SOTU says we're the good guys.

[december]

Bush's State of the Union began by taking a moral stance on spending priorities. Notably prescription drug coverage in Medicare, a mentoring program for children of prisoners, and AIDS money for Africa. The last half took a moral stance on Iraq. We don't want war, but it's our duty to defend the world against this evil madman.

Since Bush is the leader of the United States and the leader of the Republican Party, one underlying message is that America and the Republicans are now the good guys. This contradicts the anti-American critics at home and abroad. And, it contradicts the many Democrats who think that Republicans are not just wrong, but are bad people. E.g., our fellow poster Consuela Bobuela who says she would kill any Republican for free if she were guaranteed immunity. She kidding (I assume), but the joke is based on the idea that Republicans are bad guys.

So, the question is: Did this work? Do you now consider Americans or Republicans to be "good guys"? Or, if that's too much, do you consider them a bit less evil than you used to?

[december]

Sorry, I posted prematurely. I meant to add two things:

Lliberal pundit Juan Williams said on TV he was moved by Bush's domestic agenda. He seemed surprised to see a deep and sincere concern for humanity in the SOTU.

Politically, Bush's approach seems effective. Voters will be more apt to support candidates who praise their morality than candidates who criticize it. Some liberals I know believe that their country or community is immoral, but that they personally rise above the immorality of their neighbors. However, I don't think this group is a voting majority.

[TVAA]

Originally posted by december
Lliberal pundit Juan Williams said on TV he was moved by Bush's domestic agenda. He seemed surprised to see a deep and sincere concern for humanity in the SOTU.

I would be more impressed if I thought that Bush had written the SOTU, or at least had instructed his speechwriters what it should discuss and cover. I have the feeling it was the other way around...

[SuaSponte]

When did Juan Williams become a liberal?

Sua

[december]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
When did Juan Williams become a liberal?

It has been my impression that he was one of the liberal spokespersons on the Fox News Special Report "All Star" panel. Although he doesn't seem far left, he sounds like someone whose sympathies lay more with Democrats than Republicans. In panel discussions, he generally seems to argue the liberal POV.

Do you have a different impression?

[mack]

Just a little nitpick:

Originally posted by december
Bush's State of the Union began by taking a moral stance on spending priorities. Notably prescription drug coverage in Medicare,

Actually, this prescription drug coverage would kick in only if the senior left medicare.

Advocates of the plan think Medicare's financial footing would improve dramatically by luring the elderly to privately run plans. But those who stay in the traditional Medicare program wouldn't have access to the new drug benefits under current versions of the proposal.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/5025615.htm

[december]

Originally posted by mack
Just a little nitpick:

Actually, this prescription drug coverage would kick in only if the senior left medicare.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/5025615.htm

Just a little nitpick nitpick:

The prescription drug coverage would kick in if the senior left traditional medicare, meaning (I guess) that s/he would go into non-traditional medicare. Seriously, no proposal has been released, so we don't exactly what Bush has in mind. One pundit speculated that drug coverage might be offered to those who went into some sort of HMO structure, but that those who choose to remain in the traditional structure might also be able to buy into prescription drug coverage. We'll have to wait and see what the actual proposal looks like.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by december
So, the question is: Did this work? Do you now consider Americans or Republicans to be "good guys"? [/b]

Always did.

[Estilicon]

Call me an Argentinian but I never believe a politician making an speech. I never believe them when they are not making an speech either.


p.s. SOTUS stands for.....

[Polycarp]

SOTUS = State of the Union Speech (constitutionally mandated summary of what the condition of the country is and what the President proposes to do about it). I've never seen it used before December's OP, but it's at least as comprehensible an acronym as some of the other ones coined around here.

December, is it your contention that criticism of the policies of an Administration is incommensurate with being a patriotic American? And if this is the case, how do you justify the Republican stance in the period 1/20/1993-1/20/2001?

I personally feel that America, in its freedom and ability to debate and discuss issues and arrive at some manner of consensus thereafter, is one of the great moral forces for good in the world. But it behooves us to move carefully and with great forethought, being a behemoth in world-power terms, to use our power and freedom in ways that benefit our fellow men and women (which may include freeing them from megalomaniac tyrants, from time to time, lest you misinterpret my overall comment).

[London_Calling]

What does SCROTUMS stand for, then ?

[light strand]

So, the question is: Did this work? Do you now consider Americans or Republicans to be "good guys"? Or, if that's too much, do you consider them a bit less evil than you used to?

