State of the Union Address

[budgie]

The Dear Leader speaks. What a lying tool: can't wait for the fact check sites to come out with "Well what actually happened was..."

[Kilgor]

what he actually said ...

"four more years bitches !"

[American Patriot]

Great SOTU. One of the best ever

[American Patriot]

Holy ****, he just killed the Dems.

[Pandy]

Holy ****, he just killed the Dems.

Aye. That and... "Four more years bitches."

[MEGR]

I thought it was a good speech.

[walford]

...One of Iraq's leading democracy and human rights advocates is Safia Taleb al-Suhail. She says of her country, "we were occupied for 35 years by Saddam Hussein. That was the real occupation. ... Thank you to the American people who paid the cost ... but most of all to the soldiers." Eleven years ago, Safia's father was assassinated by Saddam's intelligence service. Three days ago in Baghdad, Safia was finally able to vote for the leaders of her country - and we are honored that she is with us tonight...

...One name we honor is Marine Corps Sergeant Byron Norwood of Pflugerville, Texas, who was killed during the assault on Fallujah. His mom, Janet, sent me a letter and told me how much Byron loved being a Marine, and how proud he was to be on the front line against terror. She wrote, “When Byron was home the last time, I said that I wanted to protect him like I had since he was born. He just hugged me and said: ‘You've done your job, mom. Now it’s my turn to protect you.’” Ladies and gentlemen, with grateful hearts, we honor freedom’s defenders, and our military families, represented here this evening by Sergeant Norwood’s mom and dad, Janet and Bill Norwood...While Sgt. Norwood's parents were being applauded, al-Suhail turned around and embraced Janet Norwood for a long time. Mrs. Norwood then gave al-Suhail her son's dog-tag...damn.

[budgie]

Good Post, walford but it probably belongs on its own thread.

This from a poster on Atrios about Republican Congressmen who wanted to turn up with blue ink on their fingers to symbolise the Iraqi elections:

You do not own their courage.

The people who stood in line Sunday did not stand in line to make Americans feel good about themselves.

You do not own their courage.

They did not stand in line to justify lies about Saddam and al-Qaeda, so you don't own their courage, Stephen Hayes. They did not stand in line to justify lies about weapons of mass destruction, or to justify the artful dodginess of Ahmad Chalabi, so you don't own their courage, Judith Miller. They did not stand in line to provide pretty pictures for vapid suits to fawn over, so you don't own their courage, Howard Fineman, and neither do you, Chris Matthews.

You do not own their courage.

They did not stand in line in order to justify the dereliction of a kept press. They did not stand in line to make right the wrongs born out of laziness, cowardice, and the easy acceptance of casual lying. They did not stand in line for anyone's grand designs. They did not stand in line to play pawns in anyone's great game, so you don't own their courage, you guys in the PNAC gallery.

You do not own their courage.

They did not stand in line to provide American dilettantes with easy rhetorical weapons, so you don't own their courage, Glenn Reynolds, with your cornpone McCarran act out of the bowels of a great university that deserves a helluva lot better than your sorry hide. They did not stand in line to be the instruments of tawdry vilification and triumphal hooting from bloghound commandos. They did not stand in line to become useful cudgels for cheap American political thuggery, so you don't own their courage, Freeper Nation.

You do not own their courage.

They did not stand in line to justify a thousand mistakes that have led to more than a thousand American bodies. They did not stand in line for the purpose of being a national hypnotic for a nation not even their own. They did not stand in line for being the last casus belli standing. They did not stand in line on behalf of people's book deals, TV spots, honorarium checks, or tinpot celebrity. They did not stand in line to be anyone's talking points.

You do not own their courage.

[Sepper]

Yeah, he sure killed em alright. The streets are just running red with blood. rofl

[walford]

Good Post, walford but it probably belongs on its own thread.Sorry to spoil your Bush-bashing thread. Carry on.

[usa320]

Budgie is just pissed because tools like himself just got completely and utterly owned.

I think this is probably the best SOTU address i have ever seen, ever. I think Bush's 2002 SOTU was good too, and up until now, his best speech. But this thing just blew everything away. I mean this speech will go down in history, no doubt. I think what the president did is further my belief that he is a DOer. Some presidents just manage history. others make it. President Bush is making history, wether people realize it now or not.


I admit, i got teary eyed when Safia Taleb al-Suhail embraced Mrs. Norwood... that was one of the most touching and deep things i have seen in so very long.

This speech was probably the best speech ever given by a president since Ronald Reagan was in office, though Bush's past SOTU were good, as was his speech atop the Pile in September 2001. Sure that speech was only a few words, but it was powerful in its own way.

[Pandy]

Budgie is just pissed because tools like himself just got completely and utterly owned.

I think this is probably the best SOTU address i have ever seen, ever. I think Bush's 2002 SOTU was good too, and up until now, his best speech. But this thing just blew everything away. I mean this speech will go down in history, no doubt. I think what the president did is further my belief that he is a DOer. Some presidents just manage history. others make it. President Bush is making history, wether people realize it now or not.


I admit, i got teary eyed when Safia Taleb al-Suhail embraced Mrs. Norwood... that was one of the most touching and deep things i have seen in so very long.

This speech was probably the best speech ever given by a president since Ronald Reagan was in office, though Bush's past SOTU were good, as was his speech atop the Pile in September 2001. Sure that speech was only a few words, but it was powerful in its own way.

Hell yea, I still disagree on a few things but that speech kicked ass.

[budgie]

Budgie is just pissed because tools like himself just got completely and utterly owned.


I'd be owned if I actually bought into what he said - or if anyone outside the half of America that actually voted for the tool did. He got up, performed, smirked, boasted, jerked some tears and lied through his teeth.

We'll see when fact check.org and the Center for American progress compare what is said with the real world...I estimate Bush will come out with about 50% accuracy, which really isn't bad, considering he's usally dead wrong...

[usa320]

We'll see when fact check.org and the Center for American progress compare what is said with the real world...I estimate Bush will come out with about 50% accuracy, which really isn't bad, considering he's usally dead wrong...


Websites with agendas mean nothing. The desire of the American people for leadership that gets things done means everything.

You did get owned. You still refuse to accept the fact that the majority of Americans elected Bush as our leader in a free and fair election. And because of the fact that you are too naive to accept this fact, because you believe the loopy conspiracies and whacko left wing nut jobs, the degree to which you had been owned only increases. As time goes on, people like you only make yourself look stupider and stupider. The right doesnt need to say anything to make the left look bad, they are pretty good at doing it themselves.

[Jobu]

Pretty damn good speech.

In fact, his speechwriters have been very good lately. The inauguration and this SOTU were excellent.

[Sierra]

****! I MISSED IT! :cantbeli:

[BarkingSquirrel]

Forgot all about it :|

[usa320]

for those that missed it, check www.whitehouse.gov. Id imagine they will have the video of it by tommorow.

[budgie]

You did get owned. You still refuse to accept the fact that the majority of Americans elected Bush as our leader in a free and fair election.

Wrong. I accept that the majority of Americans voted for Bush.

because you believe the loopy conspiracies and whacko left wing nut jobs,

Such as...?

As time goes on, people like you only make yourself look stupider and stupider.

It's so much easier to accuse the opposition of being stupid than to argue on the facts, isn't it? I think i'll try:

You're stupid! Does that put me ahead now?

[Aerosoul]

I didn't bother watching it. I would imagine it was just like all the others.

5 words, applause, 6 words, applause, 7 words (big sentence for W) and some more applause...blah. Seein it too many times already.

Anyway, did he say anything about plans for Iraq? Something other than "as long as we need to?" Just wondering.

