So now that you've seen it, read it, or heard it - it's time to debate it. I'm sure we will spawn more specific debates from items that were mentioned in the speech, but this thread may serve as a good spring board for them.

TOPICS TO DEBATE:
*Do you agree/disagree with the President's agenda as set forth in the speech?
*What were the strong and weak points of the speech?

Link: 2004 State of the Union Address

Darn, I was at work with no TV. I hope the good people of America's Debate will fill us media deprived people in on the Address.

I want to know what people think about
"If judges insiste on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process" - hmm... arbitrary will of the judges. And use of the constitutional process to circumvent the courts. So much for checks and balances I suppose - since obviously if any judge struck down a defense of marriage ammendment they would be using their arbitrary will.
And then:
"The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight"
Glad I believe in God - otherwise I might be seriously offended... Oh wait, I'm still offended that Bush thinks his view of marriage must be the one and only right view because God told him so (prob when he appointed him to the presidency - or wait, that was those arbitrary judges).

There is so many more points to talk about - the abstinence education, the question of how he proposes to pay for these new initiative and still cut the deficit in half?
But, I have some research to do first.

TOPICS TO DEBATE:
*Do you agree/disagree with the President's agenda as set forth in the speech?
I wasn't certain that he really set forth any agenda. It seemed more like a grocery list of things that he felt he had accomplished.

"As we gather tonight, hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and women are deployed across the world in the war on terror."

"I've had the honor of meeting our servicemen and women at many posts, from the deck of a carrier in the Pacific to a mess hall in Baghdad."

"Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year. (Applause.)"

"The once all-powerful ruler of Iraq was found in a hole, and now sits in a prison cell."

"the people of Iraq are free"

"this economy is strong, and growing stronger"

"By passing the No Child Left Behind Act, you have made the expectation of literacy the law of our country."

*What were the strong and weak points of the speech?

"By passing the No Child Left Behind Act, you have made the expectation of literacy the law of our country." By stating this, he underlined the fact that he has raised our expectations without properly funding the program. Nothing that I heard indicated that he expects to fund it in the coming years. He simply intends to raise our expectations...

"For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible," could come back to haunt this President whose words have lost any credibility.

"America is committed to keeping the world's most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous regimes." was a double edged sword that could come back to haunt us. Arguably, George W. Bush has started two wars and threatened Iran, North Korea, etc. I can see someone standing up in the U.N. and saying, "There is a need to keep the world's most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous regimes; and the United States has the most dangerous weapons and the most dangerous regime."

"Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations." First it was a laundry list of Weapons of Mass Destruction, then it was "We weren't just looking for WMDs." and now he has reduced the threat again to "related program activities." Is he going to keep downgrading this until he finally admits that we went to war because his daughters were unable to sell Saddam a box of Girl Scout cookies?

"I will send you a proposal to double the budget of the National Endowment for Democracy..." Has anyone heard of this?

"Interest rates are low." I was checking Interest rates last night for a friend who wanted to convince his son of the value of saving at compound interest. Passbook savings at my Credit Union are paying less than 1.25%, and Certificates of Deposit are paying up to 3%.

"Productivity is high, and jobs are on the rise." In December, the economy produced 1,000 new jobs, an average of 20 per state. In Michigan, that included 170 new jobs added at the Electrolux plant so that they can build up inventory before they lay off 2,700 workers and move the factory to Mexico.

"At the same time, we must ensure that older students and adults can gain the skills they need to find work now." Resume writing, how to follow the crops, how to find jobs on the Internet are the skills that came to mind immediately...

" I propose a new temporary worker program to match willing foreign workers with willing employers when no Americans can be found to fill the job." Blink. Blink.

"I propose a four-year, $300 million prisoner re-entry initiative to expand job training and placement services, to provide transitional housing, and to help newly released prisoners get mentoring, including from faith-based groups."

"George, The American workers I interviewed were looking for long term, even permanent employment at a living wage with benefits. I contributed to your campaign, can you match willing foreign workers with my openings? No? Then could you get someone paroled to fill the position?"

"So tonight I call on team owners, union representatives, coaches, and players to take the lead, to send the right signal, to get tough, and to get rid of steroids now." This sent a clear message. We can't win the war on drugs by enforcing laws and already existing regulations, so let's ask for voluntary compliance instead.

"Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."

Defending the sanctity of marriage would appear to clearly be a job for the church, and not the state.

Basically, I filled up four pages of notes with what was wrong with his message, and noted at the bottom that he did not reiterate his message to spend a Trillion Dollars to put men on Mars ahead of the Koreans and Japanese.... Perhaps there is hope that a Conservative President might have Compassion for my Grand-children's budget.

I noted elsewhere that the War on Poverty was declared in a State of the Union Speech 40 years ago, and it is still underfunded. The War on Drugs has been far from successful. The War on Terrorism goal is apparently to keep us perpetually on the battlefield. He didn't bother to bring us up to date on how many have died in Iraq since he landed on an aircraft carrier to a message of "Mission Accomplished."

When I joined the Democratic Party, I listened to my wife and listed George W. Bush as the person to be credited for recruiting me. Tonight's speech made me glad to be a Democrat, and hopeful that we can bring about a Peaceful Regime Change in November!

I agree with you Curmudgeon. This is the first time I've experienced a state of the union speech. I had to read it, because I didn't know if or when it would be on the television. It seemed a rambling account of what he thought he'd accomplished and saying, "this is the status quo, keep me in office!"

So, it went something like;

Opening
America is strong, we liberate people when they least expect it, economy growing strong, education +, medicare +.

Body
I combat the terrorist menace. I am keeping America safe. Keep the patriot act in place please. I'll keep America safe. Iraqis are free. More on the terrorist menace. Really the Iraqi war is justified. Really the economy is strong.Rreally we want to educate children. Really I can do neat things with medicare.

Additional nonsense
I'll also combat the gay menace and those pesky judges who think they can interpret the letter of the law without any regard for Christianity. I'm a god-fearing, righteous man, religious and patriotic. Also, look how compassionate I am, I'm using a child's letter to show it too.


And can someone please tell me why there's so much applause? Even where there shouldn't be?



I can understand why they applauded for the last statement, but why did they applaud for the first two?

