Did anybody count how many times George Said “nucular” I found that as a citizen of the USA, I was embarassed by this mispronunciation. A nuclear war would be the most horrible thing in the world, pronouce it correctly asshole. I also shuddered when he said something to the effect of “In the rubble of the TWO TOWERS!” Somebody is a little too excited about LOTR:dubious: :smack: :wally
I was wondering if he said nuculer or not. I only caught the highlights on the Today show. He did impress me by saying the word “imminent” and not “inniment” which would force us to declare war on the Altoids company.
he does the “nucyular” thing deliberately. I’m sure of it. Probably aiming to sound like Everyman American
I’m kind of annoyed at the whole “Hydrogen Car” tangent he went on. That thing lasted like 12 minutes, and by the end of it I wanted to shout, “Okay! I get it! This is all so people can’t say you’re nuts about oil! Talk about something important now!”
well george said a lot of pretty things. but how is he paying for them? what is he cutting to fund these projects of his? and how is it that he’s still saying nukular?
…some of the mysteries of our world
You know, I see no reason to be impressed with George Bush because of his speeches (even if he was capable of delivering them correctly) until he writes his own. I realize that that’s just not something presidents do, but I see no reason to praise them on speeches that they didn’t even come up with.
As for how he’s going to pay for everything he proposes . . . you’ll recall he said, “Federal spending should not rise faster than the American income.”
In other words, he expects us to do it.
Do you fail to be impressed by Elvis because he did not write his songs? Stirring oratory is an important skill for a leader to possess (though certainly not the only one, of course). I’m staggered by Bush’s improvement in this area from the campaign trail to now – I used to dread hearing the man speak (and I voted for him!), but I’m been impressed with many of the speeches he’s delivered over the past year.
Besides, presidents do help craft their State of the Union (and other important) speeches – they work with their speechwriters after the speechwriters present their first draft. Bush’s pen may not ink every word he delivers, but the speech isn’t done until Bush is personally satisfied with every word on the page.
My favorite part of the speech was his thoughts on North Korea, especially if you apply them to Iraq.
"On the Korean Peninsula (or in Iraq), an oppressive regime rules a people living in fear and starvation. Throughout the 1990s, the United States relied on a negotiated framework (UN sanctions and inspectors) to keep North Korea (Iraq) from gaining nuclear weapons. We now know that that regime was deceiving the world, and developing those weapons all along. And today the North Korean (Iraqi) regime is using its nuclear program to incite fear and seek concessions. America and the world will not be blackmailed. (Applause.)
America is working with the countries of the region – South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia – to find a peaceful solution (oops–we’re going to war in Iraq by ourselves), and to show the North Korean (Iraqi) government that nuclear weapons will bring only isolation, economic stagnation, and continued hardship. (Applause.) The North Korean (Iraqi) regime will find respect in the world and revival for its people only when it turns away from its nuclear ambitions (Oh really? We were the first nation with The Bomb, and the only ones to actually use it, and we’re doing pretty well for ourselves)."
Oh, but North Korea doesn’t have any oil, didn’t try to kill Bush 41, and would also thoroughly kick our ass in a ground invasion. So Iraq it is!
Uh, no. North Korea has at least one or two nuclear weapons, and has 11,000 artillery tubes pointed at Seoul. So Iraq it is!
You do what you can. The inability to deal with one threat should not stop you from dealing with another.
I must be the only person on earth, I take it, who feels the same way about him pronoucing nuclear as I do about the correct term for soda, or pop, or whatever the hell your perfered term is. Namely:
I don’t really care. There are far more important things to be criticizing.
And really, is his pronouciation of nuclear the most important thing about his speech? I was far more concerned about the numbers he was throwing around, not wether he was pronoucing everything 100% correctly.