[Zoomie]

I'm cracking up right now that Al Sharpton still believes Kerry won. rofl

[pistol]

Good Post, walford but it probably belongs on its own thread.Sorry to spoil your Bush-bashing thread. Carry on.

You didn't spoil it, you actually inhanced it. I was disgusted (although not suprised) to see Bush pull such a shameless political stunt. Using grief-stricken parents as political pawns is reprehensible. I guess just so long as people like yourself suck it up as a great tribute to the troops, that's all that matters. Nevermind discussing an exit strategy or anything of substance. Just parade a devestated mother in front of the country while you stand there with a **** eating grin on your face. That's all we need to see.

[pistol]

...One of Iraq's leading democracy and human rights advocates is Safia Taleb al-Suhail. She says of her country, "we were occupied for 35 years by Saddam Hussein. That was the real occupation. ... Thank you to the American people who paid the cost ... but most of all to the soldiers." Eleven years ago, Safia's father was assassinated by Saddam's intelligence service. Three days ago in Baghdad, Safia was finally able to vote for the leaders of her country - and we are honored that she is with us tonight...

...One name we honor is Marine Corps Sergeant Byron Norwood of Pflugerville, Texas, who was killed during the assault on Fallujah. His mom, Janet, sent me a letter and told me how much Byron loved being a Marine, and how proud he was to be on the front line against terror. She wrote, “When Byron was home the last time, I said that I wanted to protect him like I had since he was born. He just hugged me and said: ‘You've done your job, mom. Now it’s my turn to protect you.’” Ladies and gentlemen, with grateful hearts, we honor freedom’s defenders, and our military families, represented here this evening by Sergeant Norwood’s mom and dad, Janet and Bill Norwood...While Sgt. Norwood's parents were being applauded, al-Suhail turned around and embraced Janet Norwood for a long time. Mrs. Norwood then gave al-Suhail her son's dog-tag...damn.

The dog tags got tangled in the woman's cuff. Why would a devastated mother give away such a precious object to a total stranger? I pretty sure the moment was just misinterpreted by the commentators.

[wholagun]

Websites with agendas mean nothing. The desire of the American people for leadership that gets things done means everything.


Sure leadership gets things done, but that doesn't mean the leadership or the things being done are good. There are lots of Americans that would say things are going rather bad. Its all a matter of personal opinon.

[SHAM]

To quote someone from the European Union thread..I am glad i dont live in america.
I just donlt believe in blind faith in politicians which is exactly what he does. Vitriolic whooping and hollering type speeches with cheap propaganda style appearances such as the one of tony blair previously. It just stinks of mindlessness.
Has there ever been a state of the union address that said the state of the union wasnt so apple pie as they were saying? i mean whats the point? shine sunshine up your own ass? pat yourself on the back?
And so much for Rices claim of engaging in "dialogue" with the world....Sounded like a whole load of "monolgue" again.

[Ratman]

The speech made me wretch. Do you all believe that ****? Damn... the bar is set low. Education system has been replaced by false-values system and calls for four more years bitches? WTF? All of you who support the "reform" of the SS system, I hope you remeber that when you are 75 and eating cat food on the park bench, which by then you'll probably have to pay to sit on because it will have been privatized (or burned as an "alternative source of fuel"). :slap:

[Zoomie]

The speech made me wretch. Do you all believe that ****? Damn... the bar is set low. Education system has been replaced by false-values system and calls for four more years bitches? WTF? All of you who support the "reform" of the SS system, I hope you remeber that when you are 75 and eating cat food on the park bench, which by then you'll probably have to pay to sit on because it will have been privatized (or burned as an "alternative source of fuel"). :slap:
Well then Ratman what would you do with SS if you see such a more pure and simple way to fix something that was designed with the depression in mind?

[Ratman]

The speech made me wretch. Do you all believe that ****? Damn... the bar is set low. Education system has been replaced by false-values system and calls for four more years bitches? WTF? All of you who support the "reform" of the SS system, I hope you remeber that when you are 75 and eating cat food on the park bench, which by then you'll probably have to pay to sit on because it will have been privatized (or burned as an "alternative source of fuel"). :slap:
Well then Ratman what would you do with SS if you see such a more pure and simple way to fix something that was designed with the depression in mind?

First, I disagree with the premise - I don't think that SS needs a HUGE fix because it is isn't broken. They are just saying it's broken. It's not, or that's at least how the majority of government and private sector economists feel. At current income and disbursements, SS will gain or break even until something like 2042. Do you think that we need to scrape a system now and replace it with another riskier system? I think it is better to reform SS gradually. As for its existence, it would be a sad day to get rid of retirees' safety net when you are theortically the richest country in the world. And there will be more recessions and drepressions.

Here's what the new system won't do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/opinion/01krugman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman

[Pandy]

The speech made me wretch. Do you all believe that ****? Damn... the bar is set low. Education system has been replaced by false-values system and calls for four more years bitches? WTF? All of you who support the "reform" of the SS system, I hope you remeber that when you are 75 and eating cat food on the park bench, which by then you'll probably have to pay to sit on because it will have been privatized (or burned as an "alternative source of fuel"). :slap:
Well then Ratman what would you do with SS if you see such a more pure and simple way to fix something that was designed with the depression in mind?

First, I disagree with the premise - I don't think that SS needs a HUGE fix because it is isn't broken. They are just saying it's broken. It's not, or that's at least how the majority of government and private sector economists feel. At current income and disbursements, SS will gain or break even until something like 2042. Do you think that we need to scrape a system now and replace it with another riskier system? I think it is better to reform SS gradually. As for its existence, it would be a sad day to get rid of retirees' safety net when you are theortically the richest country in the world. And there will be more recessions and drepressions.

Here's what the new system won't do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/opinion/01krugman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman

What you think Bush is doing right now, SS Reform...

[ShotOver]

Even I tuned into this (Took the day off work to check it out) was on ze Fox News over here.
Was a pretty good speach i thought.

[ElHombre]

Pretty damn good speech.

In fact, his speechwriters have been very good lately. The inauguration and this SOTU were excellent.

a constant repetition of cliches does not a good speech make. his inauguration speeech used either the words 'freedom' and 'liberty' every 30 seconds. literally. the phrase 'less is more' apparantly does not exist among the white house speech writers.

it also helps to place this in context with his other SOTU speeches. i.e.: take any proposal he makes with a huge grain of salt. 'axis of evil', 'you're either with us or against us', 'dead or alive'. does anyone recall the 'mission to mars'? anyone?

my favorite oldie: the missle defense shield. rofl

alas, i was working last night so i was unable to catch the speech live. i've got the transcript and i'm going to go through it with a fine tooth comb. not because it has any actual value but because it is the source of the ever fun SOTU drinking game! you take a drink every time he mentions the words 'freedom', 'bankrupt', 'personal account', or 'crisis'. if he says 'osama bin laden' you get to drink the entire bottle!

oops, he didn't say that, did he?

and about the stained fingers. they make toilet paper for that. you don't have to wipe your a$$es with your finger anymore. :roll:

[BlackRain]

The speech made me wretch. Do you all believe that ****? Damn... the bar is set low. Education system has been replaced by false-values system and calls for four more years bitches? WTF? All of you who support the "reform" of the SS system, I hope you remeber that when you are 75 and eating cat food on the park bench, which by then you'll probably have to pay to sit on because it will have been privatized (or burned as an "alternative source of fuel"). :slap:
Well then Ratman what would you do with SS if you see such a more pure and simple way to fix something that was designed with the depression in mind?

