Bush to address the nation tonight...

Pages

Just heard over the radio that Bush will address the nation tonight at 8pm. I don't think he'll announce war tonight but I read on Drudge that he was going to make his choice today.

And taking questions from the press no less. Is that such a good idea? When working off the cuff, Bush tends to create controversial one-liners and fodder for the late night comedy pundits.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

And taking questions from the press no less. Is that such a good idea? When working off the cuff, Bush tends to create controversial one-liners and fodder for the late night comedy pundits.

I just hope he doesn''t say ""I don''t care what Saddam does, he''s going to be killer either way.""

*I* would have no problem with that but it wouldn''t help us gain more support in Europe.

Boy, it really is Night of 1000 Laughs on NBC!

"Ulairi" wrote:

""I don''t care what Saddam does, he''s going to be killer either way.""

""For shizzle my hizzle nizzle dizzles.""

Bring back the Celebrity boxing.... and let Bush and Saddam go at it... I would actually pay to see that, or better put them in to death cage and give them baseball bats, swords, and all the other melee toys...

I''m pretty sure Saddam has repeatedly challenged Bush to fights, duels and a debate.

I''m dissapointed. He''s said nothing new or anything to ""sell"" his case to the US outside of the umpteen amount of blurbs he''s given already.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

I''m dissapointed. He''s said nothing new or anything to ""sell"" his case to the US outside of the umpteen amount of blurbs he''s given already.

I didn''t expect anything new. Either you believe that we should go to war or we shouldn''t. I think that Bush has lost support be not ""rushing to war.""

He kept mentioning these weapons of terror, are thy any different than the weapons that US are using... Plus he is like a broken tape.... for the past month he said the exact same thing and in the same order! It like a glitch or something...

Anyway with his crusade for oil and the some reason that is only known to him, he neglected the country and it''s economy... well actually I don''t know about the rest of US, but here in New York, things look sh*ty! Soon I will have to pay more for water which in turn will raise my maintenance bill again (second time in a row) not to mention this property tax increase, plus the MTA fair hike and market on constant decline and people losing their jobs!

Honestly, I can''t imagine why people are supporting Bush. I can think of a single capacity in which this country is better than it was three years ago. I know the President can''t do everything, but can he do anything? It''s not just a matter of how well he is doing, but the people he has appointed to do the rest.

Yes, it''s not the President''s fault that the economy went sour, but it is his administrations fault that there is no recovery whatsoever. At a time when America''s economy is in a double dip recession (or as I like to term it a ""W"" recession), his answer is to throw our economy into a trillion dollar deficit - from a balanced budget only 3 years ago - and then finance a ground war in Asia on top of it.

Oh, great, someday I''ll get a marginal tax break (since I''m only middle class) that will be syphoned off by higher state and local taxes, higher costs of living, and higher tuition through government loans, all increased because of Bush''s big economic stimulus. Hey, good job with that stimulus by the way!

Yes, September 11th could have happened under any president, but his administration has reacted poorly, inappropriately, and often at odds with constitutional liberties. We, as Americans, have far less freedom and protection from governmental interference in our daily lives. I think Benjamin Franklin, a premier patriot, said it best.

""They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.""

If the whole point of terrorism is to thwart the freedoms of America, then someone''s congratulating them on their success.

Not only does most of the Middle East hate us, but apparently we''ve put intense strains onto the strong alliances that we spent decades to foster. To the rest of the world, the US is increasingly seen as a renegade nation, and a threat to world peace. I''m embarrassed by this, and for a nation whose basic tenets I believe in deeply.

Military families are being torn apart, there is great fear (and an odd sense of excited anticipation) about the coming war, we feel we have no say as voters and citizens about the recklessness of a hardline government. I''m not going to paint Clinton as some kind of presidential savior, but I sure as hell know I felt a lot happier living in America of 1996-2000 than I do now. The administration would have me believe that all my troubles come from September 11, and Iraq, but I''m pretty sure that it''s not nearly so cut and dried (especially considering there''s no firm link associating the two).

