GeeDubya's big speech. Be Wrong Now!

[elucidator]

GeeBubya's set to give a speech tomorrow. A speech, not a press conference, no questions will be taken. Everybody's pretty close mouthed, no big spills of rumors. Odd thing: Showtime is airing a move about him on 9/11 that, by all accounts, its postively knee-pad in its gushing approval. And this very movie is going to be interuppted by GeeDubya's speech. Strange.

But be that as it may, it offers an excellent opportunity for us two-bit pundits to be totally wrong: whats it gonna be about? A blockbuster? A sparrowfart?

I predict: he will make a speech full of maudlin praise for our troops and "assure" them that he means to stay the course. He will also infer, but offer no proof, that some major headway has been achieved in the snipe hunt for WMD's. But we'll have to be patient, and trust him. I predict he will make only passing reference to the economy, as he is attempting to stanch one wound at a time.

What your take?

[Squink]

Rummy made his special trip to Iraq in order to pick up the anthrax shells and dirty nukes they discovered in Saddam's secret hideout. George will trot them out for all America to see -tomorrow.

[pantom]

He's making a speech, right at the start of football season, on a Sunday night?
Definitely what Squink said. No way he schedules a speech for that kind of time slot without having something big & extremely positive for him politically to say.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

He will try to claim a victory in the search for WMDs by extropolating a "program" out of an abandoned mini-van.

He will wave the flag.

He will praise the troops and try to get as much reflected glory on himself as humanly possible.

At some point he will begin to glisten and talk about Jesus.*

The fact that he will not answer questions means that this is a purely political event. The intention is to manipulate public opinion not to inform the public.





This line was stolen from Hunter S. Thompson in a recent interview with Aint-It-Cool-News.

[Brutus]

I predict little or nothing about WMD. Why rehash that old stuff? More about the economy, I suspect, since various numbers are up. A bit about Iraq, a bit about the War on Terror. Maybe sumthin-sumthin about Israel & roadmaps.

That, or he will appear in a toga, announce the creation of the American Empire. Olive oil stocks go through the roof. Brutus rejoices. SPQA?

Either way, it probably be more 'sparrowfart' than blockbuster. Nothing 'big' happened in the past while, so I doubt the speech will be 'big'.

[pantom]

Yeah, but the timing is truly weird. Why schedule it for right after the opening action in football if it isn't going to be something big?
Odd, just odd.

[Revtim]

He'll explain why it's taking so goddam long to plant WMD evidence. What's the holdup, fer chrissakes?

[Reeder]

He going to apologize for all the harm he's done of course.

Then all will be better.

Not.

[elucidator]

You know, sometimes I pay more attention to posters who share my paranoia as those who share my political leanings.

This is, point of fact, a really wierd time to schedule a speech, all things considered. I hadn't thought about the football tie in, just barely knew about the movie.

Note: When I said "no questions will be taken" that was an assumption on my part, no such stipulation has been made. However, speeches are generally billed as such, and questions are not usually a part of "speeches". So, to be entirely clear, I was relying on reason and not actual statements.

[Brutus]

Utter speculation, and a bit of going back on what I said earlier:

We 'found' some WMD in Iraq?

(For a offical 'speech', I would guess it has to be WMD, rather than just WMD programs.)

The timing would be good. Bit early still, but there can be other 'finds' as time goes on. (Saddam in Feb., OBL in October, etc).

Sheer speculation.

[elucidator]

Now, Reeder this is my OP and I expect some niceties to be followed. Recent events, which God Forbid be reviewed again, have led several of our....less progressive.....brethren to be....somewhat touchy.

I intend to the conjectural. Make a guess, that sort of thing. I do not intend to open a thread for mere "Bush-bashing". If you wish to point out the moral bankruptcy and the political nihilism of the Bushiviks, you will enjoy abundant opportunities.

But in this instance, I'm trolling for Wild Ass Analysis.

So......whaddaya think? Whats he got to say?

[elucidator]

PS: I only disagree with friend Brutus because I suspect something as hefty as WMD's! Found! would have leaked by now.

Anybody checked the latest blogs?

[Revtim]

Of course, being only a few days before Sept 11, he'll have to associate Iraq with the 9/11 tragedy some more.

[Reeder]

It was a guess.

The not was for things being all better.

[ElvisL1ves]

Same old stuff he's been peddling all along. Hell, he believes it.

The timing? An attempt to get people to actually watch and listen, since they'll be in front of the tube anyway. But it'll just tick people off instead.

[Desmostylus]

Originally posted by elucidator
PS: I only disagree with friend Brutus because I suspect something as hefty as WMD's! Found! would have leaked by now.Britain and US back down on weapons of mass destruction claim
(http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3522145&thesection=news&thesubsection=world) The inspectors, headed by David Kay, a close associate of President George Bush, are likely to say the only evidence it has found is that the Iraqi government had retained a group of scientists who had the expertise to restart the weapons programme at any time.

Foreshadowing the report, Mr Bolton said the issue was not weapons, or actual programmes, but "the capability that Iraq sought to have ... WMD programmes". Looks like all there is is a desire to have a weapons program. You know, like a letter that says "Shit! I wish we had some nuclear anthrax or somthing!"

[pantom]

Yeow! If that's the announcement, does he have any idea the world of trouble he just bought for himself and the U.S.? Just plant some damned evidence, like Revtim said.
Really, there is no overstating the amount of damage we're talking about taking here on the international stage.
No, just can't be. Has to be something more, just has to be.

[county]

Yes to support the troops and stay the course (death to terrorists stuff), then talk about "America's invitation to UN and other nations"

I do believe he make reference to the economy and his steps to correct and plans to reduce unemployment.

Has this forum done a thread about his "alcoholism"?

[Ale]

"the capability that Iraq sought to have ... WMD programmes".

I´m appaled

[Revtim]

Originally posted by Desmostylus
Britain and US back down on weapons of mass destruction claim
(http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3522145&thesection=news&thesubsection=world) Looks like all there is is a desire to have a weapons program. You know, like a letter that says "Shit! I wish we had some nuclear anthrax or somthing!" Heh. So it drops from actual WMDs, to a WMD program, to the desire of starting a WMD program. As a thought experiment, is it even possible for the bar drop any lower? Being able to spell WMD?

Shit, I almost feel sorry for Blair. I guess the "45 minutes to deploy WMDs" really meant "45 minutes until we have a round table meeting and come up with mission statement for the stationary for when we start our WMD program someday."

[Brutus]

Originally posted by elucidator
PS: I only disagree with friend Brutus because I suspect something as hefty as WMD's! Found! would have leaked by now.

Anybody checked the latest blogs?

AP blurb (http://www.lasvegassun.com/drudged/090508111.html) that the speech will be some generic mush about 9/11, Iraq, terrorism, etc.

Damnit, politics are so damned boring this time of year. I am actually looking forward to the coming Dem debates, for lack of better political news.

[Doomtrain]

Heck, I have the *desire* to start a WMD program, as in "Dammit, if this idiot doesn't speed up, I'd like to nuke his ass" while driving. Should I watch out for invasion forces.

[RickJay]

He'll say nothing, or close to nothing, about WMDs. Let's be clear; the WMDs were a lie to justify the war. Now that the war's already a fact, he doesn't want the subject brought up anymore. He'll avoid it.

It'll be a stay-the-course speech heavy on the positive spin on the situation in Iraq. His basic message will be that things are going well there and that the War on Terrorism is allegedly going well, although he will likely also avoid the fact that he's failed to catch bin Laden.

