Damn, I thought it was to protect Our Vinyl Magnetic Sticker Industry.
This is the first Bush speech I have watched top to bottom. My interest was particular...what is Rove going to do in this unique, for him, situation?
The entire exercise was confoundingly unimpressive. Even Rich Lowry of the National Review, speaking afterwards, had trouble coming up with anything positive to say.
The speech contained nothing which might seem likely to move Bush's stats in any significant way, certainly not for more than a day or two if that. The same storyline was advanced again (9/11 mentioned 6 or 7 times, threat of attack on America mentioned 10 or 12 times, the predicable tie in between Iraq and 9/11 and terrorism). But this is the story that the public is increasingly finding unconvincing or even deceitful (by more than 50%).
'We must stay the course' seemed to be the central message, but that rationale or policy is also failing to convince, or at least that Bush and his administration now seem to be an undependable representatives regarding Iraq policy overall.
Even the camera work during the speech was unusually maladroit...poor angles, few faces, and often picking up soldiers seeming to be more interested in brushing lint from their jackets or looking about. Quite odd indeed, particularly compared with the last important big outing (with Laura and the Iraqi mother) where everything seem scripted to a fine T.
It may have been an attempt to forget the rest of us and motivate his base. If so, we'll read enthused statements on this thread tomorrow. But I doubt that too. The whole thing was simply too flat and uninspiring.
Very odd.
It was all spin as usual. When he mentioned the fact that he would provide more soldiers if the generals asked, that was - or should have been - the hara kiri (self-destructd statement), because the borders of Iraq is open to all comers, and insurgents move about freely. The unlimited supply of insurgents from other countries will continue this war for many more years - and I'm guessing over twelve - until they control the borders. Oh well, such incompetence. More interesting is the fact that some media people and John McCain were impressed with this speech. Go figure.
I thought that speech was incredible. How often do you get to see a talking monkey on TV like that? It was riveting.
kicky, Actually, what you saw, kicky, was the perfect puppet. He read his speech real well this time, compared to the past. The strings were pulled neatly.
Still, for pure talking chimp entertainment value, it paled in comparison to
this.
blatham wrote:Quote:"Americans think they are fighting evil and that you can't play by the rules when you fight an enemy that does not," says Joerg Friedrichs, an expert in international police cooperation at the University of Bremen in Germany. "But in general, Europe, with its history of dealing with domestic terrorism, is convinced that the problem must be tackled using the law, not flouting it."
"We have learned that as a democratic country you must abide by the law," says Alessandro Politi, an analyst at the Cespi institute in Rome. "You cannot think that all means are justified by the end. If you circumvent the law, that is the best possible propaganda you can give to the enemy."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-28-europe-terrorwar_x.htm
That's "A Man For All Seasons" again. We stated this 400 years ago, and it's probably a lot older than that. Of course, Bush was never very strong on history.
Thomas wrote:Ticomaya wrote: If "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel," what are constant references to Hitler?
An invocation of
Godwin's Law perhaps?
Thomas, and I thought we were going to be friends, too.
I was drawn into the comparison when our friend surrounded himself with the military and forthrightly declared that their sacrifice was necessary and unshakeable, in the pursuit of his aims.
I am sorry about the Hitler comparison, come to think of it. Adolf had an honourable service record, I believe.
McTag
Yes. This is why the
Tony Judt piece at NYRB becomes such a compelling argument. What are the consequences for America AND the world when all those burgeoning states or democracies outside of America who had held it up as a beacon and hope of liberty and justice and peace find it become a militarist state so ready to forgo it's fundamental principles? Those outside of (and inside of) America who held it the grandest and most encouraging experiment in governance can only be horrified by what America is becoming, most particularly under this administration?
blatham wrote:McTag
Yes. This is why the
Tony Judt piece at NYRB becomes such a compelling argument. What are the consequences for America AND the world when all those burgeoning states or democracies outside of America who had held it up as a beacon and hope of liberty and justice and peace find it become a militarist state so ready to forgo it's fundamental principles? Those outside of (and inside of) America who held it the grandest and most encouraging experiment in governance can only be horrified by what America is becoming, most particularly under this administration?
Only if they were predisposed to take any bad behavior of individuals and attempt to smear the whole country with it.
The disgusting behavior of a few American soldiers is not the will of the American people, nor is it condoned by the US government. Atrocities ARE condoned and encouraged by more than a few regimes in the world. I'm sure you spend as much time at least whining about them.
We have held ogether a pretty daunting set of goals, and work doggedly toward them. The Finns hardly allow dark skinned people in their country, same with Sweden, if I remember correctly. Australia has at last check 0% black population. How do you like that? I know you're very concerned about racism.
Lash wrote:0 The Finns hardly allow dark skinned people in their country, same with Sweden, if I remember correctly. Australia has at last check 0% black population.
a) please give one, just one single source for that.
b) how many black slaves were transported to Australia?
Australia has 7% Asians, all of immigrant origin (as well as the Aborogines, of course).
No blacks, though, true. Something to do with not having had slavery.
I thought Aboriginees were considered black, or at least brown. Shows what I know. But yeah, no slavery, no racism.
Hey, what's all the squawking about private threads I've been hearing? I thought this thread had been opened up to all by it's author a long long time ago.