I''ve no doubt that Bush Jr. will go down as one of the most incompetent presidents this country has ever seen, while at the same time being recognized as one of the most domineering. What I find hard to believe, is that he''s almost certainly going to be re-elected.

I miss America. I hope it comes back soon.

Wow, my 100th post! (there is no emoticon for ""proud""?)

I may get blasted for this, but I really don''t think this war is about oil for the USA. I honestly don''t. It''s not like any nation in the world would not sell oil to the USA, because when push comes to shove even if they hate us our money is still good. (as weird as that sounds) However ""no blood for oil"" or ""This war smells like oil"" are good rallying calls and they sounds nice. It''s very media friendly.

However, it''s fairly obvious that France is interested in oil. They have many, many contracts with Iraq for their oil, and a war would throw a huge wrench in them. One of my inlaws is from Paris so I get the inside scoop from him. (I told him we were going to invade France on our way out of Iraq..I think I just hear Ulari cheer...anyway, he''s the one who told me ""all politics are local"" which I think is so true.).

Nei, I agree with you that the economy sucks right now, but it''s like that everywhere, not only in the US, but also in Europe and Asia. Here''s a good read on it: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_07/b3820009.htm

Lastly, lets not forget what kind of guy Saddam is, or what has happend with the history of appeasment in major world conflicts. He''s had 12 years to disarm, he signed a treaty in 1991 to disarm, yet he has not.

Here''s a nice little tidbit. Saddam is ordering replica uniforms of US and Great Brittian soldiers and is giving them to his soldiers. He is going to have them kill Iraqi citizens and tape it to show on TV so everyone can see how terrible the USA is. Nice guy! I guess it''s similar to putting Iraqi children in major military targets as human shields.

He kept mentioning these weapons of terror, are thy any different than the weapons that US are using...

Big difference, we''re not using them on our own people.

Lets find an end to this conflict and focus on our own problems with the economy. That and lets have the Red Sox win the East this year over the Yankees. Life would be good.

EDIT:

Where were the protests when we took out (sp) Slobodan Molosovich? Again, it''s all political and it always will be.

"Elysium" wrote:

I''ve no doubt that Bush Jr. will go down as one of the most incompetent presidents this country has ever seen, while at the same time being recognized as one of the most domineering. What I find hard to believe, is that he''s almost certainly going to be re-elected.

Well said Elysium, well said...

I still say you can''t play the humanitarian angle. Do you have any idea how many countries we''d have to invade if we were strictly concerned with how leaders treat their own people. Let''s start with our close friend, and NATO ally, Turkey. Guess what, they torture and are actively participating in ''cleansing'' (remember that word) the Kurds. You know, the Kurds who we''re so worried about protecting in Iraq.

Then we''d have to delve into a full scale conflict in several South American nations, places like Columbia, Venezuela. But that''s going to be kind of hard because we''re going to be scattered all about Africa, Nigeria, the Congo, Libya, and so on. But let''s not forget Sierra Leon where the military chop off the arms of children, and, of course, Security Council member China is going to need some really hard looks. Phew, our military is going to be busy.

Yeah, Saddam''s a bad guy. That''s got nothing to do with the war.

good points, but you think he would think twice about giving weapons and aid to terrorists for use against, heck, anyone?

So, what should we do? Not enforce a treaty he signed, making the UN as significant as the League of Nations?

Years and years of sh*tty Middle East policy has come to a head.

I''m glad I''m not the person who has to make this decision, I enjoy talking about it in here much more.

Pulse, you actually got a head of me... I wanted to add a comment...

"Elysium" wrote:

Yeah, Saddam''s a bad guy. That''s got nothing to do with the war.

By us starting this war I don''t think that we are any better than Saddam or anybody else, because we enforce our believes on others... it could be the right one or not, everyone has their perception on ways of life... So in turn middle-east and Asia might see our way of life to be incorrect the same way we view other countries!...