[Desmostylus]

In Speech, Bush to Ask Americans and Allies for Teamwork on Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36362-2003Sep6.html)President Bush will use a prime-time address tonight to make a conciliatory appeal to countries that opposed the war in Iraq and will warn Americans that peace will take much more time, administration officials said yesterday. He also will reveal the amount of money he plans to request from Congress for Iraq next year, officials said.

<snip>

Until now, Bush's speeches about Iraq have said little about a need for sacrifices from society as a whole.

Analysts called the address an attempt by Bush to take command at a time when his justification for the war has proved factually flawed, his planning for the occupation is being criticized as inadequate, and Iraq is beset by rising sectarianism, sabotage and chaos.

Ivo H. Daalder, a senior foreign-policy fellow at the Brookings Institution, said he sees no indication that Bush plans to redress the concerns that have made foreign governments reluctant to contribute money or troops to the occupation.

"This is typical Bush: 'I know what's right; here is what's right; you have to do what I tell you to do,' " Daalder said. "They think they can fix this with a speech instead of doing the hard work of traveling to these countries and convincing them that we're willing to listen to their point of view and figure out what they need for us to do in order for us to do this together."

[Ego_Mk2]

I predict he suddenly opens up a cooler and then holds up the bloddy dripping heads of Osama and Saddam.

That would be neato!

[elucidator]

No, can't entirely ignore WMD's.

Will jut his chin and hint that Mr. Kay and his special super dooper snooper corps are on the verge of a smoking gun....but it's secret.

Secret plans. Very secure. I could tell you, but then I'd hvae to bore you to death.

[ElvisL1ves]

Does this mean the roster of regular posters to GD is going to suddenly shrink for awhile?

[elucidator]

I have to bore them to death one at a time, I don't have field effect ennui.

[t-keela]

We're going to find out that his daughter is missing and that he has resigned the presidency to Dick Cheney.

Damn, that sounds familiar...it's either that or more propaganda.

[El Cid Viscoso]

My vote's a recap on Iraq and the further planting of the psychological anchors about terrorism and our war against it, since this speech is set a scant four days from the Two Year Anniversary. Not to mention it's a good audience night.

NB Perfect timing. Secretary Rumsfeld made it clear Iraqi security is up to the Iraqis, we have a new line on the UN and 7 out of 10 Americans think Saddam Hussein had a hand in September 11, 2001 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030906/ap_on_re_us/terrorism_poll_2).

Just a little mugging for the electorate: "See how safe y'all been so far?"

[G-RAY]

It is part of a deal with the U.N.. They have a secret agreement to provide troops, cash and other support in Iraq if W will appear on national tv in a catholic school girl uniform and admit that he is an idiot has totally and fucked up Iraq.

[G-RAY]

It is part of a deal with the U.N.. They have a secret agreement to provide troops, cash and other support in Iraq if W will appear on national tv in a catholic school girl uniform and admit that he is an idiot and has totally fucked up Iraq.

[Muldoon's Squishiness]

He will lie and bullshit and pull the old bait and switch and say nothing about how the economy shows NO signs of improving, thereby making his immense tax cuts an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions.

God will be mentioned.

Osama bin Ladin will not.

Saddam Hussein will not.

I find it oh-so-convienient that 2 books have just been published which surprise blame former President Clinton for the 9/11 attacks because according to the authors, Clinton knew precisely where bin Ladin was on at least 5 occasions and did nothing. FAUXNEWS has been bleating and screeching about this the whole fucking weekend.

[squeegee]

You just have to love the entrail-reading that happens before for these speech-taculars. The writeup I saw in my local Knight-Ridder said Pres. Bush was using the East Room (or somesuch) rather than the Oval Office for the speech, which some analyst cited as a clear indication that this wasn't a major event. Mmmkay.

As for the odd media timing (footbol, movies etc): I'd tend to lean towards incompetent scheduling rather than a sinister (or even interesting) explanation.

OTOH, maybe Bush's media advisors want to make sure folks *don't* tune in to the speech and then hear about it second hand (and cunningly enhanced) on Monday morning via the well-oiled conservative punditocracy machinery. That would serve the "well, Bush said X!" crowd quite well if the speech can be interpreted vaguely enough to serve any end that the administration's supporters could tilt toward.

With that in mind, I'd expect extremely vague statements about a) Iraq, b) The War On Terrorism that seem to link the two together without actually saying such a thing, then c) Concerned Words About Jobs And The Economy combined with d) How The Tax Cuts Helped So Much. c) and d) have been prominently displayed in recent days, I'd expect more of the same.

In summary, I'd expect a Campaign 2004 speech -- lots of vagueness, flag-waving, appeals to the moderates (We Care About Education -- We've Done So Much!!TM) etc. No substance whatever.

OTOH, covering my bets:

"you don't roll out a new product in August". Lookee, it's September! Maybe we get to see the next foreign policy screwup for Spring 2004 introduced today! Look for any words at all about Iran or Korea (or the economy or maybe even Gay marriage or some new red-meat conservative territory), and you can probably interpret it as a test of the waters for next spring's offensive of whatever urgent folderol this administration wants to sell us next. Keep your powder dry & your hand on your wallet.

[elucidator]

So Squeegee expects that GeeDubya will announce his committment to Ru Paul. Far out. Anybody else?

[squeegee]

What ?!?
Respectfully (well, to a Minnesotan) where the fuck did you gather that?

[squeegee]

What ?!?
Respectfully (well, to a Minnesotan) where the fuck did you gather that?

And if this is your way of calling my summary unfocused. Well -- jeezus. Elucidator is calling me unfocused. Imagine my chagrin.

[Tars Tarkas]

Rumor mill is it will be about Iran.

story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/07/wiran07.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/09/07/ixnewstop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=43073)

[squeegee]

Or to be more blunt: what the fuck is your problem, Elucidator? You ask for some intelligent guesses about a Bush speech, and get quite a few post on the order of "what about death rays, heh heheh heheh."

Wow, great thread.

Then someone, namely me, posts what I'd hoped was something at least one step above Beavis, and you take all of 19 minutes to take a one line crap on it.

I guess that those Texas manners never quite wear off. Welcome back to the south -- please wipe your boots off when entering the doublewide, and please don't wipe yourself on the commode's draperies, that's what the corncobs are for.

[squeegee]

And Tars Tarkas confirms my ass-covering prediction: the "new product" will be Iran.

Elucidator, I really used to have some grudging respect for you. I liked your rhetorical style, I liked your sense of fun in the debate.

And I'm on the same side as you: if "conservatives" really served thier stated ideals, I'd have less problem and some respect for them, but the conservatives I see in power mouth platitudes while raping thier constituents to serve business interests. I'd imagine that this isn't that far from your own philosophy about current players.

I don't know why you see fit to mock someone who posts something that completely agrees with what you're saying. What the fuck is your problem?

In any case, I'm done. Go fuck yourself.

[squeegee]

And, yes, you get to cry yourself to sleep again.

Prick.

[Tars Tarkas]

that is still just a rumor, don't go setting it in stone yet

[squeegee]

So then obviously Rupaul thing has just as much credibility, right?

Gosh, do I feel stupid.

[elucidator]

Squeege

I swear, as Eugene V. Debs is my witness, that I had no intent, whatsoever, to belittle, dis, or otherwise denigrate.

I thought you would chuckle. Ooops. Probably got you mixed up with a similar user name.

