BS: State of the Union

Subject: BS: State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 08:38 PM

Well, I figured I'd get in my State of the Union address before the Repubolcrats stink up the joint so here goes:

It sucks. Boss Hog has pushed so hard that in doing so he's not only eaten everything in sight but also the seeds for next years crop. Man, that's bad,

But now for the good news. Unemployment is up meaning that those folks lucky enough to still have a job will take pay cuts, health insurance cutsm higher co-pays. Heck, they'll work longer and harder just to have a job.

But on the down side. The stock market is in the crapper. The bond market ain't too far behind. The states are bankrupt but, hey, per capita incarceration is up, especially amoung black males. Now that's good 'cause if they can't play sports that's a good place for them. Right.

Ahhh, now in the coming year we're going to have to get governemnt off the working man's back so the Justice department is going to very active in getting pro-choice and AA off the books. Speaking of books, I say "No child left unrecruited!" Yep in the next year tyhe military will begin visiting the elementary schools looking for folks to bring along into the fold.

Now as for the economy, we're gonna have to pump some money into it if we're going to get it turned around. Ms. Mitchell, who taught Econmics back when I was in school called me the other night and said, "Mr. President. Ahhh, that's me you know. Mr. President, it doesn't matter who gets the money as long as someone does so we're going to give it to the folks who pay the most taxes and, don't woryy, it will filter down to everyone." So that's what we're going to do.

Now, these a difficult times that require great courage so I'm asking John Ashcroft to start tomorrow to reign in the voices who challenge the greatness of America. Yes, these are not times for disent. These are times to get behind America. So until further notice there protest will be outlawed in America and will be as long as we are at war.

Speaking of war, Saddam tried to kill my daddy. I don't know about you7 folks but I only have one daddy and it makes me real mad when someone tries to kill him. Plus, we have ariel photographs of truck movement in Iraq and you know when a truck moves nothing good comes out of it so Saddam has to go. He is a wart on the end of the Eart's nose, a peeble in the Earth's shoe and an evil man so he has to go. Did I tell you that he tried to kill my daddy?

Well, my fellow Americans, that's about it from here.

God Bless America...

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: SINSULL
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 08:46 PM

Thanks for posting it in full. I was waiting for the birth of the Mudcat baby before turning on the TV. Now I don't have to.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 08:48 PM

Always willin' to lend a hand, Sinsull...

Presbert

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: toadfrog
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 10:04 PM

Gee, I had never realized that Mr. Hussein really supported and financed Al Quaeda. Yet our President says, we know this. Anybody know more about that?

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 10:10 PM

Man, I thought Bush would really have something new, but it's the same old recyled heresay, rummor and fiction that we've heard for the last 6 months. Man, he should have delivered this speech with a bag over his head. He sai9d absolutely *nothing*. No make that NOTHING!

So how many Catters are now ready to sign up and get their butts blown up in Iraq. Sign up below...

Man, the man ought to be ashamed of himself.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 10:17 PM

Why bother? He's going to blow your butt off here.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: momnopp
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 10:33 PM

Or, you can check out the important story of the week:
"U.N. Orders Wonka To Submit To Chocolate Factory Inspections"
or the all important notice, "New Swiss Army Phone May Pose Health Risks"

(from www.theonion.com)

Peace, Bobert and company,

JudyO

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: mmm1a
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 10:40 PM

Sounds like George jr was singing the song by Kelly Osborne,
Ya know the on "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH" EXCEPT IT WAS US WHO SAID
       "SHUT UP"
59 minutes of the same old bull,
          mmm

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 10:42 PM

Danged, JudyO, that's what happens when they get them smoke and mirrors going. Ya' loose sight of waht's really important, like Willie Wonka's Chocolate Factory. I was going to mention that one in my State of the Union Address but thought with all that sugar it wouldn't go well with the "Kill Saddam" part.

