Bush's State Of Union Speech

[Carrera]

I was up at 3.00 a.m. watching Bush's long awaited state of union speech. I analysed it carefully and then listened to the comments made by the Democrats, the press and media. The speech was Bush's last chance to revive his flagging poll ratings and in it, he laid out his idea that America has God, democracy, freedom and liberty on its side and should continue to impose democratic ideals around the globe.
There were specific threats against Iran and a surprising direct address to the Iranians, urging them to rise up and overthrow the "small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people".
On Iran, Bush states:
"The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon – and that must come to an end. The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions – and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons."
Seems like this is an Administration that views the world in simple terms of good and evil, black and white, right and wrong and holds the notion God raised America up to impose and defend freedom, liberty and democracy. The enemy he points to is radical Islam and I quote:
"And there is no honor in retreat. By allowing radical Islam to work its will – by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself – we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage. But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil."
Note the use of the term "evil" - a black and white simplification of a complex global problem.
So, the big question: How did this speech go down and has Bush done enough to scrape through to a third term? All in all, I'm led to believe the speech has revived his image somewhat and went down well amongst Americans who listened to the broadcast.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

So, the big question: How did this speech go down and has Bush done enough to scrape through to a third term? All in all, I'm led to believe the speech has revived his image somewhat and went down well amongst Americans who listened to the broadcast.

The US Constitution limits a president to two terms.

 

[Carrera]

That's something I didn't know. Maybe that would open up the door to Schwarzennegger if he can get the rules altered.
However, the Democrats are coming on strong with the ex-veterans who are being forwarded.

The US Constitution limits a president to two terms.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

That's something I didn't know. Maybe that would open up the door to Schwarzennegger if he can get the rules altered.

Seriously doubt if the rules will be changed. The process to amend the Constitution takes quite a while.

 

[Carrera]

Here is something on Iran's reaction to Bush's blistering attack and his direct appeal to the Iranians to embrace freedom as well as his plan to diminish reliance on oil:
"LONDON Feb 1, 2006 — Iranian and Hamas leaders rejected President Bush's call for change in his State of the Union address, but many Europeans welcomed his recognition that America's gas guzzling days must end.
Bush had harsh words for Iran, which he said was being "held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people" and the militant Palestinian group Hamas in his speech Tuesday night.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lashed out at the United States Wednesday, calling it a "hollow superpower" that is "tainted with the blood of nations" and said Tehran would continue its nuclear program.
The speech drew mixed reactions in Europe, with some saying it was a bid by Bush to regain popularity with unrealistic promises and others welcoming his energy initiatives."
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1565032

 

[Chance3290]

That's something I didn't know. Maybe that would open up the door to Schwarzennegger if he can get the rules altered.
However, the Democrats are coming on strong with the ex-veterans who are being forwarded.

The Democrats need to stop only pointing out what's wrong and start showing the people what's right. And all the Democrats need to move and not give Howard Dean their forwarding addresses.

 

[wolfix]

That's something I didn't know. Maybe that would open up the door to Schwarzennegger if he can get the rules altered.
However, the Democrats are coming on strong with the ex-veterans who are being forwarded.

It's the Republican Party that has a ex-vet who is mentioned as a serious canidate. The dems really have no one except Hilary Clinton who is not a vet.

 

[wolfix]

The Democrats need to stop only pointing out what's wrong and start showing the people what's right. And all the Democrats need to move and not give Howard Dean their forwarding addresses.

I met Howard Dean at a Democratic meeting in the spring of the election year. I actually got to talk to him for a couple of minutes. He seemed like pompous individual. Even the democrats did not take to him in my state.

 

[limerickman]

I didn't sit up till three o'clock in the morning : didn't need to.

But I think this article by Simon Tissdall accurately portrays the USA in terms of it's foreign (wanning) influence under Bush :


Stressing the indispensability of American global leadership is standard fare in State of the Union addresses, and George Bush's speech last night was no exception.
But a string of foreign policy setbacks has highlighted growing flaws in Washington's long cherished assumption of international primacy.

China's rapid rise presents the most obvious long-term challenge to American ascendancy.
It recently overtook Britain and Italy to become the world's fourth largest economy.
And its political clout is growing even faster, as Robert Zoellick, the US deputy secretary of state, was reminded last week.

Visiting Beijing, Mr Zoellick said the US wanted China to become a "responsible stakeholder" in global good governance. "China could play a very positive role in the international system, from issues dealing with non-proliferation to energy security to counter-terrorism," he said.

But Mr Zoellick quickly hit trouble when he got down to specifics.
His plea for China to back the formal referral of Iran's nuclear activities to the UN security council for possible punitive sanctions was rebuffed. Beijing's stonewalling recalled similar blocking action over Darfur.

China's simultaneous feting in Beijing of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia meanwhile offered a different, unsettling perspective on the energy security issues raised by Mr Zoellick. Joint agreements on extraction and refining mean increasing amounts of Saudi crude oil will be earmarked for China rather than the US, Riyadh's long-time number one customer.

