Full Version: The President's Speech of 12/18/05
Here's the complete text:
Link
I note that this is the first time that President Bush has addressed the nation from the Oval Office since the invasion of Iraq. Obviously he believes this was a vital speech. Some points I noted:
A frank admission. On the other hand:
I believe that this is a distortion of the views of those who opposed the invasion of Iraq. One would have to be very naive indeed to think that terrorists will "become peaceful."
An implied link between 9/11 and Iraq, along with an implied claim that the invasion of Iraq was somehow an attack on terrorism.
Thank you.
To be debated:
1. How would you rate the President's speech? Use any criteria you like.
I see it as a pretty typical political speech, with a couple of very open statements, and a couple of somewhat misleading statements.
2. Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
Link
I note that this is the first time that President Bush has addressed the nation from the Oval Office since the invasion of Iraq. Obviously he believes this was a vital speech. Some points I noted:
QUOTE
But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. And as your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.
A frank admission. On the other hand:
QUOTE
This loss has caused sorrow for our whole nation -- and it has led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we are solving.
That is an important question, and the answer depends on your view of the war on terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone.
That is an important question, and the answer depends on your view of the war on terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone.
I believe that this is a distortion of the views of those who opposed the invasion of Iraq. One would have to be very naive indeed to think that terrorists will "become peaceful."
QUOTE
September 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them. On that day, we were not in Iraq, we were not in Afghanistan, but the terrorists attacked us anyway -- and killed nearly 3,000 men, women, and children in our own country.
My conviction comes down to this: we do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists.
My conviction comes down to this: we do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists.
An implied link between 9/11 and Iraq, along with an implied claim that the invasion of Iraq was somehow an attack on terrorism.
QUOTE
I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt.
Thank you.
To be debated:
1. How would you rate the President's speech? Use any criteria you like.
I see it as a pretty typical political speech, with a couple of very open statements, and a couple of somewhat misleading statements.
2. Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Dec 19 2005, 05:04 AM)
"A frank admission."
He didn't really have anything to "admit", what he did do was accept responsibility, something foreign to Democrats.
QUOTE
September 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them. On that day, we were not in Iraq, we were not in Afghanistan, but the terrorists attacked us anyway -- and killed nearly 3,000 men, women, and children in our own country.
My conviction comes down to this: we do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists.
An implied link between 9/11 and Iraq, along with an implied claim that the invasion of Iraq was somehow an attack on terrorism.
My conviction comes down to this: we do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists.
An implied link between 9/11 and Iraq, along with an implied claim that the invasion of Iraq was somehow an attack on terrorism.
I don't this the text or tone supports your inference. I seems pretty clear to me he was just stating the indisputable facts. I don't think that just because the word Iraq appears in the same sentence as reference to 9/11 is linking them, given the rest of the words before and between. I do agree on the inference that Iraq was "linked" to terrorism, and is supported in that they were providing "safe harbor" to known AQ personnel.
QUOTE
1. How would you rate the President's speech? Use any criteria you like.
I think it's pretty clear the "votes" and comments are all going to be preordained here. He can only hope to sway some of the less polarized. I think all-in-all it was well written and presented.
QUOTE
2. Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
Again I don't view it as a "defense", rather a "justification", but that is semantics
I applaud him for accepting responsibility, empathizing with the "sincere" people who disagree, and chastising those who would use our soldiers and Marines sacrifices for their political gain.
QUOTE
Good evening. Three days ago, in large numbers, Iraqis went to the polls to choose their own leaders -- a landmark day in the history of liberty. In coming weeks, the ballots will be counted, a new government formed and a people who suffered in tyranny for so long will become full members of the free world.
This election will not mean the end of violence. But it is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East. And this vote -- 6,000 miles away, in a vital region of the world -- means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror.
This election will not mean the end of violence. But it is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East. And this vote -- 6,000 miles away, in a vital region of the world -- means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror.
Just because Iraqis will soon become “full members of the free world” does not mean necessarily that Iraq will become “an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror.” Stuff can happen. Iraq might become more like Iran, one of the fears people have expressed when religion and politics mix like water and vinegar.
QUOTE
From this office, nearly three years ago, I announced the start of military operations in Iraq. Our coalition confronted a regime that defied United Nations Security Council resolutions, violated a cease-fire agreement, sponsored terrorism and possessed, we believed, weapons of mass destruction. After the swift fall of Baghdad, we found mass graves filled by a dictator, we found some capacity to restart programs to produce weapons of mass destruction, but we did not find those weapons.
It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of UN weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. And as your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.
It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of UN weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. And as your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.
What do you mean “we” white man? Yep, you’re responsible for going into Iraq. “But much of the intelligence turn out to be wrong.” And now you want me to believe you again. Fool me once . . . .
QUOTE
Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He was given an ultimatum -- and he made his choice for war. And the result of that war was to rid the world of a murderous dictator who menaced his people, invaded his neighbors, and declared America to be his enemy. Saddam Hussein, captured and jailed, is still the same raging tyrant -- only now without a throne. His power to harm a single man, woman, or child is gone forever. And the world is better for it.
