The President's Speech

Zhukov

VIP Member
Dec 21, 2003
3,492
302
83
Everywhere, simultaneously.
Pretty good. I wish he would have spent more time discussing what the greater implications of this war are all about.

And is demolishing abu Ghraib really necessary? Seems overly dramatic.
 
Did he just deliver it? I'm at work.

Hmm, abolishing Abu? Seems a bit overly-symbolic. How about just court marshalling the offenders, and not doing it again.

Or at least don't let the pictures get out next time:rolleyes:
 
I don't think the destruction of the prison is necessary via the American atrocities, but via the Iraqi, yes. Those with new prosethic arms were operated on from this prison.

Bush addressed the US culpabilities, which pale in the face of terrorism.

Good speech, not carried by regular networks. Wonder coverage via rest of world. From what I could tell, all cable outlets, C-Span, PBS. That's it.
 
How could you guys say it was a good speech?! He didn't say anything about the june 30th handover.

Here are a couple of vitally important questions that should have been answered: If the US wants to kill Sadyr and the Governing Authority says no, will that mean no? who will be the president, the two vps and the prime minister? If they say our troops must go, will they go, what kind of authority will the govering authority have?
 
Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
How could you guys say it was a good speech?! He didn't say anything about the june 30th handover.

Hm, that's that I thought the speech was to be about.
But 5 weeks away...
 
Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
How could you guys say it was a good speech?! He didn't say anything about the june 30th handover.

Here are a couple of vitally important questions that should have been answered: If the US wants to kill Sadyr and the Governing Authority says no, will that mean no? who will be the president, the two vps and the prime minister? If they say our troops must go, will they go, what kind of authority will the govering authority have?

As of this moment, I think I'm the only 'guys' you are speaking to. Bush spoke to the fact that both the UN and Iraq must step up to the plate. doh

We will back them, but the Iraqis must take control. They scream for it, but it is an awesome burden.
 
Originally posted by Zhukov
What speech were you watching?

LOL

Not shake the earth wonderful, but got the point across reliable. Do not misunderestimate.
 
Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
If the US wants to kill Sadyr and the Governing Authority says no, will that mean no?

After sovereignty is handed over, then yes that will probably mean no, providing he isn't physically attacking our soldiers.

who will be the president, the two vps and the prime minister?

Mr. UN, Brahimi, is currently going throught the candidates for that.

If they say our troops must go, will they go

Yes.

what kind of authority will the govering authority have?

Full autonomy. Our soldiers, and other coalition forces, will remain under our command.
 
LOL You've encapsulated the definition of narcissicism. No surprise.
 
On the libertarian side:
May 24, 2004
JACOB T. LEVY writes on the libertarian threat to Bush and suggests that Bush's people are in denial. I agree with this. Bush's positions on stem cell research, abortion, etc., are damaging there, and the war's pretty much a wash, with libertarians divided.

I've gotten some emails asking why I like Bush so much. I don't really -- I support him on the war, but if Lieberman or Gephardt had gotten the Democratic nomination, I wouldn't have a strong preference. (They're not my faves on other issues, but neither is Bush, whose policies on stem cells, abortion, etc., differ from mine rather sharply). Despite the claims of some writers that Bush and Kerry will have more in common than we think on foreign policy and the war (which may be true) I don't have the same confidence in Kerry. I suppose he could change my mind on that, but I don't really expect that he will.

But my support for Bush has more to do with the character of his opposition, really, than with Bush himself. (You don't see a lot of Bush hagiography here). And I think libertarians who feel differently about the war have no real reason to support Bush -- he's been wishy-washy on gun control, big on spending, and generally a big-government kind of guy, not a government-off-your-back kind of guy. (And don't get me started on Homeland Security).

Would Kerry be worse for libertarian principles than Bush? He'd probably like to be. But in reality, it's not likely to matter a lot.

posted at 09:27 PM by Glenn Reynolds If you've got a modem, I've got an opinion!
 
Originally posted by Kathianne
I can take a joke, you're it.

Feisty little bitch, aren't ya...
Geez, and to think I was agreeing with you earlier in the thread...
 
and to think I was agreeing with you earlier...makes you a feisty bastard, eh?
 

Forum List

Back
Top