Sorry... I was compiling a lengthy post and about ten others got in during that time. I was talking about the original history post, but looks like it's too late now.
Judging from the responses of the speech and reading a transcript, I wouldn't be surprised if this went a long way into furthering the base of those who want Bush gone. He's becoming more and more polarizing.
Serious question... what was the political motivation to mentioning the Patriot Act? It's a year away (and over an election) from expiration and it doesn't appear to me that this needed mentioning. Especially given that much of the opposition is bipartisan, with some fierce opponents on the right. Do they really think this is a winner in November or is it that they are trying to innoculate themselve against Dem attacks during the campaign? I guess I can see reasons for including it, but I also think from a purely political perspective, the arguments against including it are stronger. Any thoughts from the right?
So, unless I'm part of the "choir" of Bush supporters, I should keep any thought of historical comparisons, regarding Bush, to myself?
His speech sounded like the start of his campaign for re-election. I don't cling to either party when it comes to voting. I'll vote Democrat if it's in the best interest, and I'll vote Republican if it's for the best interest as well. In saying that, anything Bush has accomplished that was positive towards the US has been overshadowed by all that he's seemingly ruined. He doesn't have my vote, and he didn't have it during his first election campaign.
uhmm noooo. i just think that if you want to seriously engage someone on an issue where you have disagreement, you'd avoid making overheated comparisons like Bush=Hitler. i'm sure there are plenty of more meaningful historical comparisons.
Of course, I have never called Dean "Meangle Dean". I don't even know what the frick this means. Please enlighten me with your vast knowledge of history.
in terms of the political heat, it'll come from the democrats this year, opposition from some on the right notwithstanding. with that in mind, and bearing in mind the way he went through most of the other criticisms of the war on terror/iraq, it made since to get out in front on the issue. best defense is a good offense. and as i mentioned in an earlier post, i thought his delivery on thsi point was masterful. he set his opponents up with "the patriot act is due to expire next year" (big applause from the left) and shut 'em down with "but the terrorist threat will not" (much bigger applause from the right). high point of the speech IMHO.
A) "Meaningful"? Define, please. B) Better yet, give me a few examples. C) Do you realize that this was the exact same response from pro-Bushies in the Nixon/Bush comparison thread? Do we see a trend here? Is there a motivation evident in that trend? D) Do you see the subjectivity at work when you define what are and what are not 'legitimate' comparisons to Hitler/Nazi germany, etc.? E) You are Waaaay off on any Neville Chamberlain comparions. Most pro-war people who made references to appeasement obviously don't know what it means. no one...at least no one that I ever heard...made any suggestions of appeasment regarding Saddam. Yet, somehow, that's a 'legitimate' comparison?
Basso, I will respectfully disagree with you there. I thought that was a momentary turning point in the speech where Bush partially lost control of his emotions. Lesson 1 in dominating an opponent is to never let them think that they are making an impact on you. Bush succumbed to this temptation by acknowledging the Democrats response (by looking at them and by his voice intonation). Lesson 2 is to portray supreme confidence at all times. Bush had a momentary lapse immediately after this little squabble where he tried to rush through some lines and over emphasize other things. Again, his tone of voice was slightly defensive. I didn't like that at all. Bush didn't dominate the liberals argument 100%, like he *could* have had he kept his total wits about him. Overall I thought the speech was excellent, however this is one criticism which I had. The incident probably lasted 3-4 minutes in total. I always analyze stuff like this from a psychological perspective, though, so maybe I'm too far in the weeds compared to the average Joe who was watching.
from a CNN story. note Blair's insistance that Saddam had WMD at the end: Congressman: Details of Iraqi WMD 'years away' WASHINGTON (CNN) --It could take years before investigators are able to uncover the details of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs under Saddam Hussein, according to the House Intelligence Committee's chairman. "Every day is a new day for the intelligence people," said Rep. Porter Goss, R-Florida. "I would say that we are probably a couple of years away from getting through all the material and talking to all the people we need to talk to about exactly what was going on, not only with the Saddam Hussein regime but with some of the Taliban and some of the things that have been going on in North Korea, Libya, Iran and other places." The CIA's Iraq Survey Group, under David Kay, continues to search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and evidence that Saddam concealed such programs from the international community. The search is expected to continue for another three to six months. Kay presented a preliminary report to the House Intelligence Committee in October that said the group found no weapons of mass destruction, but did uncover evidence that Saddam's regime planned to manufacture them. The Bush administration said last year that the Iraqi threat of weapons of mass destruction was a main reason for its decision to launch a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March. In his State of the Union address Tuesday night to Congress and the American people, President Bush cited the Kay report as support for the U.S.-led war in Iraq. "Had we failed to act, [Saddam's] weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day," Bush said. Other developments • British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Wednesday deflected a call for an independent inquiry into his country's role in the Iraq war, saying there was "absolutely no doubt" about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
I never said Bush=Hitler. Neither has anyone else. What bothers me is the automatic exclusion of some figures of history from discussion just because of who they are. It's a form of censorship I find as distateful as you might find just that sort of comparison. A long time back, there was a heated discussion here about the public opinion in America being against helping Britain and her allies in the war in Europe prior to Pearl Harbor and, it might be argued, before Hitler was foolish enough to declare war on the United States. The general public, in the main, were against it. It's an historical fact. But you should have seen the reaction here from some of the posters. "You're unpatriotic for saying such a thing! It's not true!!" and worse.
Total number of words spent addressing the actual speech : 66 Total number of words spent addressing Clinton's facial expressions: 117
Exactly. Why do I always find myself at the heart of these kinds of discussions? And johnheath never admitted he was wrong, either, or apologized for calling me an American hating treasonous liar.
here're edward's thoughts upon the bill's passage: "We simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is doing." of course, he may feel differently now...
and Kerry: "Most of [the Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th."
alonger list of patriot act quotes: Kerry: "Most of [the Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th." Edwards: "We simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is doing." Washington Post: "Much of the criticism of the [Patriot Act] has been shrill and ill-informed." Joe Biden:...criticism of the Patriot Act "ill-informed and overblown" Diane Feinstein: "I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me. My staff e-mailed the ACLU and asked them for instances of actual abuses. They e-mailed back and said they had none." Joe Leiberman: "[T]he measure that passed and was signed into law appropriately balances security and liberty."
Sorry for the mis-spell almighty one. Typcial response from you though. Instead of fessing up to what I was obviously referring to, you simply change the subject. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71236&perpage=30&pagenumber=1 Of course, you blame your referring to a Democratic candidate to one of the worst people of all time on someone else coming up with the name first. Way to take personal responsibility there. I thought that's what you conservatives were all about. Don't you have some volunteering to do? Isn't Wednesday "Take the Homeless Kid to Treasure's Day", or are you too busy over at Match.com?
don't know, i saw it differently and actually laughed at the dems when it happened. he looked prepared for it, like they'd rehearsed it. but then, so many people see different things when they look at him- Bush as rorschah (sp?) test...