**
Yeah, but Elvis could * dance. *
[quote]
** Stirring oratory is an important skill for a leader to possess (though certainly not the only one, of course). I’m staggered by Bush’s improvement in this area from the campaign trail to now – I used to dread hearing the man speak (and I voted for him!), but I’m been impressed with many of the speeches he’s delivered over the past year. [/qoute] **
Their content aside, I’d have to agree that his delivery has improved a bit. His problem isn’t necessarily with prepared speeches, but with speaking without a script. Never have I seen the man speak comfortably and intelligilbly about any subject unless a teleprompter was present.
Somehow this just isn’t as satisfying as having a leader who prepared his own remarks. Cecil Adams has Ed Zotti, who approves the columns, but it’s Cecil who I admire.
As in the original post I think it is important for THE PRESIDENT to be able to properly pronounce such an important word. God forbid we should be engaged in such a war and George appears on tv informing us of our eminent demise " 2 nukeular missiles are headed this way." At least I would die laughing.
Didn’t anyone else find that “two towers” thing funny?
As an Aussie Doper, would any of my American friends be so kind as to give us non Americans a “Readers Digest” highlights compendium of the SOTU speech?
One other thing - and I derive a bit of humour about this… the Chinese (rightfully I might add) look upon themselves as being a major player on the world stage. As do the Russians. Let alone all the lower tier countries in the Middle East who would LIKE to be such major players.
And yet, it’s only the United States which has a leader who once a year is compelled to give a SOTU speech which, in effect, is now a “Speech to the World” that the whole world listens to as well.
Ask me how jealous and seething some of the other world leaders must be by this weird anachronism. God they must get so pissed off by that. Just the notion that THEY aren’t as important must get up their noses I reckon.
I reckon it’s funny.
I think I might start holding an annual “State of the Surf” speech too. (smile)
State of the Union highlights from CNN.
It’s amusing, Boo Boo Foo, that the Constitution only requires the President to address Congress “from time to time.” It’s been recent tradition to do it annually though.
Aahhh, I see.
You know, as a young boy in the mid 70’s, my father was a structural engineer doing consultancy work in California. I can remember the annual fuss regarding the SOTU address, but then, after we moved back home to Australia I didn’t hear about it anymore. It didn’t seem to be something which registered on the world news services - until about the last 10 years.
Certainly, I recall as a kid trying to absorb a SOTU address by Jimmy Carter on live TV one year, and I found it a bit tough going. (Just a friendly dig there at 'ol Jimmy).
But nowadays, as you’ve suggested “friedo”, it has evolved into quite the event - both intra and extra the US borders.
I think there’s also the fact that the President was expected to address war with Iraq as a major issue in the speech that made this last one more important in the international media. Most SOTU addresses consist of the President pestering Congress to further his agenda, and some minor nods about foreign policy.
—You do what you can. The inability to deal with one threat should not stop you from dealing with another.—
That’s true… but it’s inconsistent with the tenor of a blank and white moral stance against the rule of tyrants. You can’t whip up the idea of ultimate evil that must be resisted at all costs… and then lamely fall back on pragmatism for every counter-example.
I think Michael Kinsley is actually right on this: http://slate.msn.com/id/2077856/
The things Bush talked about Saddam doing really ARE good moral reasons for going to war. The problem is, they were just as good 20 years ago, and from then on. And they are just as good for all sorts of other situations. So maybe these aren’t really the reasons, and his non-compliance is what really counts. But that leaves another odd question: if Saddam actually did comply with sanctions and disarm… does that that mean’s he can go back torturing people and committing genocide without any worry that we’ll do much more than put out a report? If that’s not the case, then why mention these things at all?
Kinsley also slyly points out that the “lesson” Bush seems to be reffering to on North Korea is that we should have been more hard-line, or even invaded, years ago. If you don’t do that… well you might end up having to do regional talks sometime in the future? Eh?
Another 2c from Aust. (=1c US!)
Credit, where credit is due. He’s sure getting better at reading those speeches. I thought the delivery and tone were commendable.
Good posture, rotten policy.
Why would we get our “asses kicked”?
Are you equally embarrased when Carter says “nucular” too? Or is this a partisan thing?