It is traditional for someone to applaud every time the President pauses to take a breath, I'm not certain why...

The Democrats applaud some things the President says, the Republicans others... There are a number of people who are opposed to the "Patriot" act, and not everyone in attendance is in fact a member of the Government. (I recall the cameras focusing several times on someone who looked about two years old. Proud papa, or couldn't line up a sitter?)

The fact that some applauded the death of this bill is an indication that it will not easily be renewed or, as has been rumored, new provisions added to the act. It was a way of telling the President, you will have a fight on your hands. He has declared this is where he wants to lead, and the applause gave him the message that perhaps we are not a flock of flag wearing sheep.

"The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. (Applause.)" The hawks, I have to guess, must feel that they, as well as the President, can fly back into office on the coattails of an ongoing terrorist threat.

As to the applause bit, I really wished they noted which side of the audience applauded at given points. I mailing a copy of the transcript to my sister in Germany, and I'm trying to go back and make notes of who applauded where.

I'm glad they applauded the death of the patriot act. I wondered when he said


I mean, if we have been using the methods allowed in the patriot act for years - then why did we need to pass the patriot act if everything in it is old laws? Or, was he referring to passed illegal seizures, illegal detainment, etc? Glad we made those things legal, since that pesky process of discovery and evidence gathering BEFORE ties the hands of the government - you know, they can't seize whoever they don't like.



Okay, I disagree... Not that abstinence is the only way to avoid stds, unwanted pregnancy, etc... but that abstinence-only education is the best way to protect young people from STDs, unwanted pregnancy, etc.

Want links? Okay:
Minnesota tried and failed
Here's the actual study
Summary of some enlightening medical studies

I could post more, but you can do your own yahoo search from here. The point? Abstinence-only education creates a huge problem! While, the numbers of those having sex may be lower in abstinence-only areas - those who do have sex are less likely to use appropriate contraceptive/safe-sex practices. Thus, these children have a higher likelihood of contracting STDs or getting pregnant. How is this "informing" the public about the risks??? I remember being taught "don't have sex, don't have sex, don't have sex... if you do, be safe, be safe, be safe". Just b/c I was told condoms were x% effective compared to BCPs- which don't protect from STDs, and that some STDs can be contracted even with condom use --> I didn't start thinking, oh, people want me to start having sex willy nilly.
Instead of adding another 87 million for federal abstinence-only education, Bush should put this money into sex education that actually helps teenagers protect themselves from STDs. If you leave it up to the kids to figure out for themselves what safe sex is, we will have serious problems. When I was young, I was told by someone oral sex was safe sex... fortunately, I had been informed otherwise through sex education. There are many young people less fortunate - engaging in sex activities they think are safe, but are not.
We need to actually educate the children and arm them against those who would take advantage of their ignorance!

I have a short list which says what I think, not in order of the SOTU:

* We will double Federal funding to teach abstinance to children. Government will Work to counter the negative influence of the culture. ( Huh? Our culture, this one? Sounds like indoctrination, often used by, oh no, dont worry I wont say it. )

* The government will now fund drug testing in schools. We shall begin to teach children that the government can interfere in the very basic privacy of their lives, intimidate and humiliate at will from a young age. This should get them in line and keep them in line for the rest of their lives. ( I can just see all those embarassed kids lining up to pee in little cups, Horrendous!)

*Activist judges are not doing the will of the people, or at least some people. If they dont cut it out the Christian right mob will use the Constutution to get their way, or I will do it for them based on my own ideas about what God wants for this country.
Government will permanently decide that marriages are only for certain people. Ungodly perverts will not get their hands on our sanctified unions, which are only those between a man and woman. ( However, after my speech you can tune into your regularily broadcast reality programs of strangers getting married for money in front of millions of the viewing public or putting their parents through hell pretending to marry an obnoxious slob for a million. Credited to Billy Jean in another thread)

* Religious charities will now get government funding, and help me to spread the word of the divine to those in need. I do not care about separation of church and state because I am a deeply religious man and can do as I please. I will circumnvent the laws of the land and the judges elected and appointed to uphold them if necessary, dont push me and my backers. See: Defense of Marriage, Act I.

* I will continue to give each household at least $300 a year, maybe more. Vote for me if you want money from the Federal government.

* Evil, and more evil. Invasion was justified and now we are killing the evil killers that stand up against our invasion of their country. We have killed many evil killers and will continue to do so, worldwide. Iraqi killers are evil, thugs, Saddam the evil will do no more evil because he is in jail. We are good killers. We are righteous killers. We will kill anyone who does not agree or anyone who stands in our way. Middle Eastern tyranny will not be tolerated,(unless it is from us or Sharon. )
You are expected to believe and trust us about these evils, although we lied to you about most of it recently, but we only had your interest in mind, and that whole messy WMD thing , well, its all ok now because Iraqi's are free.(EEEK!)
We are making America safer by threatening any country that does not obey America now, this is better. We are still not safe, but hey, we're safer than 2 years ago, just dont count on it staying that way. We could still screw up and have another really bad thing happen. Be grateful when we strip search you at the airport, we're doing our best.

*I am a good man, a little girl told me so.

* God is overseeing the whole show, and WE are right.

I also heard, funding funding and more funding (on totally ludicrous propositions that have alot to do with religious beliefs, what century are we in? What country are we in?) Tax cuts and more tax cuts. Then I think, in a little voice I heard, cut the deficit in half in 5 years. Fuzzy Math anyone?

There are two things I thought true and valuable in this speech:
"These numbers confirm that the American people are using their money far better than government would have ..."
And, the Applause when he said the Patriot Act was going to expire next year. That was absolutely Freudian.

I noticed that Dubya shied away from mentioning how low the interest rates have dropped in an effort to stimulate this "recovering" economy, or mentioning just how many jobs his administration has not created to make up for the 2.5 million lost (1,000 created last month--hope nobody burst a blood vessel managing that!).

I think George missed his calling. He would have made a swell preacher in some small southern church. He wants to get the government to judge just who can be married. Now he's going to tell the education system to test urine, teach abstinence, bring up the children's scores by sheer determination--not extra federal money for textbooks, etc., continue to let families get $300 back while their property taxes continue to rise to compensate for the funds the education system is not getting from the government. Of course, Almighty Ashcroft will judge you for the library books you check out or the Internet sites you frequent...Bushtopia--could Heaven be any better?