We should come to our senses, and realize that Saddam Hussein is a threat to pretty much no one in his current position. In this case, yes, containment works, and the damaging effects of our intervention are much more dangerous to an already unstable region than continuing inspections with a UN force (which France and Germany support) put in place to ensure peace. Pretty much like we successfully did in Kosovo, which I''ll point out again is not remotely analogous to the current situation.

Then, we need to get off our high horse about senselessly supporting every single thing that Israel does, and try to make steps toward fostering peace again. That''s not to say support terroristic Hamas, but to do what Clinton very nearly did to begin with, and bring some widely supported stability to the region. We need to redevelop our international relationships, and work as a genuine ''united'' nations.

You know, I keep hearing people say that when we defeat Saddam suddenly Iraq is going to support democracy and it will spread across the middle east until it''s renamed happy land and they grow freaking gumdrop trees in the desert! I''m more likely to grow a superfluous nipple on my forehead. The backlash by Islamic governmental forces across the region is going to create a political crisis like we can barely imagine.

What should we do? Keep inspectors on the ground, not so they can really find anything new, but to act as a check against armament. Saddam simply can not fund and build a force under close UN inspection, particularly with a UN team installed.

Of course, none of this will ever happen. Bush wants a war. He says he doesn''t, but I don''t believe it for a second, and you know what. I think, a lot of Americans want a war. It gives them something good to watch on TV, and who cares about brown people from some crappy middle east country anyway.

Coming this month from CNN, new reality television. When Americans Attack!

[edit] I miss the good old days when the big news was fellatio!

So, what should we do? Not enforce a treaty he signed, making the UN as significant as the League of Nations?

Um the problem with the League of Nations was that the US had no interest in enforcing what they were trying to do. Without the US to back them up they were worthless. With the US going out and deciding on its own that it will respond to its FEARS of Iraq giving these weapons to Terrorists, its setting a dangerous precedent.
We dont have to listen to the UN if we dont want too(why should anybody else)?
Whats to stop us from doing anything else we want to because we''re the god damned US of A and what we says goes?
I''m all for the use of force when its warranted, but when it looks like your president is settling a grudge and is willing to go against the whole global community to achieve it, thats just crazy.

"phragged" wrote:

...but when it looks like your president is settling a grudge and is willing to go against the whole global community to achieve it, thats just crazy.

What part of Washington State do you live in? I didn''t realize you had seceded from the Union up there?

"Elysium" wrote:

Coming this month from CNN, new reality television. When Americans Attack!

Yes it will be fun to watch until it come and bite them in their ass... because they fail to see the consequences! Everyone wants war but are they willing to go and fight? I''m not willing to go and fight because I fail to see any reason or logic, and with out that it will be idiocy!

Nei, you bring up a good point.

But wasn''t this the job of the UN? Isn''t the UN suppossed to enforce their own mandates? Saddam has done a great job of dividing everyone on this. You can''t deny that he has not even come close to complying, and yet the UN just fades further and further into obscurity. If the US and our allies weren''t pushing Saddam I''m positive nothing would be done and the rest of the coucil members would turn a blind eye to Iraq.

If the UN had no intentions of disarming him, why even bother having him sign a treaty in the first place? I''ve been trying not to compare this to WWI and WWII, but the French, British, and Russians were told by Hitler that don''t worry, he just wanted to annex Austria, he won''t do anything else. Everyone turned a blind eye. He even signed a ""Non aggression pact"" with Russia, then invaded. I''m not saying that Saddam is Hitler, but the appeasment is the same. (And a side note, my ancestry is half German, I''ve been a few times and I love it. Big fan of Germany...beautiful, beautiful country. This is part of the reason I hate using WW2 ref''s.)

Hell, why do we have to be the policman of the world? I hate it. It should be the UN who enforces the disarmament, not a US led strike.

So my question is the same. What do we do? It''s clear I''m in the minority of thinking an attack would work. If you think one woujldn''t work, how would you resolve this? Maybe I can be swayed...probably not, but maybe I can.