But, hey, lookin' back, I should have mentioned the tought times that have fallen on Willie since 9/11.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Gypsy
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:00 PM

59 minutes? Got back into town at 7:30, and all i saw was the proselytizing. I'm looking for the text so i can make up me own mind..........hate having the spin docs do it for me.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:16 PM

We last met in an hour of shock and suffering. In four short months, our nation has comforted the victims, begun to rebuild New York and the Pentagon, rallied a great coalition, captured, arrested, and rid the world of thousands of terrorists, destroyed Afghanistan's terrorist training camps, saved a people from starvation, and freed a country from brutal oppression Da Bush/State of the Union 2003

Unless it's a typo, what's this about "In four short months, our nation, etc, etc." For pity's sake, how long ago was this speech written?

Gypsy, I'm reading the text of the speech right now. I tried listening to the man and turned off the TV. Figure I can handle it better on cold text.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:29 PM

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. Sounds like he was talking about himself and his cronies.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:40 PM

BLUNDER ALERT: The State of the Union address I quoted is from 2002!

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:44 PM

OH!

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Gypsy
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:50 PM

Oh MAN! and i printed the damned thing out! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR..........try, try, again.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Richie
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:58 PM

Bobert,

I like your speech but I liked the Bush speech better,

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Gypsy
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:58 PM

http://wwwhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
My first time, we'll see if it works. If it dun't, here is the plain cut and paste........http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
Now i can read the CURRENT speech!

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 12:29 AM

I watched. I listened.
The first part about the economy was a lot of spending proposals. One billion for hydrogen car research.The thought there was a good step in the right direction, and he made it sound good that we need to become less dependent on other peoples oil.MO- not enough money and to long a period of time to get it going.
4 billion aid package to help Africa and the AIDS crisis.MO-It's about damn time.
Tax cut where a family of four will end up paying $45.00 a year on income tax. MO- The country won't be able to afford his war at that rate. Although it is considering the fact that they will more than likely lose their family deductions and end up paying more than they are getting back now.
And there was more but someone else can take over on the economy speech.

Then came the second part. Bush is ready to go to war. He always was.With or without the rest of the world behind US he wants to take Saddam down. He revealed some things that were not heard, like people playing games with the inspectors. Saddam not destroying weapons and showing no proof of this.
He also touched on Korea, but they said that's going on the back burner for now. Imagine that.
enough from me.
Peace, Rustic

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 12:41 AM

Once you've finished with the speech, have a read of Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World NY, Ballantine, 1996 for some background on how charlatans like the Bush Baby get away with spewing this crap.

An excerpt:

Most of these figures are only after your money. That's the good news. But what worries me is that a [charlatan] will come along with bigger fish to fry-attractive, commanding, patriotic, exuding leadership. All of us long for a competent, uncorrupt, charismatic leader. We will leap at the opportunity to support, to believe, to feel good. Most reporters, editors, and producers--swept up with the rest of us--will shy away from real skeptical scrutiny. He won't be selling you prayers or crystals or tears. Perhaps he'll be selling you a war, or a scapegoat... Whatever it is, it will be accompanied by warnings about the dangers of skepticism.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 12:48 AM

Well the audience ate it up -- they were voting with their overworked knee-joints standing up and sitting down over and over again, and he looked smug and self satisfied.

But the rhetoric was impressive, as rhetoric goes, and if he meant half of what he said, it woudl have been very satisying. Let's see how much of what he said actually makes sense compared to his actions between know and the elections.

This is not to say I am persuaded it will. Just that he turned a good show, moved the little cups smoothly. I especially liked the African intiative. If he were selling snake oil, I might even buy a bottle as a souvenier.

A

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:37 AM

It was an excellent speech, and I am sorry that most of my friends here on the Mudcat were not satisfied. On the other hand, nothing less than a speech of resignation would have satisfied them.

Bobert: did you REALLY listen to the speech?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:06 AM

I listened, and watched... In a world full of possibilities, I imagine a man standing at the helm of the richest, most technically advanced, and most powerful nation in the history of this good earth, and when I open my eyes to George W Bush, I'm shocked... When I listen to him speak, I'm instantly bored... When I think about what he's saying, I'm appalled... But when I see the following, I am amazed, though somewhat crestfallen...

What the heck is he doing up there? Does he have *any* conception, however remote, of what middle class values are? What the deficit is? What prosperity for all might look like? What diplomacy and encouragement can bring? I wonder... Where are the incentives for growth?

The high point of the evening for me, was the democratic 'response'! Our very own Washington State Governor laid out George, and hung 'im up to dry! ...All very nicely, and tactfully...