First, I disagree with the premise - I don't think that SS needs a HUGE fix because it is isn't broken. They are just saying it's broken. It's not, or that's at least how the majority of government and private sector economists feel. At current income and disbursements, SS will gain or break even until something like 2042. Do you think that we need to scrape a system now and replace it with another riskier system? I think it is better to reform SS gradually. As for its existence, it would be a sad day to get rid of retirees' safety net when you are theortically the richest country in the world. And there will be more recessions and drepressions.

Here's what the new system won't do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/opinion/01krugman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman


Your statements are not consistent with reality.

Democrats and Bill Clinton himself said Social Security is in 'crisis'.


Back in 1998, Democrats realized it was politically safe to rally around Clinton's statements about a Social Security crisis because they knew he did not really intend to take any action that matched his rhetoric. They also knew that Clinton's words were correct; Social Security was then, as it is now, facing a "looming fiscal crisis." He just didn't plan to do much about it.

Now, things are different. George W. Bush, by all accounts, intends to take substantial action. And as he prepares the way for that action, he has decided to use elements of the old Clinton campaign to make his case. Last week, under questioning by reporters, White House spokesman Scott McClellan read an extended passage from Clinton's February 1998 "looming fiscal crisis" statement without first revealing the source of the quote. That wasn't President Bush, McClellan then explained. "That was February 9, 1998, in remarks given by President Clinton. This has been a problem that has been looming for quite some time."

[BlackRain]

The speech made me wretch. Do you all believe that ****? Damn... the bar is set low. Education system has been replaced by false-values system and calls for four more years bitches? WTF? All of you who support the "reform" of the SS system, I hope you remeber that when you are 75 and eating cat food on the park bench, which by then you'll probably have to pay to sit on because it will have been privatized (or burned as an "alternative source of fuel"). :slap:


Wretch?

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050203/i/r2490966058.jpg

U.S. first lady Laura Bush (R) applauds while her guest Safia Taleb al-Souhail (who's family members were killed by Saddam) comforts Janet Norwood (C), whose son, Marine Corps Sergeant Byron Norwood of Pflugerville, Texas was killed during the assault on Fallujah, as the Marine was honored during U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s State of the Union address in the House Chamber in Washington February 2, 2005.

[BlackRain]

The speech made me wretch. Do you all believe that ****? Damn... the bar is set low. Education system has been replaced by false-values system and calls for four more years bitches?

Americans, Presidential Critics, Historians, Democrats, and Republicans viewed the speech as positive and impressive. Your opinion is not reflected by the general public sentiment.

CNN Instant Poll: 86 Percent Had Positive Or Somewhat Positive Response To President Bush’s State Of The Union Address. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “We’re just getting our instant poll as we call it, CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. We started polling after the speech. Look at this, overall reaction to the address: very positive 60%, somewhat positive 26%, only 13%, Andrew [Sullivan], said they had a negative reaction to the President’s State of the Union Address. Are you surprised by at least in this initial CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, such a – 86% were either positive or somewhat positive?” (CNN’s State Of The Union Address Coverage, 2/2/05)


MSNBC’s David Shuster: “Just About Every Democrat I Spoke With Away From The Cameras Confessed This Was A Very Good Speech The President Gave, That It Hit The Rights Notes, That It Was Emotional.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/2/05)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “I Think There Are Parts Of It That Were Soaring, That Were Overarching, That Were Very Impressive.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 2/2/05)

NBC’s Tim Russert: “I Think The Speech Tonight Will Be Remembered More For The Passion And Emotion Of The Words About Iraq.” (NBC’s “State Of The Union Coverage,” 2/2/05)

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “I Think It Was One Of The Good Ones. I Think It Was A Powerful Speech. I Could Tell The Whole Night It Was Growing.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/2/05)

Presidential Historian Michael Beschloss: “If Anyone Had Any Doubt Before Tonight About The Sweep Of George Bush’s Ambition To Be Remembered As A Great President, Just Listen To The Speech That We Have Just Heard…He Sees His Presidency In Very Grand Terms.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 2/2/05)

The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes: “I Think He Made A Strong Case [For Strengthening Social Security].” (Fox News’ “State Of The Union Coverage,” 2/2/05)

NPR’s Juan Williams: “I Reacted To [The Speech] Emotionally … I Thought It Was A Terrifically Suggestive Speech In Terms Of Speaking About Generations And Speaking About America’s Commitment To Young People.” (Fox News’ “State Of The Union Coverage,” 2/2/05)

John Meacham, Newsweek Managing Editor: “I Think It Was A Remarkable Speech.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/2/05)

National Review’s David Frum: “I Thought It Was A Magnificent Speech. I Thought It Was Incredibly Powerful, Powerful… Backed Up By Realities Like The Iraqi Vote.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/2/05)

MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell: “What He Did Tonight Was Challenge Congress In A Way That He Hasn’t Done Before, To Save And Strengthen Social Security, It’s On The Verge Of Bankruptcy. And What He Did Was Put Down And Make Clear Some Specifics…” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/2/05)

[SHAM]

The speech made me wretch. Do you all believe that ****? Damn... the bar is set low. Education system has been replaced by false-values system and calls for four more years bitches?

Americans, Presidential Critics, Historians, Democrats, and Republicans viewed the speech as positive and impressive. Your opinion is not reflected by the general public sentiment.

CNN Instant Poll: 86 Percent Had Positive Or Somewhat Positive Response To President Bush’s State Of The Union Address. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “We’re just getting our instant poll as we call it, CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. We started polling after the speech. Look at this, overall reaction to the address: very positive 60%, somewhat positive 26%, only 13%, Andrew [Sullivan], said they had a negative reaction to the President’s State of the Union Address. Are you surprised by at least in this initial CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, such a – 86% were either positive or somewhat positive?” (CNN’s State Of The Union Address Coverage, 2/2/05)


MSNBC’s David Shuster: “Just About Every Democrat I Spoke With Away From The Cameras Confessed This Was A Very Good Speech The President Gave, That It Hit The Rights Notes, That It Was Emotional.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/2/05)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “I Think There Are Parts Of It That Were Soaring, That Were Overarching, That Were Very Impressive.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 2/2/05)

NBC’s Tim Russert: “I Think The Speech Tonight Will Be Remembered More For The Passion And Emotion Of The Words About Iraq.” (NBC’s “State Of The Union Coverage,” 2/2/05)

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “I Think It Was One Of The Good Ones. I Think It Was A Powerful Speech. I Could Tell The Whole Night It Was Growing.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/2/05)

Presidential Historian Michael Beschloss: “If Anyone Had Any Doubt Before Tonight About The Sweep Of George Bush’s Ambition To Be Remembered As A Great President, Just Listen To The Speech That We Have Just Heard…He Sees His Presidency In Very Grand Terms.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 2/2/05)

The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes: “I Think He Made A Strong Case [For Strengthening Social Security].” (Fox News’ “State Of The Union Coverage,” 2/2/05)

NPR’s Juan Williams: “I Reacted To [The Speech] Emotionally … I Thought It Was A Terrifically Suggestive Speech In Terms Of Speaking About Generations And Speaking About America’s Commitment To Young People.” (Fox News’ “State Of The Union Coverage,” 2/2/05)

John Meacham, Newsweek Managing Editor: “I Think It Was A Remarkable Speech.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/2/05)

National Review’s David Frum: “I Thought It Was A Magnificent Speech. I Thought It Was Incredibly Powerful, Powerful… Backed Up By Realities Like The Iraqi Vote.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/2/05)

MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell: “What He Did Tonight Was Challenge Congress In A Way That He Hasn’t Done Before, To Save And Strengthen Social Security, It’s On The Verge Of Bankruptcy. And What He Did Was Put Down And Make Clear Some Specifics…” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/2/05)


Looks like a whole lot of talking heads giving it the "yes man" opinion. If you look hard enough you will find what you want to see.
There is no mention of "Dialogue" in those opinions? Its all mindless belief of everything politicians say, its good to question and disagree.
They need a weekly presidents question time over there like they do in most parliaments around the world for priministers.
And as for the two women hugging, ever the political opportunist, what better a place for two people to be introduced and hug etc. Just goes to show how low some people will go to make themselves look good. And the worse thing is that a whole lot of people actually buy that.

