2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: fishin_lisa ]

Boedy · 01-29-2003, 03:42 PM

What facts / opinions are you referring to?

[ 01-29-2003, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Boedy ]

fishin_lisa · 01-29-2003, 03:56 PM

If it's a fact that Iraq has the WMD, why are the UN inspectors in Iraq looking for them? We in civilized societies have this funny notion that there must be evidence to convict someone of a crime and only then act to punish him/her. This is not to condone Saddam's brutality but merely to seek the truth and act based on truths. Bush and misinformed people like you must be confronted to provide facts before putting the world in danger.

What's so laughable about you is that you think you have the facts about what Iraq has or doesn't have. If you already know all this, why not go tell Hans Blix the evidence you have, then perhaps he'll see what you already believe.

[ 01-29-2003, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: fishin_lisa ]

CATCH AND EAT · 01-29-2003, 04:07 PM

You're doing just fine Boedy. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] My read of your post is that you posed a general discriptions of the Dems and party lines. Debating is cool but name calling in this forum is not. Note to self: NO NAME CALLING or FLAMING.

I have enjoyed this thread today and it is interesting to hear each others opinion right or left. Thanks.

fishin_lisa · 01-29-2003, 04:08 PM

Boedy,

Your avatar is of Univ. of Oregon. Did you graduate from that fine institution? And if so what was your field of study? Based on your posts, I find it difficult to believe that you went anywhere near UofO; except perhaps their football games

omnivore · 01-29-2003, 04:31 PM

fishin_lisa, I think you're asking the right questions. We the country need facts, especially given Bush's feeble mind and the administration's bent on secrecy.

The fervor towards going to war with Iraq is very illogical and perhaps self-detrimental. The CIA has determined that the probability of a chemical or a biological attack against the United States increases dramatically if we go to war with Iraq, yet we're headed that way. How is this a smart move?

Sea Nymph · 01-29-2003, 05:02 PM

Is it just me or has anybody else noticed that when people with liberal views disagrees with those of a conservative, quite often they resort to name calling and attacking their intellingence...? I know it goes both ways, it just seems to go along more with the liberal arguments.....

The CIA is worried Saddam will attack our troops with Chemical and/or Biological weapons? How could he do that if he doesn't have them?

Lisa, why are the UN inspectors in iraq? To satisfy the UN and congress and a few others. Which by the way, the UN determined Iraq to be in violation of agreements...

Here's an interesting link.
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=247

SN

[ 01-29-2003, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Sea Nymph ]

RvW · 01-29-2003, 05:20 PM

Nymph, What are we waiting for then? if the evidence is there, attack right?

I think the better question is..."how could he use them if the US troops werent there"!

Thats the issue, the US HAS to be there, WHY? are we the only compitent armed nation capable of dealing with Saddam?
Heres a no brainer, are we the armed nation most LOATHED by Iraqis?
Is the UN blind to the actions of Saddam that a power such as France, Germany etc etc cant make the intitial move?

I dont see this Iraq situation as any more of an American issue as Veit Nam was, and the only US interests I can see as being threatened are the US soldiers we send there to die for a cause that GW seeks to re-inforce with "Al Qaeda terrorist activity" sentiment still lingering in compassionate Americans. I see W turning pain into fear and anger.

What are the possitives for an AMERICAN, any american? theres no comparison to be made otherwise because it will be AMERICANS who die on foriegn soil.

Does Saddam threaten your well being? your home, your children?

Sea Nymph · 01-29-2003, 05:33 PM

Well I think most of the waiting is over and the attack is coming shortly. However, Bush did offer Saddam help with exile in order to prevent war but who thinks he will go for that?

How else could he use his WMD on us? Our water supply, crop dusters, car bombs etc...

How in the heck could terrorists come over here and hi-jack 3 or 4 of our jetliners with box knives and turn them against us to knock a hole in the pentagon, knock down both trade center towers and murder thousands of Americans all in one morning? Nah, couldn't happen.....

France has billions of $'s of oil contracts with Saddam. Germany has been selling components for WMD to Saddam. (I read these tid-bits in news articles that I don't have readily available but can probably find if need be) That's why I'm guessing they aren't jumpin on board. Britian feels the same threat we do is why they are on board.

Yes, I feel personally threatened by Saddam. I believe if he isn't taken care of once and for all, there is a possibility somebody sent by him or funded by him will directly put my family in danger and if not mine, most certainly some other American family.

SN

[ 01-29-2003, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: Sea Nymph ]

TheTexan · 01-29-2003, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fishin_lisa:
But I'm calling you an ignorant for posting your opinions as facts.

BTW, my friend tells me that if anyone spends thirty minutes with Bush, they will see that he doesn't have the mental capacity to be the leader of our country.

I spent 15 minutes with Bush in a one on one conversation. I don't think he has the highest IQ , but I think he is a good leader and a good person. I guess it is the last 30 minutes that he comes out to be an idiot.