I never thought they were evil to begin with. As far as the real question, which is, I think: Did Bush's speech make you, believe any more firmly in the Republicans devotion to the down-trodden, and international understanding, and (dare I say it) "nation-building"? My answer is: Not for a second.

The Mentoring program is great, but it's too expensive at $450 million. It's not going to happen. The Medicare issue has already been covered here, and once again, it's not going to happen.

I believe that Bush knew that this speech was going to be very widely reported internationally, and he put AIDS funding in his speech as a bone he threw to the international community. Bush, like other Presidents feeds to the polls. AIDS is the biggest concern of the International community. To get them to look favorably upon his Administration, and perhaps back military action in Iraq, Bush conceded AIDS aid. Don't get me wrong, I think this is needed, and I don't really give two hoots about the motivation, but it doesn't make me think the tiger has changed its stripes.

Or perhaps I'm too cynical.

[ElvisL1ves]

Dividing the world into Good and Evil is simply a substitute for thought.

[minty green]

Pay no attention to Elvis. He's not With Us.

[Polycarp]

London Calling: Shrub Can Really Osculate My Terrible Old Member Sweetly.

[Beagle]

What does SCROTUMS stand for, then ?

Supreme Court Review of Official Terminations Under Military Security. Oh, no, I'm sorry, the answer is "ball sack."

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Originally posted by London_Calling
What does SCROTUMS stand for, then ?

...nuts.



The SOTUS is a pep talk. It is like the coming years mission statement. This is what the US is going to do. If it works, vote for him. If it doesnt, the US does something else and reviews it on next years SOTUS. Believe it works when it happens. Just believe he's gonna try it.

[xenophon41]

London Calling: Shrub Can Really Osculate My Terrible Old Member Sweetly.

::putting another "No one will believe Poly said this" quote into the file for later.::


Heh, heh, heh.

[tomndebb]

Bush's State of the Union began by taking a moral stance . . . . The last half took a moral stance . . . .

Did this work? Do you now consider Americans or Republicans to be "good guys"? Or, if that's too much, do you consider them a bit less evil than you used to?

Last question, first, just to get it out of the way: I have never felt that the Republicans were "bad" guys, but that speech confirmed my opinion that Bush is a cynic with demogogic overtones.

"Moral stance"? He took political stances on issues that he may feel are appropriate actions, but that he does feel will garner him support in either the domestic or international communities. Between the two purported "moral" stances, he also lied about what was actually driving up the cost of medical care and he, again, attempted to entangle (Christian) religion in the government.

I did not think the speech was an extreme example of partisan politics, just a typically lopsided one (from the guy who claimed he was going to be a uniter, not a divider) and I found no sign that he would know a moral issue if it fell on his foot.

[sqweels]

We don't want war, but it's our duty to defend the world against this evil madman.

But the Bush Admin. rejected the International Criminal Court. Why isn't it our duty to support the Rule of Law in international affairs? I lean in favor of attacking Iraq, but it amounts to an act of vigilanteism, which is a poor substitute for what our "duty" truly ought to be.

[nogginhead]

Originally posted by december

Since Bush is the leader of the United States and the leader of the Republican Party, one underlying message is that America and the Republicans are now the good guys. This contradicts the anti-American critics at home and abroad. And, it contradicts the many Democrats who think that Republicans are not just wrong, but are bad people.

Let me get this straight. Because Bush is president (oh, and a Republican!), I should believe him when he says he is a good guy?

I don't think so. Maybe when he confesses the lust in his heart...

Also, I should think somehow that this contradicts something?

I think to 'contradict' is to make an argument, not an unsupported assertion.

If I assert that I am a polka-dotted green person, does that make me right?

If the president asserts that he is a polka-dotted green person, should I believe him?

Personally, I assume no one was convinced of anything by the speech-- how can you trust a guy who smirks as he threatens war? And I hope that the news that the weapons inspectors refuted many of his ridiculous claims reaches as far.

[Captain Amazing]

State of the Union speeches usually don't do much to change people's mind, and it doesn't matter who the president is that gives them. First of all, people who really don't like the guy tend not to watch, and, among the people who do watch, people who like the President tend to think it's a good speech, and people who dislike the President tend to think its a bad one.

[Banquet Bear]

Originally posted by december

So, the question is: Did this work? Do you now consider Americans or Republicans to be "good guys"? Or, if that's too much, do you consider them a bit less evil than you used to?