China's courting of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Il, who secretly toured the country last month, may only aggravate another of Mr Zoellick's concerns - how to separate Pyongyang from the nuclear bombs it claims to possess. Adding to American discomfiture, South Korea's president, Roh Moo Hyun, warned Washington not to use or even threaten to use force to achieve regime change and the overthrow of Mr Kim.
Such mutinous talk from a traditionally close US ally would once have been quite unthinkable - but not now.

Similarly jolting rejections of once unquestioned American authority are proliferating. The Palestinian vote for Hamas ignored US pressure and financial string-pulling and left its Middle East peace policy in tatters.

While they might once have quietly acquiesced, India and Pakistan reacted sharply and publicly to recent US attempts to block trade with Iran and an "unauthorised" attack on a supposed al-Qaida hideout. Flexing its energy muscle, Russia has simply ignored US protests over its treatment of NGOs and its gas pipeline rows with Ukraine and Georgia.

Despite Condoleezza Rice's bid for a post-Iraq fresh start, European opinion has been alienated all over again by the extraordinary rendition row. In Iraq itself, allies such as Italy are breaking ranks, intent on bringing troops home whether or not Mr Bush deems the job done.

In his book The Opportunity, Richard Haass suggested that US over-reaching, as seen in Iraq and in Mr Bush's grandiose second term "vision" to set the world free, was partly responsible for the trend towards rejection of American leadership. "It is neither desirable nor practical to make democracy promotion a foreign policy doctrine," Mr Haass, a former US government official, said. "Too many pressing threats in which the lives of millions hang in the balance (threats such as nuclear proliferation and genocide) will not be solved by the emergence of democracy."

But he argued that US primacy was also increasingly vulnerable to non-military challenges that were beyond the control of any administration. The US should pursue more collaborative, integrated policies - or risk rising "passive resistance" internationally. "For the immediate future, non-cooperation is likely to be a more frequent and bigger problem for US foreign policy than direct opposition."

 

[Chance3290]

It's the Republican Party that has a ex-vet who is mentioned as a serious canidate. The dems really have no one except Hilary Clinton who is not a vet.

She has a chance. She has the victims of domestic violence vote. Or did Bill have that? She also has the "Here's what's wrong..." vote.
Dean has the screamer and the "YeeHaw" vote. He could be VP material. I saw him talking about the state of the union address. He said he was watching it in North Carolina. Isn't he the governor of Vermont? That sucks. They won't even let him watch TV in Vermont.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a Hillary/Barack Obama ticket.

But, just think of a Arnold/Jesse Ventura ticket. We could beat the **** out of any foreign leader. Mr T as Sec of State.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

I didn't sit up till three o'clock in the morning : didn't need to.

But I think this article by Simon Tissdall accurately portrays the USA in terms of it's foreign (wanning) influence under Bush :


Stressing the indispensability of American global leadership is standard fare in State of the Union addresses, and George Bush's speech last night was no exception.
But a string of foreign policy setbacks has highlighted growing flaws in Washington's long cherished assumption of international primacy.

China's rapid rise presents the most obvious long-term challenge to American ascendancy.
It recently overtook Britain and Italy to become the world's fourth largest economy.
And its political clout is growing even faster, as Robert Zoellick, the US deputy secretary of state, was reminded last week.

Visiting Beijing, Mr Zoellick said the US wanted China to become a "responsible stakeholder" in global good governance. "China could play a very positive role in the international system, from issues dealing with non-proliferation to energy security to counter-terrorism," he said.

But Mr Zoellick quickly hit trouble when he got down to specifics.
His plea for China to back the formal referral of Iran's nuclear activities to the UN security council for possible punitive sanctions was rebuffed. Beijing's stonewalling recalled similar blocking action over Darfur.

China's simultaneous feting in Beijing of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia meanwhile offered a different, unsettling perspective on the energy security issues raised by Mr Zoellick. Joint agreements on extraction and refining mean increasing amounts of Saudi crude oil will be earmarked for China rather than the US, Riyadh's long-time number one customer.

China's courting of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Il, who secretly toured the country last month, may only aggravate another of Mr Zoellick's concerns - how to separate Pyongyang from the nuclear bombs it claims to possess. Adding to American discomfiture, South Korea's president, Roh Moo Hyun, warned Washington not to use or even threaten to use force to achieve regime change and the overthrow of Mr Kim.
Such mutinous talk from a traditionally close US ally would once have been quite unthinkable - but not now.

Similarly jolting rejections of once unquestioned American authority are proliferating. The Palestinian vote for Hamas ignored US pressure and financial string-pulling and left its Middle East peace policy in tatters.