One thing that a lot of people harp on is his speech. Why do you have to have perfect speech to be respected as a leader? I have the Texas drawl, but no one questions my abilities at work because of it.

speyfly · 01-29-2003, 08:07 PM

Quote by ex-tex "One thing that a lot of people harp on is his speech. Why do you have to have perfect speech to be respected as a leader? I have the Texas drawl, but no one questions my abilities at work because of it".

Ex-tex, respect is earned and all I can see from george is that he is a bully, throwing his (our) might around. He is not acting like a world leader.

Silver Hilton · 01-29-2003, 08:23 PM

You know, Warren Buffet doesn't speak like Einstein or any other flavor of intellectual. He's got my respect. Jim Baker(the politcian, not the preacher) doesn't speak like any kind of intellectual. He's got my respect. Les Schwab doesn't speak like any kind of intellectual. He's got my respect.

I don't care how somebody talks. I care about what they have to say. And the sad fact is that when GW is using his own words, he doesn't have much to say.

[ 01-29-2003, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

TheTexan · 01-29-2003, 08:46 PM

Would you want to just roll over? maybe if we ignore them they will go away!

You see bully, I see standing up for our country and people.

Also never said Speyfly or Silver Hilton knock the speech, just have seen some replies that have.

I agree respect was worng choice of word.

[ 01-29-2003, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: ex-tex ]

RvW · 01-29-2003, 08:48 PM

Hes not acting like a world leader because he is NOT a world leader, the guy couldnt even lead himself through an extended education.

I have to admit, I am not the best judge of situations, of confrontation, but I have learned a very valuable lesson being this way, NEVER trust my feelings without seeking second, third fourth and even fifth opinions.
We need a pres who will act on the country's feelings and not his own.

W looks like the prime candidate for the puppet we all want him to be, sorry, but theres people here who are far more intelligent than he is, who need a voice. I rely on a majority consent to war, and I am not convinced by ratings hungry media there is a majority vote for war with W 's conditions.

I feel as though the only voice of reason when it comes to legitimizing war is an American voice, and I am a bit disturbed by the support of this notion.
France (I am french) wants more time.
Germany (I am also German) wants more evidence.

There needs to be compromise, theres a huge number of people saying GW is moving too fast and for the wrong reasons. If I were for war, rite here rite now, I would STILL want to hear those opinions that it is not warranted at this time.

My plea is not that of an antiwar advocate, deep down I think we might all be antiwar if we've ever been in one, but my plea is for peace, at any cost short of war, unless theres no other choice, have we exhausted all options?

If Saddam was at your kitchen table, what would you ask him to do for peace?
If Bush was at your kitchen table, what would you ask him to do for peace.
("pass the peace please" whos going to hand it to you first?)

Id ask w to take a step back, and Saddam to take a step forward. Maybe thier hands will grasp the bottle of hienz 57 peace sauce at the same time?

Bloodshed is not an answer.
I will fight for my country if I must, and die for my children and my neighbor but NEVER to settle a dispute based on a need for a leader to prove his might.

This is the basis of the inevitable war against Iraq, and I know many of you feel the same way.

Put bush on a horse with a gun, and I will ride along side him with the same horse, and same gun.

No W?, no Cirrhosis.....no war.

[ 01-29-2003, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]

RvW · 01-29-2003, 09:41 PM

Boedy, I find you very interesting, and far more educated than myself (which might only put you in the center bracket here donno?)

I have to ask you this, since you were in dessrt storm, or dessert sheild, I dont remember which, how can you be so confident that war is the answer now?

If it were the answer then, we wouldnt be in this predicament now would we? But Americans died, and I cannot ignore that, Americans that YOU faught beside are now dead, and we are once again faced with the prospect of war with the same man who killed your comrades.

Are you convinced that we are a stronger America now?

Is the effort more befitting a slaughter because of the links to al qeada and suspicion of WofMD?

I am not critisizing your feelings bro, I am however questioning the effectsd of your motive.

Is there any other way to say it than "we failed the first time" and now more men and women must die to finish the job?

Look back on the aftermath of sept 11th
the media showed us pictures of the carnage, and then plagued the screen with messages for peace...

Neil young sings Lennon (give peace a chance)
Seattle grunge bands take off thier hair and sunglasses and hum ballads of peace?

What is waiting in the wings of war for us now?

I think everyone has a notion that if we bomb and kill in Iraq, we have only seen a preview of what is to come in the future (911)

During your service, were you privy to the information exchange between Iraqi rebels and US inteligence?

Its no secret that just a few days before the rebels were to initiate an attack on Saddams protective forces, we abandoned them, and they were slaughtered.
Why?
The word rebel was used in a US intelligence briefing, and we cannot be associated with any cause thatdoes not have unified support.
Uhhm, isnt this why we have not attacked Iraq yet? No unified support? (or not enough)

Dude, come clean. you are not as much of a warmonger as you would like us all to think you are.