Since the removal of Saddam, this war -- like other wars in our history -- has been difficult. The mission of American troops in urban raids and desert patrols -- fighting Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists -- has brought danger and suffering and loss. This loss has caused sorrow for our whole nation -- and it has led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we are solving.
That is an important question, and the answer depends on your view of the war on terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone.
Since the removal of Saddam, this war -- like other wars in our history -- has been difficult. The mission of American troops in urban raids and desert patrols -- fighting Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists -- has brought danger and suffering and loss. This loss has caused sorrow for our whole nation -- and it has led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we are solving.
That is an important question, and the answer depends on your view of the war on terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone.
There you go again, equating insurgents with terrorists. Oh sure, you mention “Saddam loyalists,” but is that true? Are these insurgents for Saddam or against US occupation? Your critics are saying that the insurgents are against US occupation, and here you are equating them with terrorists. Oh please, Mr. President. We are not stupid.
QUOTE
This is not the threat I see. I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims -- a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed. Terrorist operatives conduct their campaign of murder with a set of declared and specific goals -- to demoralize free nations, to drive us out of the Middle East, to spread an empire of fear across that region and to wage a perpetual war against America and our friends.
These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield -- and they seek to attack us wherever they can. This has attracted al Qaeda to Iraq, where they are attempting to frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat.
The terrorists do not merely object to American actions in Iraq and elsewhere -- they object to our deepest values and our way of life. And if we were not fighting them in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Southeast Asia and in other places, the terrorists would not be peaceful citizens -- they would be on the offense, and headed our way.
September 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them. On that day, we were not in Iraq, we were not in Afghanistan, but the terrorists attacked us anyway -- and killed nearly 3,000 men, women, and children in our own country.
My conviction comes down to this: we do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them. And we will defeat the terrorists by capturing and killing them abroad, removing their safe havens and strengthening new allies like Iraq and Afghanistan in the fight we share.
These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield -- and they seek to attack us wherever they can. This has attracted al Qaeda to Iraq, where they are attempting to frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat.
The terrorists do not merely object to American actions in Iraq and elsewhere -- they object to our deepest values and our way of life. And if we were not fighting them in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Southeast Asia and in other places, the terrorists would not be peaceful citizens -- they would be on the offense, and headed our way.
September 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them. On that day, we were not in Iraq, we were not in Afghanistan, but the terrorists attacked us anyway -- and killed nearly 3,000 men, women, and children in our own country.
My conviction comes down to this: we do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them. And we will defeat the terrorists by capturing and killing them abroad, removing their safe havens and strengthening new allies like Iraq and Afghanistan in the fight we share.
Terrorists did not hang around Iraq until we invaded. The terrorists who attacked us were mostly Saudi nationals. They trained in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Mr. President, have you learned nothing since 9/11? We have, and we remember. More terrorists were coming from Saudi, and they still come from there. So when do we invade Saudi to make things right?
I also resent your assumption that being against your Iraq policies is equal to letting terrorists alone. This does not follow, Mr. President. It’s an obviously flawed argument. You’re setting up a straw man to knock down.
I’ll just leave it at that, Mr. President. I did not believe you before invading Iraq, and you have given me no reason to change this take. With the successful establishment of an Iraqi government, our mission is over. We can start pulling back our troops and forcing the Iraqi people to take care of themselves.
That is, unless you have other plans that aren’t being discussed. I strongly suspect so, because you, sir, are not to be trusted.
Speech rating: Deliver was almost adequate, but the logic fell apart early on. What the President refered to as "dispair" is more like "disgust." We are tired of the same old lines of illogical disconnects and straw man attacks. Meanwhile, you ignore the biggest terrorist of all, OBL, and is that because he is a Saudi favorite?
Content gets a big fat red letter F for being more transparent than fine crystal, but far less durable.
Please address the members in a constructive way and not make this a blog entry.
TOPICS:
1. How would you rate the President's speech? Use any criteria you like.
2. Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
TOPICS:
1. How would you rate the President's speech? Use any criteria you like.
2. Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
QUOTE(Yogurt)
He didn't really have anything to "admit", what he did do was accept responsibility, something foreign to Democrats.
Excuse my ignorance, but just how has he accepted responsibility? In my understanding, one does not accept responsibility simply by saying one does. Not even if you are an elected official making a speech. There has to be some consequence that one accepts as ones due.
And who is going to make GW Bush feel the consequences of his actions? The electorate can't vote him out now his second term is established. Will the rest of the government, the Congress or the Senate punish him for what ever it is he thinks he's accepting responsibility for? I doubt it.
It seems to me that this speech was just like any other GW Bush speech. It was so staged and couched that it had no soul. Bush talks and acts like a puppet and his words are without any weight. His 'accepting responsibility' now, after all that has happened, is a ploy to calm to his own worried supporters, nothing more.