[penna]

The speech made me wretch. Do you all believe that ****? Damn... the bar is set low. Education system has been replaced by false-values system and calls for four more years bitches?

Americans, Presidential Critics, Historians, Democrats, and Republicans viewed the speech as positive and impressive. Your opinion is not reflected by the general public sentiment.

CNN Instant Poll: 86 Percent Had Positive Or Somewhat Positive Response To President Bush’s State Of The Union Address. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “We’re just getting our instant poll as we call it, CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. We started polling after the speech. Look at this, overall reaction to the address: very positive 60%, somewhat positive 26%, only 13%, Andrew [Sullivan], said they had a negative reaction to the President’s State of the Union Address. Are you surprised by at least in this initial CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, such a – 86% were either positive or somewhat positive?” (CNN’s State Of The Union Address Coverage, 2/2/05)


MSNBC’s David Shuster: “Just About Every Democrat I Spoke With Away From The Cameras Confessed This Was A Very Good Speech The President Gave, That It Hit The Rights Notes, That It Was Emotional.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/2/05)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “I Think There Are Parts Of It That Were Soaring, That Were Overarching, That Were Very Impressive.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 2/2/05)

NBC’s Tim Russert: “I Think The Speech Tonight Will Be Remembered More For The Passion And Emotion Of The Words About Iraq.” (NBC’s “State Of The Union Coverage,” 2/2/05)

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “I Think It Was One Of The Good Ones. I Think It Was A Powerful Speech. I Could Tell The Whole Night It Was Growing.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/2/05)

Presidential Historian Michael Beschloss: “If Anyone Had Any Doubt Before Tonight About The Sweep Of George Bush’s Ambition To Be Remembered As A Great President, Just Listen To The Speech That We Have Just Heard…He Sees His Presidency In Very Grand Terms.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 2/2/05)

The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes: “I Think He Made A Strong Case [For Strengthening Social Security].” (Fox News’ “State Of The Union Coverage,” 2/2/05)

NPR’s Juan Williams: “I Reacted To [The Speech] Emotionally … I Thought It Was A Terrifically Suggestive Speech In Terms Of Speaking About Generations And Speaking About America’s Commitment To Young People.” (Fox News’ “State Of The Union Coverage,” 2/2/05)

John Meacham, Newsweek Managing Editor: “I Think It Was A Remarkable Speech.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/2/05)

National Review’s David Frum: “I Thought It Was A Magnificent Speech. I Thought It Was Incredibly Powerful, Powerful… Backed Up By Realities Like The Iraqi Vote.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/2/05)

MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell: “What He Did Tonight Was Challenge Congress In A Way That He Hasn’t Done Before, To Save And Strengthen Social Security, It’s On The Verge Of Bankruptcy. And What He Did Was Put Down And Make Clear Some Specifics…” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/2/05)


Looks like a whole lot of talking heads giving it the "yes man" opinion. If you look hard enough you will find what you want to see.
There is no mention of "Dialogue" in those opinions? Its all mindless belief of everything politicians say, its good to question and disagree.
They need a weekly presidents question time over there like they do in most parliaments around the world for priministers.
And as for the two women hugging, ever the political opportunist, what better a place for two people to be introduced and hug etc. Just goes to show how low some people will go to make themselves look good. And the worse thing is that a whole lot of people actually buy that.

considering that half those comments came from some of his worst tv critics, like chris matthews from hardball.

[penna]

The speech made me wretch. Do you all believe that ****? Damn... the bar is set low. Education system has been replaced by false-values system and calls for four more years bitches?

Americans, Presidential Critics, Historians, Democrats, and Republicans viewed the speech as positive and impressive. Your opinion is not reflected by the general public sentiment.

CNN Instant Poll: 86 Percent Had Positive Or Somewhat Positive Response To President Bush’s State Of The Union Address. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “We’re just getting our instant poll as we call it, CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. We started polling after the speech. Look at this, overall reaction to the address: very positive 60%, somewhat positive 26%, only 13%, Andrew [Sullivan], said they had a negative reaction to the President’s State of the Union Address. Are you surprised by at least in this initial CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, such a – 86% were either positive or somewhat positive?” (CNN’s State Of The Union Address Coverage, 2/2/05)


MSNBC’s David Shuster: “Just About Every Democrat I Spoke With Away From The Cameras Confessed This Was A Very Good Speech The President Gave, That It Hit The Rights Notes, That It Was Emotional.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/2/05)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “I Think There Are Parts Of It That Were Soaring, That Were Overarching, That Were Very Impressive.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 2/2/05)

NBC’s Tim Russert: “I Think The Speech Tonight Will Be Remembered More For The Passion And Emotion Of The Words About Iraq.” (NBC’s “State Of The Union Coverage,” 2/2/05)

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “I Think It Was One Of The Good Ones. I Think It Was A Powerful Speech. I Could Tell The Whole Night It Was Growing.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/2/05)

Presidential Historian Michael Beschloss: “If Anyone Had Any Doubt Before Tonight About The Sweep Of George Bush’s Ambition To Be Remembered As A Great President, Just Listen To The Speech That We Have Just Heard…He Sees His Presidency In Very Grand Terms.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 2/2/05)

The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes: “I Think He Made A Strong Case [For Strengthening Social Security].” (Fox News’ “State Of The Union Coverage,” 2/2/05)

NPR’s Juan Williams: “I Reacted To [The Speech] Emotionally … I Thought It Was A Terrifically Suggestive Speech In Terms Of Speaking About Generations And Speaking About America’s Commitment To Young People.” (Fox News’ “State Of The Union Coverage,” 2/2/05)

John Meacham, Newsweek Managing Editor: “I Think It Was A Remarkable Speech.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/2/05)

National Review’s David Frum: “I Thought It Was A Magnificent Speech. I Thought It Was Incredibly Powerful, Powerful… Backed Up By Realities Like The Iraqi Vote.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/2/05)

MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell: “What He Did Tonight Was Challenge Congress In A Way That He Hasn’t Done Before, To Save And Strengthen Social Security, It’s On The Verge Of Bankruptcy. And What He Did Was Put Down And Make Clear Some Specifics…” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/2/05)


Looks like a whole lot of talking heads giving it the "yes man" opinion. If you look hard enough you will find what you want to see.
There is no mention of "Dialogue" in those opinions? Its all mindless belief of everything politicians say, its good to question and disagree.
They need a weekly presidents question time over there like they do in most parliaments around the world for priministers.
And as for the two women hugging, ever the political opportunist, what better a place for two people to be introduced and hug etc. Just goes to show how low some people will go to make themselves look good. And the worse thing is that a whole lot of people actually buy that.

suuuuure, considering that half those comments came from some of his worst tv critics, like chris matthews from hardball.

[SHAM]

Ah..thats ok then. everything is peachy, no need to formulate an opinion just turn on the tv get given my opinion from the yes men and back to walmart :D

[SHAM]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4229461.stm

Go there if you want some wide and varying opinons from citizens from all over, not just talking heads from the tv.

