President Bush's 9/7 National Address

[Bertha Venation]

Care to share your thoughts on [edit] what the president said during [/edit] this address?

oops... maybe a moderator will change the date of the address in the poll header for me... I have 9/12 on the brain...

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Bertha Venation
Care to share your thoughts on this address?

oops... maybe a moderator will change the date of the address in the poll header for me... I have 9/12 on the brain...

Is it okay to wait until after his address to comment?

 

[Bertha Venation]

Re: Re: President Bush's 9/7 National Address

Originally posted by Ken King
Is it okay to wait until after his address to comment?

Of course. It's kinda preferable.... I should've been clearer.

I just wrote the poll questions the way I did in case anyone wanted to vote before the speech.

 

[Penn]

I thought it was a very good speech, something like 19 minutes long; What he said about taking the fight to the terrorists where they live/breed was a telling statement.

We're not going to let them plan and scheme for another attack on our country, we will go after them first where they live, and disrupt, capture or kill them before they can wreak anymore havoc.

Now if we can get the lowlife French, Germans and Russians to enter into the fray, it might go a little easier for the free world.

JMHO

 

[Ken King]

Okay speech, nothing new though. His message was solid and on course for what he has been saying for months. Terrorism is our enemy and we aren’t going to let 9/11 happen again.

Cost, $87 billion for a year for Iraq, Afghanistan, reconstruction, and other endeavors. So we can expect to maintain the current military strength in the region for the next year based on how he split the funding up.

Going to the UN again for their assistance is a good thing. They should be involved more since we did what they demanded but lacked the fortitude to accomplish.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Ken King

Going to the UN again for their assistance is a good thing. They should be involved more since we did what they demanded but lacked the fortitude to accomplish.

What I find interesting we did what did without the help of the UN. We deemed the entire UN irrelevant. We even said we are willing to go at this alone. But when the bills start adding up, as well as the casualties, we start saying the UN should now play a bigger role. I wouldn't be surprised if the UN guys just sit back, light up a cigar, and say "Have fun U.S... "

Like most people are saying, the speech didn't add anything new. I think with the growing concerns of problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not having a clear definition of what we would consider a "win" in Iraq and troops start coming home, Bush went on the air to give us a "feel good" message

 

[Kain99]

87 Billion is a lot of money! I too, saw the speech as an appeal for International assistance. I'm not offended by the appeal, I feel deeply that we should have been supoported by the UN and our allies from the begining.

The only shocker in last nights speeech was the horrible lighting! Was anyone else completely distracted by the huge dent in Bush's neck?

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Kain99
The only shocker in last nights speeech was the horrible lighting! Was anyone else completely distracted by the huge dent in Bush's neck?

Nope, I was looking at his hair... I think he must be going to the same barber as Kerry, that rug didn't move the entire time he was up there!

The speech was about 20 mins, and I only heard two blunders. He's getting better! Guess those shock treatments are finally working

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by SmallTown
What I find interesting we did what did without the help of the UN. We deemed the entire UN irrelevant. We even said we are willing to go at this alone. But when the bills start adding up, as well as the casualties, we start saying the UN should now play a bigger role. I wouldn't be surprised if the UN guys just sit back, light up a cigar, and say "Have fun U.S... "

Like most people are saying, the speech didn't add anything new. I think with the growing concerns of problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not having a clear definition of what we would consider a "win" in Iraq and troops start coming home, Bush went on the air to give us a "feel good" message

Okay ST, a little reality, again. We have done nothing “alone” (you know, exclusive of anyone or anything else) , since day one there have been others involved. Granted, besides the UK, help has been slim, but in no way, shape, or form have we been alone in dealing with Iraq.

And yes, the UN was deemed irrelevant, but again there has been a call by many within our nation to get them involved again and I think that it is a good move. We need to assist the UN to do what they were designed to do and enforce the resolutions that they pass, thereby giving them relevance.

I agree with the President that Iraq was a terrorists haven, and being at war with terrorists, it is right for us to be doing what we have done. We could do it with our current coalition, but should we? Unlike you, I don’t see us as asking for help because of costs or losses. We are asking that all peace loving nations get on board to help eliminate terrorist threats to us and the rest of the world. What is so wrong with that?

 

[SurfaceTension]

The timing of this speech was perfect. Had this been delivered a month ago, the DNC would be issuing brown paper bags to their candidates to help control hyperventilation....Facing a week of 9/11 replays, hero stories, and possible future threats, this was about the only time that he could come forward with the $$ figures without getting mauled.

 

[Penn]

It's business as usual Ken...

Originally posted by Ken King
Okay ST, a little reality, again. We have done nothing “alone” (you know, exclusive of anyone or anything else) , since day one there have been others involved.

And yes, the UN was deemed irrelevant, but again there has been a call by many within our nation to get them involved again and I think that it is a good move.

We could do it with our current coalition, but should we?

Unlike you, I don’t see us as asking for help because of costs or losses. We are asking that all peace loving nations get on board to help eliminate terrorist threats to us and the rest of the world.

What is so wrong with that?

ST has a gift for seeing an issue from a completely different slant.

I like the idea of getting the majority of terrorists in one general location, and then wiping them out.

If we could accomplish that with an overwhelming force of Free World nations, that would send a very powerful message to any terrorists still out there: "We ain't gonna take it anymore!"

 

[SmallTown]

Re: It's business as usual Ken...

Originally posted by penncam
ST has a gift for seeing an issue from a completely different slant.

Oh yea I forgot, we're all supposed to see things the same way

 

[vraiblonde]

It's the attitude that's interesting.

France: You better let us help!

US: No thanks.

France: We're relevant, dammit, and you better let us be involved.

US: We'll think about it.

France: Listen, time's up. You better let us be involved.

