BS: State of the Union

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:24 PM

There are some of you who would disagree with this President no matter what he said. I wonder why you even bothered to watch his speech. If you already made up your mind beforehand, perhaps your time would have been better spent on creative pursuits.

There are others of you who disagree with this President just because your friends do. And because you don't have enough brains to understand why you disagree with him, you find inconsequential personal things to nitpick. When all you can say is "boy isn't that Bush stupid" it doesn't reflect very well on your own level of intelligence.

"Nuclear" is an EXTREMELY commonly mispronounced word. So are words like "cavalry" and "jewelry." All of you who pronounce everything perfectly, raise your hand.

That's what I thought.

If you want to debate the issues, by all means, debate the issues. The ISSUES. And debate them with The Facts. It's the issues that are important. Sometimes the messenger isn't such a great speaker. (Remember a guy named Moses?) Public speaking is a talent, and not everyone has it, but that shouldn't diminish the importance of the message.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 03:17 PM

...and sometimes the puppet doesn't have a clue. Anyone here believe that George stays up nights, burning the midnight oil studying economics and international diplomacy, just to make life better for the common man...? hmmmmmmmm?

Not a chance.

Machiavelli would not be proud... "It should be borne in mind that there is nothing more difficult to handle, more doubtful of success, and more dangerous to carry thruogh, than initiating changes in a state's constitution. The innovator makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support is forthcomming from those who would prosper under the new."

Then again, ..."Therefore, one must urgently arrange matters so that when they no longer believe they can be made to believe by force."

- excerpts from "The Prince" ttr

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 04:58 PM

"And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993."

What haunts me about this passage is my strong intuition that
the unspoken purpose of this "Path to War" is being used as a collosal "fishing expedition" to force out into the open just what Saddam has by causing him to "use" them with our and Britain's boys as the bait. Then Bush can say, "See, we told you so".

Taliesn, this is quite spooky. Just a few minutes before I read your post, I posted this about Bush in another thread:

I think he's got some humanity in him. I see him welling up with tears and his lower lip trembles whenever he talks about our service men and women getting killed in our wars of agression against other countries. My take, based on the way his face behaved during last night's State of the Union speach, while saying we would do everything possible to minimize the numbers of US troops killed, is that he's expecting heavy losses on our side if we attack Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Cluin
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 05:06 PM

Beware, bad guys all!

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 05:32 PM

Our nation's leaders owe it to our children, at least, if not all of us, to use proper grammar, etc. The Shrub is not the first to be ridiculed because of his mangling of English. I have a small booklet that was published and distributed by Mother Jones which made great fun of Jimmy Carter and is titled, if I remember correctly, How to speak Southern. I would say in Carter's defense, though, that his grammar was and remains quite good and that he is a gentleman, meaning a fine example, something the Shrub will never be.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 05:37 PM

Did he use bad grammar, Kat?

Danged, I didn't half notice.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST,Lyle
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 05:38 PM

All the while he was talking I kept thinking of the poem "War's Heavy Toll" by Grantland Rice. . .

And dead faces of old friends appeared.

Lyle

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 05:42 PM

It appears to me that this administration is willing to run roughshod over everybody's expertise that does not agree with his agenda. For instance, Bush claimed in his State of the Union address: "Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say..."

The top nuclear inspector in Iraq disputed President Bush's claims..." We know all the scientists from the past and I think our people could easily detect if that person is a scientist or not."

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 05:51 PM

Yep, Ebbie, that was one of the final lies that my home poligraph picked up just before it shut down from overload.

The man is pathological in his lieing and that's why he does it so well. I heard that he sets his alarm clock for 3:00 in the morning, marches into the bathroom, looks in the mirror and tells himself a lie. Now that perserverance and determination.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 06:04 PM

Everyone knows that when Bush talks about nucular weapons, he means nasal spray. :)

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: SINSULL
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 07:54 PM

I watched from beginning to end. A few observations: where are all the billions of dollars for AIDS and hydrogen powered cars and...and...and...coming from if he cuts taxes? Why would anyone in his right mind join the military while our government is withdrawing promised benefits from was veterans? Did he sneak in a mention of aid to the Caribbean or did I imagine it? Does he have Iran and Iraq confused or do I?

Points scored:
He did not grin once. He smiled or grimaced fighting back a loopy grin but he kept it in check.

