0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2005 05:18 pm
blatham wrote:
...

You are a criminal prosecutor? Do I have that right?

...

As to your implication that policy criticism (actually, it was criticism of a speech, but anyway) has no logical validity where a substitute policy has not been forwarded (and I'll even leave aside that such a requirement is nothing Coulter or Boortz feels constrained by)...it's transparently wrong-headed. .....


Criminal prosecution is not the focus of my practice.

I did not mean to imply that your criticism has no "logical validity" when you failed to provide a substitute plan. I was merely curious as to what your plan was, or what you thought the plan should be. Your shorter response could have simply been: "I don't have one."
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2005 06:26 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Your stats are conveniently, incorrectly, categorized, MsOlga. Iraq has been liberated from their oppressive despot for quite some time already. We're not fighting against Saddam's Iraq now... we're fighting on Iraq's behalf against would be replacements who seek to fill the power vacuum with a new form of tyranny. I've seen polls that show our presence unpopular, but none that show a majority want us to leave them to their own devices, just yet. If the majority want our assistance, it is absurd suggest we're the new "tyranny". (I'm not saying many don't agree with your take, just that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.)



<sigh>


But oops! My mistake. In the early hours of the Oz morning I blundered in here without noting the title of the thread. A bit of inadvertent trespassing on my part.

Sorry & bye.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2005 06:47 pm
Lol!!!

Musta been dark, Msolga!!!
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2005 06:50 pm
Yes. And tired & jaded I was, too! Confused
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2005 06:52 pm
Lol -

"she has softly and silently vanished away -
For the Snark WAS a Boojum, you see."
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2005 05:59 pm
Normally very satirical, ScrappleFace seems a bit more serious with this ersatz newsflash....

Quote:
White House Releases 'Cliffs Notes' of Inaugural Speech
by Scott Ott

(2005-01-21) -- As critics began their dissection of President George Bush's second inaugural address, the White House today released a "more direct" version of the speech, stripped of the soaring poetic highlights of the original, "so that the average public school graduate, journalist and pundit can understand what the president means."

An excerpt of the so-called "Cliffs Notes" version of the speech, portrays U.S. foreign policy in these terms:

"We want freedom everywhere, not because we're crazy dreamers, but because governments held accountable to their people don't launch wars against each other. In the good old days, we could sit back and watch as tyrants tortured the helpless and fortified their arsenals. A rifle in the Middle East, or Asia, was no threat to our shores. Today, a man carrying a briefcase could wipe out millions of Americans in a single afternoon. We can't eliminate the sinful urges of crazed men, but we can help oppressed people to dump their dictators. Kill the snake by cutting off its head."

While veiled in the rhetorical flourishes of his official address, the speech also contains a message to the United Nations which seems more clear in the simplified version.

"The United Nations charter says the organization exists to...

-- 'take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace' and

-- ''to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small' and

-- 'to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.'

"Well, that's all good. Now, let's start doing some of that stuff. Right now, the United Nations is united only in shared office space in New York. We have nothing in common with non-democratic regimes. Their presence in the U.N. gives aid and comfort to an enemy. People always talk about the legitimacy that the U.N. can bring. That's true. The U.N. brings legitimacy to dictators as they crush the hopes of millions. Negotiating with tyrants is a waste of time that only lets them gear up for eventual armed conflict, either with their own freedom-starved people or with other nations that recognize the threat too late. All I'm saying is, why wait?"

"We hear a lot about the so-called tensions between us and Europe. But think about it -- no matter how testy things get, there will never be a shooting war between us and France as long as we both remain democracies. We hold these truths to be self-evident."


While critics complained that the president devoted little attention to domestic issues, the summary text attempts to address their concerns.

"I could talk all day about Social Security reform, tort reform, public school reform, welfare reform or a hundred other domestic issues. But a single dirty bomb, or reservoir poisoning, or falling skyscraper would put all of those issues on the back burner in a flash. I've laid out my vision for many domestic issues, but freedom is the foundation on which they all stand. You want to know what we should do to improve the economy? Here it is: foster freedom around the world to reduce the number of people who are willing to die in order to end our way of life. It's supply and demand. We want to cut off the supply of those who demand the destruction of America and western civilization."

Finally, the new manuscript addresses concerns many have raised about Mr. Bush's frequent invocation of "God."