:: Banquetbear cocks his head slightly to the left ::

...consider me slightly confused by your OP, but are you saying that we should be considering the Americans as either good or bad guys? I find the notion absurd.

...what effect did the SOTU have on those of us watching from overseas? Well, from the point of view of my household, it didn't make us feel secure or safer at all.

We found the speech to be absolutely bizarre: when he talked about a disease that needed to be cured at the start of the speech we thought it he was talking about Terrorism, then he rambled about Aids and Tax Cuts and Hydrogen Powered Cars for goodness sakes-and all we could think about was, are you for real?

Then he threw up strawman arguements and practicly invoked Godwin's law by talking about "Hitlerism", which was quite funny-I imagined if his speech was the OP here in Great Debates he would have been torn to shreds.

...so my impression of Americans hasn't changed really at all in the last twenty years-but my impression of your leadership is extremely worrying. Good or bad? Can that really be answered?

[Dumbguy]

I was relieved to find out I was a good guy, because my last girlfriend claimed to have evidence to the contrary.

I also liked Bush's proposal that Americans traveling abroad wear big white hats to remind potential terrorists of our status.

[Spavined Gelding]

The Devil, Dear December, is in the details. The President him may waive the bloody shirt and give grand whoops for the Starry Banner and the Great Bird of Liberty until the cows come home, but I'm not buying it until the checks are signed and in the mail. To think that just under and hour of feel-good rhetoric out of the chief magistrate is a fair and complete statement of the Administration’s intentions, motivations and objectives is just delusional.

AIDS in Africa? Drug rehabilitation? Improved schools? Hydrogen cell autos? A meaningful Osama-Sadam connection? The rest of the litany of the State of the Union? Let’s see the details. Let's see the money; let's see the evidence.

Somehow, every time we come up on this annual exercise in smoke and mirrors I am reminded of generations of sports fans waiving their foam fingers and shouting “We’re Number One.” The President, however, seems to be shouting “I Can Lick Any Man in the House.”

Here is the point, nothing placed on prime time TV and spoon fed to the Great Uninformed can safely be regarded as anything more than the equivalent of a commercial advertisement. When told that buying a certain brand of beer will make you irresistible to leggie beauties from Nordic countries, do you believe it? Of course you don’t. In the face of that same sort of crass self-promotion delivered by a talking suit even your actuary’s heart and brain should at some primitive level set off the BS alarm. If then, you don’t accept beer commercials as reliable, why do you do you accept this out-pouring of balderdash as accurately reflecting any thing but the manipulations and machinations of literally scores of political consultants and public relations types. Better he just said that he can lick any man in the house and thumped on his chest a couple times. That at least would have been honest.

[ElJeffe]

Well, as a conservative who already thinks that we're the "good guys", I thought the speech was quite good, though not great. I think he spelled out the case for Iraq pretty well, inasmuch as he only offered a couple new tidbits of information. (Other new info to be disclosed by Powell on Wednesday, I presume.) His proposal on Medicare was unsurprising, but sounded good. His commitment to combatting AIDS in Africa was a surprise, and a good one, though I'll reserve final judgement for when I see the details. It's not just a matter of shipping a bunch of drugs over there; giving medications that need to be taken thrice per day and kept refrigerated is not trivial, when the people have no clocks or referigerators.

The Prelude to War bit was the money-shot of the whole affair - essentially a declaration of declaration of war. I thought he handled it nicely - two lines stand out: First, the one about "Let's just say [the terrorists] won't be around anymore", or however it was said. The man's got balls. Secondly, "If this isn't evil, then evil has no meaning." True, dat.

If I were a Typical Democrat, though, I would probably share tomndebb's sentiment:

...but that speech confirmed my opinion that Bush is a cynic with demogogic overtones.

There's nothing that any conservative republican could ever say that would not "confirm" that they were a cynical demoagogue, or whatnot. Bush probably won over a few undecideds in the crowd, but the lines in the sand were pretty much drawn months ago. As Bush might say, you're either with him or against him.


Jeff

[nogginhead]

Originally posted by ElJeffe
The man's got balls

Balls to that.

If it were GWB who said, thought, and felt those things, I might agree with you.

But since a team of speechwriters wrote, Rove told him to say it, and no one knows what (or if) Bush thinks, all we have to go on is his delivery of those lines.

I saw him say the words. And I question his integrity.

