GW's Inauguration Speech - Your thoughts

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

I find Bush's delivery to be uninspiring - he never seems to use a crescendo when he speaks.

Contrivances and appearances are valued more by some than others.

It matters more to most Republicans that Bush puts action behind his words.

You'd really like the UN. Very Happy

0 Replies

BBB

Yes. But of course, at Townhall, demands to have the 'greatest president ever' chiselled into Rushmore will continue apace.

0 Replies

Blatham

blatham wrote:

BBB

Yes. But of course, at Townhall, demands to have the 'greatest president ever' chiselled into Rushmore will continue apace.

Can you imagine Bush with a smirk on his face among the giants of Mount Rushmore? It would split the mountain into a sea of gravel---pea gravel, of course.

BBB

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

revel wrote:
It seems to me that now most people when they listen to bush speak about spreading democracy know it for the war talk it is based on his previous speeches and following actions and that is why it is scary.

Yes, yes, he's a warmonger for invading Afghanistan and Iraq, just like FDR was a warmonger for attacking the Axis powers. Bush was absolutely right to invade both countries, and both sets of citizens will now get to vote for the governments of their choice (although accomplishing that was not the primary reason for either invasion).

I agree about Afghanistan, disagree about Iraq.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

revel

My reading is somewhat different. I didn't see the speech as 'war talk'. I saw it as so ungrounded in reality that it can be used for just about any purpose at all...attacking Syria or Iran, or cutting and running from Iraq. The latter is, I wager, what they will do.

I hope you are right.

0 Replies

I'm looking forward to the State of the Union Speech! It should have less references to freedom and liberty!!

0 Replies

This speech reminds me the best Ronald Reagan. He was able to talk of transcending or overcoming communism. And he did. Now Bush talks of promoting freedom all over the world: the war on terrorism will be won in the name of liberty.

Our foreign policy moves beyond the war on terror to the larger struggle against tyranny. President has set the priorities: terrorism is not a located problem which has to do with the Middle East conflict, but the violent way of expression of ruthless despotic regimes all over the world, aiming at the destruction of America's power. These are called "outlaw regimes"( North Korea, Iran) 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.

Undoubtedly, there are non democratic governments which cooperate with the US but systematically infringe human rights(China, Saudi Arabia). But these countries are also helpful allies in the task of ensuring political stability throughout the world. Bush then says that these countries leaders must implement democratic reforms, start a "journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.". That sentence perfectly combines a realistic view on international affairs with America's values (which are now being sacrificed at the altar of free trade with the Chinese, it is time for a determined support to Chinese democratic movements)

0 Replies

You found the thread, Thomas. Enjoy the chat.

0 Replies

Thomas
Welcome to A2K, Thomas. You obviously think about ideas and express them clearly.

BBB

0 Replies

Thomas Hayden wrote:

This speech reminds me the best Ronald Reagan. He was able to talk of transcending or overcoming communism. And he did.
Quote:
Now Bush talks of promoting freedom all over the world: the war on terrorism will be won in the name of liberty.

Our foreign policy moves beyond the war on terror to the larger struggle against tyranny. President has set the priorities: terrorism is not a located problem which has to do with the Middle East conflict, but the violent way of expression of ruthless despotic regimes all over the world, aiming at the destruction of America's power. These are called "outlaw regimes"( North Korea, Iran) 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.

Undoubtedly, there are non democratic governments which cooperate with the US but systematically infringe human rights(China, Saudi Arabia). But these countries are also helpful allies in the task of ensuring political stability throughout the world. Bush then says that these countries leaders must implement democratic reforms, start a "journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.". That sentence perfectly combines a realistic view on international affairs with America's values (which are now being sacrificed at the altar of free trade with the Chinese, it is time for a determined support to Chinese democratic movements)

A true believer!

First of all, let's be honest about a few things. Bush didn't write the speech, a team for hire wrote it (true with all modern presidents, but let's not start thinking we have a Lincoln here). Second, we'll recall the PR preceding an early Bush speech where a spokesman (Ari?) tried to suggest that Bush was burning the midnight oil perusing Cicero and Seneca. It wasn't a claim well receieved, and the deceit wasn't attempted again.

Also, the identification of Bush and Reagan is part of Rove's PR strategy - to build Bush, in the public mind, as heir to and as comparable to Reagan. Reagan was and is very popular to the conservative voting base, and his reputation is itself greatly a creation of the PR people working around the RNC and spread via the conservative media machine. We'll recall Coulter's column following Ron Reagan's speech at the funeral...you aren't allowed to say anything outside the party line on Reagan even if you might be his son. Or there's the pressure put on CBC to cancel the docudrama on Reagan.

