In case you were wondering, no, I didn’t watch the State of the Union. I simply couldn’t possibly listen to, or look at, Bush for such a sustained period of time. A country with a spiralling economy and a series of anti-environment initiatives faced with the prospect of a multi-billion dollar war that could well serve to be the final wedge in the drive of world isolationism that’s been fostered since the current administration came into office.
State of the Union? Kinda sucks at the moment. Don’t really need W. to tell me that.
PAD
• 
Wow.. PAD, you’ve unleashed a monster here.
Reminds me of the saying: There are two things you never talk about: Religion and politics. (because everyone has a different opinion)
-dave
On the election: A few months back it was revealed that Gore would have won if Bush’s recount method would have been used, and Bush would have won if Gore’s recount methold had been used. Truth is stranger than fiction.
On the “war for oil”: I heard a local radio guy say it well tonight – If we were really just after oil, we could invent reasons to go after oil that is much more convenient – Mexico, Venezuala, etc. Is oil a consideration, certainly, but it’s not “THE” reason.
On the sabre-rattling: When Clinton was in office and ignoring Saddam’s ducking the UN, the entire debate was about whether or not to drop sanctions. Now the debate is back on how to get Saddam (who I think we all can agree is someone who should NOT be there) out of power. Debating from a position of strength works….
On the economy: consumer spending is fine, but B2B is down. Bush’s plan won’t address that though. We SHOULD be giving business incentives, not consumer, but political reality post-WorldCom won’t allow this. The stimulus – as it’s proposed – won’t do anything for B2B spending, so I don’t like it.
First, let’s not forget, everyone: we’re all on the same side. We just have different ideas on what our side should be doing.
Second, I don’t care for the president, but when you call him names like “Shrub,” in my opinion it lowers the intelligence behind your arguments and just makes you look dumb.
Third, If the President would get on TV, give specific examples of how Iraq has links to al-Quaeda, or show me a picture of Saddam standing next to a nuclear bomb, grinning and smoking a cigar, I would be the first one to say, “Let’s take ’em out, boys.” But he hasn’t. We get vague assertions that the administration just “knows” or a picture of a truck. And don’t give me crap about how they can’t give out any information because they don’t want to compromise their security. They just don’t have any real evidence. If they had some “smoking gun” they would have shown it by now. As we speak, I bet ten-thousand monkeys are locked in a room under the White, and all of them busily Photoshopping “evidence” to support invading Iraq.
This I just find ironic and fairly self-descrptive:
“Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world.”
-George W. Bush
01.28.03
Well, i’m from Brazil, and all this talk -while not new to me- did not (if i’m not mistaken),say that the US is also breaking a lot of UN regulations… I mean, has any UN group see your nuclear/toxical/biological instalations lately? Saddam is not an angel -far from it-, but many evils poison our world right now. It might be a surprise for some of you guys, but a lot of countries are opressed, have personal or constitutional rights violated or canceled and your goverment isn’t interessed about it. Let’s, for arguments sake, say that the USA go for into war, kick Saddam’s ášš and get rid of him. What them?
1) A US military group will keep the goverment?
By what law, might makes right?
2) All the opositors of Saddam group and administrate the country?
That one is working sooo weell in Afghanisthan
3) Elections?
4) UN?
How can you presume that you know what’s best to other people!!!! That’s so fûçkìņ arrogant. What if all they wish to have a is Monarchy? Or a religious goverment, like the Ayatolahs, but less violent? It’s their culture, their lives, their country. When they break a regulament made by the USA, you may wish them ill. If it’s still the UN’s, let the UN deal with it.
Well, since 8 (yes, 8) European leaders have signed a letter that supports the USA’s position in Iraq, even though I have serious concerns about a possible war there,
It’s hard to see why people keep saying the USA is acting alone and is arrognat and has no support. If 8 European countries agree, it means France and Germany are not the whole voice of Europe (Imagine that).
I would personally prefer that we stay out of Iraq, but let’s use better arguments than saying we’ll be isolating ourselves from world opinion. It seems that the world is fairly evenly divided, as oppossed to the monolithic oppostion as many try to say it is.
**Never mind the fact that Bush knows dámņ well that the first Gulf war wasn’t enough to get his father re-elected. And never mind the fact that idiotarians spent most of last summer bleating that Bush was going to attack Iraq to win the mid-term elections (turned out he didn’t need to).