GW Bush, like most conservative politicians never really accepts responsibility for what has happened. His regret is always followed by a boast or an explanation.
QUOTE(Yogurt)
He didn't really have anything to "admit", what he did do was accept responsibility, something foreign to Democrats.
And the Democrats have exactly what to accept responsibility over? Last I looked the GOP controlled both the executive and legislative branches of government. Is this more rhetoric, slight of hand, or just another new flavor of deflection.
QUOTE(Dubya)
September 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them. On that day, we were not in Iraq, we were not in Afghanistan, but the terrorists attacked us anyway -- and killed nearly 3,000 men, women, and children in our own country.
QUOTE(Yogurt)
I don't this the text or tone supports your inference. I seems pretty clear to me he was just stating the indisputable facts. I don't think that just because the word Iraq appears in the same sentence as reference to 9/11 is linking them, given the rest of the words before and between.
Cant’ speak for you but I’ve never been under the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them. Our president is tops with the assumptions.
Myself and the rest of the free thinking world are still waiting for proof that the hijackers on 9/11 had links to Iraq and more importantly, proof they were standing in Saddam’s WMD’s hand out line.
You want more proof the president has tried to link 9/11 with the invasion of Iraq. I’ve posted this every chance because this is the most despicable line ever uttered from a president, from his pre Iraq invasion SOT:
QUOTE(Dubya)
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained
1. How would you rate the President's speech? Use any criteria you like.
I find it difficult to watch him speak so I read the transcript and there’s nothing new or nothing unexpected. Would imagine that if his approval ratings were 50%+ then he wouldn’t have come close to what some call an apology or acceptance of mistakes.
Just damage control from the story on Friday regarding the wire taps. As far as I’m aware, there were no plans for a Sunday night speech before the story broke.
2. Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
There is nothing he can say that would change my mind on this matter because that would require the truth and I don’t expect to ever hear that.
QUOTE(Fife and Drum @ Dec 19 2005, 11:05 AM)
QUOTE(Yogurt)
He didn't really have anything to "admit", what he did do was accept responsibility, something foreign to Democrats.
And the Democrats have exactly what to accept responsibility over? Last I looked the GOP controlled both the executive and legislative branches of government. Is this more rhetoric, slight of hand, or just another new flavor of deflection.
Democrats voted for the Resolution as well - no matter how much rhetoric you and your ilk throw out - the fact remains that the Democrats are just as culpable as the rest of Congress.
QUOTE
Cant’ speak for you but I’ve never been under the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them. Our president is tops with the assumptions.
Myself and the rest of the free thinking world are still waiting for proof that the hijackers on 9/11 had links to Iraq and more importantly, proof they were standing in Saddam’s WMD’s hand out line.
Myself and the rest of the free thinking world are still waiting for proof that the hijackers on 9/11 had links to Iraq and more importantly, proof they were standing in Saddam’s WMD’s hand out line.
The President has never said Iraq was responsible for 9/11 - is it that hard for you Democrats to figure that out? Bush has rightly pointed out that the world for America changed on that day.
QUOTE
You want more proof the president has tried to link 9/11 with the invasion of Iraq. I’ve posted this every chance because this is the most despicable line ever uttered from a president, from his pre Iraq invasion SOT:
QUOTE(Dubya)
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained
Blah, blah, blah - and you're the one accusing others of 'rhetoric'? Again - the worldview of the US changed on 9/11.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Just damage control from the story on Friday regarding the wire taps. As far as I’m aware, there were no plans for a Sunday night speech before the story broke.
Damage control for what? A program that is miniscule compared to the Echelon program under Clinton which did spy on run-of-the-mill American citizens compared to terrorist affiliates now.... there is no real comparison, nor story... no matter how much you and the liberal NYT try to trump up this non-story.
QUOTE
2. Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
There is nothing he can say that would change my mind on this matter because that would require the truth and I don’t expect to ever hear that.
There is nothing he can say that would change my mind on this matter because that would require the truth and I don’t expect to ever hear that.
*chuckle* Today's Democratic politicians are just as bad as the Republicans you decry - but hey, that doens't color into your views, eh? At least this administration has been more truthful then any of the Democratic ones in the last half-century.
Regarding his speech - it was pretty much the same as the last ones, only done for a Primetime audience. Glad he finally has the guts to label alot of his critics for what they are (including a few here)... defeatists who seek to harm American interests for their own political gain.
Before I answer these questions, I would like to make a comment about the tone of this debate thread (already). Would everyone please stop posting the belittling, ad hominem comments? There is no need to demonize the "other" side.
1. How would you rate the President's speech? Use any criteria you like.
I didn't watch the speech; I did read transcripts. It read like more of the same. Redundantly repeating the same message over and over again has worked for Dubya in the past. I don't think it's working so well now. I wouldn't know how to rank Dubya's speech. I find political speeches to generally be painful and without much content.
2. Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
I don't believe any converts were made to his position from this speech. There was no new evidence; no new logical arguments; nothing new to convince those who may still be on the fence (are there any now?) to agree with his position. I suppose one could say there was a backing off of some of the justification: flawed intelligence. But, we knew that already too.