What on EARTH is he doing? Well, at least he wasn't wagging his finger at the Democratic side accusing them of being "tax and spend" liberals. Perhaps he does have a sense of shame, if not a sense of fiscal responsibility.

I'm glad the Dems clapped when Bush mentioned that the Patriot Act will be ending soon. It's got to be one of the worst-named acts ever, except for, of course, the Ministry of Peace (War), Ministry of Plenty (rationing, I believe), and the Ministry of Love (Interrogation/Imprisonment) of 1984 by George Orwell. Camera monitoring, detention without right of habeas corpus, checking library records (for Pete's sake!). What next?

I guess his "war on drugs" portion of the speech was directed at athletes and their managers, coaches--ah yes, the dangers of steroids. Talk about a pop fly to left field! Why did he include that? Filler?

"America will give you the resources you need to fight and win the War on Terror" was what he said to the military. And what about the resources when and if they come home? Like health care and pensions? You know, little things like that.

This whole speech was definitely Bush Light. Definitely light on any details of the budget Congress is going to be socked with to pay for the war, or how long he thinks the occupation of Iraq is going to be. Think: sound bites for campaign messages.

Unfortunatly for the very few that were applauding its expiring, about three times as many applauded the second half. I think you will see the Patriot Act renewed without much trouble. The Dems didn't even address it in their "rebuttal" speech.

Contrary to some peoples opinions I don't think this speech was only about what Bush has done. Most of the second half was about new programs and plans that he was going to bring to Congress. He has ripped one of the Dems issues right out from under their noses (Medicare).

I thought the best line from the speech was:


In the eyes of many Americans it made the fools who applauded the first sentence look very bad!

I don’t know if this was orchestrated, but it certainly made the Democratic Party look bad, in my opinion. I understand members of the Democratic Party have concerns with regard to The Patriot Act, specifically concerning civil liberties. Those concerns need to be examined carefully, but the reaction from the Democratic Party came across on camera as being against using tools that have been used to fight embezzlers and drug traffickers as bad for fight terrorism.



This was brilliantly articulated. I clapped from my recliner.



Again, a very well made point. Clear, concise, to the point. He is going to use this on the campaign trail.

I disagree with his temporary worker program. I understand his reasoning, but disagree in principle.



Although I agree with this on the surface, I don’t believe it realistic to concentrate so much money on abstinence alone. Teenagers are going to experiment and we should provide them with as much information as possible to prevent STDs and pregnancy.



I agree with his statement about activist judges and am not against allowing the term “marriage” to apply only to a man and woman, BUT, I wish that he had gone ahead and said that we should act to allow civil unions between members of the same sex. He implied it by saying “The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight” but that still left his stance on same sex civil unions up for interpretation. I believe he would endorse such a measure were it presented.

I wish he had concentrated more on how he plans to cut spending and reduce the deficit. I thought it was a good speech overall.

It is funny that the number of different countries that have deployed and those that are thinking of deploying(I mean committed) troops to the cause.

It is not well articulated it is misleading.



The reason why america faces a tax increase, is not directly concerned with the tax cut, but the amount of money america has spent. We are currently in a deficit, and Bush has offered only a half promise to fix this, but yet wants to increase spending. How does one increase spending, and cut the deficit and not increase taxes?

He is working himself into a hole.



Judges are meant to interpret the Law, that is their job. It is a part of the Checks and Balances in place in government. They interpretation can be revoked. But voicing anger in a judges decision is pointless when it can be appealed.

Monty

Are you suggesting a court could strike down a properly ratified amendment to the Constitution? Can a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court strike down the 14th Amendment? The 1st Amendment? I certainly hope not. Though I will confess the 9th and 10th have been seriously undermined by the three branches.

I didn't watch the State of the Union address. I just hope that it's the last one Bush gives.

Why bother? The Republicans are going to applaud like trained monkeys ever time Dubya sneezes, blows his nose or passes gas. The Democrats are going to sit there and clap politely, look at their watches, fidget and wonder when this pep rally is going to end so they can go do something else.

A State of the Union in an election year is nothing more than another campaign speech. It's dishonest and disingenuous. All it's going to do is tell you how much wonderful the world is since George WY. Bush has been President of the United States and why the country can't afford not to have another four years of the same.

Please. I can think of better ways to waste time that to watch this painfully inarticulate man tell me lies for a hour or so.

The day this "amendment" actually happens is the day Marion Barry becomes President.

To even propose a Constitutional Amendment 2/3 of Senate and House of Reps. must agree on it. Assuming this would happen (which it would not), 38 states would have to ratify it. Which also would not happen.

I won't even discuss the 38 state ratification process. It would get stalled in Congress forever. Too many people will not go along with this, either to spite Bush, to not alienate any of their voters, or (very doubtful) just out of principle. This is just a guess, but I'd say even many of the people against gay marriage would not go along with this. I'd say they'd much rather neither make it legal in their state, nor be known as "that guy that voted for the anti-gay amendment".

But, like I said, this is just my opinion, I don't pretend to know the future.

This has nothing to do with the amendment proposal, but I really did wonder about this while watching the State of the Union last night. Why can't a single one of his advisors teach the President the proper way to say "nuclear"? Every time he says "noocular", I think of Homer Simpson. This is by no means a major issue, but it does make him look like a fool.

Never stated that the amendment was either politically possible or a good idea. What I was arguing is that courts can strike down laws, but not properly ratified amendments. The amendment process is an additional check and balance, not a process that somehow subtracts from constitutional protections. The courts can, and at times should, be overruled by a new amendment. Fortunately, the amendment process does require super majorities.

I think that the Prez. hit the nail on the head in terms of national security and defense. His low points however, were, The Patriot Act renewal segment, defending the leagalization of illeagal immigrants, and hitting on the fact that the US should police the world.

BTW, the classless Dems in congress BOOED the president at points, and CLAPPED AT SUPPOSEDLY NEGATIVE POINTS IN THE SPEECH. As of now, I have no respect for the Democratic Party politicians in Washington, at least those who took part in that immature, and shamelesss behavior.