[jshore]

What I would like to see is more of Bush trying to be a "good guy" in his actions rather than his words. I mean, it is great that he spent about as much time talking about a program for hydrogen cars as his dividend tax cut but:

(1) This does little to erase the fact that his environmental record is horrible, particularly when it involves actually doing something that might make an industry exec mad at him. I mean, noone is going to argue about having free money thrown at them...How about telling the automobile manufacturers that there is going to be a significant increase in CAFE standards?

(2) The hydrogen car program is $1.2 billion and it is not clear if all of that is really new money anyway. The dividend tax cut is over $300 billion. This makes one wonder if the hydrogen car represents a profound commitment or a little bit of window-dressing.

All in all, what I find most troubling about the speech is that Bush seems to think that if he talks like a moderate, he can govern from the far right. For example, you don't have to do the right things on the environment, you just have to give them nice names like "Clear Skies Initiative" to mean "weaken the Clean Air Act".

[tomndebb]

There's nothing that any conservative republican could ever say that would not "confirm" that they were a cynical demoagogue, or whatnot.

That is certainly not true for me. I don't think that Daddy Bush was all that cynical, and he was far too inept in his delivery to be a good demagogue. Reagan, of course, was all demagogue, but I never found him to be cynical. (Stupid, perhaps). OTOH, Clinton was clearly cynical and was definitely a demagogue after his first two years. (He actually engaged in some half-hearted leadership, initially, folded when his own party refused to support him, and then went off to consolidate power after the Republicans swept into Congress.)

[litost]

Why is the evidence always forthcoming?

[Tejota]

Because it doesn't exist of course.

[Estilicon]

December you are even more naive than your usual if you think for just a minute that 40 minutes of speech will change the opinion of the world about your leadership.
I don't like Mr. Bush, my whole country doesn't care about him and I can assure you that most of the WORLD population doesn't care about him either. The sad fact is that americans usually don't give a damm about the opinions of the rest of planet (present company not included). At the end neither Germany, nor France, not even the U.N. will stop you. If you want to invade Irak you'll do it and if you want to invade Sweden I am sure Bush will find some evidence linking Abba with Osama.
And that will be a huge problem in the years to come for americans. I can assure you that in Argentina at least there is no hatred of americans but you should read our papers or watch our news or hear the common man in the street. I assure you you'll have to work a lot to gain not only our respect back but our confidence. We see you now as an empire marching aginst it second victim. We are wondering who are the next one and hope it isn't near here (Colombia).
In Latin America we never trusted you, after all many of your cold war battles were fought in here and there is even an idiom about the american goverments "You should do not as we do but as we tell you to do". That means that at least in this region you always talked about democracy, human rights, etc. And put in place or supported the worst tyrants. that changed in the 90 adn unfortunatelly changed again on 11/09/01.
Let's all hope that Simon Bolivar words will not become true: "Americans will be the disgrace of the world".

[december]

Originally posted by Estilicon
I don't like Mr. Bush, my whole country doesn't care about him and I can assure you that most of the WORLD population doesn't care about him either.

I appreciate your input, Estilicon. It's what the OP invited. Obviously this is not pleasant news for me to hear.

Just to clarify, I presume you tend to have leftist leainings. Does the POV reflected in your post also the view of mainstream Argentianians? Is there a faction there which thinks well of America and of our President?

[Duke]

Originally posted by december
It has been my impression that [Juan Williams] was one of the liberal spokespersons on the Fox News Special Report "All Star" panel.

I wouldn't have thought being liberal "compared to all the other guys on Fox News" would mean the same thing as actually being liberal.

[TwistofFate]

Originally posted by litost
Why is the evidence always forthcoming?

because it takes time to run a good Photoshop contest on FARK.

[Banquet Bear]

Originally posted by december
I appreciate your input, Estilicon. It's what the OP invited. Obviously this is not pleasant news for me to hear.

Just to clarify, I presume you tend to have leftist leainings. Does the POV reflected in your post also the view of mainstream Argentianians? Is there a faction there which thinks well of America and of our President?

...December, with all due respect, your position and this thread continues to puzzle me. I have "rightist" leanings, if you could describe it that way, and I do not like Mr Bush at all. In a New Zealand Hearald Poll coducted yesterday 90% of New Zealanders do not support a war on Iraq without express United Nations sanction-and even then a significant amount of NZ'ers dont think we should go to war at all.

...having said that, we don't hate the United States, and your attempt to stereotype the situation (for example "is there a faction there which thinks well of America and of our President?") makes no sense. Just because we disaprove of the United States actions, why should we hate the United States? As I stated, my view of Americans is the same now as I had ten years ago-it hasn't changed. I think that they rock.