While they might once have quietly acquiesced, India and Pakistan reacted sharply and publicly to recent US attempts to block trade with Iran and an "unauthorised" attack on a supposed al-Qaida hideout. Flexing its energy muscle, Russia has simply ignored US protests over its treatment of NGOs and its gas pipeline rows with Ukraine and Georgia.

Despite Condoleezza Rice's bid for a post-Iraq fresh start, European opinion has been alienated all over again by the extraordinary rendition row. In Iraq itself, allies such as Italy are breaking ranks, intent on bringing troops home whether or not Mr Bush deems the job done.

In his book The Opportunity, Richard Haass suggested that US over-reaching, as seen in Iraq and in Mr Bush's grandiose second term "vision" to set the world free, was partly responsible for the trend towards rejection of American leadership. "It is neither desirable nor practical to make democracy promotion a foreign policy doctrine," Mr Haass, a former US government official, said. "Too many pressing threats in which the lives of millions hang in the balance (threats such as nuclear proliferation and genocide) will not be solved by the emergence of democracy."

But he argued that US primacy was also increasingly vulnerable to non-military challenges that were beyond the control of any administration. The US should pursue more collaborative, integrated policies - or risk rising "passive resistance" internationally. "For the immediate future, non-cooperation is likely to be a more frequent and bigger problem for US foreign policy than direct opposition."

When does the part about a billion communists Chinese dancing on our capitalist graves come?

 

[limerickman]

When does the part about a billion communists Chinese dancing on our capitalist graves come?

Richard Haass is one of your's - he's a Republican.

Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Richard Haass is one of your's - he's a Republican.

Don't shoot the messenger.

But Mr. Tisdall isn't. Thank God.

 

[limerickman]

But Mr. Tisdall isn't. Thank God.

I know that Tisdalls article would never get by the censor Stateside.

 

[Carrera]

What can I say? I listened to the speech. There were some points Bush made that were very good points and some interesting hints at a complete change of foreign policy.
I agreed with Bush's view that America shouldn't take the isolation route since if that were to be the case, instability would simply knock directly at the U.S, door (like Pearl Harbour and 9/11).
So, yes, the U.S. should be taking an interest in promoting liberty and democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere. This is what Republicans promote.
Then you got this frank admission that the whole reliance on oil in the Middle East and the mess in Iraq has been too big a headache and maybe there should be a drive to find alternative fuel for the economy.
So, some of Bush's speech was actually impressive.
The downside is that the Admisnistration has been accused of deporting foreign suspects to other countries where they could be tortured and the overall disregard for human rights or geneva convention norms that has damaged the U.S. image abroad. This is where Bush has massively over-stepped the mark.
Personally I think Colin Powel would be a far better President and run a better, more ethical war on terror. I'd like to see someone like him get elected.
Of course, it's really none of my business. It was a good speech, though, and he delivered it well.

 

[buckybux]

You guys are all taking Bush way too serious on this speech. It was a publicity speech meant to make us US citizens feel good about ourselves. Karl Rove knows how to appeal to the people and make us feel good.

You got to watch where Bush's feet take him. What he says, and then what he does are two different things. He says we got to win in Iraq, but he is not willing to committ the resources necessary to finish the job. But then I think Iraq is just a modern day Vietnam, the war is unwinnable because anything the US wants, the Iraqi people will be against. It is the occupation that is the problem.

With all the scandals involving the Republican Party, and the trouble caused by Bush's illegal wire tapping, he will be busy just trying to survive. But beware, there is nothing like a new war as a distraction for domestic problems.

 

[FredC]

You guys are all taking Bush way too serious on this speech. It was a publicity speech meant to make us US citizens feel good about ourselves. Karl Rove knows how to appeal to the people and make us feel good.

You got to watch where Bush's feet take him. What he says, and then what he does are two different things. He says we got to win in Iraq, but he is not willing to committ the resources necessary to finish the job. But then I think Iraq is just a modern day Vietnam, the war is unwinnable because anything the US wants, the Iraqi people will be against. It is the occupation that is the problem.

With all the scandals involving the Republican Party, and the trouble caused by Bush's illegal wire tapping, he will be busy just trying to survive. But beware, there is nothing like a new war as a distraction for domestic problems.

Hey, and guess what? Today Feb.2nd is really groundhog day.

 

[Wurm]

Hey, and guess what? Today Feb.2nd is really groundhog day.

Does that mean that if Chimpy pulls his head out of his ass and sees his shadow, that we'll have 6 more weeks (months, years) of war??

 

[davidmc]

That's something I didn't know. Maybe that would open up the door to Schwarzennegger if he can get the rules altered.
However, the Democrats are coming on strong with the ex-veterans who are being forwarded.

You seem to be overly fixated on pop-culture icon's Madonna, Schwarzennegger, Mohammed Ali, ect...are you of the mindset that popularity determines ability. It would appear that way reading many of your posts Taking a line from Monty Python-"Now for something completely different." See pic's.

 

[MountainPro]

The US Constitution limits a president to two terms.

good and evil?

that explains that then.