[galen ubal]

Geez, peace, you two. Calm down, 'k?

[Eolbo]

I have a dream that he will say this:

"With America's sons in the fields far away, with America's future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world's hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office -- the presidency of your country
Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president."

Ah, if only...

[SkyBum]

Here is a different slant (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1037015,00.html) than I have seen in some of the other speculations.....

[elucidator]

I remember, I saw it on TV. LBJ. I thought my imagination had run wild. Spasms of hope.

And then we elected Nixon.

[squeegee]

Yes, of course Luci. I would expect that speculation about the Bush speech would be mixed up with mention a famous transvestite. Quite a natural mistake, not a bit dismissive, insulting or mean-spirited. Please carry on.

[Eolbo]

Originally posted by elucidator
I remember, I saw it on TV. LBJ. I thought my imagination had run wild. Spasms of hope.

And then we elected Nixon.

It would be an improvement. Anyway he's dead!

[Mr. Babbington]

Or, he is going to inform us that he will suspend the Constitution.I just want the American People to understand something right here. I know I am not going to get re-elected in 2004. So, In the interests of keeping my job, Jesus has told me that I should suspend the Constituton for a period not to exceed my lifetime, insuring that the political machine that I am the front man for stays in power and gets to do whatever it wants for (ahem, and to) the American People. I will not falter, I will not fail. May God bless you, and may He continue to bless America, now under my puissant* leadership for the forseeable future.

I traveled forward in time to bring you that.

* The original text reads "puissant," though the President pronounced it as "pissant."

[capacitor]

The US has been accused of being ignorant about world events.

This has been the worst week for the Bush administration since 9/11: A series of bombings that killed scores of people including the #1 cleric in Iraq, Palestinians and Israel resuming their brawling; North Korea declaring that they have nukes; very bad economic news domestically; and fallout from the blackout.

Bush has to do five things:
1. Put out sketchy details of the mother of all exit strategies regarding Iraq.
2. Say he is committed to peace between Israel and Palestinians,
3. Reaffirm the commitment to fight terrorism, in battles in the field, and batttle in people's hearts.
3. Remind North Korea that they are on the road to self-destruction, and that they have other, better, country-saving options; and
4. Say that inherent and growing mistrust of the coporate world, mostly deserved, is hampering economic recovery, and promise to take steps to rectify it.

Doing these will shore up morale, are certain signs that he adusted his antenna, and getting clearer, truthful messages, and adjusting his policies as as a reult of receiveing them.

[iampunha]

Despite my desire to channel Bush speechwriters (which is disturbingly easy to do...I just take the drek I put into a school paper, multiply by two, and take all references to actual facts out), I have hope. Not hope that he'll say something useful, or hope that he'll admit to any wrongdoing ever (the man would lie about forgetting to leave the seat down), but hope that he will have realized that hardly anyone believes him ... and realize it to the extent that he makes an honest attempt at being human instead of a puppet.

He could, of course, announce his resignation effective at noon tomorrow*, but I haven't seen any pigs flying and the moon is, if blue, a black shade of it, and Virgil isn't using that electric blanket I bought him for his birthday, so there goes *that* hope.





*For those too young to remember, or who haven't seen the newsreel clip, that's a Nixon reference.

[glee]

I suppose Bush could follow Tony Blair's lead and announce an inquiry into aspects of the Iraq mess:

- what prior intelligence material was there of WMDs?
- what evidence (if any) links Saddam to 9/11?
- why was there a need to invade without UN support?
- what is the strategy for leaving Iraq?

Oh look, there goes a flying pig! :smack:

Bet he mentions Jesus and asks for US patriotic support in the war v terrorism.

[Desmostylus]

Bush to Argue for Staying the Course in Iraq (http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3399800)A MAJOR POLICY SHIFT

The administration is hoping to secure a new U.N. resolution on Iraq that will clear the way for other countries to contribute troops and cash.

But the initial American proposals were rejected by France and Germany, which opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq and want the United States to go further in broadening the U.N.'s role.

Aides said two themes will emerge in Bush's speech, coming just before the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

One is that the United States must confront its foes abroad rather than let them attack U.S. targets at home. The other is that a peaceful, democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East would undermine the militants.

"The president will clearly articulate to the public the very specific strategy that we're engaged in and making sure that we prevail," said a senior Bush administration official.This is great. The new policy seems to entail:

a) Lying about links between Iraq and terrorist attacks in the U.S., and

b) Delusional fantasies about peace and democracy in Iraq.

Some "Major Policy Shift". :rolleyes:

[RedFury]

The Timing:

Out of necessity. Love affair/control of media harder and harder to maintain. After a brutal month of August that saw nothing but bad news emerge from the barren Iraqi landscape, spin-doctors and media pundits looking right down loopy in their attempts to place a smiley face on the Iraq SNAFU. The steady stream of bad news, along with the body-bags and the lack of a cohesive strategy -- exit or otherwise -- have begun to have an impact on the voting public. Looking at the latest polls it seems clear that Middle America needs a fresh shot of Naked Jingoism as the last one has begun to lose its narcoleptic effect on Joe and Mary Sixpack.

But the Rove Administration knows not all is lost. What with70% of Americans still convinced Saddam had a role in 9/11 (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1036959,00.html) what better time to reaffirm a commitment to TWAT* beer and apple-pie than the week of the 9/11 anniversary along with the opening of hostilities in the NFL. What do you know, a captive crowd, fueled by one Bud too many and whipped into a frenzy by the prior Gladiatorial spectacle.

The Message:

While the precious blood of America's finest continues to flow, and our hearts go out to each and everyone affected by those casualties, make no mistake, this was the Right Thing to do and 'murricans should be proud of their support for the invasion. Sure, we've suffered setbacks, but war is never 100% predictable. What is important is our sense of duty, sacrifice and unwavering commitment to the Iranian* people.

Let's not forget that the world is now a Safer Place and that the blood of those young men has made that possible. That it was only two short years ago almost to this day that the unspeakable happened. I promised then that I would not rest in my Fight Against Eeevil and today, I am proud to say, I can stand here and tell you that I have kept my word. Never again, not under my guard and with God on our side.

[humble mode on]While there was some controversy as to the exact nature of the threat posed by Iraq, and that it lead to the weakening of relationships with some of our traditionally strongest allies, that is all in the past now. It is a Time for Healing, a time to put our differences behind us and think of the Greater Good of the Iraqi* People. It is for that reason that I have asked members of this Administration to resume talks with the UN and it is for that reason that I will ask Congress to disburse additional funds. The United Sates sole interest in this matter is to restore order in Iraq and give the country back to its rightful owners, the Iraqis. And the sooner the international community joins us in that task, the sooner we shall be able to do so.[/humble mode off]

-Tough talk about Iran developments. Expect some fearmongering.

-Vague talk about renewed efforts to find solution to the Israeli/Palestine conflict even in light of/specially due to, the latest setbacks. Passing mention of Abbas.

-Passing reference to a recovering economy

Blah blah blah 'Merica is great blah blah blah proud, commited and on course blah blah blah platitudes galore.

God Bless 'Merica and good Night.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

*TWAT = The War Against Terror

*Getting one out of two right ain't bad for Dubya.

[London_Calling]

My fellow amentias,

America has led the world in fighting the war against terrorism and in freeing the Iraqi people from the forces of darkness. America should be proud of what it has achieved.