Was I the only one whose heart hit the floor at the shot of Hillary cosying up to Lieberman? She looked like a damn spider.

So now we wait for February 5th. How is our war pool progressing?

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:47 PM

I'm with you, Sinsull. Hillary and Lieberman? Hmmmmmm, #947? WQell, she is from New York and, ahhhhh....

Nevermind, on that one...

But, yeah, given Bush's track record of the "walk-the-walk" stuff, I did have a few laughs as he stuckl out his chin and talked like he actually cares about anything other than killing a lot of folks. Like what a joke! Just like his *education* bill which is falling apart faster than an Enron's lawyer's speech pattern, when it comes down to paying the bills, Bush won't be any where around. And you *can't* take that to thye bank....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:39 PM

Okay, Amos, you want to talk perspective? From your perspective it was a lousy speech. From mine it was an excellent speech.

Anything wrong with that perspective?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:42 PM

Shame on you Kendall! It has been scarcely a year since you were touting hydrogen powered vehicles. Bush urged the congress to pursue that and you tuned out! It really isn't important whether or not you "hate the bastard," that is your priviledge. But when he tries to promote good environmental projects you liberals give him no credit whatsoever.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:45 PM

kat: Bush is not a gentleman? I suppose your definition is much different than mine. Is Bill Clinton your example of a "gentleman"?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:50 PM

Ok I know this is going to shock the hell out of some of you, sorry
bobert :). But after listening to george's speech last nite, I have changed my opinion of him and his policy on iraq. I am 100% behind him
all because of one statement.God bless
our president and God bless the United States.
Now I am sure many of you are wondering what was this statement that
would change my mind so drasticly, well I'll tell you

In the speech our president, our leader, my hero said

      "I WILL FIGHT"
Not you, not we, but I. Here I was worried about my sons and the sons
of many americans would be going to war. I was wrong Georgeie isn't going to send our boyys, He's going to dothe job himself.
WHAT A GUY.





WHAT A LOAD OF F$#^#&KING SHIT. I will fight , my ass
By the way I hope nobody really belived I actually even thought about supporting that worthless SOB
                mmm

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 03:34 AM

I got this in an e-mail today...

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.... And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." - William Shakespeare

Same ol same old... ttr

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 03:34 AM

Dear Guest Casual Observer, don't you think your side did the same to Clinton? Get real.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 05:13 AM

Ebbie - Re Iraqi Scientists

You forgot to mention what Dr. AlBaradei said within the context of his report, which in general was quite positive from an Iraqi point of view.

He reported that the level of co-operation received was good, the only area where this could not be said was with regard to the interviews requested by IAEA Inspectors.

Iraq was asked to supply the names of all scientists, engineers and technicians who have been involved in Iraq's nuclear projects. From UNSCOM times the IAEA had identified some 3000 people who would fall into this category. The Iraqi authorities supplied the IAEA Inspectors with a list containing 400 names.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 01:16 PM

How about the State of the National Park Service- he didn't mention this pogrom Wednesday night:
----

70% of Jobs in Park Service Marked Ripe for Privatizing


By Julie Cart, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times January 26 2003

As part of its push to privatize federal workers, the Bush
administration has identified about 70% of full-time jobs in the National Park Service as potential candidates for replacement by private-sector employees.

Interior Secretary Gayle A. Norton, who oversees the Park Service, has
earmarked 11,807 of 16,470 full-time positions for possible privatization. They range from maintenance and secretarial jobs
to archeologists and biologists...


Critics fear that the outsourcing of federal positions, including the
Park Service's entire corps of scientists, could undermine protection of the nation's vast inventory of archeological and paleontological sites within parks and hand over the care of forests, seashores and wildlife to private firms not steeped in the Park Service culture of resource protection.

"This is about respect for professionals. It is about a recognition that people spend a lifetime learning their profession and how to resist pressures -- political or commercial -- in the public interest," said Roger Kennedy, who directed the Park Service during the Clinton administration.

"The public understands that parks are not parking lots -- they are
places that require a high degree of professional skill to manage. Not just anyone can do it."

The potential cuts are part of the Bush administration's effort to
identify as many as 850,000 federal jobs that could be performed by
private-sectoremployees.