On the other hand, I don't think he lost adherents to his position. That's good for him, I suppose. Of course, polling will give us a better feel for this. Has anything come out yet?
1. How would you rate the President's speech? Use any criteria you like.
I didn't watch the speech; I did read transcripts. It read like more of the same. Redundantly repeating the same message over and over again has worked for Dubya in the past. I don't think it's working so well now. I wouldn't know how to rank Dubya's speech. I find political speeches to generally be painful and without much content.
2. Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
I don't believe any converts were made to his position from this speech. There was no new evidence; no new logical arguments; nothing new to convince those who may still be on the fence (are there any now?) to agree with his position. I suppose one could say there was a backing off of some of the justification: flawed intelligence. But, we knew that already too.
On the other hand, I don't think he lost adherents to his position. That's good for him, I suppose. Of course, polling will give us a better feel for this. Has anything come out yet?
QUOTE
Regarding his speech - it was pretty much the same as the last ones, only done for a Primetime audience. Glad he finally has the guts to label alot of his critics for what they are (including a few here)... defeatists who seek to harm American interests for their own political gain.
jleavy,
You are correct that the President likes to use labels. It's part of the straw man argument. Throw a label on someone and you don't have to answer any of that person's arguments. So now those against President Bush's policies are defeatists, huh?
Well, it'd be nice to know when victory would be declared in Iraq. Forget about timelines, how about the goal? Isn't it to make Iraq an independent nation with an elected government? Hasn't that just happened?
A defeatist wants to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. A critic wants to have a definition of victory in order to avoid defeat. A fool ignores definitions, maybe goes for a mountain bike ride to, you know, have a life.
Edit additions It might not have been clear to some readers that my first post includes nothing but quotes from President Bush's speech. I did not label them as such, nor did I address anyone but President Bush. I shall await his reply with patience.
Let's stop the ad hominem and personal posts and answer the questions for debate:
1. How would you rate the President's speech? Use any criteria you like.
2. Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
QUOTE(logophage @ Dec 19 2005, 02:43 PM)
Has anything come out yet?
It's too soon to tell. CNN/USA Today Gallup gives a thumbs down, WaPo a thumbs up, and negative trend in RealClearPolitics remains unchanged although RCP's John McIntyre swears Dems've fallen into "another" trap.
How would you rate the President's speech? Use any criteria you like.
Every evening speech Bush has ever given reminds me of a state of the union address. I’ve forgotten if all other presidents gave speeches that sounded like a state of the union. As far as composure and delivery he did fine. I almost changed the channel 10 minutes into the speech. I’m tired of the al Qaeda-9/11-Saddam equivocations. We’ll get no I did have disingenuous relations with that intelligence surcease from a man who looks forward to future historians redeeming his actions—he hopes—and redefining reality for half the population.
One thing I took away from the speech. The more emphasis he places on progress the greater people’s expectation will be that troops will withdraw. This may explain a boost in his rating after the speech.
Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
The public's patience and understanding is running thin. If the "good news" aspect of Iraqi progress doesn't materialize in the form of decreasing our boots on the ground it won't matter if he bought some time for himself.
To be debated:
I believe that it was one of his better speeches ever given. He appeared calm and didn't have that irritated tinge to his voice that he gets when a reporter or John Kerry pushes him.
While I adamantly disagree with his policies, yes, he has successfully defended his actions in Iraq. An ABC news poll has his popularity ratings increasing, I don't believe it's merely a fluke, but rather, a product of his speech. It appears that he has successfully stemmed the anti-war tide yet again.
QUOTE
1. How would you rate the President's speech? Use any criteria you like.
I believe that it was one of his better speeches ever given. He appeared calm and didn't have that irritated tinge to his voice that he gets when a reporter or John Kerry pushes him.
QUOTE
2. Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
While I adamantly disagree with his policies, yes, he has successfully defended his actions in Iraq. An ABC news poll has his popularity ratings increasing, I don't believe it's merely a fluke, but rather, a product of his speech. It appears that he has successfully stemmed the anti-war tide yet again.
1. How would you rate the President's speech? Use any criteria you like.
I caught just the last part of it, so I read the transcript at the White House website.
For one of Gee Dubya's speeches, it wasn't half bad. But the first part was better than the last part.*
So he finally accepted "responsibility." Wow--It only took until 2005, and now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election to the Presidency, how noble, magnanimous and belated of him!
2. Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
To his "true" believers, he probably has. But for me and anyone else who has opposed the invasion of Iraq from the get-go, no way.
Once again, I have noticed along with a few thousand-to-million other people that by mentioning 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence, Bush is implying that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, while leaving our "good buddies" the Saudis relatively blameless and good old Osama bin Laden on the lam. Funny thing--OBL was supposed to be our "number one priority" to find and "bring to justice." Some justice.