Now it is time for America to once more demonstrate its generous character by magnanimously (Ed. Substitute this word for something with three syllabus max, take a para graph if you need it) offering the hand of partnership to those who wish to join our ever-growing Coalition of the Drilling.

In doing this, we honour and uphold the core values shared by America and its partners in the international community. It is partnerships such as these, which America is today asking the world to join in ever greater numbers, that make us stronger and more able and determined to fight the war against terrorism ™

America urges the world community to respond to the call and share the burden in bringing peace to the world by supporting US Resolutions at the UN.

Others may say Father Christmas is going to take me away in his special sack of leaking shit come Nov-Dec 2004 unless I get some other folks to take the hits for US personnel, and to cough up some cash before the markets ensure the $ slumps, but that ain’t right.

Nor is it right we want those foreign troops to take those hits in the name of the empire rather than in the name of the international community (the UN), nor that the empire will be the sole beneficiary – not that we fought the war over oil, you understand.

Armenia remains ennobled by its efforts to bring peace to all people.

[Duke]

CNN says this morning that the speech is "scheduled to last 15 minutes."

My bet is that there's not going to be anything new here, just "war's going great, economy's going good, ignore the large spacecraft hoving over our major cities," etc.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

A speech that brief might just be about the begining of a particularly unwelcome new policy George Witless Bush might be planning to introduce. You know--get it over with quick, them the shitstorm.

Now that has me worried. :(

[Fear Itself]

I say it will be to tell America to bend over as he applies the K-Y jelly that he hopes will smooth the way for this enormous dildo:

Bush's Request for Iraq Could Top $80 Billion (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20030907/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_3)

[Fear Itself]

Perhaps he is going to ask America to be a little more like Britney Spears:

Britney Spears: 'Trust our president in every decision' (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/03/cnna.spears/)

CARLSON: You're going to be on the National Mall soon performing for Pepsi and the NFL and also to support our troops. A lot of entertainers have come out against the war in Iraq. Have you?

[i]SPEARS: Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.

CARLSON: Do you trust this president?

SPEARS: Yes, I do.

[Larry Mudd]

squeegee: I would expect that speculation about the Bush speech would be mixed up with mention a famous transvestite. Quite a natural mistake, not a bit dismissive, insulting or mean-spirited. Please carry on.What the hell, squeeg? Not a mistake -- a joke. A joke predicated on the contrast between the thoughtful and serious tone of your post and the mostly absurd and flippant posts that preceeded it. Certainly not dismissive, insulting, or mean-spirited.

The conceit being that reasoned commentary is far enough removed from the general tone of the thread so as to be incomprehensible to its participants, who might look at it and instead see the sort of absurdist speculation that they were expecting.

I have no idea where you got the idea that you were being derided -- if anything, it was closer to a self-deprecating joke than anything else.

Take a deep breath. Joke.

Oh, and I think W. is finally going to declare war on the Swedes.

[av8rmike]

Originally posted by Brutus
That, or he will appear in a toga, announce the creation of the American Empire. Olive oil stocks go through the roof. Brutus rejoices. SPQA? Maybe Bush will appear in a toga, chug a can of beer and crush it against his forehead. The rest of the speech will be him & Karl Rove jumping around shouting, "USA! USA!"

Maybe I shouldn't have watched Animal House so recently. Seriously, the president of my company does these "State of the Company" addresses every quarter or so. Usually it's lots of upward-pointing graphs and hopeful previews of upcoming contracts. I predict the same from Bush; lots of "rah-rah" cheerleading, stuff about how close the Iraqis are to democracy, and how now is not the right time to turn control over to the U.N.

Oh, 9/11. Can't forget the 9/11 anniversary mention, just to keep it fresh in people's minds.

[elucidator]

Spot on, Larry.

[El Cid Viscoso]

Originally posted by squeegee
Yes, of course Luci. I would expect that speculation about the Bush speech would be mixed up with mention a famous transvestite. Quite a natural mistake, not a bit dismissive, insulting or mean-spirited. Please carry on. Squeegee, I think you should calm down and look at the nature of your post before assaulting elucidator for too much tongue in cheek. In my mind, your post was ill-constructed and waffling about any possible issue out there -- just put the fine print on it next time, right? elucidator got to you first; I'm certain a great many other Dopers out there took the same issue to your post as he did. He was just a lot more gentle about it.

[El Cid Viscoso]

(Sorry, elucidator. Just missed your post.)

[elucidator]

No worries. The guy just had a grumpy day, it happens.

OK, prediction time. That thing about 15 minutes kind of suggests he's isn't going to say anything spectacularly new.

So......I think he's going to try and sell that "WMD program" line they have been leaking and developing. All that "dual use" and "retaining scientists" crapola, and hope it sells. He will try to imply that that settles it, issue closed, nothing more to see here, you looky loos, move along.

He will then segue into Iraq as a battle on the continuing War on Terror, still flatly insisting that "Al Iraqeuda" line. He will probably present himself as defying those evil terrists by marching straight into the center of the quamire. Some chin jutting here.

Finally, he will offer about half an olive branch to the Yurpeens, while trying to imply that they are eagerly trying to get in on a winning thing, and that he has reluctantly decided to accede to thier urgent desire to pour thier blood and treasure into the thirsty sands of the Godforsaken Desert.

Finally, he will say "...and God bless America" as if defying anyone to contradict him.

Either that, or he is going to declare war on Sweden.

[jjimm]

British TV (Sky News) was making a big deal about it not coming from the Oval Office, but "somewhere else in the White House" - thus it's not Bad News.

[elucidator]

Now this is strange.....

I just checked the TV listings and the speech is either not pre-empting regular programming on all the channels, or they haven't updated thier listings yet. NBC and Fox arent carrying it?

Must be a mistake.

[Squink]

ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC will all provide live coverage of President Bush's 5:30 p.m. PDT address to the nation. http://www.tribnet.com/news/story/3864788p-3888165c.html

[pantom]

Animal House!! That explains it!
You know, the scene where Belushi is saying "when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor" and the two frat boys look at each other confused and the one says to the other "Don't stop him. He's on a roll."
That's what they said when Bush said "when the Iraqis bombed the WTC." Powell looked at Rummy dumbfounded, and Rummy said the exact same thing to Powell.
Of course, I'm sure neither of them expected him to actually follow through on this.
Red Fury: TWAT. Nice. Two points for that one.

[RTA]

He'll fire Rove, Rice, and Wolfowitz in one swell foop, as part of a secret deal to placate Powell "NOT to proceed to file a formal complaint with the Department of Justice".

http://www.radioleft.com/article.php?op=Print&sid=1295

That and some stuff about peace in our time with honor.

[DoctorJ]

Top 5 Things Bush Won't Say in Tonight's Speech:

5. "Just so we're clear, Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with September 11. I hope I didn't imply that."

4. "Let's have a big hand for the fine men and women who fight every day to keep our country free--the ACLU."

3. "Jesus, are you people still crying and blathering about September 11? It was two years ago! Get the fuck over it!"

2. "We've looked into it, and it appears Al Gore won back in 2000 after all. Sorry 'bout that, Al."

And the #1 thing Bush won't say in his speech tonight:





1. "This Iraq thing is costing us a whole lot more than we figured, so we're gonna need y'all to send those tax rebate checks back, if you could."