"While a lot of folks get offended that I talk about God, I don't think God gets offended."

A White House spokesman said the revised version will soon be available in French, German, Russian, Farsi, Korean, Mandarin and Arabic.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2005 07:01 pm
Good stuff Tico! Thanks.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2005 08:14 pm
Ticomaya wrote:


"We hear a lot about the so-called tensions between us and Europe. But think about it -- no matter how testy things get, there will never be a shooting war between us and France ...


Damn, and I was hoping to get to watch all those losers have to swim all the way over here to surrender....
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jan, 2005 08:30 pm
Tico, I LOVE ScrappleFace LOL!!! I always save him for last......after I get done reading all the nattering nabobs of negativity here on A2K! He's like my own personal little ray of sunshine (well, him and Ican LOL!)

Gunga.... LOL! Yer gonna catch it for bashing the Phrench! <I did so love that very last line, though>

Smile
0 Replies
 
Wildflower63
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 09:47 pm
The "Aftermath" is what we are talking about, how many pages later? What I have to say to Kerry supporter, is this, GET OVER IT! You guys don't think that I didn't have to put up with an impeached president, Bill Clinton, for eight years? It's your turn, so live with it.

RoverRoad, where are you???
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jan, 2005 11:34 pm
We get Drudge radio for a couple of hours every Sunday evening and he was running the background while I was working tonight. I heard him report on the viewer shares during the hype before the inaugeration speech, the speech itself, and the hype after the speech. CNN, MSNBC, and all the other alphabet channels lost well over 50% of their viewers of four years ago while Fox News rocked. In short, those with vision and positive hope wanted to hear that from the president without people throwing cold water all over it for one day. And I think for the most part, that is exactly what they got from the President and Fox News.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 08:05 am
MG:-

I am somewhat surprised to find someone with your exalted rank engaging your valuable time with this meaningless infighting.

Mr Bush is totally at the mercy of economic forces.He is engaged in the art of the possible.Bringing "freedom" to other countries is an entirely selfish policy.Principle there is none."Free" countries are to be loaded up with your overheads in order to help achieve the ONLY objective of US foreign policy which is the penetration of markets by US goods and services.
The Europeans have recently unveiled their new jet-liner (the jet engine being a European development) and the European aircraft industry has outsold Boeing recently.Your currency (the tell-tale litmus) is sinking beneath the Euro and,according to your news broadcasts,your population is getting seriously "out of form" in the sporting sense of the term.Your educational system is geared to supplying certificates which are nothing other than permissions to ambush.What is learnt has simply the purpose of being approved of by examination authorities and can be contradictory as with the argument over Darwin.

Gold is at a ten year high.

This "debate" is a clue to why.Your power is derivative.It stems from European science,a rich cache of resources got for next to nothing and a fast expansion of population.As things stand you would be refused entry into the EEC which Russia will join at some point.Your own politicians treat you as if you were a bunch of clunkers.All rhetoric and no substance.You daren't even sign up to the Kyoto agreement and the Geneva convention has been tossed to one side.You will litigate yourselves into confusion in your gaderene rush to avoid manual work.

After hubris comes nemesis.

Tell me I'm wrong.
Please.
You're scary.Tell me you mean well.Reassure me.
Free trade and steel tariffs eh?

spendius.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 08:53 am
There, there ... you're wrong. Feel better?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 09:44 am
You might have pulled your tongue out Tico.It axiomatic with debate points of that type.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 10:18 am
Quote:
On Tyranny
George W. Bush's Second Inaugural was a powerful and subtle speech. It will also prove to be historic.
by William Kristol
01/31/2005, Volume 010, Issue 19

A social science that cannot speak of tyranny with the same confidence with which medicine speaks, for example, of cancer, cannot understand social phenomena as what they are.
--Leo Strauss, On Tyranny

Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered. Yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph.
--Thomas Paine, The Crisis


INFORMED BY STRAUSS and inspired by Paine, appealing to Lincoln and alluding to Truman, beginning with the Constitution and ending with the Declaration, with Biblical phrases echoing throughout--George W. Bush's Second Inaugural was a powerful and subtle speech.

