Did Bush go to far in his speech?

So many of you on this board bewilder me. Bush is the quintessential straight-talker yet all it garners him is criticism. Aren't you guys Texans!

He's not as slick as that silver-tongued devil Clinton but that should be a relief not a criticism by way of contrast.

You want him to seek bi-partisan solutions yet you criticise him for not laying out his plan for economic recovery. You can't have it both ways.

Why in the hell is Enron worth mentioning in a State of the Union speech? Yes it's a big debacle but his enemies are clearly going out of their way to associate him with the scandal in any way possible. Why should he cooperate with them? Only a fool would; maybe President Bush isn't so dumb after all!

The world saw how we manhandled first the Iraqui Republican Army and then the legendary Afghan warriors. Why not make Iran, Iraq, and North Korea soil their britches a little bit. Certainly they would be tougher foes, but I have no doubt that we would rout them likewise.

Bush is living up to his promise to rout terrorism world-wide which is the promise he made to garner coalition support. Give him some credit please.

 

exactly...and if we weren't kicking ass in afghanistan, he'd be taking the blame. he's in a no-win situation with some people. it's that simple.

it's just like the gulf war..people complained that we got into it..then those same people complained about bush not finishing the job. amazing.

 

The funniest part of the speech was when he said:

My call tonight is for every American to commit at least two years, 4,000 hours over the rest of your lifetime, to the service of your neighbors and your nation Seemingly he just wants doctors and nurses to just work for free and tht will solve the problem of the unisured.

What a joke. I guess after they gave back the surplus to the wealthy. that is about all he can say. .Watch when anyone actually proposes drugs for medicare recipients etc. how the Republicans say thaey'd love to, but there just isn't the money.

Too bad we can't all afford to give community charity balls like the Bush women.

Maybe he should start by having his daughters and Jeb's daughter do some community service instead of partying.

From the cnn transcript he surprisingly didn't tell all of us to pray to solve the problems of unemployment health care etc

 

It is nice to have a president who talks straight for a change...even though half of what he says is funny.



Oh, and Francis3, please try to show some class and remove the sucks..d.... part.

Stuff like that is just the first two letters short of class.

DaDakota

 

Wow. I am speechless. I would like to take this oppurtunity to nominate this post for post of the year. Excellent job Francis3, you are a true political mastermind whose knowledge and understanding of the subject matter is surpassed only by your keen insight.

I think you suck dick. Why? Because its my opinion, so suck on it and like it.

Ah Ha! So treeman ISNT unbelievably biased and racist against Arabs. At least not exclusively... Just kidding treeman. I agree with you on this one. I dont think unification is coming. The basic thought from asians is "Stupid Americans." I know because my mom is asian, and thats what she and her relatives talk about all the time, even around my dad.

Bush is a good guy. I think hes doing the right thing by not being a p***y in his speeches. Nothing to complain or worry about.

Well haven, we can narrow that down to every country with nukes with a dictator that isnt too nice. Mmm k?

 

Glynch,

One day you may work your tail off, make some serious money and then look at how much in taxes you will have to pay.

Why punish people who excel in our country by having them pay for the deadbeats?

I am all for charity, but charity starts at home.



DaDakota

 

i'm shocked you didn't like the speech, glynch!!

i assumed you loved it!!!

of course, if he got up there and said everything you'd want him to say, you'd still hate the speech because he said it.

he's a two-term president, glynch..hope you're prepared for that.

 

<b>glynch</b>: Where do you get that? President Bush calls for every American to donate time-- not just the doctor's and nurses.

By the way, glynch, the surplus was given back to the original owner. Did you get yours? I did and I'm not wealthy.

Charitable work (notice I said work not just donations) used to be a significant part of what kept this country running. It didn't have to be on the clock or court-ordered either. It didn't have to be for political advantage either. It came from the heart and usually through a vital church life. Such a sad demise.

We have gotten lax about meeting that expectation because the government has taken it over for us through taxing and spending, I guess. What do you all think?

 

volunteer work is huge, giddyup...you'll find there are guys here on both sides of the political fence who give time up for others.

anything the president can do to encourage people to give of themselves for others (without being compelled to do so by law) is a good thing in my book.

 

You don't seem to understand how great powers work. Great powers don't want any other great power, particularly a super power, doing anything on their borders. North Korea directly borders China. China just recently managed to secure her borders with a little help from the collapse of the Soviet Union. A US intervention there would be seen as a terrible scenario for China. And before you spill any crap about how our intentions are pure, that's naive. States look at capabilities and interests, not intentions. It's in our interests to ensure that US influence dominates Asia, not Chinese influence. If we established a permanent base in NK, that interest would be advanced.

And I do not stand alone. This BBS has a tendency to... umm... not run the gambit in foreign affairs. If you want to do some research, I suggest you read some of the many case studies written concerning NK around the time of the crisis during the Clinton administration.

Villify? Of course not. Once again, you're imposing a moral framework on a situation that has nothing to do with morality.

The US perceives that it has an interest in controlling nuclear proliferation. When we attempt to phrase this in ethical terms, it becomes hypocritical. If you want to simply speak of the subject in terms of power, I could care less about "right or wrong" on the issue. But I'm not going to permit crusade rhetoric when the issue can be turned about so easily.

Besides, I've yet to see a good refutation of Waltz's multi-polarity deterrence argument in the literature on the subject. Many don't buy it, and on an intuitive level it seems pretty frightening. But the logic is pretty sound.