...this is not a good guy bad guy situation. Is that how you see the world?

[december]

Originally posted by Banquet Bear
[B...this is not a good guy bad guy situation. Is that how you see the world? [/b]

That's how I interpreted Entsilicon's post, perhaps incorrectly. Although he said that Argentinians didn't hate America, he also said some fairly mean things about our country.

I appreciate your responses. They agree with other things I've read. It seems that Bush is quite unpopular internationally, even though he's quite popular domestically.

[Estilicon]

You interpreted me incorrectly. The worst part is that, knowing I was dealing with you I tried to state my opinions very carefully. Perhaps I am not eloquent enough.
I don't hate U.S.A. for me it is very difficult to hate an artificial entity, I don't hate U.S.A. I don't hate my local bank or River Plate (famous argentinian soccer team).
I am from the left of the politcial spectrum, center-left to be precise (if that means anything in this decadent times were ideologies are dead).
I have always been a critic of your country and it's dealings with my region. That involment caused at least hundred of thousands of dead wasn't a consequence of the cold war. It started at the turn of the century and the best example is Panama secession. The conclussion is that when your interest are in jeopardy you will do anything to protect them, and always you have the tendency of masquerading them with "Democracy" or "Human rights" or "Fighting evil", etc. The first and most important of human rights is living and you country denied that right to thousands.
Of course I am speaking of your country foreign policy. I am not saying that you December or any other american comitted those atrocities. I am not the only one many american dopers are also critic of your contry's dealing with the world.
I am also a critic of Europe, the Roman Empire and my country because my dear December all human institutions are by nature imperfect, it is our duty to do whatever we can to improve them.
Also when I have to applaud your country and it's policies I do it. I am no Chumpsky. Overall I'll have to say that U.S.A has done much better things than worst, that is not enough for me and it shouldn't be enough for you either.
I won't say "Hey I have a lots of american friends" because unfortunately I don't have any. That is my loss but when I am at the computer I always open Winamp and play my favourite pieces. The better part of the time I have been spending writing this was easied by Barber's Adagio (not now, I am listening to Kreisler's Liebesleid). Save this paragraphs an re read them whenever you think I am a fundamentalist trying to destroy your country.


Now to answer your question let me tell you that my opinion about your current leadership is shared by 90% of our population, yo should be scared. Not because we represent a threat to your country but because we are a fairly conservative society, if you had the chance to read our right wing opinion makers this day you would think you were reading one of Catro's paper. If that is us imagine what a not very conservative society is thinking of your country this days.

[december]

Originally posted by Estilicon
The better part of the time I have been spending writing this was eased by Barber's Adagio

One of my favorite pieces of music.

Now to answer your question let me tell you that my opinion about your current leadership is shared by 90% of our population, you should be scared.

I am scared. People outside of the United States see the current President in a totally different light than American citizens do. This difference makes us think less of each other. It threatens our countries' long-term friendship.

I very much appreciate your response. It has opened my eyes.

[regnad kcin]

We also should keep in mind that as our current president sinks us further and further into debt -- whether necessary or not -- we will be needing international financial help more and more.

We shouldnt be burning any bridges or making any enemies among the more economically powerful nations. Rumsfeld speaks of the "old Europe" being France and Germany, while "vast numbers" of other European countries support us.

France and Germany may be having economic problems right now (like just about everyone else in the world), but they continue to be, with England, the economic powers of the continent.

Spain? Italy? Poland? Give me a break.

[december]

Originally posted by regnad kcin
France and Germany may be having economic problems right now (like just about everyone else in the world), but they continue to be, with England, the economic powers of the continent.

Spain? Italy? Poland? Give me a break.

The 2000 Gross National Product of France was $1,543 billion. Italy was only 18% lower, at $1,260 billion.

[Apos]

I don't approve of using absolute moral language inconsistently. You can't put on a white hat in one moment (Iraq) in the name of an unresistable duty to fight an absolute evil, and then plead calculating pragmatism the next (Korea). Whether Saddam gassed his own people is obviously not in any way relevant to the case for war. If it was, then there would be no need to wait for Hans Blix.

Of course, I'm in favor of disposing Saddam irregardless of his stockpile of weapons (a more Hitchens-like view), so I guess I don't need extra reasons to be appealed to for going to war with him, which in turn makes me a lot less passionate about needing to defend the consistency of other reasons given.

I'm also steamed that Bush continues to use extremely dishonest rhetoric to sell his tax cuts, which I think he should be defending solely on the grounds of justice, not on the fantastical view that they are targeted at all Americans, or this wildly distorted "average family" claptrap.