CP

[quote=Looms,Jan 21 2004, 05:40 PM] [QUOTE=Hugo,Jan 21 2004, 10:46 AM] This has nothing to do with the amendment proposal, but I really did wonder about this while watching the State of the Union last night. Why can't a single one of his advisors teach the President the proper way to say "nuclear"? Every time he says "noocular", I think of Homer Simpson. This is by no means a major issue, but it does make him look like a fool. [/quote]
Very simple answer, because if he changed how he spoke the word, then that would become two things:

1) An admission of error, and it would look like he had given in to his detractors.

2) It would be one of the biggest headlines generated by whatever speech he corrects the pronounciation in. If he did it last night, how many Democrat analysts would say "Well, at least he finally pronouced the word "nuclear" right." It would pull attention away from whatever the message of the speech was.

All in all, not a bad speech. I still won't vote for him, and I want to know where all the money to pay for his programs is going to come from, and I want to know why Head Start remains unfunded, yet he claims "No Child is Left Behind."

As I see it, if the jobs created by this recovery are outside the country, and he poses no real solution to the deficit problem, and yet still spends then Bush has some real problems.

He said that only a few nations objected. I think you'll find that the co-alition "of the willing" was a mere 30 to 40 countries (many of which were tiny islands) whilst those who disapproved number over 100 countries. He knows this. Why does he lie even about this?

He says people are scouring passenger lists on planes. The 9/11 hijackers booked under false names.

He says he admires the brave US soldiers. Fine. Go to some funerals then. He went to 0 funerals last year but attended 100 fundraising events. That shows his real priorities.

His agenda was to look like he had it sussed and that his solutions were the only solutions, so far so typical politician. But he also pushed forward with mentioning ideas that really do risk the church/state separation. Marriage. He wants to spend $1.5bn on promoting marriage but a pathetic $67m on training the unemployed. And "faith" based organisations (for faith read Christian).

He wants to promote abstinence as the only solution to premarital sex. This policy produced the highest rate of STD and teenage pregnancy in the western world in Texas. He hasn't learned from that.

It wasn't Bush's best speech in my opinion. It seemed to me to be a classical "boilerplate" kind of a SOTU speech.

This is what we've done so far.
This is what we're doing.
This is where I want to go.

All substance to be sure, but there was a certain energy lacking in it for some reason compared to some of the past speeches Bush has given and I'm not really sure why.

I was hoping that he'd come out firing from a position of strength. The economy is on the rebound, we've removed Saddam and are making progress in Iraq, things are moving along in Afghanistan and the war on terror is working. These are good things that are happening and Bush mentioned them, but not with the fire I expected.

Overall, I was disappointed. I hope this isn't the way they are hoping to run his campaign or it's going to be a whole lot closer than it needs to be.......

I have to be a better editor But I guess thats what happens at 2 am I meant any defense of marriage laws. I also was thinking - trying to pass a defense of marriage ammendment would be ludicrous and a HUGE waste of government time - esp when there are real problems, like job loss, children without healthcare, soldiers deployed in dangerous situations around the world, etc... But, as for my views of government role in marriage - that fits better in another thread.

*Do you agree/disagree with the President's agenda as set forth in the speech?

Well, I don't really think he spent very much time talking about what he was *going* to do, instead I think he spent a lot of time resting on his laurels (i.e Iraq and the War on Terrorism). The little time that he did spend talking about about his domestic agenda I completely disagreed with.

*What were the strong and weak points of the speech?

Strong Point: He spent the most time on Iraq and threw a few bones to some of the special interest groups he expects a vote from this year. While I still disagree on the whole Iraq matter, he probably did what is in his best interest by trying to get people focused on that because it is generally viewed as a success regardless if the reason we were there in the first place was justified.

Weak Points:

1. "Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better. Last month, the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons. Colonel Qadhafi correctly judged that his country would be better off and far more secure without weapons of mass murder."

Actually they were probably threatened by the Bush Administration. Bush to Qadhafi: See what happened in Iraq Qadhafi, better lay down your arms or you are next.

I disagree that our role in the world political process is to be the biggest bully on the block, assimilate or die.

2. "We have seen the joy when they return, and felt the sorrow when one is lost. I've had the honor of meeting our servicemen and women at many posts, from the deck of a carrier in the Pacific to a mess hall in Baghdad. "

Unfortunately the rest of us have not felt the sorrow of their loss because not one single military coffin was allowed to be photographed by the press. Hmm, sounds a little like the Bush Administration is infringing on the freedom of the press.

Also, Bush may have made a few PR appearances on a carrier and in Baghdad, giving the impression he cares... but do you know how many military funerals he has attended? Zero source (with other statistics)

3. "Yet it is mistaken, and condescending, to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government. I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom."

It is also a mistake to assume that everyone believes in God, especially those in the Middle East. Here he could have atleast said Allah if he wanted to show his knowledge of culture, instead this is a veiled insult to those of middle eastern descent.

4. "These numbers confirm that the American people are using their money far better than government would have -- and you were right to return it."

These numbers confirm no such thing, in fact we now have the largest deficit in recorded history and could potentially destabilize world markets according to the IMF. The American people, the majority of whom got $300 or so back in their pockets, probably spent it on a nice dinner or a DVD player. The government could have used that money much more productively by I don't know funding this war on Iraq, spending it on education, putting it into research of alternative fuels?

5. "America's growing economy is also a changing economy. As technology transforms the way almost every job is done, America becomes more productive, and workers need new skills."

Our workers (at least the ones losing jobs) have plenty of skills, they are losing their jobs because corporate America has decided that underpaying foreigners in India, China and Russia to do the same work for a fraction of the cost is the way to go. Businesses are in business to make money, but we also have a responsibility to our citizens to allow them to prosper.

6. "Athletics play such an important role in our society, but, unfortunately, some in professional sports are not setting much of an example. The use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football, and other sports is dangerous, and it sends the wrong message"

What place does discussing steroid use in professional athletes have in a State of the Union Address? If this is the biggest domestic problem we have (or even in the top 10), and it isn't, then I guess we must be pretty much perfect.

7. "On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."