It will also prove to be a historic speech. Less than three and a half years after 9/11, Bush's Second Inaugural moves American foreign policy beyond the war on terror to the larger struggle against tyranny. It grounds Bush's foreign policy--American foreign policy--in American history and American principles. If actions follow words and success greets his efforts, then President Bush will have ushered in a new era in American foreign policy.

That era will of course build on the efforts and achievements of his predecessors--especially Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan. The invocation of Truman is clear. Here is Truman, in his address to a joint session of Congress on March 12, 1947, announcing what came to be known as the Truman Doctrine: "I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." And here is Bush: "So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

Truman's basically defensive formulation of the doctrine of containment was appropriate at the beginning of the Cold War. Reagan was able, two generations later, to go further and to talk of transcending or overcoming communism. So we did, and Bush claims we are in a new and more hopeful era: "America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one." Our previous victories allow a more expansive embrace of America's "ultimate goal."

Expansive does not mean reckless. Bush avoids John Kennedy's impressive but overly grand, "pay any price, bear any burden" formulation. Bush states that military force will of course be used to "protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats," and that "we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary." But he explains that the task of ending tyranny around the world is not "primarily the task of arms." The goal of ending tyranny will be pursued through many avenues, and is the "work of generations."

And Bush makes careful distinctions among the nations of the world. There are democratic allies, to whom he reaches out for help. There are "governments with long habits of control"--Russia, or China, or the Arab dictators--whose leaders Bush urges to start on the "journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side." But he also makes clear to these leaders that we will pressure them and hold them accountable for oppression, and that we will support dissidents and democratic reformers in their countries.

Then there are the "outlaw regimes." It is their rulers who call to mind Lincoln's statement: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it." So for those nations we intend to promote regime change--primarily through peaceful means, but not ruling out military force in the case of threats to us.

If the critics of the speech who have denounced it as simple-minded were to read it, they would find it sophisticated. They might even find it nuanced.

Still, sophisticated and nuanced as it is, it does proclaim the goal of ending tyranny. And just as Truman's speech shaped policy, so Bush's will. As he implicitly acknowledges, his presidency will be judged not by this speech but by his achievements. The speech, by laying out a clear and compelling path for U.S. foreign policy, will make substantial achievements easier. There will be vigorous debates over how to secure these achievements--debates over defense spending and diplomacy, over particular tactics and operational choices. We will at times differ with the president on some of these matters, as we have at times in the past. But on the fundamental American goal, President Bush has it right--profoundly right.


--William Kristol
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 12:06 pm
spendius wrote:

Your power is derivative.It stems from European science,a rich cache of resources got for next to nothing and a fast expansion of population.As things stand you would be refused entry into the EEC which Russia will join at some point.Your own politicians treat you as if you were a bunch of clunkers.All rhetoric and no substance.You daren't even sign up to the Kyoto agreement and the Geneva convention has been tossed to one side.You will litigate yourselves into confusion in your gaderene rush to avoid manual work.spendius.


sorry ya hate us so much dude.

it's that it's so hard for a bunch of uncultured hillbillies like us americans to measure up to the stainless history of europe.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 12:30 pm
Quote:
sorry ya hate us so much dude.

it's that it's so hard for a bunch of uncultured hillbillies like us americans to measure up to the stainless history of europe.


Laughing
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 12:34 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Quote:
sorry ya hate us so much dude.

it's that it's so hard for a bunch of uncultured hillbillies like us americans to measure up to the stainless history of europe.


Laughing


aw, ya know how i am, foxy. i've made big loud noises here about what i don't like about the bush administration, bla, bla, bla. but jeez, it's over the top to condem all things american. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 12:44 pm
Agreed DTom. And it's over the top to commend everything the Bush administration does; therefore I don't. But I think the fair minded criticize when it is important to do so and give credit where credit is due. And for all our warts and wrinkles and quirks, we Americans handle our inadequacies pretty darn well and are still the country of preference to which people in other countries want to come.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jan, 2005 01:09 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Agreed DTom. And it's over the top to commend everything the Bush administration does; therefore I don't. But I think the fair minded criticize when it is important to do so and give credit where credit is due. And for all our warts and wrinkles and quirks, we Americans handle our inadequacies pretty darn well and are still the country of preference to which people in other countries want to come.


... And to criticize. :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 03/10/2025 at 08:21:23