But we took that little side trip to Iraq that our children and grandchildren will be continuing to fund when they're old enough to work and pay taxes. And wow! We caught Saddam Hussein! I suppose an angler might settle for catching a carp after unsuccessfully fishing for bass all day...On second thought, nope! (Of course, it might be argued that Bush was fishing for Saddam carp all along, not bin Laden bass.)
Good for the Iraqis who have a better life now. It sure as hell cost a lot in lives, theirs and ours, and in real money.
*And now I come to the part where he didn't do so well later. The criteria for leaving and a theoretical timetable would have been helpful.
I caught just the last part of it, so I read the transcript at the White House website.
For one of Gee Dubya's speeches, it wasn't half bad. But the first part was better than the last part.*
So he finally accepted "responsibility." Wow--It only took until 2005, and now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election to the Presidency, how noble, magnanimous and belated of him!
2. Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
To his "true" believers, he probably has. But for me and anyone else who has opposed the invasion of Iraq from the get-go, no way.
Once again, I have noticed along with a few thousand-to-million other people that by mentioning 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence, Bush is implying that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, while leaving our "good buddies" the Saudis relatively blameless and good old Osama bin Laden on the lam. Funny thing--OBL was supposed to be our "number one priority" to find and "bring to justice." Some justice.
But we took that little side trip to Iraq that our children and grandchildren will be continuing to fund when they're old enough to work and pay taxes. And wow! We caught Saddam Hussein! I suppose an angler might settle for catching a carp after unsuccessfully fishing for bass all day...On second thought, nope! (Of course, it might be argued that Bush was fishing for Saddam carp all along, not bin Laden bass.)
Good for the Iraqis who have a better life now. It sure as hell cost a lot in lives, theirs and ours, and in real money.
*And now I come to the part where he didn't do so well later. The criteria for leaving and a theoretical timetable would have been helpful.
2. Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
QUOTE
To his "true" believers, he probably has. But for me and anyone else who has opposed the invasion of Iraq from the get-go, no way.
Once again, I have noticed along with a few thousand-to-million other people that by mentioning 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence, Bush is implying that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, while leaving our "good buddies" the Saudis relatively blameless and good old Osama bin Laden on the lam. Funny thing--OBL was supposed to be our "number one priority" to find and "bring to justice." Some justice.
But we took that little side trip to Iraq that our children and grandchildren will be continuing to fund when they're old enough to work and pay taxes. And wow! We caught Saddam Hussein! I suppose an angler might settle for catching a carp after unsuccessfully fishing for bass all day...On second thought, nope! (Of course, it might be argued that Bush was fishing for Saddam carp all along, not bin Laden bass.)
Good for the Iraqis who have a better life now. It sure as hell cost a lot in lives, theirs and ours, and in real money.
*And now I come to the part where he didn't do so well later. The criteria for leaving and a theoretical timetable would have been helpful.
Once again, I have noticed along with a few thousand-to-million other people that by mentioning 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence, Bush is implying that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, while leaving our "good buddies" the Saudis relatively blameless and good old Osama bin Laden on the lam. Funny thing--OBL was supposed to be our "number one priority" to find and "bring to justice." Some justice.
But we took that little side trip to Iraq that our children and grandchildren will be continuing to fund when they're old enough to work and pay taxes. And wow! We caught Saddam Hussein! I suppose an angler might settle for catching a carp after unsuccessfully fishing for bass all day...On second thought, nope! (Of course, it might be argued that Bush was fishing for Saddam carp all along, not bin Laden bass.)
Good for the Iraqis who have a better life now. It sure as hell cost a lot in lives, theirs and ours, and in real money.
*And now I come to the part where he didn't do so well later. The criteria for leaving and a theoretical timetable would have been helpful.
You have to admit that he was successful in defending his policies regarding the war. I cited a poll that has his numbers going up and the media buzz regarding pulling out and John Murtha is dying down. Undoubtedly, he has succesfully repelled this wave. The issue is not whether or not we think he's full of it so to speak, it's whether or not his speech worked-and clearly it has. We have to give him that much credit, however begrudgingly.
I'm not sure if I should respond because I missed his speech. Whether he is contrite or not is really meaningless to me.
1. How would you rate the President's speech? Use any criteria you like.
I'm guessing his speech was no different than what we've heard up until now. And I'm not sure how many ways he can say the same thing, i.e. basically "we don't want the terrorists to win so we're going to stick it out and get victory".
2. Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
I think people have a general idea of what his and his backers intentions were by invading Iraq, but I'm not terribly impressed with the answers.
The big problems I have are that this process was never thought out or given a true goal. Victory is constantly mentioned, but never defined. It's almost a reactionary process rather than a spelled-out, logical course of actions.
I have no problem with "democratizing the middle east", but when we have massive deficits and debts, this may not be the best time to "go it alone". And the loss of life on all sides is just proof in my mind that this was very poorly designed.
So no, his defense will never be good enough, IMHO. He has made too many mistakes and blunders, and atrocities to ever have words to defend what has transpired.