Nei. I was also kind of hoping to get a response about the Yankee comment I made to you.

"Pulse" wrote:

Nei. I was also kind of hoping to get a response about the Yankee comment I made to you. :twisted:

I''m not really a baseball fan?

Nei,
crap, I''m a big fan of sports rivalries and was hoping to have some good sparring sessions with you this summer.

Phragged, what do you suggest we do?

What part of Washington State do you live in? I didn''t realize you had seceded from the Union up there?

I think you just called me Canadian...I will not stand for that sir.

Your attempt at McCarthyism was appreciated though. But I hardly think expressing a concern for the US role in global politics and a desire to try to uphold the values our country has developed over the last couple centuries, cause to be branded a traitor.(And besides I dont think secession is a valid way for states to settle disputes anymore. Back in the Civil War half the reason the southern states were seceeding in the first place was because they believed the constitution allowed them that option. There are cases of states threating secession all over the place before the Civil War, but I cant think of one since(anybody?))
(Course if you were just joking then haha )

Yes, it''s not the President''s fault that the economy went sour, but it is his administrations fault that there is no recovery whatsoever. At a time when America''s economy is in a double dip recession (or as I like to term it a ""W"" recession), his answer is to throw our economy into a trillion dollar deficit - from a balanced budget only 3 years ago - and then finance a ground war in Asia on top of it.

First. We''re not in a double dip recession. I don''t know where you got that. Our economy is growing but it''s more of a flat growth. The reason we had a balanced budget was from the growth of the mid-late 90''s. The government is spending too much money but niether party wants to cut spending. The economy is planned to grow about 3% this year.

Oh, great, someday I''ll get a marginal tax break (since I''m only middle class) that will be syphoned off by higher state and local taxes, higher costs of living, and higher tuition through government loans, all increased because of Bush''s big economic stimulus. Hey, good job with that stimulus by the way!

His stimulus is better than the 300/600 that you''ll get from the Democrats...once.

I don''t think we need a stimulus plan. I think we need to get this Iraqi war over.

You know, I keep hearing people say that when we defeat Saddam suddenly Iraq is going to support democracy and it will spread across the middle east until it''s renamed happy land and they grow freaking gumdrop trees in the desert! I''m more likely to grow a superfluous nipple on my forehead. The backlash by Islamic governmental forces across the region is going to create a political crisis like we can barely imagine.

This is BS. The *same* thing was said about the war in Afganistan by people who thought we shouldn''t of done anything.

Yes, September 11th could have happened under any president, but his administration has reacted poorly, inappropriately, and often at odds with constitutional liberties. We, as Americans, have far less freedom and protection from governmental interference in our daily lives. I think Benjamin Franklin, a premier patriot, said it best.

After every big event and when we go into a war, it takes us a while to work our selves out. I think that Bush has gone too far with his ""anti-terror"" bills. But, Congress is the real person to blame.

""They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.""

If the whole point of terrorism is to thwart the freedoms of America, then someone''s congratulating them on their success.

It''s not as bad as you''re making it out to be...yet. We need to make sure the Patriot Act II doesn''t pass.

Not only does most of the Middle East hate us, but apparently we''ve put intense strains onto the strong alliances that we spent decades to foster. To the rest of the world, the US is increasingly seen as a renegade nation, and a threat to world peace. I''m embarrassed by this, and for a nation whose basic tenets I believe in deeply.

The Middle East hated us before. I''d hate to break this to you but the rest of the world has always hated us and I really don''t care. There are very few nations out there which I want to be our friend. The majority of the world is bad and we shouldn''t try to make our selves feel better by having nations agree with us. It''s either right or wrong.

Military families are being torn apart, there is great fear (and an odd sense of excited anticipation) about the coming war, we feel we have no say as voters and citizens about the recklessness of a hardline government. I''m not going to paint Clinton as some kind of presidential savior, but I sure as hell know I felt a lot happier living in America of 1996-2000 than I do now. The administration would have me believe that all my troubles come from September 11, and Iraq, but I''m pretty sure that it''s not nearly so cut and dried (especially considering there''s no firm link associating the two).