Yawn... ttr

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:22 AM

DougR, I was working late, but I'll read it for myself tomorrow. Considering the people who have already criticized it, I suspect I'll like what I read...

Incidently, try and pull up that Wash Post Italian commnentary I mentioned in the "A & B War Plans Blocked" thread. The part about the French being "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" had me snorting my coffee...

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:24 AM

I'll do that, Claymore.

TTR: Yep, and I'll bet the other five people who heard him were impressed too! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 03:04 AM

For two years the Shrub has racheted up the negative rhetoric until he has a good share of the country so demoralised, depressed, and completely terrified they don't know what to do to get out of the trough he's dug. All he ever says is fear-filled, dire, strident, negative...and, some were worried about David Duke being the anti-christ? He was just a red herring.

kattongueonlypartlyincheek

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST,FAIRWTHRBUM
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 07:14 AM

THE STATE OF THE UNION MY FRIENDS IS........ BOO, HISS, PLEASE REFRAIN FROM SPEAKING MR BUSH. EVER READ BRAVE NEW WORLD OR PERHAPS 1984? IT'S ABSOLUTELY AMAZIING HOW MUCH NONSENSE CAN BE SAID IN 59 MIN. HAS ANYONE NOTICED HOW EVERYDAY FOR THE PAST MONTH THERE IS A DIFFERENT ANGLE THE WHITE HOUSE HAS TAKEN TO PROMOTE WAR? HE EVEN USED HIS DAD THE OTHER DAY. COME ON!!!! YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME. THE LEADER OF THE "FREE" WORLD IS GONNA GO TELL HIS DADDY? THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE COME TOO FRIENDS AND FOES. MILLIONS OF YEARS OF EVOLUTION AND THIS IS ALL WE GOT. WHAT A SAD STATEMENT WE HAVE MADE. WE ARE ISOLATING OURSELVES FROM THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY IN THE NAME OF GREED AND HATRED AND THEN I'M SURE WE'LL SIT BACK AND WONDER WHY THE WORLD HATES US. DO YOU THINK THAT IF I BUY UP SOME OIL STOCK I CAN MAKE ENOUGH MONEY FROM THE POST WAR GOLDRUSH TO IRAQ TO FIX THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? BULLSHIT FROM THE BEGGINING MY FRIENDS AND IT'S ONLY GETTING WORSE.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:12 AM

Doug R --

Now let's get some perspective. It was not an excellent speech. It was a good piece of showmanship. His rhetoric relating to his determination to duke it out was oh so thrilling. His assertions about Iraq and, interestingly enough, Iran, were interesting. His promises, as always, were enticing if somewhat beyond his ability to actually deliver. He did not dwell on the record of actual accomplishments of his two years in office, and that for good reason.

He left out major, major concerns and did not in fact address the state of the Union, which is generally as subdued and depressed as at any time in the last fifteen years.

For a nice slant on the things that were NOT addressed and should have been, see this article in Slate.

A

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: UB Ed
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:33 AM

SADDAM DENIES PURSUING 'NUCULAR' WEAPONS
No Evidence of Nucular Program in Iraq, Strongman Says
Responding to last night's State of the Union Address in which President George W. Bush repeatedly accused him of attempting to acquire "nucular" weapons, President Saddam Hussein of Iraq today categorically denied having a "nucular" weapons program of any kind.
"Iraq does not now nor has it ever had a 'nucular' weapons program," Saddam said in a terse official statement. "Nor does it have any idea what a 'nucular' weapon is."
At the White House, press secretary Ari Fleischer accused Saddam of using Mr. Bush's pronunciation of "nucular" to distract attention from Iraq's persistent refusal to disarm.
"I think the international community knows that when the President says 'nucular' he means 'nuclear,'" Mr. Fleischer said. "We challenge Saddam to prove that he does not have any of the weapons that President Bush may have mispronounced last night."
Mr. Bush's State of the Union Address drew support from an unlikely quarter today, as Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter announced that he "completely agreed" with the President's pronunciation of the word "nucular."
"Back when I was President, I often gave speeches about nucular energy, and everybody always knew what I was talking about," Mr. Carter said. "I think people should back off."
In other international pronunciation news, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain split with President Bush today over his pronunciation of the words tomato and banana.
While Mr. Blair indicated that he and Mr. Bush had "a serious difference of opinion" about how tomato and banana were pronounced, he said it would in no way affect Britain's support of a U.S.-led attack on Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:38 AM

I flinched about sixteen times listening to him abuse thast word.

