Iraq was not in violation of the UN resolutions which specifically stated that the country was in danger of military action if it was not in compliance?
You’re right! As long as ‘cleaning up the ideology’ means replacing words like ‘freedom’ and “Democracy” with words like “enslavement” and “Dictatorship”.
In other words, your statement is nuts.
This was an excellent speech. A great speech. It was a speech so good that even Bush’s critics are having to resort to saying, “Yeah, it was pretty good, but it was just a script and anyway, he doesn’t mean it.” Because it’s hard to argue with the content.
In the meantime, the ‘hundreds of thousands’ of protestors turned out to be about 1/10 that - less than the number of people who protested fox hunting a while ago. And the antics of the crazy left are alienating those who are sitting on the fence and pushing them into Bush’s camp. Popularity for both Bush himself and the war in general are rising in Britain, and this speech is going to help that momentum along.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled Bush hate-fest.
It was not a "great speech,’ it was just a bunch of self-serving, self-justifying platitudes with no acknowledgement of his dishonesty in fomenting the invasion, his failure to find either Saddam Hussein or WMDs, the ongoing guerilla war which is currently kicking his ass, the hostility of the Iraqi people towards the US, his own recent detestable bombing of civilians in Tikrit, his absurdly obsessive aversion to having to witness any protest or criticism, his own buffoonish image in the rest of the world, etc., etc.
BTW, nobody thinks he actually wrote any of that speech, do they? Shrub has zero to do with the speeches he is given to recite. They just rehearsed him pretty well this time.
From Diogenes the Cynic
No one with half a brain thinks ANY of them write their own speeches, Diogenes the Cynic. The good speeches you liked from Clinton were also writen by someone else…ALL of them. Same with Regan, Carter, Kennedy, etc etc. I know you feel that you have some kind of a monopoly on intellegence, but ya…some of us lesser minds have also figured this out.
However, from all I’ve heard, presidents have input into what they WANT to say…unless you are making the (tired) contention that Bush is a mere puppet. If so, there is no convincing you the world is round…your mind is made up.
I have to admit, I liked the speech. And I went in with a certain level of antipathy towards the man. I’m STILL not voting for him next year…but it made me think a bit more.
-XT
Clinton was quite involved with his own speech writing and he always wrote his own final drafts. BC was an exception, though.
And you know this how? I’m sure you wouldn’t presume to state an opinion as a fact in GD, would you, DtC?
In any case, the latest (Richard) Perle of wisdom is that the Iraq War was illegal. Perle is a member of the Defense Advisory Board that advises Rumsfeld, and was chairman of the board till Mar 26, 2003.
Diogenes:
Can’t speak for the others, but I’m pretty certain I read that Reagan wrote his own as well.
Diogenes the Cynic
Um…what I was saying is that they are ALL ‘involved’ in the speech writing, even it its only to give the broad outlines to their trusty speech writer of what they want to say. Only a fool WOULDN’T be, after all (and while these folks might be foolish on some things, they are politicians, so its beyond my belief that they WOULDN’T be involved at some level)…how would you like to get up in front of millions and talk about something you were opposed too, or didn’t know anything about?? Again, unless you are claiming Bush is merely a puppet that dances on someone elses strings…thats the only way your contention would work IMO.
Is it your contention that Clinton wrote all or some of his own speeches? If so, could you give a cite for that? If not, what is the “quite involved” level that sets him apart from all the other presidents?? Lets see some data to back either position up, please.
Is it your contention that Bush is not involved at all in his speeches? From this: “Shrub has zero to do with the speeches he is given to recite.” I’d say it IS your contention. So, can you back that up? Or are you just saying this because you THINK its so? Lets see some proofs that Bush has ZERO “to do with his speeches he is given to recite”.
-XT
Diogenes the Cynic
Um…what I was saying is that they are ALL ‘involved’ in the speech writing, even it its only to give the broad outlines to their trusty speech writer of what they want to say. Only a fool WOULDN’T be, after all (and while these folks might be foolish on some things, they are politicians, so its beyond my belief that they WOULDN’T be involved at some level)…how would you like to get up in front of millions and talk about something you were opposed too, or didn’t know anything about?? Again, unless you are claiming Bush is merely a puppet that dances on someone elses strings…thats the only way your contention would work IMO.
Is it your contention that Clinton wrote all or some of his own speeches? If so, could you give a cite for that? If not, what is the “quite involved” level that sets him apart from all the other presidents?? Lets see some data to back either position up, please.
Is it your contention that Bush is not involved at all in his speeches? From this: “Shrub has zero to do with the speeches he is given to recite.” I’d say it IS your contention. So, can you back that up? Or are you just saying this because you THINK its so? Lets see some proofs that Bush has ZERO “to do with his speeches he is given to recite”.
-XT
God knows he needs speechwriters. Just have a guess at his improv material.
I got the stuff about Clinton editing and finalizing the drafts of his speeches from Dick Morris’ book about the Clinton White House.
Bush is way too stupid and illiterate to write a speech. That’s just obvious. He doesn’t even comprehend what he’s reading. Flame away. 
Hold on DtC. Remember those photos of Bush carefully reviewing the SOTU address? How those photos prevent Bush disclaiming responsibility for the lies contained therein?
Reviewing it not writing it (no doubt practicing that really serious expression that he does when he’s trying to supress the smirk and look statesman-like) but you have a good point. I will support without evidence that he absolutely knew the yellowcake stuff was a lie even though he didn’t write the speech. 
**Vigilantism is still illegal. The correct thing to do is call the police if you suspect tha a crime is being committed. In this case the “police” would have been the UN. What you can’t do is round up your own posse of like-minded idiots and go shooting up the neighborhood and killing innocent bystanders.
**
The UN refuses to enforce any of its resolutions. When the police refuse to deal with crime, vigilantism is the natural result. As if anyone who was opposed to the war would have favored it with UN backing. I remember the Gulf War. UN backing added little to public support. This is becuase most people aren’t obsessed with process over morality.
It’s irrelevant what the UN does or doesn’t do. Vigilantism is never justified, period. If the cops don’t care about a crack house in your neighborhood does that mean you have the right to go burn it down yourself (and if you kill a few innocent people, oh well)?
Illegal is illegal. GWB did not have any legal authority to try to enforce UN resolutions and that’s all there is to it.
That’s because Iraq had done nothing to justify military action. Remember, Bush was lying about the WMDs.
From Diogenes the Cynic
I see. So, no cites for Clinton, none for Bush. You “just know”. No flames from me…pity is more appropriate.
From Diogenes the Cynic
Can you list out exactly what law(s) were broken? I happen to agree that there was no real reason to go into Iraq, but your statement is ridiculous. Of COURSE Bush has legal authority, and you are stupid to even make such a statement. All the legal authority he needs comes internally from the people and from Congress…and he had both. Its the same for any other country.
Show me exactly what law was broken, and how the action was ‘illegal’. Oh, thats right…you “just know” again, ehe?
-XT
For reference, here’s the text of Resolution 1441, which Iraq was found in material breach of several months later.
One interesting paragraph:
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein…
Perhaps legally the breach would be considered a lifting of the ceasefire, ie a resumption of Gulf I? I don’t know. But it is useful to read at this point.
No he doesn’t have the legal authority to attack the sovereignty of another country. Attacks on sovereignty are explicitly forbidden by the UN Charter except in the case of self-defense (which this clearly was not). The US has ratified the UN Charter and is legally bound by it.
Actually, Bush’s illegal act of aggression would legally justify his own assassination by Saddam Hussein.
Metihabel, it makes no difference what or how many resolutions Iraq was in violation of, the US has no authority to enforce them. Period.