[penna]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4229461.stm

Go there if you want some wide and varying opinons from citizens from all over, not just talking heads from the tv.

ironic, considering you gave me a link another media source, which is also objective and will show you what it wants to show you.

i'm a university student, if i want to discuss the state of the union address or the president i only have to ask professors or peers. plenty of opinions on campus.

[SHAM]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4229461.stm

Go there if you want some wide and varying opinons from citizens from all over, not just talking heads from the tv.

ironic, considering you gave me a link another media source, which is also objective and will show you what it wants to show you.

i'm a university student, if i want to discuss the state of the union address or the president i only have to ask professors or peers. plenty of opinions on campus.

I wasnt talking to you directly, i was addressing the forum. The link is to a page displaying public opinions offered to the BBC.

[Ratman]

The speech made me wretch. Do you all believe that ****? Damn... the bar is set low. Education system has been replaced by false-values system and calls for four more years bitches? WTF? All of you who support the "reform" of the SS system, I hope you remeber that when you are 75 and eating cat food on the park bench, which by then you'll probably have to pay to sit on because it will have been privatized (or burned as an "alternative source of fuel"). :slap:
Well then Ratman what would you do with SS if you see such a more pure and simple way to fix something that was designed with the depression in mind?

First, I disagree with the premise - I don't think that SS needs a HUGE fix because it is isn't broken. They are just saying it's broken. It's not, or that's at least how the majority of government and private sector economists feel. At current income and disbursements, SS will gain or break even until something like 2042. Do you think that we need to scrape a system now and replace it with another riskier system? I think it is better to reform SS gradually. As for its existence, it would be a sad day to get rid of retirees' safety net when you are theortically the richest country in the world. And there will be more recessions and drepressions.

Here's what the new system won't do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/opinion/01krugman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman


Your statements are not consistent with reality.

Democrats and Bill Clinton himself said Social Security is in 'crisis'.


Back in 1998, Democrats realized it was politically safe to rally around Clinton's statements about a Social Security crisis because they knew he did not really intend to take any action that matched his rhetoric. They also knew that Clinton's words were correct; Social Security was then, as it is now, facing a "looming fiscal crisis." He just didn't plan to do much about it.

Now, things are different. George W. Bush, by all accounts, intends to take substantial action. And as he prepares the way for that action, he has decided to use elements of the old Clinton campaign to make his case. Last week, under questioning by reporters, White House spokesman Scott McClellan read an extended passage from Clinton's February 1998 "looming fiscal crisis" statement without first revealing the source of the quote. That wasn't President Bush, McClellan then explained. "That was February 9, 1998, in remarks given by President Clinton. This has been a problem that has been looming for quite some time."

Listen, I'm not like you, I don't care who said it, Bush, Clinton, Mickey-f-in-Mouse: if there is no crisis then there is no crisis. He is not reforming the system, he is dismantling it. I'm not afraid of calling bull**** on Clinton, but you sure are about doind so on Bush. And I know who I think is more full of sh*t. IMO, Scott McClellan is a pathological liar, but he's paid to be. Bush isn't. That's not leadership, that's a talking lobotomy.

[Ratman]

The speech made me wretch. Do you all believe that ****? Damn... the bar is set low. Education system has been replaced by false-values system and calls for four more years bitches? WTF? All of you who support the "reform" of the SS system, I hope you remeber that when you are 75 and eating cat food on the park bench, which by then you'll probably have to pay to sit on because it will have been privatized (or burned as an "alternative source of fuel"). :slap:


Wretch?

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050203/i/r2490966058.jpg

U.S. first lady Laura Bush (R) applauds while her guest Safia Taleb al-Souhail (who's family members were killed by Saddam) comforts Janet Norwood (C), whose son, Marine Corps Sergeant Byron Norwood of Pflugerville, Texas was killed during the assault on Fallujah, as the Marine was honored during U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s State of the Union address in the House Chamber in Washington February 2, 2005.

Yeah this part made me wretch the most. Sick. Yeah we lied and now you son is dead because we told him that Iraq, major sponsors of international terror :roll: had WMD's that they were going to use on us and now you are being paraded for my political purposes. Poor lady, poor son, poor state of democracy.

[Jobu]

Poor ratman.

The only thing wretched here is your opinion.

[BlackRain]

Poor ratman.

The only thing wretched here is your opinion.


Word.

[BlackRain]

Poll: Bush wins converts among speech-watchers
Thursday, February 3, 2005 Posted: 5:24 AM EST (1024 GMT)

(CNN) -- President Bush's State of the Union address raised support for his policies on health care and Social Security among people who watched the speech, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Wednesday night.

The percentage of respondents who said the president's proposals in those areas will help the country rose 15 points from when the same question was asked of the same people in the two days before the speech.

In the post-speech sample, 70 percent of respondents said Bush's policies on health care were positive, while 66 percent approved of the president's plan for Social Security.

Bush showed almost as much improvement on Iraq, with 78 percent of respondents saying U.S. policy there is heading in the right direction, a 12 percentage point increase over pre-speech polling. Overall, 77 percent of respondents said Bush is taking the country in the right direction after the speech compared to 67 percent beforehand.

The strong positives for the president's policies may in part be a reflection of the poll's sample. Of the 485 people surveyed, 52 percent identified themselves as Republicans, 25 percent as Democrats and 22 percent as independents. The poll was done by telephone interviews and has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Respondents still said Iraq was the most important issue facing the president and the nation in the coming year -- 30 percent, compared with 23 percent for terrorism. Social Security was the top domestic issue, with 19 percent of respondents saying it should be the government's main focus.

Overall, Bush got very positive or positive reactions to his speech from 86 percent of respondents, his best numbers since the State of the Union address he gave January 29, 2002 -- just four-and-a-half months after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 -- when 94 percent of those polled gave him positive marks.

[ViktorNavorski]

Social Security will be next to impossible or impossible to be reform under President Bush or under any other Republican.

There is very deep partisan divide on this issue. SS was the creation of Frankling D. Roosevelt, one of the greatest Democrat to ever hold the office of the Presidency. It was his legacy, it is the Democrat legacy, it is their social program and for all purpose and intent, their most cherish baby. Basically, for the Democrat, who does this Republican think he is for taking something they created and growed and exact his vision on it and leave his mark on its for generation to come.

Sure the Democrat will fight the reform, but only 10% of the reasoning will be because of the numbers and such, the other 90% will simply be because SS is there, they created, they nurtured and watched over it and if it is to be fixed, it will be done on their terms. FDR legacy was for creating it and the Democrat will see to it that the legacy of fixing it will remain in the bloodline.

[BadKarma26]

He was a goddamn soldier. You don't have to tell a soldier where the **** he's going to fight, hes gonna go. He didn't sign up to fight for only causes he thinks are just, he signed up to follow the orders of congress and the POTUS. They didn't "lie" to the troops. You say go over here and kill these assholes and it's "yessir!" Any service member that signs up and takes the oath of enlistment is a hero because he is relinquishing control over his physical being to the government.

[HR24]

Good Post, walford but it probably belongs on its own thread.Sorry to spoil your Bush-bashing thread. Carry on.

You didn't spoil it, you actually inhanced it. I was disgusted (although not suprised) to see Bush pull such a shameless political stunt. Using grief-stricken parents as political pawns is reprehensible. I guess just so long as people like yourself suck it up as a great tribute to the troops, that's all that matters. Nevermind discussing an exit strategy or anything of substance. Just parade a devestated mother in front of the country while you stand there with a **** eating grin on your face. That's all we need to see.