I guess those are the weapons you need to get inuculated against, huh?

A

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Onion
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:42 AM

Well having read the text of last night's 'State of the Onion" schpeil I had to shake my head because it was "nowhere near"
as cogent and direct a laying out of one's case as the , IMO, superior speech Bush "did" make before the U.N. Assembly back on 9/12/2002.
Not wanting to just rely on memory I went to the official White House website , after reading last night's "all promise ,no actual blueprint" performance art last night.
And , no , saying that "all" State of the Union speeches are broad-brush strokes and zero details. That just does "not" cut it this time. This was to be the most important report to the Nation
speech of G-Dubya's limited professional career as our commander-in-chief and the level of pablum quota becomes apparent when one contrasts it with his U.N. Assembly speech.

Harboring a well-crafted level of "reading comprehension" I have to say that Bush successfully made his case for the U.N. to start doing their job or render themselves irrelevent ( as it almost did
thanks to the EU's , and Bush,Sr's , shameful hesistancy to frankly deal with what was brewing in Bosnia until too many people had been killed and concentration camps were finally on the cover of Time magazine. ).

However, with all the reviewing of the 1991 decision "Path to War" that left Saddam in place ( which Dubya blantatly contradicted in last night's speech_ quote coming later ),
one passage of the U.N. assembly speech lept off of the webpage to me.

(quote)
"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".
Quite an alarming gamble at this late date.
Reagan impotently put our young boys directly in harm's way in Lebanon and, several hundred dead marines later, "turned tail" and pulled out dealing the rising Islamist terrorist organizations their first victory thus setting the fuse for 9/11 regardless of the
supposed "victory" over Iraq, but that was another "State of the Union" pablum speech by Bush senior.

Which brings me to the quoterom Dubya's speech last night that also lept off of the White House website transcript:
(quote)
"Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost...."

No president "ever" admits to outright "lying" ,but ,with all of the lookking back over the decisions made leading up to and then
"halting" the Gulf War ,everyone from Bush,Sr. to then Nat.Security Advisor Bretn Scowcroft, to Sect. of defense Cap Weinberger ,to now Sect of state Colin Powell stated "clearly"
that taking out opf saddam hussein was "never" ,read "NEVER" ,the objective of Operation Desert Storm.
So , my question is obvious.
Given that Dubya's speech writers and political strategists, headed by Andrew Card and Carl Rove, can "not' plead ignorance to this public record fact.
Hence, where the hell does G.Dubya ,in the most important report of the State of the union adress of his limited career as Commander in Chief, get off with a blantant whopper as that.

I guess his team is gambling you can fool "enough of the people enough of the time".
BTW: This is but "one" clear example of the flawed outline for the Nation our limited commanbder in Chief just delivered.
His "failed" Enronomic team ( all fired/resigned and left vacant )
is another lengthy thread altogether.

For thos genuinely interested in doing their homework in these most urgent times, the U.N. Assembly speech:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html



I know I long ago posted here about my concerns over Saddam,when cornered ,will not hesitate to do the same scorched earth policy on his own oil fileds that he proved he was willing to do in Kuwait. Only in 2002 are we starting to see news commentary finally giving serious attention to this "Art of War' tactic.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: kendall
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:44 AM

Surprise, Doug! I watched it right up until he mis pronounced NUCLEAR. Then, I split.
I heard almost nothing about the actual state of the union (probably because it is in such a sorry state) but a lot of hot air about Proposed programs for the far future. He mentioned new technology to clean up the air; didn't he just sign something which would LOWER the standards? Money talks. Bullshit walks. I can't stand that bastard.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Pooby
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:55 AM

Put aside Dubya's solo on the war-drum for a second. Let's see: a billion to develop hydrogen-powered cars? Just what we need -- the highways clogged at rush-hour with thousands of mini-Hindenburgs. Road-rage this, mo-fo! Why not a whole lot of money for R&D on broad-based adoption of solar power? Oh, yeah, I forgot -- the oil companies can't control cheap energy from the sun.