US: Okay, we could use your help.

France: HA! NOW you come crawling! Thought you didn't want us, huh? HUH!?! Just shows how weak the US is and what a crummy President they have. *HA* Thought you could do it all by yourself, smarty pants! Who's the big man now, huh?

Very childish.

 

[Penn]

Re: Re: It's business as usual Ken...

Originally posted by SmallTown
Oh yea I forgot, we're all supposed to see things the same way

:razz2: I see the the smalltown-twit humor in the response, but geez, ST, you always take the same slant .

But that's ok, 'cause there will always be guys like Ken around to give you a "reality check", and set you straight.

I do what I can, but he has the true gift.

 

[alex]

I wasn't impressed. Just a lot of feel good nonsense designed to play into the 2nd anniversary of 9/11 and get Congress to fund whatever the heck they are doing in Iraq and elsewhere.

I am not surprised with the problems they are facing in Iraq. It is a shame that good people are being killed for what IMO was not a valid reason.

However, the fact that Congress is now balking about paying the tab on this one annoys me too. They basically abdicated their power to Mr. Bush last year and now they are crying about it.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by alex
I wasn't impressed. Just a lot of feel good nonsense designed to play into the 2nd anniversary of 9/11 and get Congress to fund whatever the heck they are doing in Iraq and elsewhere.

Do you think the President gave this address to impress people? I thought he was responding to the demands of many legislative type persons by stating what it would cost (at least for the next 12 months), how long we will be there (till the job is done), and to make an effort to get the UN involved in the matter. I doubt if it has anything to do with the 9/11 anniversary, other than maybe coincidence. I don’t think that there are many that feel good about any of the things he said, it’s a sad time when we have troops in harm’s way, but we have an obligation to our security and well being that requires us to do what we are doing.

I am not surprised with the problems they are facing in Iraq. It is a shame that good people are being killed for what IMO was not a valid reason.

So I guess all of the thousands that were killed or tortured in Iraq by that regime weren’t good people and they deserved what they got. That stopping this regime from threatening or attacking others was wrong and that making them comply with all the UN resolutions was wrong.

And what are the problems, that many outside forces are using the Iraq campaign as a means to inflict damage upon our troops. That the Iraqi regime released thousands of criminals prior to the conflict to further destabilize that region. That Saddam’s supporters will do whatever it takes to try to get this villain back into power and continue their death hold upon their people.

However, the fact that Congress is now balking about paying the tab on this one annoys me too. They basically abdicated their power to Mr. Bush last year and now they are crying about it.

They started sniveling about this immediately after they passed the legislation. But you didn’t hear nearly as much when Clinton placed our troops into Kosovo without any of the authority that Bush was given. I wonder, why is that?

 

[SmallTown]

Re: Re: Re: It's business as usual Ken...

Originally posted by penncam
:razz2: I see the the smalltown-twit humor in the response, but geez, ST, you always take the same slant .

Depends on the issue... But the same goes for just about everyone, so what is your point? Oh yea, you have none, as usual...

 

[Bruzilla]

Why do so many people, mostly Liberals, still believe that the United Nations has anything to do with what's going on, or will occur, in Iraq? It's not the UN as a whole that's doing anything; it's France, Germany, and to a lesser extent, Russia. These three countries have come to represent the UN as a whole, and that's a sorry thing to have happen. Do these countries have any interest in the well being of the people of Iraq? No... they're owed billions of dollars by the former regime and they aren't going to offer any assistance to the United States until we guarantee them that they'll get their money back. And since it's not our money to offer, we shouldn't be cutting any deals with these scumbags.

I still think that we should shutdown the US and NATO bases in Germany, and relocate those forces to Iraq. Russia isn't going to be invading anyone anytime soon, so why spend billions and billions of dollars on keeping Europe defended from itself?

George Bush is in a no-win situation. If he does what he needs to do in Iraq he'll be attacked as spending too much money, trampling on the rights of Iraqis, getting too many service men killed, etc. If he were to pull out he would get attacked for going in originally, not finishing what he started, etc. And if he brings in the UN, he gets all of the associated UN baggage PLUS he gets attacked for not involving the UN from the get go. I think Bush should tell the Democrats and the UN to pack sand, and stay the course that he's on. He'll get attacked any way that he goes, so he might as well take a course of action that yields results, which will win him re-election.

 

[Penn]

Congressional balking...

That'a fact. People like Kerry and Graham would like to forget that they gave the president all the authority he needed to go into Iraq.
Sen John Kerry is the one, I believe, who said he was all for voting for the authorization, but he thought Pres Bush would only "threaten" Saddam with the use of force to abide by the UN resolutions! What? Is he serious? Waffle-waffle.

Graham from Florida wants(ed?) to bring impeachment charges against the president for his conduct of the war. Right!

The liberals want it both ways: they don't want to be seen as soft against terrorism, soft on defense of the country, but at the same time they don't have the stomach to stay the course.

There are a couple of books out now that show the last eight years of liberal administration/ foreign affairs produced the state of terrorism as it exists today. They didn't take a hard line on it then, so Bin Laden and his followers became more emboldened.

The libs hopping on the bandwagon that we've been in Iraq too long and that it's a quagmire already. Good gosh what's it been -
four months or so?

Didn't GW tell the public (and I have to assume Congress)that it's going to be a long war, and that it's not going to fought like any other?

What part of the president's message didn't they understand?

 

[Penn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's business as usual Ken...

Originally posted by SmallTown
Depends on the issue... But the same goes for just about everyone, so what is your point? Oh yea, you have none, as usual...

I think my point was well made, and furthermore, it's about as sharp as the point on top of your head ST, but of course you have trouble lifting your eyes that way, an eternal pessimist is what I'd guess......