The government has no business protecting the so called sanctity of marriage. To do so would be a violation of separation of church and state. Those activist judges are doing their job well, by realizing that to deny anyone marriage would be unconstitutional.

8. "Yet government has often denied social service grants and contracts to these groups, just because they have a cross or a Star of David or a crescent on the wall. By executive order, I have opened billions of dollars in grant money to competition that includes faith-based charities."

Yes GW, there is the little matter of separation of church and state. By allowing the federal government to sponsor religious charities then you have clearly violated that principle.

That was one of the most intresting SOTU's I've ever watched. Bush was confident in the proposals he set forth, which sound like they have good potential and he was confident in addressing the war in Iraq. I liked Clark, but Bush sealed the deal for me. His points in some places we short but they were to the point. Some of the ones I liked and why.....





I liked the confidence and the fact that he was telling everyone that we will need to stay the course and persevere, without the negativity of "... a long, hard slog".




This showed me that he wants to get our troops out of there and let the Iraqis take care of themselves, but not by letting them fend for themselves.



This shows the world that what we did sent a message that resonated with leaders in the region. Comply with the rules of the civilized world, or be dealt with.



I like this because it lays down why we DID NOT go after nations like North Korea and alike. We all knew this. But the anti-war folks refuse to believe it. This administration isn't a posse of cowboys, but we will not sit idly by while rogue nations tie the rest of the world to the railroad tracks.



"The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got."

He confirmed my vote right there. (That and the 'permission slip' line) He shows his detractors on the war that the legal system (especially of the U.S.) means nothing to these terrorists. This war isn't one that can be fought with subpeonas and summons. It needs to be fought with the same means and conviction we've been fighting with since September 11th. He shows that the terrorists will not play fair and, that though we will not sink to their level, the gloves are off. And they're wrapped with foil, baby.



Now this is where the 'Where's the beef' comments come in. Now although he said nothing about finding huge stockpiles of WMD's, the points in the Kay report are, in my eyes, just as important. If the rest of the world smartend up and saw Hitler's intentions before '39, WWII would of been avoided. So instead of waiting until Saddam physicaly had NEW (and I emphasize that because I believe, as do many others, that he had them since the 80's, and that they are hidden somewhere) WMD's, we went in and made sure, that Saddam would not use them anymore.



Whoever wrote this speech should get a Pulitzer. That last line I underscored, that is my whole argument to any nay-sayer about the war in Iraq. One of my signatures has a quote similar to this and I will stand behind this one 100%. We did not go against the wishes of the UN. That implies that every action we take is subject to their approval. And we're big boys. We can take care of ourselves. The UN is being used more and more as a political tool by regimes like the one that was in Iraq.

Ok, enough about foreign policy, let's look at what he said about THIS country.

I'll be honest with you. I'm 20 years old, and am not married and (thankfully) do not have children. As long as this country doesn't take a turn for 1929, I'm happy. Pappy always said, "There will always be someone who will hire you. You just have to look hard enough." Bush says that there's job growth. I can see it. I'm not worried. And that's my take on the economy.

Now on to something this Californian has a gripe about....



I will never buy into the 'illegals take the jobs that no American will take. What about the legal immigrants who are willing to work those jobs? Illegal is illegal. I hope he means it when he says he does not believe in amnesty. But lemme tell you, this idea isnt that far off from it. This is not a 'weak' point, but it is definately one point I do not like at all.

I liked his proposals for health care, social programs, and especially the inmate intitiative. That particular proposal shows a pro-active stance on reducing crime.

Now, for the one, which I'm sure Jamie knows as well, will be subject for a future thread. Same-sex Marriages. DUM DUM DUM!



"A strong America must also value the institution of marriage.", he says. I agree. Marrying someone you love and starting a family is important to the cohesion of civilization. But when one in every two marriages in this country ends in divorce, I think that before they make ANY decision on same sex marriages, they should focus on the preserving the institution of marriage itself. This administration should support and promote organizations that provide counsuling married couples and discourage infidelity the same way that they are willing to support faith based groups in other ventures.

I see no problem with same sex marriages. If two people are willing to make that commitment to each other, then more power to them. If church and state are seperate, than the government, federal or otherwise, should not decide the legality of a civil union based on 'moral' (a.k.a. religious) motives.

If you are a Christian, you can not say that gay marriage is wrong without saying that it is not ok to call it quits in a marriage for 'irreconcilable differences'. Marriage is sacred. And it should be, for heterosexual and homosexual couples as well.

Well, that's my spiel on the SOTU. Gripes, complaints, condemnations, commendations are greatfully accepted.

If memory serves, Clinton was booed entering once. Given that this was the most blatantly partisan State of the Union I've ever seen, selective applause, in contrast, is quite defensible. It was much less a policy speech or an address to the nation as a whole then a reelection speech, with barbed attacks throughout.

To try to be somewhat objective, on the whole, I feel justified in saying this was a necessarily boring speech. I couldn't put my finger on it, but it was pointed out by pundits that the last two SOU were highly charged events: the first after 9/11 and the case against Iraq. I'm guessing we didn't see any bold new policies (partially b/c the Mars policy tanked?) because of the reelection element. Don't rock the boat, I guess, but it made for a letdown overall.

I think some of the argument about Iraq was well done (reciting our oh-so-helpful allies), some of it abysmal ("the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities", not very catchy), but overall it came off (to me) as too defensive. He shouldn't have mentioned credibility, or WMDs in Iraq, and especially not anywhere near each other, considering last year's SNAFU. It would have been better to briefly mention the bravery of the troops, the glory of liberating Iraq, the commitment to democracy, Saddam's imprisonment, and our allies. The length of the Iraq segment made him look weak to me: he seemed to be going out of the way to respond to criticism that most of America isn't listening to yet.

AQ was mentioned, but bin Laden wasn't named? I think the deficit was mentioned once, as in cutting it in half by five years (please note, deficit, not the debt).The "keep discretionary spending to 4%" pledge was made before, can't remember any real commitment to really cut spending. So add "incomplete" to boring, partisan, and defensive. Not his best effort. The Dem response was even less impressive, but then I guess most decent writers are with various campaigns and Pelosi and Daschle were constrained by the fact any clear message will obliterated when a nominee emerges as the de facto leader of the party and agenda-setter.