[wring]

My bet is that when he mentions Iraq, he will not use the term "war". after all, the 'war' is over and done, we won, he told us so. He will speak of 'its now time for the rest of the world to step up and help us restore Iraq'

he will not speak of economy.

the timing and abrupt nature of the speech has (IMHO) more to do with an attempt to slow down his plummeting numbers than anything else. I believe that the administration believes that Bush is so convincing, and gosh darn likable when he speaks that he'll be able to chat for a few minutes and get us all to like him again.

[ElvisL1ves]

Toss in a mention of "the light at the end of the tunnel" for good measure.

Hey, where's all the righties? Still got their tighty whities in a bunch?

[Sam Stone]

My prediction:

1. He's going to emphasize how important it is to stabilize Iraq. He's about to present congress with a bill for possibly 80-90 billion dollars for reconstruction, and he needs to build political support for that. I think this will be task #1 on the agenda tonight.

2. He's going to try to explain what's going on in Iraq - that the average Iraqi is happy to have the U.S. there, but that there is significant resistance from terrorists from outside the country and Saddam regime loyalists within the country. He'll tie all this to the 'war on terror', and say that the enemy they are fighting there are the same people they are fighting all over the place.

2. He's going to explain why he's going to the U.N., and try to squash the idea that the resistance of France and Germany now is some sort of comeuppance for U.S. failure to involve them in the first place. He's going to point out that it was France and Germany that threw a wrench into the works before the war, thwarting U.s. attempts to go through the U.N., and France and Germany are doing it again, this time directly damaging the Iraqi people. Or something like that.

There are some real political storms building over Iraq right now, and this speech is going to try to shut some of them down before they build more momentum.

I don't think he'll talk about WMD at all. Or if he does, it'll be just a peripheral comment about how they're still learning about the programs and they'll have something to say about it later.

[Squink]

Bush, In remarks prepared for a speech Sunday evening says:"Our strategy in Iraq has three objectives — destroying the terrorists ... enlisting the support of other nations for a free Iraq ... and helping Iraqis assume responsibility for their own defense and their own future."

Bush said members of the United Nations (news - web sites) have an opportunity and a "responsibility" to assume a broader role to make sure Iraq becomes a free and democratic nation. He also urged the Iraqi people to step up to the task of governing themselves.

"They must rise to the responsibilities of a free people, and secure the blessings of their own liberty," he said. Here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20030907/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq), but likely subject to change after Bush gives his speech.
The story makes no mention of WMD's.

[pantom]

According to that story, he's asking for 87 billion. 87 billion tacked onto 4.5 billion per month for the military, gives us 54 + 87 = 141 billion, tacked onto a deficit already projected at half a trillion - that's trillion, with a t - going into next year, and we'll be well on our way to acheiving a trillion dollar deficit in our lifetimes. Cool.

[Blonde]

It's on now...I heard:
"all will benefit" "$66 billion" "no going back" "we are fighting the enemy" "the dangers have not passed" "we accept the duties of our generation"
Whew. George Jr. appeared a wee bit nervous!

[El Cid Viscoso]

This just in: President Prescribes Coprophagy! Open your wallets to keep the Terrorist Menace where he belongs! Remember how we tamed the Germaniacs and them Japanimals! (I heard $87B + $66B over the next 3 years.)

Also, he clearly says "Afghanistand."

[Sam Stone]

According to that story, he's asking for 87 billion. 87 billion tacked onto 4.5 billion per month for the military, gives us 54 + 87 = 141 billion, tacked onto a deficit already projected at half a trillion - that's trillion, with a t - going into next year, and we'll be well on our way to acheiving a trillion dollar deficit in our lifetimes. Cool.


Uh, no. The 87 billion was 66 billion to pay for the military occupation, and 20 billion for reconstruction money. This amount covered both Afghanistan and Iraq.

[monstro]

Shit. $86 billion. I'm speechless.

[Binarydrone]

Goooooooooood speechwriters! My favorite was his sentence that went something like "we have found huge caches of weapons, and massive amounts of ammo". Nothing subliminal there :rolleyes:

[Blonde]

Originally posted by monstro
Shit. $86 billion. I'm speechless.

I heard $66 billion...but then, I'm a CPA, so that's just a rounding difference. Heh.

[Revtim]

Originally posted by Binarydrone
Goooooooooood speechwriters! My favorite was his sentence that went something like "we have found huge caches of weapons, and massive amounts of ammo". Nothing subliminal there :rolleyes: No doubt. I wonder how many people are going to say at work tomorrow "They found WMDs! The president said so last night!"

[Binarydrone]

Originally posted by Revtim
No doubt. I wonder how many people are going to say at work tomorrow "They found WMDs! The president said so last night!"
Probably enough to make me cry.

[pantom]

I flipped past Fox and saw Sean Hannity say he was "statesmanlike", or something. Snippets I saw he looked like he was shitting his pants.
Only 20 billion for reconstruction? Ye Gods! Despite my carping on the deficit, that figure is WAY low. Barely 2 billion a month. Bremer, I hereby predict, will not last. He'll resign out of frustration.
Sooner or later the Prez is going to have to learn the true meaning of the phrase, "In for a dime, in for a dollar."

[London_Calling]

$86 billion = $US goes through the floor, US goods are cheaper, economy picks up around spring-summer next year based on exports, Bush gets re-elected on the back of a 'strong' economy.


Hey ho, at least the US is going to be a cheap holiday destination for a while!

[Sam Stone]

Let's keep it in perspective. $86 billion is about 4% of the federal budget, and about .08% of GDP.

Yes, it's damned expensive, but it's not going to destroy the economy. It's about what the Department of Education spends, and I'm not sure that has benefitted anyone, ever.

[pantom]

Yeah, but it gets tacked onto everything else. On the talk shows this morning, all the chatter was about having a larger military in general. So the bill just keeps getting larger.
And I really don't think throwing 21 billion at it is nearly enough to reconstruct Iraq. Bremer was talking "tens of billions", and the breakout he gave was intimidating, to say the least. No one's picked up on it that I can see, but the man's been pestering DC for resources since he got there. I've got a feeling he realized almost immediately what kind of a mess he walked into.
As for other countries giving, not without real concessions. Hopefully Powell has a mandate to give in order to get at the UN. That would get us substantially on the way towards a true exit strategy.

[Spavined Gelding]

There was a weapons of mass destruction reference--that Sadam had in fact already used them. It was sort of a throw away line. I can only think that this was a reference to the gassing of the Kurdish village in, I think, 1988 or there abouts and which some members here have questioned as Iranian, not Iraqi, action.

Otherwise it was pretty much the pedestrian show that some expected, except of the amount the thing is going to cost--eighty six billion dollars ($86,000,000,000.00), eighty six thousand million dollars for our British friends. That's per year. Maybe, if we are lucky, for five or six years. Apparently that is on top of the four billion dollars a month, forty eight billion a year, we have been talking about up until now. That is real money. That is enough money that we will need another tax cut to stimulate revenue growth.

I had wishfully hoped for one of two announcements. First I had daydreamed that the President would have taken our friend Brutus's altogether real politic view of the problem and said:

"Screw terrorism. We are always going to have the odd bomb thrower. Can't do much about it. But, damn it, my fellow countrymen, Iraq has oil. Do you have any idea how much we can do with all that oil? Oil, oil, oil! Baahaahaahaa!"

Second I had mused that the President would announce the resignation of Secretary Rumsfelt "for personal reasons," he wanting to spend more time with the grandkids and all, his replacement by Colin Powell, and that the State Department was going to be taken over by


Wait for it



William Jefferson Clinton,

because it was time for George W. Bush, just like the UN, to set aside old differences and work for the common good.