And billions for AIDS-related meds in Africa? Okay, so any AIDS-related research is arguably a good thing, but rather than giving the 3rd world a bunch of money for medication after they've got the disease, why not try to keep 'em from getting it in the first place? Like, maybe, condoms! Oh, yeah, I forgot -- the Republicans don't believe in that.

Private-sector funding of prescription drugs for the elderly? Maybe anything is better than nothing, but gee, what a nice bit of timing. Stick it to the senior citizens just as I'm a few years away from becoming one.

Those are just a few of the pop-ups that should've been on the telly screen as Dubya was delivering his Dub-ble talk.

Pooby

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:02 AM

he's a lying son of a bitch, a twerp, an embarrasment, and a danger to the world, but it's the Wolfowitzes and the rest that worry me more.

They are the ones with the plan for American domination of the world. Even the Republicans don't know they've been taken over by the farthest right wing war mongers this country has ever had in positions of power.

Work for peace watch your back, and see if they don't try to hold on to power in 2004 by any means necessary. Here comes the dictatorships of South America home to roost. I predict it will be in the name of some national security emergency, but no matter what the election results are, Bush's handlers will grab at least four more years. Thankfullly, there are real human beings in the rest of the world, in Europe and elsewhere, who have the sense and honor to stand up to them. The world will fight back.

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

It's all theater. You watched the lead hijacker on the podium last night. You watched the man who has cut off medical benefits for WW2 and Korean War veterans. You listened to the man who has overseen a hundred major corporate scandals and taken no action. He has taken this country from record surpluses to a future of unending deficits while he sets our country up to be taken down by the U.N. You saw the 'Rothschild Formula' in action...when there is a weak country, tell it a strong country threatens it and sell weapons. Only now there are no countries left that can threaten 'the world's last superpower', so Bush is forming a coalition to fight us. Every action, every utterance from the man infuriates the world, and that is by design. We will launch an unjustified and illegal war and kill millions in the Middle East, and then the U.N. will be forced to take action against us...the most formidable rogue nation on the planet. And since Bush cut our nuclear arsenal by 80% before he started on his globalist-assigned task of making us the bully who HAS to be brought down, he will tearfully announce in the next State of the Union that, 'Things ain't so good, comrades'. Pitiful spectacle. The man is the greatest traitor this country ever produced.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Gypsy
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:17 AM

"Let's see: a billion to develop hydrogen-powered cars? Just what we need -- the highways clogged at rush-hour with thousands of mini-Hindenburgs. Road-rage this, mo-fo! Why not a whole lot of money for R&D on broad-based " Pooby, if i can drift yet further, please remember, that petroleum based cars are a pretty darn good bomb themselves. Or weren't you around when pinto's were exploding? Hydrogen ain't a bad way to go.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:21 AM

Bill Kennedy...

You might be right, but the other day Hillary Clinton said we need MORE Federal control because of terrorism.

Bush (the conservative, non-government-interference guy) has Federalized religion with faith-based initiatives, Federalized education with national testing, and Federalized law enforcement with Homeland Security. He is doing EXACTLY what big-government democrats want. There is NO DIFFERENCE between the two parties now. It is all just command-and-control structure like the military. There is the Fuehrer and everyone below him.

Bill Clinton began setting this up after the Oklahoma City bombing, and Bush has expanded on it. I believe the next election...doesn't really matter who wins. The structure is here to lock down all cities after a bioattack and ship people to concentration camps. And bring in U.N. troops because all ours will be out of country. Any president could throw the switch to set it in motion.

I think Hillary Clinton is the one to watch. Sure Bush is the greatest traitor this country ever produced, but the backlash against him could put long-suffering, healthcare-loving Hillary in the White House, and I (former democrat) believe she could put Hitler and Stalin to shame when it comes to ruthlessness.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:23 AM

Yeah, Doug, I watched the entire thing and had my polograph wired into the TV for the purpose of *Lie* counting but it only goes up to a hundred so it gave out at the 43 minute mark.