*Do you agree/disagree with the President's agenda as set forth in the speech?
*What were the strong and weak points of the speech?
No I don't agree.

Weak Points
I thoroughly enjoyed the applause for those points of the Patriot Act being retired. Damn good to see not everyone is too cowardly to stand for whats right.


does he mean as in Florida?


Good economy? Is George drinking again? Interest rates got low in a very desperate attempt to keep the economy afloat. Absolute failure to keep an eye on the practices of far too many corporations almost destroyed us. and to make it worse these businesses then tried to lay the responsibility for their treachery on 9/11 not their fraudulent attempts to cook the books. Sorry but every senior level member of companies like Enron and WorldCom and Global Crossing should be doing time here in Arizona at Sheriff Joe's Tent city. eating his nasty bread and water and working on one of his chain gangs.
Productivity is high because employers are squeezing their employees and profiting of their fear of being fired because they KNOW there is NO WHERE to go. Whenever jobs do come back there will be a huge surge in people finding new places of employment.

His intention to drug test our kids. Yeah lets burn in their brain right now we don't trust them. Lets teach them to fear our government now and maybe they'll behave.let them know now their freedom can be cancelled at any time and with our new rules questioning or protesting government policies can lead to your disappearance and suspension of your civil rights.

Bush's constant reference to the fact we haven't been attacked yet is merely a sample of his preemptive strike policies allowing him to duck out of any responsibility should one occur. His constant reference to the fact that there has not been one since 9/11 is abominable. 9/11 occurred because of the complete inadequacy of our intelligence agencies. the agencies were to damn territorial and busy playing a game of promotions and politics. Add also too busy fighting the abysmal failure of a War on Drugs.

Faith based programs. Keep your god George. In your house in your church fine. But out of mine and out of our government.


Strong
I like the permission slip comment. I think the UN is a failure. If attacked I support retaliation. If attacked.

For all the republicans talk about small government this president has done more to increase its size. He spends money we do not have and he does this constantly.
He needs to be removed.

Where is Bin Laden? screw Saddam.

The only thing sadder than the SOTU was the response by the Democrats.
Could they have used two more pathetic people for the response. Pelosi and Daschle, two more wooden or pathetic people would have been hard to find and
are examples of everything that is wrong with the Dems. The only good thing about another four years of Bush is the Dems will have no choice but to rebuild their party to reflect modern times and produce realistic answers to modern problems. The 60s and 70s are long gone folks.

No, no it isn't. The point is that common manners tell you that you don't boo the president and don't clap unless you're supposed to. It makes no difference that the Repubs did it whenever, it's still wrong! And classless.

CP

Firstly, I never heard anyone booing at all.

Secondly, the only place anyone clapped inappropriatly was when he made the comment about the patriot act being about to expire. Though I did not see this, according to the CBC correspondent in his post speech comments, that was not the democrats at all, but some overzealous republicans who wanted to clap every time Bush paused, and did not realise how inappropriate it was at that moment...

[quote=Vermillion,Jan 22 2004, 03:00 PM] [QUOTE=ConservPat,Jan 22 2004, 07:34 PM] [QUOTE]It makes no difference that the Repubs did it whenever, it's still wrong! And classless.

[/QUOTE]
Firstly, I never heard anyone booing at all.

Secobdly, the only place anyone clapped inappropriatly was when he made the comment about the patriot act being about to expire. Though I did not see this, according to the CBC correspondent in his post speech comments, that was not the democrats at all, but some overzealous republicans who wanted to clap every time Bush paused, and did not realise how inappropriate it was at that moment... [/quote]
There was booing, and it came from the Democrats. Can we not just get past the fact that those Dems have absolutely no class, what they did illustrated that...it's that simple.

CP

It seems that this is something you have decided egardless of the reality of the situation. If it is true that the Republicans booed Clinton upon his entry for one of his states of the Union, then at worst this brings the Democrats down to the level of the republicans.

However, more realistically, I heard no booing, nor in any of the analyses did anyone refer to it, only to the one case of inappropriate applause which turned out to be dumb republicans rather than classless democrats.

If you heard booing, though nobody else seems to have, when was it , and in reference to what?

First of all, I DO NOT CARE whether the Repubs booed Clinton, that was classless as well, as you can see, I'm an Independent, and this is not a partisan issue. Second of all I'm not making the booing up, I'll try to find where exactly it was, but I think it was after Bush said that he wanted to make the tax cuts permanent. And I'm sure others heard the booing.

CP

Fair enough.



I would appreciate that. I do not mean to call down your comments, but I was sitting in a room full of other analysts, all with the job of examining the speech. Sections of it we watched 5 or 6 times, then watched the analysis from several news sources... Thats why I feel fairly confident I did not hear any democrats booing Bush's speech. But hey, we could be wrong...


[EDIT]

I think I found what you were referring to, I was speaking to some of the other analysts in the room with me, they provided this from our transcript:

"Unless you act, the unfair tax on marriage will go back up. Unless you act, millions of families will be charged 300 dollars more in federal taxes for every child. [rustling, booing] Unless you act, small businesses will pay higher taxes. [murmering] Unless you act, the death tax will eventually come back to life. [murmering]Unless you act, Americans face a tax increase. [murmering]"

If that was what you are referring to, then the murmering and discontent was the republicans agreeing with the dire consquences Bush was listing. It was in support of the speech, and it was the Republicans doing it...

No, no no. I'm referring to actual booing, I'm sure someone else heard it, not just me and the folks watching with me, it wasn't murmurring, it was pure booing, again, I'll try to find a link.

CP

Pat- just re-watched it, Vermillion was right, it was repubs booing about the taxes.

Not once during the entire speech when they panned out to the dems did I see a person even remotely acting untoward.

Why would the Repubs boo about making tax cuts permanent? Again, I'm sure I'm not the only one who saw it, anyone?

CP

They were not booing the permanent cuts, they were booing the doom and gloom predictions made just beforehand, about what would happen were the tax cuts NOT made permanent.

haha I don't know what speech you guys saw, I'm here Pat, how in the right mind are you going to say the republicans bood George W. Bush for Tax Cuts after every standing ovation ? That was the left aisle putting is in the pudding just go watch the speech

(sigh)

So apparently you dont understand.