***Whole article HERE

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 01:22 PM

Operator error- sorry
HERE

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 01:39 PM

Why, yes, they did do the same thing to Clinton. However you are mistaken when you refer to them as "my side." I have no side. The point I was trying to make is that so many people jump on a bandwagon of deprecation without asking themselves why. They just do it because everyone else is. I didn't like it when it was done to Clinton, either.

I don't care for this "he's not the one I voted for so he sucks" mentality, no matter who's in the office. If you are going to say a person sucks, you ought to have a better reason than "he can't talk right."

I didn't vote for Clinton either. But I gave him a chance, because he won. I think that he had the promise to be a great President, but his deference to his own human weaknesses brought him down.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: DougR
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 01:46 PM

Any reason those jobs couldn't be filled by people who have them now Greg? The only difference would be the employer. Private companies instead of the federal government. It's too bad, I think, that the government is not run by private companies. It would operate much more efficiently in my opinion.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 01:48 PM

DougR:

I wasn't trying to push my opinion on you, man; for styraters it would be an exerxcise in futility. But I wouldn't really want to. What I meant by it not being an excellent speech is it left a lot of critical facts and issues out, and in their place used some very high-flung rhetoric which stuck to the walls like no-one's business, and had the knee-jerkers jumping up and down and the bold courageous determination of the Chief.

My reasons for deprecating the Resident is that he impresses me as ruthless, dishonest, and manipulative, a sort of person I do not care for even to talk to, let alone live under. I give him credit for reading well, a well written speech rich with resounding phrases, some of which were real classics -- the one about liberty not being America's gift to the world, but God's gift to humanity, should be carved in stone as a reminder to those who use the concept to jsutify their own smugness about American dominance. And there were others. I credit his speech writing teams with a clearer vision by far than that possessed by their spokesperson.

A

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 01:58 PM

I understand he wants to give a tax rebate to the wealthiest of Americans. He wants to create a larger cabinet, something he said he didn't want earlier. I understand he doesn't care if the rest of the world is supporting him in his war. (Perhaps the loudest applause of the evening from the carefully selected audience). I understand that he wants partially-privatize Social Security. That will cost the taxpayer about a trillion dollars. He wants medical benefits for wealthy seniors (those making over 75 grand per year). He wants alternative energy sources and will create another meaningless cabinet post (again something he said he didn't want to do) and it will have as much meaning as the current posts. As to the tax rebate (92 million getting $1,100 a piece, who does he think he's kidding? Karl Rowe embodies the ghost of Lee Atwater I think I understand Bush pretty well.

Frank

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 01:59 PM

Well-stated, Amos. Thank you for your well-reasoned opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 06:07 PM

It's too bad, I think, that the
government is not run by private companies. It would operate much more efficiently...

LOL! yup, just like ENRON for example...

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 06:13 PM

How about his statement on the 'Healthy forest initiative' which allows expanding logging operations in National forests. He said something like- this will help prevent fires that burn away millions of acres of treasured forest.
And logging won't do this? Take away treasured forests and turn them into toilet paper.
The Democratic response to the State of the Union Address was delivered by Washington Governor Gary Locke. He called environmental protection a tremendous bipartisan success story over three decades because air and water are cleaner. But these gains are being eroded by the Bush administration.

Another thing not touched on was when Bush asked all people to set a high standard for humanity and pass a law against all human cloning.
Also to end the practice of partial-birth abortions, to which Locke also addressed that Democrats are pro-choice.
Peace. Rustic

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Naemanson
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 07:06 PM

Sigh. Bush has spoken and made grand promises. He promises money to fight Aids. He talks of hydrogen powered cars. He even remembered to touch on education.

But promises don't fill up the hand basket. Now it is up to Congress to pass and then fund the legislation. And who is in charge there? With all those Republicans it SHOULD be easy. I bet it doesn't happen.

Also, I'd like to know what part of his speech was an actual report on the state of our Union? That is what he is supposed to be doing in January. Does he even know? I doubt it.

"This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations. (Applause.) We will confront them with focus and clarity and courage."

Does he know what a deficit is? What do the fools beating their hands together think that it is? How does he explain the transition from budget surpluses to deficit?

"Jobs are created when the economy grows; the economy grows when Americans have more money to spend and invest; and the best and fairest way to make sure Americans have that money is not to tax it away in the first place. (Applause.)"

I know what I'm going to do with my tax cut. I'm going to buy a hamburger and a milkshake. I don't think I'll have enough for some fries.