Quote:

He [Reagan] was able to talk of transcending or overcoming communism. And he did.

The key element in the created Reagan myth. He brought down communism barehanded and with hardly a sweat. No one holds that to be so, other than the myth consumers. Economic realities were in place and would have come to fruition regardless of who sat in the White House. And without Gorbachev, god knows how much longer it would have taken the USSR to reform. On the other hand, Reagan was brave in what he went for with Gorbachev. And had it not been for a clique of neoconservative advisors there (Perle was one), we might well have had nuclear disarmament.

Quote:

Now Bush talks of promoting freedom all over the world: the war on terrorism will be won in the name of liberty.

Yes, he talked about that. The second part of the sentence is not a logical consequence of the first part...it is a statement of faith.

Quote:

Our foreign policy moves beyond the war on terror to the larger struggle against tyranny.

Well, our rhetoric moves at least. After terroism is defeated, and after tyranny is eradicated, we are going to seek out and battle satan throughout the solar system.

Quote:

Undoubtedly, there are non democratic governments which cooperate with the US but systematically infringe human rights(China, Saudi Arabia). But these countries are also helpful allies in the task of ensuring political stability throughout the world. Bush then says that these countries leaders must implement democratic reforms, start a "journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.".

I love this paragraph! Our new friend is no slouch at PR. Here he seeks to pre-empt the most obvious criticism of Bush's 'policy', most brilliantly satirized by Jon Steward who, after a clip of Bush saying the target was tyranny wherever it might be found, added, his voice quickly paced like an ad for the Popiel Foodomatic, "Not applicable in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea or China."

Of course, this is all hogpoop. Rice, in her testimony last week, saw fit to head off into a diatribe against...not china or pakistan but....Venezuela!? Democratically elected government...civil rights matters far better than most South or Central American states (with whom the US has functioning and active ties), stable government (outside of CIA inspired troubles). So, why? Oil and a socialist-colored administration.

And how much push come to shove has Bush put on Pakistan? And what the hell is he going to be able to do with China? In perhaps a dozen years, China will be equal to America in economic clout. And Saudi Arabia? The US will do everything in its power to maintain that despotic regime because it simply can't allow that oil wealth to fall into the hands of folks it can't control. There IS a stability argument to be made (if one thinks oil ought to be the continuing energy resource of preference - a pretty dumb idea to begin with - and if one has support of Israel as a fundamental policy goal.

Bush isn't Lincoln. And his speech is, in reality, almost a mirror image of actual US goals and policies. But believers believe. And Rove counts on precisely that.

0 Replies

Speaking of Reagan ...

REAGANISMS:

"No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world,
is so formidable as the will and moral courage
of free men and women."
- Ronald Reagan

"Here's my strategy on the Cold War:
We win, they lose."
- Ronald Reagan

"The most terrifying words in the English language are:
I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
- Ronald Reagan

"The trouble with our liberal friends
is not that they're ignorant:
It's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

"Of the four wars in my lifetime
none came about because the U.S. was too strong."
- Ronald Reagan

"I have wondered at times about what
the Ten Commandments would have looked like
if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress."
- Ronald Reagan

"The taxpayer: That's someone who works
for the federal government but doesn't have
to take the civil service examination."
- Ronald Reagan

"Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal
with a big appetite at one end
and no sense of responsibility at the other."
- Ronald Reagan

"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God,
then we will be a nation gone under."
- Ronald Reagan

"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see
on this earth is a government program."
- Ronald Reagan

"I've laid down the law, though, to everyone
from now on about anything that happens:
no matter what time it is, wake me --
even if it's in the middle of a Cabinet meeting."
- Ronald Reagan

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession.
I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first."
- Ronald Reagan

"Government's view of the economy
could be summed up in a few short phrases:
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it.
And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
- Ronald Reagan

"Politics is not a bad profession.
If you succeed there are many rewards,
if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book."
- Ronald Reagan

<Cue Blatham to ask whether I think Reagan thought up more than 2 of these>

0 Replies

woiyo paraphrased:

Quote:

ask not what America can do for you but what together we can do for the benefit of mankind.

We can always count on the neoconservative revisionist to get it wrong yet again.

What Kennedy actually said:

Quote:

My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you can do for your country.

And as far as the speech was concerned, it was just another piss-poor attempt on Bush's part to desperately try and gloss over his enormous failings.

The man is a dismal failure who has effectively polarized the nation, and the world, against us and each other.

0 Replies

The speech was a study in avoidance of reality. But Bush has that down to an art.