Read the transcript section I posted above. They were not booing the speech, they were booing his doom and gloom implications of what was going to happen if the tax cut was not ratified. They were supporting the speech.

Read the transcript above, please. Its very clear. It was the republicans booing, and in context they were supporting Bush and the speech.

Crikey.

It was some theatre by the repubs pat- they were not booing the prez, but the thought of repealing the tax cuts.

Frankly, I didn't notice any booing and between the noise and the camera focused on the Pres most of the time, asserting who did what is a bit questionable. But if you read what was posted, the Repubs supposedly booed the consequences of not renewing the tax cuts. I don't know (or care) if any of this is true. But I do know that the last page or so of posts haven't added anything to the discussion of the speech's content.

I'm content that many members of Congress are classless, regardless of affiliation, that they've been that way as long as there's been a Congress, and that the speech contained much "classless" partisan content. Speaking of which, is anyone else going to discuss the speech's content again?

I am confused... what does computerized health records have to do with lawsuits? And how does computerizing health records necessarily reduce dangerous medical mistakes? At my hospital, we've done a good job of computerizing all records, and even have handy interfaces for students/interns/doctors PDAs, so we can take all notes on the pda during the patient interview and directly transfer it to the central database. However, just because all this information is right there it does not entirely eliminate human error. Its quite unfortunate, and this is why hospitals try to have as many fail-safes in place as possible (ie three people see the medical record and drug history before the patient gets a new prescription, etc). I am entirely for computerized health records - b/c being a child of the digital age I think better via computer (and I can actually read what was written before)... but I worry about a government mandate to computerize without funds provided to do so. I have been in enough underfunded clinics to know the computer age does not come cheap and would require serious funds not available to computerize all records and systems. Plus, I've been in an ED when the system went down - that is one of the scariest moments I've ever experienced, so I hope any ideas Bush comes up with don't exclude hardcopy back up systems!

As far as medical lawsuits go, I still can't make up my mind. As a future doctor, I don't want to be sued. But then again, this is why I plan to invest in some serious umbrella insurance outside of my medical practice insurance. I recognize that lawsuits can drive up the costs of everyone's health care - but who decides what is a frivilous lawsuit? Is it frivilous when someone looses a limb after doctors fail to recognize a medical condition? Is it frivilous when a seriously ill patient is overmedicated, causing kidney failure and early death? I mean, the patient was prob going to die soon anyway... but then, when its your mother, father, son, daughter, you don't want to lose them a day sooner than you have to... I can understand limiting the amount of the award - say to no more than the individual could be expected to earn in their lifetime, etc. I also understand putting some of the blame for certain problems on the patient too (ie a mother with a drug habit who sought no prenatal care and sues the OB when the child is still born). But I am afraid this is a very fine line to walk - who decides when it is the patients fault? Who decides the worth of an individuals life? I am interested to see what proposals are put forth on these issues.




Does anyone know how this plays together with zero tolerance rules/laws? Are the drug test results used strictly to sort children into rehab programs? Is money given to the parents to pay for the rehab programs for their children? In my highschool, we had drug searches with the dogs every week. We were one of the first high schools in the nation to start using the "newer" trained drug dogs from customs who will pass up and down a line of people and indicate which are carrying drugs on their person. Our school also used random drug tests - but they used them to identify users and then when the dogs came, the classes of anyone testing positive were the ones lined up and passed by with the dogs. If you got caught with drugs, you were arrested and unless you could afford a good lawyer, you ended up in jail - sometimes juvenile, a lot of times a regular prison. To me, this is not a message of "we love you, we don't want to lose you."

And even if you got lucky and went to juvie, you were still punished in years to come - denied financial aid for college, often denied jobs, etc. Obviously, I recognize teenagers choosing to use drugs must face the consequences, but I also don't know a single teenager who can understand what it means to ruin the rest of their lives... how many teenagers look past the next month? To me, any school drug testing has to be in concert with an agressive community treatment program - you test positive once, you get sent to rehab. You test positive twice, sent to rehab and sorted into the separate discipline school. After that, there need to be more serious consequences. But the point would be to begin from the view that drugs are addictive and without proper treatment, its a near impossible habit to break. It can be especially hard for teenagers who may be able to admit to themselves and friends they have a problem, but admitting to authority figures (like parents or teachers) brings an added fear of losing everything.

At least Bush recognizes to some extent that drug problems begin young and if not caught can lead to much more serious consequences and problems (future crime, joblessness, etc).


The prisoner reentry initiative is interesting. I strongly believe availability of good transitional housing and mentors for released prisoners will help them reenter society. Also, the expansion of job training and placement services is desparately needed. Last year, a program in my area that was meant to do just that was cancelled due to lack of funding. Unfortunately, even when they were in service, it was so severely understaffed that it amounted to little more than a few phone calls to the released inmate followed up three months later by a second phone call. And when they could not reach the person for the follow up call, there was no further pursuit - the person was marked as unreachable. There were simply not enough people working to find out if the person was back in prison, had moved, had found a job, had kept the job, etc. And the placement services were minimal at best - workers called various places asking if they would hire someone released from prison... if the place said yes they were added to a list given to those newly released. There was no help for the person in actually finding the job- no resume writing services or teaching interview skills or calling on behalf of the prisoner... it was all left up to the person. Imagine just reentering the real world, faced with the task of finding a home, finding a job, paying for everything from food to rent to clothes for the first time in years, and having to follow all of the specific rules of your parole. Obviously, there are people who make it through - but I wager these are the ones with the support networks. Overall, I hope that this prisoner reentry initiative actually comes to fruition and is not another empty promise. I also hope it is headed by people who actually intend to do more than compile a list of potential employers and make a few phone calls three months later.

It was the democrats. I watched the entire speech and when they started to applaud Bush shot a glance over to his left (where the Dems were sitting). Please go back and watch it, and you'll see that CBC got it wrong!

The one thing I think we can all agree on, is that, regardless of the content of the speech, you have to go back to Martin Luther King to find an American who can match Bush's oratory skills.

My disagreement is the comparsion of how he described the wmds this STOU and last years SYOU.