"We should also strengthen the economy by treating investors equally in our tax laws. It's fair to tax a company's profits. It is not fair to again tax the shareholder on the same profits. (Applause.) To boost investor confidence, and to help the nearly 10 million senior who receive dividend income, I ask you to end the unfair double taxation of dividends. (Applause.)"

So, let me see. A company, defined by the Supreme Court as a person under the law, makes a profit. That person then pays another person some of that money. Currently that second person is taxed for the profit he makes on his investment. Bush wants to make sure that the second person doesn't have to pay taxes on his income. Well, I have no investments so I have to pay taxes. Who do we know that makes most of their money on investments? Rich bastards. So the rich grow richer and the poor keep on going down hill.

"We must work together to fund only our most important priorities. I will send you a budget that increases discretionary spending by 4 percent next year -- about as much as the average family's income is expected to grow. And that is a good benchmark for us. Federal spending should not rise any faster than the paychecks of American families. (Applause.)"

My most important priority is NOT killing Iraqis. Nor is it lining the pockets of wealthy industrialists. My most important priority is making sure my parents can afford health care and their property taxes. It's making sure my children can grow up free from burdensome debt and funding a Federal deficit.

By the way, he talks about "our" most important priority. He is once again forgetting he took the job based on fewer votes than "our" first choice.

"My budget will commit an additional $400 billion over the next decade to reform and strengthen Medicare. Leaders of both political parties have talked for years about strengthening Medicare. I urge the members of this new Congress to act this year. (Applause.)

To improve our health care system, we must address one of the prime causes of higher cost, the constant threat that physicians and hospitals will be unfairly sued. (Applause.) Because of excessive litigation, everybody pays more for health care, and many parts of America are losing fine doctors. No one has ever been healed by a frivolous lawsuit. I urge the Congress to pass medical liability reform. (Applause.)"

Well now he is talking about health care. Good for him. And what does he want to do? He will restrict people from being able to be recompensed for malpractice. What do the studies say about "frivolous" lawsuits? Are we seeing another decision made because of anecdotal evidence?

And he has promised more phantom money for bolstering Medicare. Great! But here comes that deficit. Too bad he gave away all that money at the outset.

"Our third goal is to promote energy independence for our country, while dramatically improving the environment. (Applause.) I have sent you a comprehensive energy plan to promote energy efficiency and conservation, to develop cleaner technology, and to produce more energy at home. (Applause.) I have sent you Clear Skies legislation that mandates a 70-percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years. (Applause.) I have sent you a Healthy Forests Initiative, to help prevent the catastrophic fires that devastate communities, kill wildlife, and burn away millions of acres of treasured forest. (Applause.)"

He has systematically worked to gut the entire set of environmental regulations. What is in these things that will replace them so we don't "…pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations."

"In this century, the greatest environmental progress will come about not through endless lawsuits or command-and-control regulations, but through technology and innovation. Tonight I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles. (Applause.) "

In other words he is going to focus all his hopes on developing a hydrogen powered auto and that will solve our problems? I don't think so.

"A single chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, which can be used to power a car -- producing only water, not exhaust fumes. With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free. (Applause.) "

And who will make money on the production of hydrogen? I'll bet the mileage will end up at the same dollars per unit. And each of those dollars will go into the pockets of the rich industrialists who were paid by the tax payer to develop those cars.

"I urge you to pass both my faith-based initiative and the Citizen Service Act, to encourage acts of compassion that can transform America, one heart and one soul at a time. (Applause.)"

I want someone to tell me that faith based initiatives will put money in the hands of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., as well as Christian groups. I bet we'll hear a roar of protest when taxpayer money goes to an innocent Muslim organization.

"Last year, I called on my fellow citizens to participate in the USA Freedom Corps, which is enlisting tens of thousands of new volunteers across America. Tonight I ask Congress and the American people to focus the spirit of service and the resources of government on the needs of some of our most vulnerable citizens -- boys and girls trying to grow up without guidance and attention, and children who have to go through a prison gate to be hugged by their mom or dad.

I propose a $450-million initiative to bring mentors to more than a million disadvantaged junior high students and children of prisoners. Government will support the training and recruiting of mentors; yet it is the men and women of America who will fill the need. One mentor, one person can change a life forever. And I urge you to be that one person. (Applause.) "

Is this another faith based initiative? Are they actually pushing a Christian agenda here? Will money be provided to a gay Christian organization? I bet it won't.

