State of the Union Response
Submitted by charlie.collins on Wed, 01/21/2004 - 11:11
Tagged:
My own response to the "State of the Union" (my comments, editorials, views, remarks and so on are in blue).
Comments
Re: State of the Union Response
my commentary on your commentary...
Security -- Can't agree with you there. Your references are questionable at best and laughable at worse. A survey asking if we are safer now or 10 years ago? Come on, you could ask that about every town, villa and hamlet. The whole damned country is less safe. From the crackheads doing home invasions or just the rise of murder rates, you can't really blame this on W. Well you can, but it is a really distorted view with a baited question. So while I can let you get away with saying that you don't agree that the US is safer, and that some studies would suggest that you are correct, to categorically call it false is more than a little presumptuous.
Economy -- yeah, but you gotta take into account that the economy was already going downwards when he took office.
Educational spending -- true, but not good enough, I'll give you, but caveats isn't quite the right word. Does more need to be done? Sure. But there's no caveat in what he said.
Unity -- It probably feels divided cause you have a minority opinion in this case. People in general still approve of this whole mess. Call it mass delusion or ignorance, it doesn't matter. According to every poll I've seen, most people still stand behind ole W.
Root cause -- You and I'll go round and round on this one till we're both dead and gone. touchy-feely "tell me why you're pissed and I'll make it better" is not any more effective, and I'd wager less effective, than "do unto others before they get a chance to do unto you." Not saying that that is right or wrong, but in terms of effectiveness, they can not be compared. Very good point about people left behind by the bombs, though. It's not your enemy, but his sons, that'll get ya.
PAtriot Act -- right on brother!
Nuclear Nations -- Yeah, I always love it when our people are killed by weapons that our gov't provided. Makes me proud.
UN enforcement -- Gotta love the english language... you can just twist the words to mean whatever the hell you want. Like you said, technically the war did enforce UN resolutions.... but (some of) the (members of the) UN didn't really want to enforce them. After, all they were making loads of money dealing with Iraq.
Libya -- Somebody a helluva lot more eloquent and worldly than me said that war is the physical execution of a governments policies. This is what W was talking about. Libya saw that not only is the bully on the street talking ****, he's breaking legs too. The policy has effect because the threat of non-conformance is real. I agree with the rest of what you're saying, but I disagree with your blanket statement of 'false'.
That's it for now, I gotta get back to work... Flame on!
Re: State of the Union Response
Ok, here we go.
Security- the first statement was from the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute. I am sure Bush is familiar with it. Hence to call us more secure is false. Yes the "survey" is just a "survey" but thats why other "studies" were included as sources. And regardless of all the studies you are going to tell me with a straight face that AFTER the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan America is safer? It is my contention that the network of terrorists around the world might just now be MORE pissed and MORE focused on the United States?
Economy - true that it was headed down when he entered the scene. Doesnt change what it is. I give Bush some credit here, things are getting better.
Unity - Bush approval rating is 54% or something last I saw. Thats far from unity regardless of my "minority" view. Yes its decent for a President and its more than 50% but Bush said the state of the union was stronger than ever in a speech where he took jabs at other parties. The times are just not reflective of any unity.
Root Cause - its bullshit that we cant work on this one. i am not the only one to mention this, many much more educated and far smarter folks than I have mentioned the same. sure its complicated, sure its not going to solve everything, but we dont seem to be putting ANY effort into this and thats stupid. addressing this DOES NOT mean abondon other efforts, it means do this also. And "do unto others before they get a chance to do to you" is where the problem lies. When do you draw that line? Should we just **** everyone up because they could potentially hurt us? Should cops just shoot speeders in case they might be armed criminals that could at some point shoot back? Of course not, thats ludicrous, but thats the point, the reasonable evidence of some imminent threat has been the ENTIRE DEBATE. There was no threat. We STILL havent found the damn alleged threats that were told UNEQUIVOCALLY EXISTED. And even if they DO AT SOME POINT FIND WMD its still been bullshit up to now because we were told them knew for certian they had them AND WHERE. We were told they couldnt divulge where to even the UN inspectors for security reasons. Now the american inspectors say they need "more time", familiar refrain? I might remind you that prior to the invasion Iraq was cooperating (albeit for the first damn time and BECAUSE of the Bush threats) with the inspections. The point about the sons is well taken, but my point was that it can come back around again.
UN thing - The UN opposed the war, and I never stated that "technically the war did enforce UN resolutions" the language is even better when rather than twist you just flat out lie? The US should have worked with the UN to solve the "clear and present danger" that Iraq posed. What danger, hell I dont know, you might. And to imply that lucid rational nations that opposed the use of force in the absence of evidence did so because "they were making money" is asinine. Some of the countries that opposed (I guess we are talking some Boortzian Germany and France rant here) did have dealings with Iraq, but so did many US interests and businesses over the years. Even when it was ILLEGAL. I have seen many sources that state only Germany had more Iraq business ties than did the US. But I am not bitching at the US about this, I am pointing out that when throwing stones you need to look around your glass house. Maybe it was wrong to have Iraq dealings maybe it wasnt, but MOST of the nations involved did it, including the US.
Libya - my false was stating that it was "false" for Bush to say that Libya bailed on its positions and weapons "voluntarily". They did do it, and its a credit to Bush administration (as I stated) but it was far from "voluntary".
Re: State of the Union Response
calm down sir, calm down...
I'm not saying we should shoot speeders, I'm saying that when it comes to terrorism, talking is not an option. These people are not rational to begin with. I'm not speaking to the whole "he hate me" (very obscure XFL reference) thing, just the whole "people willing to kill lots of people to go hang out with virgins" thing.
And on the UN thing, besides the obligatory bash on the UN, I was pointing out how he twisted the truth, not you.