He has changed from actual weapons of mass destruction to "weapons of mass destruction-realted program activities". Someone in the adminstration is getting slick with those words!




Are you really serious?????????

Nothing. Read it again. Those are two separate statements/ideas. Computerizing health records was one idea, and eliminating wasteful and frivilous lawsuits was another.

I'll start with the first instance of interesting comments from the speech:

"Inside the United States, where the war began, we must continue to give our homeland security and law enforcement personnel every tool they need to defend us. And one of those essential tools is the Patriot Act, which allows federal law enforcement to better share information, to track terrorists, to disrupt their cells, and to seize their assets. For years, we have used similar provisions to catch embezzlers and drug traffickers. If these methods are good for hunting criminals, they are even more important for hunting terrorists. (Applause.)

Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year. (Applause.) The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. (Applause.) Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens. You need to renew the Patriot Act. (Applause.)"

I've tried to find a link to the story of the man who was very nearly deported back to his hometown of Italy when some Patriot Act enthused government officials looked into his record and found that he had a drug charge - a single drug charge - from the eighties. He was distantly involved in some drug ring, caught, served his punishment and twenty years later he's a family man, completely changed. Yet the government decided to punish him for something he did twenty years ago. This is insane. Listening to talk radio, a republican personality named Lincoln Ware responded "times have changed since 9-11." Times haven't changed so much that the rules of logic and reason don't apply! I've heard of more instances of the Patriot Act being used against common citizens than any alleged terrorists. It needs to go, like yesterday.

I'm not even going to talk about his references to Iraq. We went there because they posed a grave threat to our national security... it turns out they didn't, and he talks about how we've liberated the Iraqis. Shameful.

Well, maybe I'll talk a little bit about it...

"Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq. Objections to war often come from principled motives. But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. We're seeking all the facts. Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictatator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day. Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world. Iraq's torture chambers would still be filled with victims, terrified and innocent. The killing fields of Iraq -- where hundreds of thousands of men and women and children vanished into the sands -- would still be known only to the killers. For all who love freedom and peace, the world without Saddam Hussein's regime is a better and safer place. (Applause.)"

Let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Ayatollah Khomeini in power. Let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Ariel Sharon in power. Let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Kim Jong Il in power. We went to Iraq to fight the war on terror. If we went to Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people, well then the Iraq fiasco had nothing to do with the war on terror. Oh, but the world without Saddam is a "better and safer place." Lol. The world without Dubya would be a "better and safer place," and many countries realize this - does this mean they should pre-emptively attack America?

"America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country. (Applause.)"

Liberating the Iraqis was key to defending the security of our country? I really wish they would choose one reason why we went to war, the real, main reason, and stick with it.

"In my budget, I proposed new funding to continue our aggressive, community-based strategy to reduce demand for illegal drugs. Drug testing in our schools has proven to be an effective part of this effort. So tonight I proposed an additional $23 million for schools that want to use drug testing as a tool to save children's lives. The aim here is not to punish children, but to send them this message: We love you, and we don't want to lose you. (Applause.)"

That may be the message they're trying to send, but here's the message I'm receiving: You are guilty until proven innocent. Maybe they need to talk to their cell phone contractors about that.

"Abstinence for young people is the only certain way to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases."

Yeah, but the thing is, nearly everyone has sex eventually. Since there is no valid "test" to see if someone is truly a virgin or not, you'll just have to take their word for it. As long as there is sex, there will be sexually transmitted diseases. Even in marriage. So let's teach them how to protect themselves... oh wait. Sorry, nope. No can do. We can't teach them how to protect themselves, because if they do, then they'll know how to have safe sex! That'll encourage them to have sex, which almost everyone has eventually anyway!

Logic is no friend of our dearest president.

"A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states. "

Valuing the institution of marriage is in no way impacted by allowing people who love each other to get married... who, by the way, happen to be of the same sex. The only thing that devalues marriage is divorce. I can't even begin to follow his logic on this one.

"Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage. (Applause.) "

I love how he selectively listens to the people's voices. When the people's voices happen to agree with him, then he hears clear as day. But when they disagree, like on issues of oh, say, pre-emptive war, he seems to be mysteriously stricken deaf.
I don't really care what the people think about marriage. It really shouldn't matter, because their opinions should not under any circumstance circumvent the constitution. There is no logical reason to deny two people who love each other from marrying. None.
The job of the judges is to interpret the constitution, not to interpret the constitution to fit the will of the majority.

He then talks about faith-based charities, and I pretty much spazzed out for the most part and then had to garner support from organizations for the separation of church and state to calm myself down.

And the transcript is erroneous. I distinctly remember Dubya calling Ashley Pearson 2, and then 10. When I read a transcript, I expect it to be word for word Anyhow, Ashley's letter gave me some much needed comic relief. So the speech wasn't a total waste of my time.

Edited to add: Ahhhh! How could I forget? I'm still waiting for a single dime of money to be funded to Africa to help them fight the AIDs epidemic.
Maybe if 99.9% of the things Bush said didn't turn out to be empty promises or flat out false, more people would believe him this time around. Just a suggestion...

Haw, Haw. Oh you are some kidder, aint'cha Hugo?

Comparing George W. Bush's mushmouth speech, mangled syntax and tortured English skills to that of one of the greatest orators of the 20th Century would be funny if it weren't such a patently ridiculous comparison.

It's like comparing a Yugo against a Mazerati because they both have four wheels.

You're a funny guy Hugo. Don't ever change.

http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Rea...df01222004.html

Bush Changes His WMD Claims


Popeye, I also noticed that particular phrase in the State of the Union address, an almost subtle change in meaning. He's equivocating and trying not to attract attention, just in case those pesky WMDs are never found. But like everything else, this will be dismissed by the true believers: "It's just those Democrats trying to stir up trouble again!"

This was a very weak part of his speech. We must be unpatriotic since we noticed it.

Paladin Elspeth

Yes that was subtle of Bush(maybe I should not use subtle,which means sly or clever which can't be possible)or probably his HANDLERS.

But we aren't supposed to notice little changes like that. Next thing you know they will call you un-american and hateful phrase. Just pretend you are in a flock of sheep and go where ever the shepherd(Bush) tells you. Watch out for that cliff ahead. OOPS too late.