By the way, $450M and the $600M he is proposing for the mentor program and the addiction program is chump change in a multi-trillion dollar economy.

"By caring for children who need mentors, and for addicted men and women who need treatment, we are building a more welcoming society -- a culture that values every life. And in this work we must not overlook the weakest among us. I ask you to protect infants at the very hour of their birth and end the practice of partial-birth abortion. (Applause.) And because no human life should be started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity, and pass a law against all human cloning. (Applause.) "

Ah, here we have our President making scientific decisions. Have you looked at who he has working as his Science Advisor? Nobody. He has a committee recruited from private industry offering suggestions but no one in his cabinet or on his staff is tasked with advising him regularly on scientific issues.

"I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean. (Applause.)"

Hmm, $15 Billion for Africa and the Carribean and $1,050,000,000 for our own people. And nothing mentioned about AIDS is the USA. I am glad he sees the tragedy of the epidemic growing around the world and I am heartened that he is spending the money but…

"All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies. (Applause.)"

He may not have noticed but the laws of this country require the government to prove guilt. And a suspect is innocent until proven otherwise. Additionally we are required by law to provide legal counsel and return the person if the evidence does not warrant holding them. I don't now how may of the 3,000 languish in US jails but there are many who were picked up who have not been allowed legal counsel and they include American citizens. This is not just wrong. It is criminal and our President condones and supports such criminal activity.

"Tonight, I am instructing the leaders of the FBI, the CIA, the Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense to develop a Terrorist Threat Integration Center, to merge and analyze all threat information in a single location. Our government must have the very best information possible, and we will use it to make sure the right people are in the right places to protect all our citizens. (Applause.)"

Is this the database that John Poindexter has in his control? Has Bush forgotten that Poindexter is a convicted felon? That his crime was controlling and hiding information gathered on enemies of the state under Bush Sr.? Or does Bush even care? Is Bush creating a system where he can control the flow of information in his own favor?

"Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again, and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror."

Yeah, and if he would step down from the White House one proponent of the "…ideology of power and domination…" would be out of the picture.

"America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers. We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm."

Wasn't it the Republicans who blocked payments to the UN in the hopes that it would fail? Wasn't it Clinton who finally got them to approve SOME of the funding we owed them?

"Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world."

He's a Republican?

There are several paragraphs of what he obviously thinks is evidence of Hussein's complicity and duplicity. But there is no real evidence, just statements that US intelligence indicates that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. OK, where is the empirical evidence and why not provide that to the weapons inspectors?

I am not surprised that Iraq has acted the way they have. I would be surprised if they did not. Try to imagine an outside influence coming in here and telling us to disarm because we used our might against smaller and weaker countries. Do you really think we would be able to do it without resisting?

"With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region."

And Bush doesn't have "…ambitions of conquest in the Middle East…" and won't? "…create deadly havoc in that region…"?

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.) "

The Republican party has always been the party of paranoia and fear. All he's doing here is trying to create more hysteria.

"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.) "

Can't argue with this one. However, the Soviet Union wasn't much better and we didn't invade. And the USSR is gone.

"Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come. "

This one is almost funny. The endless complaint we heard when Clinton ran against Bush Sr. was that Clinton had no military experience and wouldn't make a good president. This Bush has no military experience and probably doesn't realize that wars are not similar to the movies. Yet he will send our children into harm's way.

"We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all."

This apparently doesn't apply to Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Gypsy
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 07:20 PM

Casual Observer, you bring up valid points. Whether or not they are agreed with, thank you for balancing things out.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 07:48 PM

Nice work, Naemanson.

I might have pointed out Bush's Attention Deficit issues on anm occasion but, like his daddy, both get bores real fast with the details. They like to give the speech and think that ought to be enough.

Take Bush Junior's *Education* reform for example. Yeah, he huffed and puffed and pushed it thru but then what? He;s not making the funds available that he promised.

In my business we call folks like that "deadbeats". Yeah, they sign on the line and then never give another thought toward making the payments. It's really a serious charcter flaw. But what would we expect from a man who has never been able to hold a job but for a year or two and who stole $800,000 from his own oil company?

Like I've said before, he is lucky to have benn born rich because with his morality deficits, if he hadn't, he be doing time in some prison...

Bobert