[Reeder]

"The rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitive. In the long run basic results in influencing public opinion will be achieved only by the man who is able to reduce problems to the simplest terms and who has the courage to keep forever repeating them in this simplified form, despite the objections of the intellectuals."

Joseph Goebbels

[Sam Stone]

And I really don't think throwing 21 billion at it is nearly enough to reconstruct Iraq. Bremer was talking "tens of billions", and the breakout he gave was intimidating, to say the least. No one's picked up on it that I can see, but the man's been pestering DC for resources since he got there. I've got a feeling he realized almost immediately what kind of a mess he walked into.


21 billion almost certainly isn't enough. Bechtel apparently estimated that the basic cost to get the electrical, water, and distribution network to 'minimal' levels at 16 billion, and to 'proper' levels to 30 billion. And that doesn't count rebuilding other infrastructure, funding an army, etc.

But remember, this request is basically for just 12 months of funding. And it doesn't include any money that might also be contributed from Europe. It also doesn't include money that might come from Iraqi oil revenues (not much now, but in a year?), and revenue from the Iraqi economy itself, mostly in the form of plentiful cheap labor.

It also includes 66 billion for the military, part of which is being used to help rebuild the infrastructure. I don't know if this includes work by the Army Corp of Engineers, but they do a hell of a lot of reconstruction work.

I don't know if 21 billion is the 'right' number, but it seems like a reasonable start.

[Atreyu]

Originally posted by Reeder
"The rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitive. In the long run basic results in influencing public opinion will be achieved only by the man who is able to reduce problems to the simplest terms and who has the courage to keep forever repeating them in this simplified form, despite the objections of the intellectuals."

Joseph Goebbels

Well, I guess since you can't find anything to directly criticize in Bush's address, you've decided to come in and hopelessly Godwin yourself.

Nice going. :wally

[Mr. Babbington]

The President gives a speech like he is reading a story to a three year old. I remember his first televised address...Way back when stem cell research was the Big Thing. That speech and this one had the same pedantic tone.

[Blonde]

Originally posted by Reeder
"The rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitive. In the long run basic results in influencing public opinion will be achieved only by the man who is able to reduce problems to the simplest terms and who has the courage to keep forever repeating them in this simplified form, despite the objections of the intellectuals."

Joseph Goebbels

Careful, cowboy - do you have an original comment about tonight's debate or not?

[Reeder]

All he did was repeat everything he has said before. Except the money was higher.

Did I say said?

Make that read. The man needs lessons in public speaking.

[Blonde]

Originally posted by Reeder
The man needs lessons in public speaking.

I won't argue with you on that point, but the earth isn't going to spin off its axis and enter deep space if he wins the next election.

[Reeder]

Originally posted by Blonde
I won't argue with you on that point, but the earth isn't going to spin off its axis and enter deep space if he wins the next election.

Got a cite for that?

:)

[Blonde]

Originally posted by Reeder
Got a cite for that?

:)

Heh. Unfortunately, I must admit that I'm all out of cites at the moment. :p

[pantom]

Binarydrone:

Since the end of major combat operations, we have conducted raids seizing many caches of enemy weapons and massive amounts of ammunition...

Didn't believe you, honestly, figuring there had to be limits to the dissembling of the man. But that's from the transcript. Takes major cojones to try a rhetorical trick like that.

[t-keela]

The speech was the usual bullshit...it actually put me to sleep.

I am a bit impressed with how articulate he is becoming.

[El Cid Viscoso]

The rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine... -- GoebbelsReeder: Yeah, I read the City Pages (http://www.citypages.com/databank/24/1171/article11241.asp) too. So SHRUB studies Goebbels. Please, you're giving the man too much credit -- unless he's got strings attached. (Oh wait.)

He looked entirely stiff, and he paused unnaturally before he said "cache" (TiVo people, check it out, it's funny), like he's unsure why having lots of bad weapons might be catchy. And the WMDs he mentioned in the beginning of the speech "And we acted in Iraq, where the former regime sponsored terror, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction," is simply stirring the pot. So we invaded because they once had WMDs?

Notoriously absent was the bombing of the UN compound, where a top UN officializer "de Mello" was killed or something. Plus 20 people and 160 injured. This is the best he could do: "They have killed civilian aid workers of the United Nations -- who represent the compassion and generosity of the world." WTF!

[Reeder]

Uhhh...I have never read the City Pages you cite.

I am however a history buff.

[Brutus]

Uh, Mr.B, don't go loopy on us. You wanted mention of the UN attacks. He mentioned that the UN was attacked. You then criticize him for not mentioning the UN attacks.

[El Cid Viscoso]

Not loopy, just pointing out a serious problem: specifically mention the death of a cleric in a bombing but avoid the bombing that killed a key UN diplomat? The agenda stinks.

[mhendo]

Well, the main problem i have with the speech is that it contained nothing that couldn't have been disseminated in a run-of-the-mill press release. There was no pressing need for a nationally-televised address, no really new developments to report, no startling breakthroughs or sudden setbacks.

It's pretty sad when the "leader of the free world" is reduced to the role of newscaster.

[Blonde]

Newscasters everywhere are cursing you, mhendo. :D

[capacitor]

Interesting: he mentioned Powell, but no mention of Rumsfeld.

I think this may be a prelude for more speeches to come.

[Dissonance]

To quote Chad on Bush's speech:

Wot, no frivolous comparison to Nazi Werewolves in Iraq?

To anyone who got that, hold your breath and hope Powell's winning out over Rummy.

[Doomtrain]

Originally posted by capacitor
Interesting: he mentioned Powell, but no mention of Rumsfeld.

If it goes that way, I hope Powell isn't man enough to refrain from a little victory dance.

[t-keela]

Perhaps we could find a newscaster who would run against him, any suggestions?

[El Cid Viscoso]

capacitor
Interesting: he mentioned Powell, but no mention of Rumsfeld.Downplay the costs already paid by the UN, due in full to our criminal actions in Iraq. A key diplomat, a reasonable heir to the UN, plus 23 others were killed, and 160 injured in a remarkably successful bombing. I mean, how many go down due to Islamic Jihad? 5? 25 if it's a bus?

Tonight the President bellied back up to the bar at U. Ennigans' International Tapas Bistro. Doesn't want to mention the tab, though.

Powell was his message-man, nothing more.

[Doomtrain]

I had an interesting thought. If Iraq continues to go bad, a sacrificial lamb would obviously be required. I don't think Bush would oust Rumsfeld, but maybe Wolfowitz would fall on his sword for the team. Thoughts?

[Squink]

Wolfowitz would be such a flamingly obvious shill that the very sword itself (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormbringer) would would cry out for an honest bloodletting.

[anewthought]

Excerpts of the speech are quoted and put together into something that IMHO all add up to something interesting. Bold areas are most important:

Since America put out the fires of September 11, and mourned our dead, and went to war, history has taken a different turn. We have carried the fight to the enemy. In Iraq, we are helping the long suffering people of that country to build a decent and democratic society at the center of the Middle East. Together we are transforming a place of torture chambers and mass graves into a nation of laws and free institutions. The triumph of democracy and tolerance in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and beyond would be a grave setback for international terrorism. Iraq is now the central front. Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there -- and there they must be defeated. First, we are taking direct action against the terrorists in the Iraqi theater, which is the surest way to prevent future attacks on coalition forces and the Iraqi people. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength -- they are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today, so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.