Tell that to Michael Moore and his use of them in Farenheit 9/11. I'm sure he really cared for them while he watched the returns from his movie come in.

[pistol]

Good Post, walford but it probably belongs on its own thread.Sorry to spoil your Bush-bashing thread. Carry on.

You didn't spoil it, you actually inhanced it. I was disgusted (although not suprised) to see Bush pull such a shameless political stunt. Using grief-stricken parents as political pawns is reprehensible. I guess just so long as people like yourself suck it up as a great tribute to the troops, that's all that matters. Nevermind discussing an exit strategy or anything of substance. Just parade a devestated mother in front of the country while you stand there with a **** eating grin on your face. That's all we need to see.

Tell that to Michael Moore and his use of them in Farenheit 9/11. I'm sure he really cared for them while he watched the returns from his movie come in.

I've never seen any Michael Moore films so I don't know what you are talking about. If the only way you can justify Bush's actions is to say "Michael Moore did it, so it must be ok", then that is pathetic.

[HooyahCQB]

I'm watching it right now, but it keeps stopping every 3 minutes and re-buffering. :(

As far as SS goes, Ratman, I'd rather work hard my entire life to be able to retire on my own and not depend on government funds to keep me afloat. I understand that some people aren't as fortunate to be able to work for themselves, but those who can shouldn't rely on SS to survive.

[usa320]

No point in arguing with people like ratman. Ive wasted too much time doing it myself. Fact of the matter is, they are so caught up in partisan politics, so blinded by envy for America, and so unwilling to accept Bush's re-election, that the US and Bush can do no right in there eyes. They do not see things as right and wrong. They see things as "bush did it, it must be wrong". Just wait and let the course of history prove the doubters wrong. This administration is one driven on sweeping reform for the better of America. As much as you buffoons might hate it, our children will thank us in 20 years.


Republican, democrat, hell, communist... i dont care what party you represent, NO ONE can deny that there is a problem with the social security system.

[priccobe]

Good Post, walford but it probably belongs on its own thread.Sorry to spoil your Bush-bashing thread. Carry on.

You didn't spoil it, you actually inhanced it. I was disgusted (although not suprised) to see Bush pull such a shameless political stunt. Using grief-stricken parents as political pawns is reprehensible. I guess just so long as people like yourself suck it up as a great tribute to the troops, that's all that matters. Nevermind discussing an exit strategy or anything of substance. Just parade a devestated mother in front of the country while you stand there with a **** eating grin on your face. That's all we need to see.
The exit strategy is what Bush said: We leave when the Iraqis can run their own country

I guess you didn't see Christopher Reeve's widow in the audience on the Democrats side...

[usa320]

Nevermind discussing an exit strategy or anything of substance. Just parade a devestated mother in front of the country while you stand there with a **** eating grin on your face. That's all we need to see.

Yes, because George Bush forced Mrs. Norwood to attend the speech. Did you ever think, that maybe she was there, because as the mother of a Marine, she realizes that president Bush will move heaven and earth for the troops?

[Kilgor]

First, I disagree with the premise - I don't think that SS needs a HUGE fix because it is isn't broken. They are just saying it's broken. It's not, or that's at least how the majority of government and private sector economists feel. At current income and disbursements, SS will gain or break even until something like 2042.

Its very simple. Now and in the future, the post war baby boomers will start to retire. They will expect the pension just like everyone else and this will put a massive strain on a system not designed for such large numbers of handouts. Its not just america's problem, its a massive problem world wide and nearly every pension system in the world will have to be reformed if social security is to survive.

Some countries have made very successful transitions from public to private social security accounts.

What worked early last century when social security was established will NOT work in a very different day and age.

[walford]

Nevermind discussing an exit strategy or anything of substance. Just parade a devestated mother in front of the country while you stand there with a **** eating grin on your face. That's all we need to see.Yes, because George Bush forced Mrs. Norwood to attend the speech. Did you ever think, that maybe she was there, because as the mother of a Marine, she realizes that president Bush will move heaven and earth for the troops?Bush had no grin on his face -- he was as moved as everyone else was by this unexpected demonstration of mutual gratitude and appreciation of mutual loss:
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050203/i/r2490966058.jpg
This was not staged. Al Suhail said that she was invited to a non-specified 'special event' of which she was not notified until some time beforehand. She did not know who the Norwoods were until they were introduced in Bush's speech. Asked about the embrace, she said simply that she 'could not control herself' and knew what it was like to suffer the loss of a loved one.

Leave it to the Bush-hating maggots to try and turn a moment like that into something negative. You are truly demonstrating your irrelevance and decreasing touch with reality. You have no alternatives, so all you can do is try and piss on anything good -- such as people who are celebrating the removal of a brutal mass-murdering dictator and the first chance at freedom for a long-suffering people.

[ViktorNavorski]

First, I disagree with the premise - I don't think that SS needs a HUGE fix because it is isn't broken. They are just saying it's broken. It's not, or that's at least how the majority of government and private sector economists feel. At current income and disbursements, SS will gain or break even until something like 2042.

Its very simple. Now and in the future, the post war baby boomers will start to retire. They will expect the pension just like everyone else and this will put a massive strain on a system not designed for such large numbers of handouts. Its not just america's problem, its a massive problem world wide and nearly every pension system in the world will have to be reformed if social security is to survive.

Some countries have made very successful transitions from public to private social security accounts.

What worked early last century when social security was established will NOT work in a very different day and age.

I will stick to my original opinion, the problems with SS will not be solve during this term.


Social Security will be next to impossible or impossible to be reform under President Bush or under any other Republican.

There is very deep partisan divide on this issue. SS was the creation of Frankling D. Roosevelt, one of the greatest Democrat to ever hold the office of the Presidency. It was his legacy, it is the Democrat legacy, it is their social program and for all purpose and intent, their most cherish baby. Basically, for the Democrat, who does this Republican think he is for taking something they created and growed and exact his vision on it and leave his mark on its for generation to come.

Sure the Democrat will fight the reform, but only 10% of the reasoning will be because of the numbers and such, the other 90% will simply be because SS is there, they created, they nurtured and watched over it and if it is to be fixed, it will be done on their terms. FDR legacy was for creating it and the Democrat will see to it that the legacy of fixing it will remain in the bloodline.

It is going to be a hard and dirty fight in the House and Senate over SS.

[ElHombre]

Its very simple. Now and in the future, the post war baby boomers will start to retire. They will expect the pension just like everyone else and this will put a massive strain on a system not designed for such large numbers of handouts.

which is why they raised payroll taxes in the 80's under reagan, to build up the trust fund. want to do it again? roll back the insane tax cuts that bush demanded during the first 4 years.

and now for a new development. even the bush administration is admitting that its own plan won't solve SS's fiscal problems:


In a significant shift in his rationale for the accounts, Bush dropped his claim that they would help solve Social Security's fiscal problems — a link he sometimes made during last year's presidential campaign. Instead, he said the individual accounts were desirable because they would be "a better deal," providing workers what he said would be a higher rate of return and "greater security in retirement."

A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity, was more explicit, saying that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system's long-term financial problems.

That candid analysis, although widely shared by economists, distressed some Republicans.

"Oh, my God," one GOP political strategist said when he learned of the shift in rhetoric. "The White House has made a lot of Republicans walk the plank on this. Now it sounds as if they are sawing off the board."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-speech3feb03,1,466993,print.story?coll=la-headlines-business&ctrack=1&cset=true

and i'll top it off with the words of paul krugman, the economist who was one of the first to say that bush's fiscal policies were total hogwash:


It really is that stark: any growth projection that would permit the stock returns the privatizers need to make their schemes work would put Social Security solidly in the black.