Give as few interactive press briefings as possible.
Accept interviews only with reporters who won't be vigorous.
Never ever ever have open townhall meetings.
Blackball press members who won't be bullied.
Do NOT allow people who might disagree into your talks and campaign meetings.

0 Replies

Blatham, you forgot:

Keep the media firmly in your pocket.
The buck never stops here.
Vacation alot.
Stay off of a Segway.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

woiyo paraphrased:

Quote:
ask not what America can do for you but what together we can do for the benefit of mankind.

We can always count on the neoconservative revisionist to get it wrong yet again.

What Kennedy actually said:

Quote:
My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you can do for your country.

And as far as the speech was concerned, it was just another piss-poor attempt on Bush's part to desperately try and gloss over his enormous failings.

The man is a dismal failure who has effectively polarized the nation, and the world, against us and each other.

As usual, you are wrong again.

The link is the entire speech and I have posted the quote.

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/kenn.html

"My fellow citizens of the world: Ask not What America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man. "

0 Replies

Is it "benefit" or "freedom?"

At least the quote I was referring was correct, even though it wasn't the one you were referring to.

In any event, none of that matters regarding the dismal failure that is George W. Bush.

0 Replies

Quote:

I would like to point out that some threats to US security require either aggressive diplomatic pressure or military action. I am thinking of North Korea, Iran or Syria, countries which have been proved to be strong supporters of terrorism, and are willing to supply them with the most advanced weaponry. If you knew that an AlQuaeda cell in the US or Europe is going to be given a nuclear bomb if these countries could get one: what would you do? Resign to the facts or try to stop them at any cost? That is the difference between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

About China, if you read the last two lines of my post, you will notice that I propose a realistic policy: financial and diplomatic aid to Chinese opposition groups will probably be useful in order to overthrow their despotic leaders and lead this country towards democracy. If trade relations between the US and China have developed so much for the last 10 years, just imagine the way they will grow with a democratic Chinese government.

You call Venezuela a democracy. Yes, it is. A "democracy" controlled by a government which censors speech, press and the media. A "democracy" whose president is reducing oil production to increase its price, while at the same time is giving free fuel to Cuba (another "democracy", everybody knows that Fidel periodically holds elections, in which he is elected with 99% of the votes) Did you know that Chavez himself ordered his soldiers to shoot against the demonstrators which were protesting against his government and asking for his resignation? Did you know Chavez considers himself as "a friend" of Colombian guerillas? Venezuela GDP has plummeted. 2004 GDP only stands for 75% of 1999 production. Condi may not be completely right when she puts Venezuela in the same group that N. Korea but a decent person will agree with me that US foreign policy must remove people like Chavez and Castro from power. [/QUOTE]

0 Replies

My god, this isn't Tom Hayden at all! I'm talking with Barry Goldwater!

Quote:

I would like to point out that some threats to US security require either aggressive diplomatic pressure or military action.

Absolutely. Of course, the significant point here is that we've held back much too much on the military-action option in the past and not because it was strategically contra-indicated, but because we got suckered by the old and impotent european moralists. The sun isn't yellow, it's chicken.

Quote:

I am thinking of North Korea, Iran or Syria, countries which have been proved to be strong supporters of terrorism, and are willing to supply them with the most advanced weaponry.

The rest of us are thinking about Pakistan, who not only has nukes, but who has been most responsible for the spread of nuclear technologies around the globe, and who decided it would be just peachy to let the key scientist involved remain free and living the good life, and which harbors many Al Quaeda quite possibly including Osama, and which is run by a miliitary dictatorship. America's buddies.

Quote:

If you knew that an AlQuaeda cell in the US or Europe is going to be given a nuclear bomb if these countries could get one: what would you do? Resign to the facts or try to stop them at any cost? That is the difference between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

"Knew"!? As in "we know what palm trees they are under" and "we know they are using those aluminum tubes for weapons purposes". Such 'knowing' and what is actually real are clearly two quite different things. And what you, as a citizen, are told is 'known' and what really is known are two different things.

But you are implying that Iran might forward technology or ideology directed towards damage of the US and the West, and that the Sauds would not, and that that is the key differentiation.

Which happily denies the funding for terrorism that has come out of Saudi Arabia, the 9-11 perpetrators being mainly Sauds, and the fundamentalist schools supported by the Saudi government which teach, daily, such ideology. And let's not even mention OIL and MILITARY BASES in Saudi Arabia....irrelevant stuff...we are talking about eeevillll.

Quote:

About China, if you read the last two lines of my post, you will notice that I propose a realistic policy: financial and diplomatic aid to Chinese opposition groups will probably be useful in order to overthrow their despotic leaders and lead this country towards democracy. If trade relations between the US and China have developed so much for the last 10 years, just imagine the way they will grow with a democratic Chinese government.