IMHO this entire paragraph, taken from the Bush speech, spells out his administrations plan on terrorism exactly. The idea is that by putting US troops in the Middle East, and attacking Middle East countries, terrorism will not reach the shores of the USA. But is that really true? Does that really make any logical sense?

Most recently, we can take a lesson from Israel/Palestine. When Israel rolled the tanks and troops into Gaza Strip and the West Bank, the number of actual terrorist attacks into Israel itself escalated. In fact they continued to grow worse and worse until Israel withdrew it's forces and agreed to talk about peace. When that happened suddenly there were no more terrorist attacks and everything settled down. In this entire situation with the Israeli's it is easy to see that generations of Palestinians are now being raised and taught by their parents and educators to hate Israel, to fight Israel, to kill Israeli's. It stems from hatred of the Israeli's due to the occupation of what they see as their land. On the other side, a majority of Israeli's now hate and loathe all Palestinians due to the suicide bombings. There is a very real cycle of violence established that will never be broken unless an outside party steps in and takes over.

History does teach us that the occupation of foreign land actually increases terrorism, not lessens it. Wouldn't (or hasn't) our attack on Iraq instilled hatred and fear in the minds of Arabs living in the Middle East towards the USA, to the extent that we will face suicide bombers and escalating levels of terrorism against us for generations to follow? Is the USA only emulating the same tactics against terrorism as used by Sharon in Israel? Just bring in all your troops and show them a real good lesson by killing them, even if innocent people happen to be killed in the crossfire? Israel is considered to be using terrorist tactics by many nations of the world because of how they deal with their problems. Sending missiles to kill a single guy in the middle of a crowded market packed with innocent people and children. Now what about the USA? Can we honestly say we are any different from Israel now if we send cruise missiles into the heart of Baghdad, killing innocent Iraqi's? Clearly the situation in Israel is a huge problem with no solution and their method of dealing with terrorism is a dismal failure. How is the US method of dealing with terrorism any different from that of Israel, and why would it be anything but a failure as well?

There were some very educational SDMB discussions on the issue of how to confront terrorism. Very good stuff! But unfortunately, not one of them addressed the issue of Democracy in the Middle East (That I could find):

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=207224

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=170068

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=125857

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=102264

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=89363

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=87459

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86709

Some interesting quotes:
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I feel one reason that misguided US citizens sent money to the IRA to plant bombs was the wrong approach by successive British Governments. To tackle terrorism, you need to go to the root cause of the problem, not rely on military might. I don't consider that this is giving in, or turning tail, to the terrorists. It also doesn't matter that the US is the most powerful nation on Earth. Every government plagued by terrorists has far more resources and firepower. In fact, I wonder if that isn't part of the problem - does the US feel it has to use its full military might every time, no matter what others suggest?

So what other countries have done to combat terrorism sucessfully or not for decades is simply irrelevant because it never happened to the US ? No wonder people accuse Americans of being historically and geographically ignorant.

Because that's what it would take. You kill one terrorist or suspected terrorist, and four more are there to take his or her place. You kill a 13 year old a week, regardless of whether or not he was "throwing rocks", and you get a lot of angry parents, justified in their anger, because you killed their baby boy. Ain't nothing taking that hurt away from them.

Of course I acknowledge that individual attacks are continually prevented worldwide. It seems to me (and maybe this should be in IMHO) that terrorism, while it can't be defeated utterly, can be diminished, but I've only ever observed this to happen following negotiations, rather than military intervention. As for 'wiping them out', it appears to me to be a bit like flatworms. You cut one in half and it turns into two; the more you kill, the more you make.

By understanding and doing something about the root causes, in sympathy with and to the benefit of the bodies of ordinary people from which terrorists come, you deprive terrorists of their recruiting grounds, you deprive them of the angry young men that can be moulded into suicide bombers, and in short deprive them of the power to pursue their extremist cause

The answer lies, I think, in a long term plan of stunning audacity that is overall equally stunning in it's simplicity. I would be willing to bet that he was counting on a massive, indiscriminate American retaliation. He would then be able to defend his atrocities with ours, point to the West attacking Islam as a whole, and issue a justified call for Jihad against the West. Bin Laden is an ex-patriated Saudi. He hates the Saudi Royal Family. He could ride this tide of Islamic fervor straight into Riyadh, disposing the Royal family, discrediting moderate Islamic factions, and install himself as the de-facto head of the Arab world in totality. Is this a scenario that you want to see played out? I think the U.S. response has been exactly right up to this point. By making it clear that we are only going after Bin Laden and those who harbor him, we have removed from him the moral high ground ( from a Middle Eastern point of view ). Without that, all he can do is run, hide, and wait for the 101 Airborne to come knocking on his door. It is likely that he may try to launch other attacks at innocent targets in the U.S. and abroad as he becomes more and more desperate. We must not allow our anguish and rage over these attacks to push into blindly reacting, thus helping Bin Laden achieve what he wants.

Who said anything about appeasement? Appeasement connotes giving in to demands. I certainly do not advocate changing our policies one whit to please the terrorists. Nor is it helpful to trot out the Nazis in this debate. We're talking about terrorist thugs here, not dictators with designs on world domination.

I forsee a cycle of violence begetting retribution, begetting more violence, begetting more retribution...etc. Do we really want to wind up like Northern Ireland or Israel? A measured response is a better response in my view.

OK so let's say there is one thing going for Bush in his plans that Israel didn't have. Something more than just killing people and calling it a day, it's the idea of taking Iraq and turning it into a Democracy. Is this what will strike at the root cause of the problem? Is the root cause of terrorism REALLY the fact that people live under harsh Islamic rule, as Bush tells us? Obviously Israel never came out and said they would do the same for the Palestinians, giving them their land and saying "do with this as you wish, live in peace." The question is, will it work? Let's assume for a moment that yes, Iraq finally is formed with a Democracy and all of it's people are suddenly happy voting and running their own nation.

Bush's message to us is that terrorists are attacking the USA because they live in an oppressed society. And that somehow, magically, if we give them all Democracy they will grow up to love us all and send us flowers and candy gifts. How true do you think this is? That terrorism against the USA will stop if we manage to convert the Middle East into a series of free nations?

Keep in mind the reason given by Al-Qaeda for declaring war against the USA: From the Koran itself, it states they must attack & kill anyone who occupies their 'holy lands'. Al-Qaeda first declared war on the USA 'infidels' after US troops landed in Saudi Arabia and attacked Iraq the first time. They view Democracy and the West as the greatest thing standing in their way of an entire world ruled by Islam and the teachings of Allah. Allah and the Koran do *NOT* agree with freedom of speech, religion, voting, etc. In fact, most of these people "At War" with the USA indeed hate us for the very things we are attempting to establish in Iraq itself. I just wonder how putting Democracy on those lands is going to prevent parents from teaching Fundamentalist Islam to their children? Children who later grow up to hate the fact that their 'Democratic' government and freedoms and McDonalds completely go against every single thing that is stated in their holy book. And thus continue a cycle of violence where they view America & it's values to be a 'great Satan' that is invading their homeland and must be attacked with violence.

Someone please explain to me how Democracy in Iraq will stop terrorism. I am genuinely curious to know.

[Dreaming of Maria Callas]

Few presidents have bent over backwards to ensure separation of powers remains as efficient as possible, but this particular bit makes me wonder if Bush thinks of Congress as a sort of rubber stamp:

... we will spend whatever is necessary -- to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom

Congress decides the budget, that's one of its main roles. Having the president decide how much should be spent seriously erodes the independence of the legislature.