1. How would you rate the President's speech? Use any criteria you like.
I'm guessing his speech was no different than what we've heard up until now. And I'm not sure how many ways he can say the same thing, i.e. basically "we don't want the terrorists to win so we're going to stick it out and get victory".
2. Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
I think people have a general idea of what his and his backers intentions were by invading Iraq, but I'm not terribly impressed with the answers.
The big problems I have are that this process was never thought out or given a true goal. Victory is constantly mentioned, but never defined. It's almost a reactionary process rather than a spelled-out, logical course of actions.
I have no problem with "democratizing the middle east", but when we have massive deficits and debts, this may not be the best time to "go it alone". And the loss of life on all sides is just proof in my mind that this was very poorly designed.
So no, his defense will never be good enough, IMHO. He has made too many mistakes and blunders, and atrocities to ever have words to defend what has transpired.
To be debated:
1. How would you rate the President's speech? Use any criteria you like.
I believe it was John F. Kennedy, who asked us to look at Richard M. Nixon and ponder a simple question: “Would you buy a used car from this man?”
Some used cars were lemons before they were purchased new. I know a couple of vehicles that I would never buy from anyone. The PT Cruiser in my mind has always been the vehicle that came to mind when I heard the TV ad say, “Don’t you buy no ugly truck.” Then there is the Hummer. I honestly feel that if the actor that is currently Governor of California had not insisted on his right as a civilian to purchase a military vehicle, there would never have been a civilian market for that truck. As it is, on mornings when I notice a Hummer in the parking lot of the 7-11, I park my car in back before I go in for my paper. The Hummer’s driver usually manages to take up three parking spaces. He’s usually there long enough to buy a cup of coffee. When he leaves, the conversation always drifts to gas mileage. The general estimate among the customers is that a Hummer gets about 8 mpg EPA estimate, 4 – 6 mpg actual, and $75 – 80 to fill the tank. The conversation usually ends up with, “If you can afford to buy one, I guess you don’t have to worry about the price of gas.” or alternatively, “A fool and his money are soon parted.”
George W. Bush selling the “War on Terror” usually sounds to me like a Hummer salesman extolling the vehicle’s good looks, good gas mileage, easy maneuverability, comfortable ride, prestige value, and the fact that you can spend three times the cost of a "Sissy Car" and get a "Man's car." To wit, I wouldn't buy a new car from that man.
2. Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
He certainly did not change my mind with his 12/18/2005 speech… I had some chores to take care of, and he began his speech with repeated references to “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
Now I am not a great sportsman. Perhaps 45 years ago, I got talked into bowling with the church’s youth group. Over 30 frames, I hit perhaps 9 pins, and angered people on adjacent lanes by using their bowling balls. (I had understood that all the balls were owned by the alley, and they certainly looked identical.) The bowling alley was one of the noisiest venues I have ever experienced, and while I have had a couple of occasions to venture into a bowling alley looking for someone, I have never again stuck my fingers into a bowling ball.
Every time I heard the President say he led the nation to war because of the threat of “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” my ears hurt as badly as if I was in a bowling alley. I attempted to read the speech later, but I would come across the phrase and I would hear in my mind, the sound of pins dropping in a bowling alley. I don’t know if the President told his speech writers to include that preposterous argument, or one of his advisors felt that it might bring his popularity back to previous levels if he went back to using the same old lies that worked before. I only know that I couldn’t choke my way past his repeated use of that tired canard.
1. How would you rate the President's speech? Use any criteria you like.
I believe it was John F. Kennedy, who asked us to look at Richard M. Nixon and ponder a simple question: “Would you buy a used car from this man?”
Some used cars were lemons before they were purchased new. I know a couple of vehicles that I would never buy from anyone. The PT Cruiser in my mind has always been the vehicle that came to mind when I heard the TV ad say, “Don’t you buy no ugly truck.” Then there is the Hummer. I honestly feel that if the actor that is currently Governor of California had not insisted on his right as a civilian to purchase a military vehicle, there would never have been a civilian market for that truck. As it is, on mornings when I notice a Hummer in the parking lot of the 7-11, I park my car in back before I go in for my paper. The Hummer’s driver usually manages to take up three parking spaces. He’s usually there long enough to buy a cup of coffee. When he leaves, the conversation always drifts to gas mileage. The general estimate among the customers is that a Hummer gets about 8 mpg EPA estimate, 4 – 6 mpg actual, and $75 – 80 to fill the tank. The conversation usually ends up with, “If you can afford to buy one, I guess you don’t have to worry about the price of gas.” or alternatively, “A fool and his money are soon parted.”
George W. Bush selling the “War on Terror” usually sounds to me like a Hummer salesman extolling the vehicle’s good looks, good gas mileage, easy maneuverability, comfortable ride, prestige value, and the fact that you can spend three times the cost of a "Sissy Car" and get a "Man's car." To wit, I wouldn't buy a new car from that man.
2. Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
He certainly did not change my mind with his 12/18/2005 speech… I had some chores to take care of, and he began his speech with repeated references to “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
Now I am not a great sportsman. Perhaps 45 years ago, I got talked into bowling with the church’s youth group. Over 30 frames, I hit perhaps 9 pins, and angered people on adjacent lanes by using their bowling balls. (I had understood that all the balls were owned by the alley, and they certainly looked identical.) The bowling alley was one of the noisiest venues I have ever experienced, and while I have had a couple of occasions to venture into a bowling alley looking for someone, I have never again stuck my fingers into a bowling ball.
Every time I heard the President say he led the nation to war because of the threat of “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” my ears hurt as badly as if I was in a bowling alley. I attempted to read the speech later, but I would come across the phrase and I would hear in my mind, the sound of pins dropping in a bowling alley. I don’t know if the President told his speech writers to include that preposterous argument, or one of his advisors felt that it might bring his popularity back to previous levels if he went back to using the same old lies that worked before. I only know that I couldn’t choke my way past his repeated use of that tired canard.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Dec 19 2005, 05:04 AM)
To be debated:
1. How would you rate the President's speech? Use any criteria you like.
2. Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
1. How would you rate the President's speech? Use any criteria you like.
2. Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
1. I thought it was a very good speech. Concise, clear, and to the point. One of his better ones, frankly.
2. Of course. Bush made the right call based on the information he had at the time. From my perspective, Clinton was derelict of his duties by not taking strong action against Iraq in 1998. He left this issue for the next President and that was Bush. I wish that Bush had been giving speeches like this all along instead of allowing his political enemies to carry the debate by misrepresenting their prior positions (votes and statements in support of the war) to suit the political winds of the times. Hindsight, as they say, is 20-20. I reject the position of those who say that Iraq was a "strategic blunder" and that we should have put 100,000 troops into Afghanistan. That's amateur generals playing GI Joe at its worst. Iraq was unfinished business and it was, in the words of a former democratic presidential candidate Gen. Clark, going to continue to degrade.
I wish that Americans would stick together when our troops were in harms way instead of the constant and never ending attempts to undermine our efforts there and, as a result, help to prolong the war and give aid, comfort, and encouragement to the terrorists who are intent on defeating us. This is one case where politics has gotten the better of many democrats and many left leaning private citizens. I can only wish that they hated the terrorists and terrorism as much as they hate President Bush. With such a unified front, we may have already secured a victory in Iraq. I support freedom of speech. But speech has consequences and the consequences of the endless undermining of this war effort is more American blood shed.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Dec 19 2005, 09:08 PM)
QUOTE
2. Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
While I adamantly disagree with his policies, yes, he has successfully defended his actions in Iraq. An ABC news poll has his popularity ratings increasing, I don't believe it's merely a fluke, but rather, a product of his speech. It appears that he has successfully stemmed the anti-war tide yet again.
I believe that the recent speeches of President Bush must have had some impact on his poll numbers. But I think the prime mover for the poll jump was the fact that an election was held and a clear, definable milestone was reached in Iraq that makes up feel that the troops are closer to coming home than before the election.
I, too, believe in free speech. And I also believe that the criticism of our Iraq policy is saving the lives of American troops and the blind following of President Bush's policy keeps our troops in an indefinite cycle of policing and being the targets of attacks, not just by terrorists, but mostly by Iraqis who feel that they are trying to liberate their country (however misguided I believe that is.) This debate puts pressure on politicians in both countries to get the new government able to stand up so we can stand down. I think the line about criticizing the policies of the president is an American right but kills our troops is a tired one.
QUOTE
I wish that Americans would stick together when our troops were in harms way instead of the constant and never ending attempts to undermine our efforts there and, as a result, help to prolong the war and give aid, comfort, and encouragement to the terrorists who are intent on defeating us. This is one case where politics has gotten the better of many democrats and many left leaning private citizens. I can only wish that they hated the terrorists and terrorism as much as they hate President Bush. With such a unified front, we may have already secured a victory in Iraq. I support freedom of speech. But speech has consequences and the consequences of the endless undermining of this war effort is more American blood shed.
So does lack of speech LH.
I wish more Americans would feel more free in voicing their opinions and demand better from our President when he sends our Troops into harm's way. If more Americans would do so perhaps we could silence those who try to equate dissent with supporting terrorists and undermining the efforts of our troops. That way there would be NO appearance of lack of support. Perhaps if more who so strongly support the war would recognize THAT fact we would not have any problem letting all enemies of our country understand clearly that we will brook no harm to our men and women in uniform. Perhaps had there been better planning on the part of those who sent our soldiers in their with the impression of flowerstrewn streets and WWII visions of cheering citizens perhaps we may have already gained a stronger foothold for the Iraqis and be able to bring our troops home.
Sadly the need of some people to demonize those they disagree with overrides our need to present a unified front to the world.
No one who disagreed with the Presidents Iraq policy fails to support the TROOPS.
Quite simply LH unlike the Vietnam era Americans we will NOT be silent and allow them to die because of stupidity on the part of our government and the armchair generals who sit safely at home while they fight and die.
quite simply LH it IS the dissent which helps assure our troops are not teated with anything less than the respect and care they deserve from their country AND government. their lives will not be wasted.