Finally, I am surprised that he'd so loudly push for the hydrogen solution, especially given the potential security dangers of hydrogen. We need a lot more thought about that issue before we even think about the future of small scale energy.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by Estilicon
I don't like Mr. Bush, my whole country doesn't care about him and I can assure you that most of the WORLD population doesn't care about him either. ...
... In Latin America we never trusted you, [/b]

I just consider myself lucky to be on the same messageboard as someone who speaks for all of Argintina, Latin America, and even the entire world.

[jjimm]

Originally posted by msmith537
I just consider myself lucky to be on the same messageboard as someone who speaks for all of Argintina, Latin America, and even the entire world.

Well he does speak for me, and every single non-American I know.

[Estilicon]

Msmith537, you should. It happens to me also, sometimes I am looking at the mirror and think "Well I am just very lucky to be staring at the same mirror that handsome fellow is using".
Seriously I never claimed that. I was stating what I consider to be the opinion of the whole world about your president. The guy is just disgusting with all his "good vs. evil" speech. If you don't see that it's your loss.
I never claimed to be spaking for the 35 million argentinians, the 300 humdred millions (I think) Latin Americans and most certainly not for the 6 billion human beings. I merely stated what in my opinion is the general opinion. If anything I posted led you to think that I speak for the human race... well you just can sue me.

[Polycarp]

I won't say "Hey I have a lots of american friends" because unfortunately I don't have any.

Cite?? Seriously, I'll assure you that you have at least one. I don't always agree with you -- in fact, I seldom agree with you, and I do find your posts a bit difficult to grasp the meaning of -- though I'm confident that you'd find my Spanish-language posts even harder to understand! But I appreciate the thought and frankness that you put into your posts, and having someone from Argentina who is fluent and thoughtful contributing is a gift to all of the rest of us, in terms of putting a different perspective on things.

MSmith, he has a point. America does tend to move between speaking frankly in our own self-interests and taking a stance in favor of capitalist democratic free ideals -- and I think that at least part of the time we tend to cloak the former with the latter, deceiving ourselves about our motives as much as we try to do that with others. Honest question: Do you think that GWB and Dick Cheney are totally motivated by their oil industry background in their Middle East stance? No, right. Now -- Do you think that they are able to totally distance themselves from that background in making the decisions they must? And knowing that they come from that background, what do you think that some unbiased observer in Cairo or Ljubljana or Bangkok is going to think are their motives?

[Apos]

---And knowing that they come from that background---

It's more than a background in some cases: it can also be a revolving door between public service and employment and investment in the private sector. It isn't just where people in the administration are coming from, it's often also what they are going back to when they are done serving.

I think people too often overlook the _legitimate_ interests of the oil industry. It's not necessarily BAD that oil factors into things. It is pretty darn important.

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by Apos
Finally, I am surprised that he'd so loudly push for the hydrogen solution, especially given the potential security dangers of hydrogen. We need a lot more thought about that issue before we even think about the future of small scale energy.

Just a quick mention for this: Seriously unlikely to be a coincidence that Bush is currently – and all of a sudden and at this time; why in the middle of all this ? - talking up hydrogen and has pledged $15 billion to Aids in Africa… he’s making nice with those he wants abstentions from (rather than the big veto) when he has to go back to the UN for a second Resolution – are Euro politicians that naïve ? No but voters the world over are, including in France and Germany, where the Environment and Kyoto wins votes. It ‘s just something easy Bush can say that contributes to mitigating the hostility to him in Europe.

As such, it’s just one of the many tactics employed at the moment – up front like these and behind the scenes – to try and avoid a veto on the second Resolution …. Believe me, there will be a second Resolution and there won’t be a veto – France will abstain.

Words come easy to this man - he may not be so good at reading and writing, but he can speak 'em.

An interesting question at the moment is; what’s Bush offering Putin behind the scenes … Putin’s a major player right now, IMHO….I guess we'll know soon enough....


And Polycarp – You completely threw me with that ! You take care of your member, sounds troublesome

[Estilicon]

Do you realize what this mean to me Polycarp, now I can use the infamous "I have american friends but...."
You made very happy today, and if ever you want to trash Argentina, Latin America, Soccer or the catholics you can do it also because YOU ARE MY FRIEND.
Now all I need is a french friend and I will be covered in all flanks. And I finally will realize my dream of writing a really nasty book about french cheese