So where's the "beef"? Where's the evidence? No where! That's where. If this were a court of law, the judge would have thrown this one out about half way thru Bush's call to war. He made assertions but he produced not *one shread* of evidence. Not one!!!

As for the rest of it? Just noise and lies and proposals that when held up to the light, mean nothing or very little. The aid to Africa will not be in the form of condoms but in the form of pushing abstainance. Oh, now that's really going to waork!

All the blah, blah, blah about working families and single parents is nothing more that a crock of dung. It will be just like his supposed *eductaion8 reform package that he went around the country with his chest out but now we learn that he won't sign the checks. Yeah, when it comes down to paying for anything that helps the working class, he writes checks like a man with no arms.

And lastly, Dougie and others who think this liar is the greatest thing since the Ronnie R., the tax proposal sounds good but when you hold it up to the light it amounts to a massive tax give away to the wealthiest 5%. And once they get it, they6 won't give it back. What does this mean for the average working stiff? Well, what it means is not only will it be *his/her* kids dieing in Bush's war but also it will be these same working folks who will end up paying for the war.

This Bush regime is nothing more thjan a smoke and mirror rape of America's working class.

Screw him. If want's to fight, I'll pay for the air fare to Bagdad!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Charley Noble
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:37 AM

Just another verse from a soon to be obsolete song to the tune of "The Ballad of Springhill":

Hear the sirens wail, o'er a sleeping city,
See the tracers light the midnight skies;
A dance of death, flashed 'round the world –
Bone and blood is the price of lies,
Bone and blood is the price of lies.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Naemanson
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:59 AM

Here's a fun game to play with the speech. Search through it for tag words. Here's what I came up with:

In one hour and seven minutes of speaking he mentioned the word school 2 times, the word education also 2 times, health 9 times, economy 10 times, children 7 times, mass destruction 4 times, Iraq 22 times, and terrorist 13 times. He was interrupted by applause 77 times.

I watched it for as long as I could take it. Most irritating were all the bootlickers who had to jump to their feet and applaud every time he came to the end of a sentence or paused for breath.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 12:15 PM

Their lives depend on the bootlicking. Bush's # 1 critic, Wellstone, died, don't forget. Ashcroft's former chief rival in Missouri died, don't forget.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: TIA
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 12:26 PM

..and I quote: "...this administration will not pass on its problems to future administrations and future generations..."

How can he say this sh-t with a straight face? I sat on the sofa with my kids thinking here is the future generation that will be paying off this jerk's growing (even without a 200 billion dollar war) debt.

Another scary thought. Who did he leave at home to lead the country in case the entire government was lost during the state of the union address?

Mullah Ashcroft!

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From:
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:04 PM

Was I hallucinating, or did shrub spend several sentences on the perils posed by Iran, and then abruptly shift gears? The transcript of the speech at the CNN site does not contain the word "Iran."

Adam

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From:
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:09 PM

Nope, it's there, my mistake -- I had only been looking at a partial transcript. Still wonder if he thought he was talking about Iraq. Geography isn't his long suit.

Adam

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: GUEST,JB Guest
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:13 PM

You are all being much too complimentary to Mr.
Bush in saying he said this and he said that.

Do any of you think for one minute that he wrote one line of this speech? He would not have the intelligence for this kind of writing. Granted, he can deliver a speech, but where`s the great talent for reading off a speech? Do not fool youselves, it`s the Cheenys and Rumsfelds as well as other powerful people in the background who are pulling the strings here. Bush is merely the instrument through which to operate.

He certainly did not get to his position through achievement or talent-money, power and connections took care of that. As for intelligence, it has been reported in German newspapers that George W. Bush has a low IQ, in fact the only other President to have a lower one was his father, or is it the other way around?

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:32 PM

TIA:

Good point about the debt. The average guy really may not understand that there's no ducking it. Bankrupcty does not protect one from the grasp of the Internal Revenue Service. It will get paid.

Now lets look at a few facts;

1. When Bush took office, the "White House and the Cogressional Budget Office forecasta surplus of $5.6 trillion this decade." (Washington Post 1/29/03, "2004 Budget Likely to Show Record Deficits).