I won't argue against the fact that some people seem to dissent purely because it is Bush. I hate to break it to you LH but if the POTUS name was Clinton or Gore the very same thing would come from the Right...as it did when it was Clinton.
hey pot, kettle is on the phone.
Its not an excuse for it--but lets be honest across the board. perhaps you yourself
would not do so but lets be honest here. politics is politics and for some it never seems to be anything else.
QUOTE(christopher @ Dec 21 2005, 09:01 AM)
Sadly the need of some people to demonize those they disagree with overrides our need to present a unified front to the world.
No one who disagreed with the Presidents Iraq policy fails to support the TROOPS.
No one who disagreed with the Presidents Iraq policy fails to support the TROOPS.
"Sadly," your statement is risible.
Here is Ted Rall, calling US soldiers sadistic sexual deviants.
Here is one of the many, many signs seen at anti-war protests, calling for "Iraqi resistance" (hint - the resistance is shooting at our TROOPS)
Here is another, which is a peaceful anti-war protester carring a pre-printed sign by international ANSWER (who sponsors most of these rallies) supporting Hassan Akbar, who lobbed a hand grenade at his fellow troops, "fragging" them.
Here is the famous "we support the troops...when they shoot their officers" photo from a "peace" protest in San Francisco on March 15, 2003.
My current favorite is the move to exclude military recruiters from High Schools, Colleges and Universities. This really supports the troops. Have an all-volunteer armed forces, then try to keep it from recruiting new soldiers. Very supportive. Then, 30 years later, when the high school kids you convinced not to join the services are of age, maybe serving in Congress, you can call them chickenhawks. Actually, this is brilliant and forward-looking strategy. The Democrats are smarter than I thought.
PS, the TROOPS are fighting a mission. If you don't support that mission, you don't support the troops. It's like saying you support the Bears players, but are against football and commissioner Rozelle is a Nazi.
QUOTE
Quite simply LH unlike the Vietnam era Americans we will NOT be silent and allow them to die because of stupidity on the part of our government and the armchair generals who sit safely at home while they fight and die.
I must have missed the part of the Vietnam era where people were "silent" - the only time I can think of is when Kennedy first sent advisors maybe? Not a lot of silence from '66 onwards. In 1965, thousands debated the war in Berkeley on "Vietnam Day."
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Dec 21 2005, 11:00 AM)
Here is the famous "we support the troops...when they shoot their officers" photo from a "peace" protest in San Francisco on March 15, 2003.
We had evil ditties for squadron runs. One went like this: “KILL all the staff sergeants, LYNCH all the officers!” It was used as seldom as the one about being boxed and shipped home with a Cuban whore. It was funnier, too. You could see the white of their eyeballs from their wary rolling.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Dec 21 2005, 11:00 AM)
PS, the TROOPS are fighting a mission. If you don't support that mission, you don't support the troops. It's like saying you support the Bears players, but are against football and commissioner Rozelle is a Nazi.
Sorry, ain’t buying it and wouldn’t sell it to Republicans if this was Bosnia. Opposing a military operation isn’t suspended the moment the first bomb is dropped just as supporting our troops doesn’t stop when they lay down their arms. I don’t need to stand behind the idiotic decisions the administration and key members of Congress have committed our service members to to wish them a campaign worth fighting for and a safe return home.
His speech, as usual, was contrary to the facts but that is not new. It may have had some temporary positive political effect in raising his poll numbers slightly. (So did the Iraqi election - the last time this card can be played). However, at this point, speeches will have little impact. What matters is what happens in Iraq. The American public has concluded that the war is a failure and only positive news from Iraq can change that conclusion. It looks like the Shiite religious parties are the big winners in the election and that the vast majority of voters voted for their sectarian candidates. This does not bod well for a future Iraqi state. The Kurds will go their own way and continue the ethnic cleansing in the Kirkuk region. Sunni resistance will continue and perhaps intensify. Shiites will continue to consolidate their control and increase retaliation against the Sunni. One way of putting it follows:
Edited to add that Iran is very happy with the election outcome and the American Ambassador is not.
QUOTE
Ghassan Attiyah, an Iraqi commentator, said: "In two and a half years Bush has succeeded in creating two new Talibans in Iraq."
(Patrick Cockburn Article). Edited to add that Iran is very happy with the election outcome and the American Ambassador is not.
QUOTE
1. How would you rate the President's speech? Use any criteria you lik
I think it was a good straight from the shoulder, BUSH speech. He addressed the issues as he has done in the past.
QUOTE
2. Has the President successfully defended his actions in Iraq?
IMO he has always defended his actions. He even has discussed the areas where we could have, and should have done better.
Based on my reading of the facts leading up to the war – dealing with Iraq was inevitable. It would have been real nice if the UN Security Council had done its job in dealing with Iraq but that is water over the dam. They were corrupted along with the UN staff. WE ended up with the problem of dealing with Iraq and their WMD.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.