Yup, I read 'em. Realistic? Let's talk real. Real is Neil Bush, who, after costing US tax payers 1 billion for Silverado (regulators described Neil here as having an 'ethical disability') was most recently heard from in Beijing. There, he claimed he thought the girls arriving at his door were just kind of fond of him...didn't know they were prostitutes at all. And why was Neil in Beijing? Because he was doing business deals with the children of those 'despotic leaders' you note above. That's pretty real.

Regardless, your conception of China's politics is rather colorful. Can you find me some links to those internal opposition groups you mention? Trade between China and the US and the rest of the world will continue to grow regardless of China's government and what it does to its citizens, just as it has to this point. A speech here, a wagging finger there...and Neil fukking Chinese government-supplied whores.

Quote:

You call Venezuela a democracy. Yes, it is. A "democracy" controlled by a government which censors speech, press and the media. A "democracy" whose president is reducing oil production to increase its price, while at the same time is giving free fuel to Cuba (another "democracy", everybody knows that Fidel periodically holds elections, in which he is elected with 99% of the votes) Did you know that Chavez himself ordered his soldiers to shoot against the demonstrators which were protesting against his government and asking for his resignation? Did you know Chavez considers himself as "a friend" of Colombian guerillas? Venezuela GDP has plummeted. 2004 GDP only stands for 75% of 1999 production. Condi may not be completely right when she puts Venezuela in the same group that N. Korea but a decent person will agree with me that US foreign policy must remove people like Chavez and Castro from power.

Again, I have a favorite paragraph, and this is it. This is the Goldwater paragraph, and one just doesn't see enough of them any longer. Unless, of course, one visits the same sites you have been visiting. CommieWatch.com, perhaps. Where folks talk about how Ollie North would, if he got Fidel and Chavez in the ring, just pummel the dark-skinned weenies.

Chavez won 60% of the vote in 2000, then four years later, in a recall vote (which was quite possibly instigated or at least facilitated by the CIA)
he won the popular vote again at 58%.

You make claims above for which you provide no documentation or evidence. Below, find three links to Human Rights Watch on Venezuela, Pakistan and Chile. "Decent people would agree" that very often the countries the US supports have heinous human and civil rights records, and countries such as Venezuela which are FAR MORE democratic and just become targets for strategic, or ideological reasons. And that's the case here.
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=venezu
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=asia&c=pakist
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=chile

0 Replies

Regardless, your conception of China's politics is rather colorful. Can you find me some links to those internal opposition groups you mention? Trade between China and the US and the rest of the world will continue to grow regardless of China's government and what it does to its citizens, just as it has to this point. A speech here, a wagging finger there...and Neil fukking Chinese government-supplied whores.

blatham wrote:

My god, this isn't Tom Hayden at all! I'm talking with Barry Goldwater!

Here are some links I'm sure you'll find interesting

www.freechina.net/cdp/

http://www.fofg.org/

Barry Goldwater, he has been an overlooked politician, maybe too idealist his mistake was not to wait to the end of Johnson's presidency- he would have won in 1968.

At the 1964 Republican convention, Goldwater proclaimed, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

According to your post, those ideas should set the pace for America's foreign policy: treat equally all the dictatorships. Today we have bombarded Iraq , tomorrow it will be Saudi Arabia. If Iran is imposed commercial sanctions, let's do the same with Pakistan. But Bush's foreign policy, fortunately, lacks extremism, while at the same time is focused on realistic principles.

0 Replies

You're up with Chavez now, Blatham? His country sure aint no North Korea, OK, point taken - but that doesnt make his country as unproblematically a democracy as you make it out to be. Yes, the election results - 60%, 58% - and Putin won in a landslide too, that dont make him no democrat, and dont mean we need not worry about where Russia's heading. Chavez is clamping down on media freedom, on basic civil rights, he is fostering a culture of corruption, not to mention engaging in a reckless populism thats doing his country a whole lot of harm.

The only good I see in Chavez is in the signal thats sent by the success he does enjoy - because even if you take away the layer of his numbers that's inflated by fraud etc, he still does, forsure, have a loyal following, especially in many of the slums - and that should be a stern reminder to the country's middle-class liberals and conservatives who reigned the country for so long and did so little for the poor. But that doesnt make Chavez into a democrat. Poo-poohing censorship, fraud, corruption, intimidation wont do, even if Musharraf or Pinochet are/were worse.

0 Replies

GW's Inauguration Speech - Your thoughts

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know