[pistol]

The exit strategy is what Bush said: We leave when the Iraqis can run their own country


That's not an exit strategy. An exit strategy entails an actual plan to enable the Iraqis to run their own country.



Did you ever think, that maybe she was there, because as the mother of a Marine, she realizes that president Bush will move heaven and earth for the troops?


Bush won't even provide armored humvees. Troops at Walter Reed can't even get phone cards to call their families. Don't tell me about Bush moving heaven and earth.



This was not staged. Al Suhail said that she was invited to a non-specified 'special event' of which she was not notified until some time beforehand. She did not know who the Norwoods were until they were introduced in Bush's speech. Asked about the embrace, she said simply that she 'could not control herself' and knew what it was like to suffer the loss of a loved one.

Leave it to the Bush-hating maggots to try and turn a moment like that into something negative. You are truly demonstrating your irrelevance and decreasing touch with reality. You have no alternatives, so all you can do is try and piss on anything good -- such as people who are celebrating the removal of a brutal mass-murdering dictator and the first chance at freedom for a long-suffering people.


I never said anything about Al Suhail. Leave it to Walford to try and put words in your mouth so he can unleash his venemous reservoir of hate on all those who pass on the neo-con kool-aid he loves so dearly. All I said was that the Norwoods were being used as political puppets. That is a statement of fact. I also said that Mrs. Norwood did not give Al Suhail her son's dogtag. The rest of your immature rant was in response to a product of your fantastical imagination. If you want to turn this into a petty name calling contest, you are wasting your time.

[priccobe]

Bush won't even provide armored humvees. Troops at Walter Reed can't even get phone cards to call their families. Don't tell me about Bush moving heaven and earth.

Last I heard Walter Reed said they had plenty of phone cards. And for armored humvees, can you name real specifics?

[BlackRain]

You guys are really brave to insult a mother who lost her son in this war by claiming it was a staged event.

Must take real balls to denigrate a woman who's only crime is that she hugged a woman who's family members were murdered by Saddam.

Classy folks. It just proves that when you let leftist talk -- their blind hatred and shallowness is clearly displayed.

[pistol]

Bush won't even provide armored humvees. Troops at Walter Reed can't even get phone cards to call their families. Don't tell me about Bush moving heaven and earth.

Last I heard Walter Reed said they had plenty of phone cards. And for armored humvees, can you name real specifics?

Well you heard wrong about Walter Reed. As for humvee sepcifices, I think the Rumsfeld "you go to war with the army you have" fiasco was all the specifics we need.




You guys are really brave to insult a mother who lost her son in this war by claiming it was a staged event.

Must take real balls to denigrate a woman who's only crime is that she hugged a woman who's family members were murdered by Saddam.



Nobody insulted her. I merely question the appropriateness of taking advantage of a grieving mother in a political speech.

[usa320]

no pistol. Bottom line is, your are an asshole.


Bush could do exactly what you want, and you would still be bitter.


Thats okay. Someday you will grow up.

[DarkCypher]

Pistol can you please explain to me how an Armored Humvee is going to stop an IED or an RPG.

Just because you’re a retard, I’ll make it very clear for you. IT WON’T!!

[pistol]

no pistol. Bottom line is, your are an asshole.


Bush could do exactly what you want, and you would still be bitter.


Thats okay. Someday you will grow up.

Ok, you win. I can't argue with that logic and your mastery of contractions has left me too much in awe of your intellectual might to even respond.



Just because you’re a retard, I’ll make it very clear for you. IT WON’T!!

Ok then, lets just take away all armor that won't stop an RPG. Flak vests, gone. Helmets, gone. Good thinking. :bash:

[usa320]

no pistol. Bottom line is, your are an asshole.


Bush could do exactly what you want, and you would still be bitter.


Thats okay. Someday you will grow up.

Ok, you win. I can't argue with that logic and your mastery of contractions has left me too much in awe of your intellectual might to even respond.



Just because you’re a retard, I’ll make it very clear for you. IT WON’T!!

Ok then, lets just take away all armor that won't stop an RPG. Flak vests, gone. Helmets, gone. Good thinking. :bash:

damn right i win, because no matter what you say, your still a stubborn ignoramus.

[5jumpchump]

Good Post, walford but it probably belongs on its own thread.Sorry to spoil your Bush-bashing thread. Carry on.

O-W-N-E-D x2 haxored squared !!! rofl

[BlackRain]

Bush won't even provide armored humvees. Troops at Walter Reed can't even get phone cards to call their families. Don't tell me about Bush moving heaven and earth.

Last I heard Walter Reed said they had plenty of phone cards. And for armored humvees, can you name real specifics?

Well you heard wrong about Walter Reed. As for humvee sepcifices, I think the Rumsfeld "you go to war with the army you have" fiasco was all the specifics we need.

Do you ever check facts before you post your ramblings?

Walter Reed received so many phone cards that they are refusing any further donations.


After reading the article in The Washington Times about the need for phone cards at Walter Reed, I posted this to a blog I frequent and quickly got a response saying, "No more phone cards." I thought I would verify this, so I called Aster Black, American Red Cross station manager, at 202/782-6362, as you suggested. Indeed, they do have loads of cards right now.

I was told they have so many cards, in boxes all over the place, that they can barely get around. So they suggested to check with them again after the holidays and see if they have room for more perhaps in late January or February.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050102-112556-7410r.htm

[BlackRain]

Ok then, lets just take away all armor that won't stop an RPG. Flak vests, gone. Helmets, gone. Good thinking. :bash:

Reality Check

Newly armored Humvees still fail to protect
Saturday, January 29, 2005

By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The National Guardsman bound for Iraq who complained to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last month about the lack of armor for his unit's vehicles may have been right about the problem. But the military's initial remedy may not have been the right solution.

Most U.S. troops confronting Iraqi insurgents now have newly armored Humvees. But Army field commanders are finding that they don't offer enough protection. That has prompted a belated Defense Department decision to put more armor on older M113 personnel carriers and send them to Iraq, according to the latest edition of the newsletter Inside the Pentagon.

The armor on Humvees can fend off small-arms fire and small roadside explosives, but it doesn't do much to stop rocket-propelled grenades, known as RPGs, or heavy machine guns. The armor's weight diminishes off-road performance and increases breakdowns.

The basic armor on the M113 protects those inside from small arms and shrapnel. Additional armor plating and "birdcage" armor like that on the Army's new armored car, the Stryker, protects against RPGs and most roadside bombs.

Maj. Gen. William Webster, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, which soon will replace the 1st Cavalry Division in Baghdad, asked for additional heavily armored M113s more than a year before the Pentagon brass assented. The very public complaint by a junior enlisted man apparently prompted the Army to act.

"The long-awaited nod to up-armor the 3rd Infantry Division's M113 tracked personnel carriers reportedly came quietly, in a closed-door Pentagon meeting just days after an Army soldier in Kuwait appealed publicly to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld," Inside the Pentagon reported.

At a town hall-style meeting Dec. 8 with Iraq-bound troops north of Kuwait City, Army Spc. Thomas Wilson asked Rumsfeld why his Tennessee Army National Guard unit had to scrounge for scrap metal to armor their vehicles. At the time, 97 percent of the 278th's Humvees already had been armored, Maj. Gen. Stephen Speakes insisted afterward.

Yet the armored Humvees appear still to be inadequate. "What may have been lost in the ensuing media uproar is that Army field commanders are now concerned that even newly armored Humvees do not offer enough protection against insurgent arms," the newsletter said.