UnuMondo

[RedFury]

Well, after watching The pResident's performance last night I almost feel qualified for employment as one of his Master Ventriloquists. At the very least, Carnak The Magnificent would be proud.

Must say, that Shifting Goals policy is sheer genious -- wonder if Rove took out a patent on it? 'cause he should. No WMDs, no problem, no ties to Bin Laden, no worries, Liberation not quite making it, well, dang, here's another one: Iraq is now officially the "central battleground of the terrorism war". Damn the evidence, give me tons of money, man the torpedos, full speed ahead. Trust me, you'll be glad you did.

Of course, I am sure that has nothing to do with the article I mentioned earlier, one that was widely reproduced in any number of papers. Yep, that's right, a full 70% of Americans still believe Saddam was somehow involved with 9/11. A notion the Neocon cabal has done nothing to dispel and much to foster. Never mind those pesky facts, the ones that point the opposite way and the number of regional experts who've said as much -- must be part of that lib'ral coalition putting forth their wicked anti-American agenda. Then again, they could simply point at the new facts of their creation. Like turning Iraq into the Mecca of Anti-American sentiment. Bin Laden must be raking in recruits by the truckful -- an explosive "thank you" card can't be far behind

As for going hat in hand to the "irrelevant" UN, no irony there, no sirreee, none at all. After all, necessity is the mother of invention, so recrossing a burnt bridge should pose no problem for these geniuses. Gotta love how it is now the UN's "duty" to aid the US. Yep, I am sure that'll do the trick. Hey! if it doesn't, they could always come up with some additional choice appellatives for France, Germany, Russia, et al. No doubt that'll persuade them to give tons of money and send their kids to slaughter.

Along the money lines, gotta wonder how large a chunck of pie the Halliburtons of this world will be getting to rebuild the infrastructure largely destroyed by sanctions and Shock and Awe. 'cause as some of the more perceptive viewers may have noticed, there was absolutely no mention of fund allocation in Misleader's speech. Gimme gimme gimme...and trust me some more.

Tell you, were I an Iraqi right about now, I just might be given to reminiscing about the "good old days of Saddam."

In closing, as predictable as predictable gets. About the only thing missing was the Flight Suit.

Mustta been at the cleaners...

[elf6c]

Today's mystery word is "terrorist". It is used as a excuse for every domestic and foreign screw-up of the Bush administration. Been caught lying about the WMD's and Al Queda ties-- terrorists. Lied about how much its going to cost- terrorists. UN and the rest of the world not willing to bail you out of your foolhardy mistakes (gee maybe repeatedly insulting them wasn't such a good move their Curious George)-- terrorists. Major combat not really over after all-- terrorists. Afganistan promises failed-- terrorists. Massive defecits from your stupid tax cuts and your stupid "screw the UN will do this alone" war about to cost you reeleection-- terrorists. Democrats finally starting to call you out on Iraq-- terrorists. Poll numbers keep dropping-- Terrorists. Al Frankens books on your lies and the lies of your supports on the bestseller lists-- terrorists. Unemployment still really bad-- terrorists. Dropped your dog in front of the cameras-- terrorists. Tony Blair about to get his ass handed to him for the same lies you used-- terrorists. Arnold' porno mag interviews coming up-- terrorists. Rush Limbaugh ruining a football pre-game show-- terrorists. Oh wait- the last one might be right.



:rolleyes:

[Binarydrone]

Originally posted by pantom
Binarydrone:

Didn't believe you, honestly, figuring there had to be limits to the dissembling of the man. But that's from the transcript. Takes major cojones to try a rhetorical trick like that.

Yup. Big brass ones.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by UnuMondo
Few presidents have bent over backwards to ensure separation of powers remains as efficient as possible, but this particular bit makes me wonder if Bush thinks of Congress as a sort of rubber stamp: Based on their conduct since the 2002 elections, and also based on the Rove-induced choice of Frist as majority leader, he's certainly entitled to that attitude.

Sam Stone:Let's keep it in perspective. $86 billion is about 4% of the federal budget, and about .08% of GDP.

Yes, it's damned expensive, but it's not going to destroy the economy. It's about what the Department of Education spends, and I'm not sure that has benefitted anyone, ever.Easy to talk about how "little" money it is when it isn't yours, ain't it? But I'm sure you're all over the PM to pony up your country's share of money and troops, aren't you? The crack about the Dept of Education would have fit better in a thread devoted to it, as well.

Yes, let's "keep it in perspective". As Sen. Graham pointed out (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/07/bush.reax/index.html), "$87 billion is more than the federal government will spend on education this year, twice as much as the federal government will spend on our roads, bridges, highways and public transit systems." Note also that this is just one year's worth of appropriations, with no estimates or requests beyond that although we all damn well know better.

Bush did not, however, discuss just where the money is going to come from, if the "allies" quite understandably refuse to "put past differences aside", as he put it. How much more of a tax cut does he propose to pay this bill?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

OK so let's say there is one thing going for Bush in his plans that Israel didn't have. Something more than just killing people and calling it a day, it's the idea of taking Iraq and turning it into a Democracy.
He's not really turning Iraq into a democracy, he's trying to turn it into a "democracy," meaning a US controlled, puppet government.

He doesn't actually even have the right to force any particular form of government on Iraq. If they want a Shi'ite theocracy with an Ayatollah who the fuck is Shrub to tell them that they can't? Forcing other countries to submit to democracy is no different than forcing them to submit to communism.

[World Eater]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/07/bush.reax/index.html

Just read this CNN article on the reactions.


Sen. John Kyl, R-Arizona, said Congress has no choice but to appropriate the money.

"The question is, do we dare risk failure in this war on terrorism? There isn't anything more threatening to American citizens than the terrorists, and it's going to take what it takes, whatever that number is," Kyl said on the same CNN program. "Defeat is not an option here. Pulling out is not an option."

I'd say drunk driving is more "threatening"



Joe Biden

"I think the American people are ready to sacrifice to win, and I think if we went back to the American people and said, 'Look, the very wealthiest among us, we're going to postpone your tax cut a year or two to pay for this,' I think they would embrace it," he said.

I'm dirt broke and I still think that is fucked up.


• Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, issued a statement to say she was willing to work with Bush to get the money he wants for U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. But she said other countries must begin contributing to the effort. "I do not think the American taxpayer should be alone in support of this war and will work to ensure we have partners in this effort," she said.

Yes the German and French taxpayers should support it too, WTF?

Btw how can anyone vote against the 87 billion?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The arrogance in demanding that other countries pay for this mess is fucking mind-boggling. It's especially obnoxious that the Bushistas seem to expect those other UN countries to come in and perform the menial administrative duties of illegally occupying another country while US troops just go looking for Saddam so Bush can get his trophy without actually doing any work or paying any political price for the fiasco that he started. The fact that he actually expects those other countries to submit to US authority shows balls beyond reckoning.

The UN has a moral obligation to remove Bush from having any authority in Iraq. US troops should be relegated to the mundane, administrative duties and UN forces should only send a few people to go look for Saddam. The US should not be allowed any part in the hunt for Saddam or [Heh] WMDs, because this administration clearly cannot be trusted not to lie and fabricate evidence.

Whatever the UN does, it is absolutely crucial that they assume all authotrity in Iraq and US forces need to be placed under that authority.