2. Bush pushed thru his tax cuts which were *sold* top Congress based on this surplus.

but then....

3. red ink, red ink and more red ink...

and...

4. This year's deficit is *estimated* by the White House to be $109 billion with the 2004 deficit to hit...

5. $300 billion, which will make Ronnie R's failed economic policies look good. So what this means is...

6. No chance of a surplus in this decade and maybe none in the next decade. And just because there were surpluses during the Clinton Administration there were no years that...

7. ...the American people weren't paying off Ronnie's borrow-and-spend spending spree and for that matter the American people are still paying for...

8. ... Ronnie's spending spree and when you throw in the current heavyweight champion of borrow-and-spend, there are not too many American's alive today that won't spend the rest of their lives paying off these two fools spending binges.

The problem is, as I see it, that the money isn't being spent to improve the infastructure or quality of life of the working man. Its going into the pockets of rich people and into pockets of the military industrial complex...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: ard mhacha
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:32 PM

Guest JB, You beat me to it, Bush write a speech?, don`t make me laugh,the gormless bastard address the nation!?, he couldn`t address an envelope.
The evil warmongers who pull the strings do the writing and dictating, in the eyes of the world, the US government stinks.. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: TIA
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:33 PM

As much as I'd like to believe it, the IQ thing is a rather old hoax

see

http://www.snopes2.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

The truth is (probably) that he's no dummy

see

http://www.sctimes.com/Election/bush011401.htm

(sorry I messed up the clickys...apparently I am, in fact, a dummy)

His words and actions do prove that he's a smug, arrogant, smirky, self-entitled, sneaky, hypocritical puppet worked by some very scary special interests.

Now let me tell you how I really feel.....

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: TIA
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:39 PM

...and Bobert, isn't it amazing how the solution to budget surpluses was tax cuts (for the rich, of course), and the solution to budget deficits is tax cuts (ditto)?

I bet tax cuts would be the perfect cure for shingles too.
Come to think of it, I'll try to lower the action on that old five string with a tax cut!

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 01:45 PM

LOL, TIA...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: State of the Union
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 02:01 PM

I watched. I listened.

Some good points. The matter of hydrogen-powered automobiles and getting this country off dependence on foreign energy sources. Good one, George. I'm all for that. Incidentally, the technology is available now. Why wait until "children born today" are old enough to buy automobiles? That's a minimum of sixteen years in most states.

Increased funding for research into prevention and cure of AIDS. Excellent. Bloody well about time!

The rest of the speech was pretty much the usual stuff. Typical Republican agenda, with the usual practice of saying what he was going to do, but not indicating how he was going to do it or what the consequences might be, other than vague promises of future prosperity. I could comment, but I won't, because I'm up against a deadline for an article I'm writing and I'm sure others can do as well as I can.

A couple things more, however: In the "war on terrorism," I do hope he wasn't shining us on. 3,000 caught? Good. And I must admit that when Bush said, "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," my vindictive little heart was gladdened a bit. Maybe I've read too many James Bond novels, but when it comes to genuine terrorists, I am for taking them out by whatever method works. But let's be sure we confine that sort of thing to genuine terrorists, okay?

Big one:— I was waiting eagerly to hear what evidence Bush was going to present (explicitly promised by much of the advanced billing) of Iraq's connection with al Quaeda along with evidence that Saddam is in possession of an arsenal of WMDs. I'm sorry. "Intelligence officials estimate" and "U. S. intelligence indicates" and "our intelligence sources tell us" and "from intelligence sources, we know" and "intelligence sources indicate" and "evidence from intelligence sources" (all direct quotes from the speech), no matter how many times and in how many ways it is said, does not constitute evidence. Bush went on to say, "The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups." (direct quote). If any of this is broadcast, I'll be listening and watching. I'm watching all of this very carefully.

Don Firth

P. S. Re: The word "NOOK-yuh-ler;" I usually wince every time I hear it, but I will cut George a little slack with this one. I have heard even nuclear physicists and engineers use that pronunciation. If even some professionals in the field can't get it right, well. . . . Put it down to inadequate education, rampant dyslexia, or whatever. I do, however, think that in the light of more important issues, jumping on George for this is a bit nit-picky.

Nice suit. I liked his tie.

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