No, it’s got to be “ALL ABOUT THE OOOOIL” and we need to give peace another 12 years and the eeevil Republicans are going to overthrow poor, poor Saddam.
What a steaming pile of nonsense.**
I’d like to see the White House come out and say “To prove that it’s not about oil, we will not allow any US oil companies access to the Iraqui oilfields for a period of 10 years”. How do you think that would go over?
Of course it’s about oil. And it’s personal. And a million other things. What it’s not about is the “war” on terrorism.
This is the same man who got into yale because of who he was rather than what he knew. And he rallies the troops agains Affirmative Action at schools that are doing nothing about the overwhealmingly white school populations.
This is the man who wants to allow the oil and car companies decide what is too much pollution.
Who prevented the EPA from implementing stricter policies on arcenic in drinking water because they wanted to study wether arcenic is harmful.
Who wants to truck thousands of loads of nuclear waste to a state that doesn’t produce any of it’s own. What’s next, toxic chemical dumps in Nevada?
Kevin,
If it were about oil we could make a quick and painless deal with Saddam. He has been making overtures to us for years. He’d love all our money going into his harem/palace/nuclear budget. Dollars go a lot farther than euros, marks, or francs when you are a totalitarian dictator.
And I just love that when the “We Stole the Election Fair And Square” argument fails you fall back on the arsenic in the drinking water line. Now I’m waiting for the SUV’s are bad, Grandma is eating dog food, and millions of women are going to die in back alley abortions arguments.
We can’t just strike a deal with for the oil with Saddam because the world consensus is that he is a bad man. If we made a deal with him, we would look like hypocrites.
And I don’t even need to respond to you last sentence, Kevin. You’ve proved my point far better that I could.
All the debate about whether President Shrub (trivia test: where did this name come from in the first place?) stole the election is moot, unfortunately. Let’s just hope it isn’t our BIGGEST problem. For example, what about the next election … er, will there be one?
Oh, of course!
Then again, one looks at the TIPS (taken right out of the KGB playbook) and other programs which should never have seen the light of day in a supposedly free democracy and, well, one can’t help but go back to the history books, see VERY disturbing patterns emerge from the precedents and worry. A lot.
And don’t say “it can’t happen here.” The thousands of Americans (and Canadians) of Japanese ancestry who had their rights needlessly all but eliminated in WWII would disagree. It already has happened. Will it happen again? As I wrote earlier, I’m just glad I don’t have any kids.
Seems to me it’s the Republicans who use the “we stole the election fair and square” line– aren’t they the ones in office? Aren’t they the ones who threw out Gore’s absentee ballots when Bush’s were kept despite the same problems (not made up- NY TIMES July 15 2001- headline: How Bush TOOK Florida)? Aren’t they the ones who had the very partial Katherine Harris looking out for the Bush brothers’ interests every step of the way? Aren’t they the ones who kept legitimate black voters off the rolls leading to a settled suit by civil rights groups? Gore stole nothing – trying to get what is rightfully yours isn’t theft where I come from–
Sorry for the delay in topic, but I just read the posts. Anywho…
Pat D. – “Do you really believe that the stock market, the strength of the dollar, consumer confidence, and health care would be any better with Al Gore in office?”
Nope. And that’s why I didn’t vote for him. I didn’t vote for Bush either, though. To me, there wasn’t a good choice on the ballot. By the looks of next year’s candidates, there’s not going to be a good one then, either.
As for the speech, I thought it farsical like past ones. The very distinct separation in the house only points me to believe that it not about who we vote for that makes a difference, it how well they gain cohesion to each other. I looked at the senate and house and could only think about the way it “should” work. One man, one vote.
It “should” be that every single person in the room should vote for what they feel is best and viable for their town, their state, and their country. It shouldn’t be “I’m going to do this because it’s what everyone else in my party is doing.”
If you’re a republican and feel the the dems have a good plan, vote for it. Don’t vote against it because your party doesn’t want to let them pass it.
It’s bûllšhìŧ the way things are handled now. It’s like watching two teams fight over who gets the fat on their kickball team.
FunkyBlue gets me thinking of my favorite local and national Democrat, Zell Miller. I’m sorry he’s retiring. He’s one of the good guys.