Armoring old M113s is, at best, a stop-gap solution to the shortcomings of the armored Humvee, said Col. Douglas Macgregor, one of the Army's leading authorities on mechanized warfare prior to his retirement last year.

The longer-term solution, he said, is an upgraded version of the M113, called the MTVL, short for Mobile Tactical Vehicle Light. Prototypes of the MTVL have a more powerful and fuel-efficient hybrid-electric engine and band tracks made of rubber, which lighten the vehicle and increase road speed.

Because it would be an upgrade of existing M113s ( the Army has more than 11,000 in storage) the MTVL would cost less than a half-million dollars each, or about one-fourth the cost of a Stryker, the Army's new armored car.

[priccobe]

please stop owning pistol, he hasn't won an argument yet.

[Ratman]

Leave it to the Bush-hating maggots to try and turn a moment like that into something negative. You are truly demonstrating your irrelevance and decreasing touch with reality. You have no alternatives, so all you can do is try and piss on anything good -- such as people who are celebrating the removal of a brutal mass-murdering dictator and the first chance at freedom for a long-suffering people.

This is REALLY a laugh - good one. woot I thought it was Dubya who told his staff that he didn't want any bad news on Iraq. Not that he was getting a lot in the first place ... Your man is the one with a burning hunk of love for a decreasing touch with reality. Too busy stamping out real evil like Janet Jackson's ****.

As for USA320 and greatest blahblahblah - as noticed by most people that I've seen comment on your posts, you're IQ is about as high as your pants in a SF bathhouse. Envy for America? What does this mean? I am American. I see things differently from you. You're so gung ho about fighting EVIL, get yerself in the Army. School hasn't done much for you.

[Ratman]

You guys are really brave to insult a mother who lost her son in this war by claiming it was a staged event.

Must take real balls to denigrate a woman who's only crime is that she hugged a woman who's family members were murdered by Saddam.

Classy folks. It just proves that when you let leftist talk -- their blind hatred and shallowness is clearly displayed.

I don't like political stunts at the expense of dead soldiers. No one has insulted the mother, as I see it.

[pistol]

please stop owning pistol, he hasn't won an argument yet.

So the argument is that since up-armored humvees can't stop all explosives and projectiles its not worth doing at all? So soldiers are welding scrap metal to their humvees just for fun? Please...if you buy into this crap its a victory for the terrorists. :bash:

[Dennis G]

I thought the President's speech to be quite effective. Some random ruminations:

1) Anyone who thinks Bush stupid is stupid. The man has a genius for restructuring the question-- and any good lawyer will tell you that framing the question presented is pivotal.

By the time Bush was done with Al Gore, Gore was protesting that he was pro-gun. There are many analogous examples. And now Bush has taken the third rail of American politics with which the Demogogues have always cracked the Patricians (a.k.a. Republicans) over the head, and is in the process of sticking it where the sun doesn't shine.

Bush is looking to establish a powerful and lasting Republican dominance. As part of this he is looking to vaporize the impression of the Republican Party as the party of cranky old white men, patricians, and religious nuts. He wants the Latino vote-- and is getting it. He wants growing percentages of the black vote, and has begun getting i-- very outside of the box in his thinking to go to the black churches for his camel's nose into the tent.

The laughable response of Reid and Pelosi is proof that Bush once again has reframed the question and the debate.

His dad may have had trouble with "the vision thing" but this man does not. He dreams big and bold, with resonance in the profound wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

There are many areas in which I have strong disagreement with the President and in those areas I will oppose him strongly.

But this man has the potential to be one of the all-time greats.

2) People think backwards. They choose the conclusion they prefer, then learn the facts and arguments to justify it. This is why it is so rare for people to change their mind in conversation or debate when confronted with superior presentation of the facts or superior logic.

With SS Bush starts with the concept of ownership of one's retirement assets-- and works backwards from there. I am tempted to call this brilliant in the way it "stop-hits" the previously successful class envy warfare of the Demogogue Party and aims for a return to core American values. How free can you be if your old-age is in the hands of the State?

3) The speech IMHO finally got right the message to the Arab and Muslim world.

I think one of the most important passages was where he spoke of them having earned the RESPECT of the world and the American people. This matter of respect and claims of lack thereof has been a sore point in much of the Arab world.

I think this passage and this message will have a far greater resonance in the Arab world than the chattering classes, including those on FOX, appreciate.

4) I confess I winced and wobbled a bit on his inaugeral speech. It seemed , , , too much. I thought Peggy Noonan's (a fine and true Republican and a true lady) critique of overreaching on the Freedom theme, to have merit.

However, with this speech my wobbling is gone. He truly put together the eloquent expression of our mission, strategy and purpose in WW3 and why Iraq was the next step after Afghanistan.

It is easy for us to forget what a duplicitous role we have often played in the mid-east. I understand that just as we had to ally with the evil of Stalin to defeat the evil of Hitler we have had to ally with scum in the mid-east to prevent the evil empire of the Soviet Union from taking the mid-east as it took East Europe-- but that just doesn't register if you are Shiite left twisting in the wind by our President's father when he failed to back their play when they rose up against SH and left them (and the Kurds) to be slaughtered.

People have different communication modalities, and so do cultures. Forgive me the generalization, but relatively speaking IMHO US culture is more logic oriented than the Arabic one, which is more emotion and intuition driven.

How better to communicate the truth of our message than to put the Iraqi daughter of a man murdered by SH next to the mother of a fallen American hero (wasn't her son the one who threw himself on a grenade to save his buddies?) to give her thanks to that mother for her gift and her loss.

What a powerful moment for those parents!!! And by inference to all such parents. And what powerful communication technique by the President to make real to the Arab world just who we are and what we are made of and that real people are making some real sacrifices for them as well as for us.

I confess I cried as the mother absorbed the profound applause and embraced the Iraqi woman.

Which brings me to my closing thought. The President's speech would have been meaningless gibberish without the truth that our Warriors have made real.

[usa320]

I think people calling Bush stupid or an idiot is his greatest strength. He can, and does use other people's misunderestimations of himself to his advantage.

He might not be the best speaker in the land, but make no mistake, he is a man with vision, a plan, and will most likely go down in history as a political genius.

[budgie]

You guys are really brave to insult a mother who lost her son in this war by claiming it was a staged event.

Must take real balls to denigrate a woman who's only crime is that she hugged a woman who's family members were murdered by Saddam.

Classy folks. It just proves that when you let leftist talk -- their blind hatred and shallowness is clearly displayed.

I don't like political stunts at the expense of dead soldiers. No one has insulted the mother, as I see it.

Ahh but don't you see it yet? According to the Right anyone who disagrees with the President's conduct is disrespecting the troops and denigrating the dead.

These cowards are so quick to hide their agendas behind flag draped coffins.

[budgie]

I think people calling Bush stupid or an idiot is his greatest strength. He can, and does use other people's misunderestimations of himself to his advantage.


That was sarcasm right? Please tell me you're messing with us.

[budgie]

He might not be the best speaker in the land, but make no mistake, he is a man with vision, a plan, and will most likely go down in history as a political genius.

Well you're right in a way. Even twenty years from now when History has proven that Bush is the tool we know him to be already, the Hard Right in America will still have canonized him the way they have Reagan, and in theirhistory, he'll still be a hero.

[walford]

Meanwhile the Demos can lionize Bubba and Jimmah -- two foreign policy success stories whose influence will continue to resonate for generations to come.

[Jobu]

According to James Carville:


"If Bush wins, it will be one of the greatest political achievements of my lifetime."

[usa320]

Meanwhile the Demos can lionize Bubba and Jimmah -- two foreign policy success stories whose influence will continue to resonate for generations to come.

pwned.