North Korea has never had a functioning nuclear weapon. Nor do they have a delivery system capable of hitting the US. The latter, they're unlikely to have for a long, long time. Get your facts straight.

Incidentally, do you want to intervene in China and Pakistan?

What about Russia and Israel? They're not exactly pure democracies. By your standards, we'd be in World War III right now.

 

<b>madmax</b>: I'm with you on the volunteer stuff. I don't think it is as casual as it used to be... nor as large. That's all I.m saying. I'm all for it.

Maybe I'm just waxing nostalgic but it seems to me like the organization that volunteerism has taken on has depleted its spirit in some way.

That's why the President is calling for a re-commitment to the spirit of volunteerism, isn't it?

 

Dakota, I'm not sure if you are the guy who claimed that Jeff must be poor because he is a liberal. Might surprise you, but not all liberals are poor and envious of the wealthy. My wife and I are both well paid professionals.

It is an ethical thing. We like to see others have the good life that we enjoy and recognize that the only countries where there has been economic justice have had progressive tax systems.

Calls for private charity to replace serious social welfare programs are a fig leaf that fool only the stupid. I resent those like Bush and his ilk who knowingly employ such calls cynically.

I feel it is my duty and also good fortune to make enough to pay a lot of taxes. Just don't like to see them wasted on excess military expenditures.

Ross Perot once said: "In my life I have been privileged to pay over a billion in federal income taxes".

 

Glynch,

No...no...no...not me, I am not calling anyone poor....I was being sarcastic, thus my smiley.


In fact, I wish we had a flat rate on taxes...so that eveyone pays the same. Rich or poor.


DaDakota

 

I spoke to a couple of Iranian people in houston about this and they are all happy. They said they want Bush to go in and take over because of the Regime Iran has right now is destroying the country. They want a new leadership. One name everyone brings up is Shahs son , Reza Pahlavi.

 

Although I am now a well paid professional, in my younger years I worked in both a food stamp and a welfare office.

Hardest job I ever had. The work load was tremendous. Workers and clients were cranky. However, one large such office in Houston does more to feed and help the poor than all the churches, all the food pantries, all the food bins at Randalls and all the charitable balls etc. put together.

Just the facts. Private charity has historically never amounted to much. In the good old days before social security and SSI and food stamps for the elderly, many of them begged for food on the streets. Get some historical facts, guys. People were just as religious if not more so back then in the "good old days"

Sorry if it doesn't feel as good to pay your taxes as it does to be a "big man" or a Christian who gets warms fuzzies for a little bit of volunteer work. It is the end results that count most.

The needy don't give a damn whether they get the aid from the government or "out of the goodness" of your heart. They just need it. Many resent having to pretend they are interested in a particular church to get a handout.

 

haven -- thanks for telling me how great powers work!!! i'll go sit down in the back of the class now.

my point as to that is simply that I don't think China is all that pleased with N. Korea possessing nuclear weapons either. past that, i think N. Korea is a threat...i think i'm pretty much in the majority on that opinion.

i'm not trying to impose a moral framework on this...i thought you were!! crusade rhetoric??? some would call that leadership! there is a measure of inspiration that every leader is called to. not every citizen is as bright as you are, haven. some are more moved by the basic concept of representative govt: "i elected this guy to be my commander in chief...i don't have time to sort through all these issues...he says N. Korea is a threat, and from my limited reading of the issue, i would agree...admittedly, i have not been to N. Korea nor interviewed its leaders...but it appears that what he's saying is right...and he seems gung ho about taking care of that threat...so i'm gung ho about him taking care of that threat." i don't think it's crusade rhetoric to simply say there are some evil regimes out there that need to be taken care of because they pose a threat to the US....

curiously enough, i don't see criticism on this topic from bush's elected opponents...only from people in threads of bulletin boards. last i saw, men like daschle and gephardt were saying they agreed with bush's takes on the war and the threat of terrorism...and that they were willing to support him if he made the decision to move into new areas in this war.

 

glynch -- you are easily my least favorite poster here....easily.

the idea that our entire philosophies on this issue are built on warm fuzzies is absolutely insulting. keep those jackass comments to yourself.

your post deserves no remark past that.

 

China doesn't want NK possessing nuclear weapons. Of course you're right in this. However, China would, and is capable of, taking care of the situation herself. US intervention would be seen as the greater of two evils.

To be honest, if I had to guess, I think that Bush included North Korea simply to mollify Islamic moderate regimes. It really doesn't make sense, otherwise. Most of North Korea's terrorist activites took place in the distance past when they still hoped of unifying Korea under their banner. South Korea has simply been too successful to make that a possiblity.

They'd be crazy not to support him on the subject, for three reasons (that I see immediately).

1. It would be political suicide. In times of trouble, people need a leader. Right now, Bush is that leader. Opposing him would be crazy if they desire re-election.

2. They're not capable of winning the battle. The President has too much political clout in foreign policies for a congressional leader to win unless he had a substantial legislative majority. Pick fights that you can win, etc. We don't know what's gone on behind the scenes.

3. And this is the most important one - It probably is necessary to maintain at least some level of unity in the highest ranks of government so that foreign powers don't get the wrong impression. In the past, divisions at the top have weakened the US position (although oddly, they've also strengthened the US position, as Presidents have told foreign powers they needed a better deal to get treaties ratified).