Clinton used the military to regime a country with no UN or approval from congress. He used the military for peace keepers and said it would be a year, it''s been eight. I was for those thign but I don''t see people who are against this war holding him to the same line. Bush is not hardline, he''s a democrat that will spend less. (I didn''t vote for Bush)

I''ve no doubt that Bush Jr. will go down as one of the most incompetent presidents this country has ever seen, while at the same time being recognized as one of the most domineering. What I find hard to believe, is that he''s almost certainly going to be re-elected.

Here''s my view on this: We don''t know.

"Elysium" wrote:

I still say you can''t play the humanitarian angle. Do you have any idea how many countries we''d have to invade if we were strictly concerned with how leaders treat their own people. Let''s start with our close friend, and NATO ally, Turkey. Guess what, they torture and are actively participating in ''cleansing'' (remember that word) the Kurds. You know, the Kurds who we''re so worried about protecting in Iraq.

Then we''d have to delve into a full scale conflict in several South American nations, places like Columbia, Venezuela. But that''s going to be kind of hard because we''re going to be scattered all about Africa, Nigeria, the Congo, Libya, and so on. But let''s not forget Sierra Leon where the military chop off the arms of children, and, of course, Security Council member China is going to need some really hard looks. Phew, our military is going to be busy.

Yeah, Saddam''s a bad guy. That''s got nothing to do with the war.

The problem I have with your solution of containment is that it''s what has gotten us to this point. The Middle East is cluster f*cked because of containment. If any country like Iraq and Iraq gets a nuclear weapon they could hold the western world hostiage. We can''t allow that to happen. Containment no longer works anymore.

Read through the posts thus far, wanted to add something...but Elysium has essentially nailed everything I''d say, and done it better than I would. Bravo, chief. Keep it up.

What does scare me about Dubya''s administration is this entire ""pre-emptive"" foreign policy idea. ""I''m going to kick the sh*t out of you ''cause you look scary"" might work in grade school- but this is the goddamn modern world we''re talking about!

"Gorey" wrote:

Read through the posts thus far, wanted to add something...but Elysium has essentially nailed everything I''d say, and done it better than I would. Bravo, chief. Keep it up.

What does scare me about Dubya''s administration is this entire ""pre-emptive"" foreign policy idea. ""I''m going to kick the sh*t out of you ''cause you look scary"" might work in grade school- but this is the goddamn modern world we''re talking about!

We have ""pre-emptive"" struck countreis before. Clinton did it. It''s a new world. The first time any WMD is used on Israel, us, or a country with nuclear weapons there is a real danger of those weapons being used.

The problem I have with your solution of containment is that it''s what has gotten us to this point. The Middle East is cluster f*cked because of containment. If any country like Iraq and Iraq gets a nuclear weapon they could hold the western world hostiage. We can''t allow that to happen. Containment no longer works anymore.

And that''s why you see a completely different approach with North Korea.

Well said Ulari.

Phragged, what do you suggest we do?

It seems like we are having this war and the UN be damned. I would like to see us work with the UN and other nations of the world to see this resolved. If the UN decides that action is necassary than so be it, I have no qualms about enforcing a UN move for military action. I would like us to accept what the UN decides instead of saying you''re either with us or against and then letting the cards fall where they may. The Bush administration seems to like to insult and threaten as a means of diplomacy. Abandoning the UN will lead to 1 of 2 things happening. Either it dies, or it will catalyze all the other nations of the world into really working together at which point it would be us against them. I dont believe(and its entirely possible im wrong) that once we tell the UN that we dont need to listen to you guys that we''re the USA, things wont be able to go back to the way they are now(in either global opinion or the UN itself).

In short I would like us to work with the UN completely and totally instead of the half ass way we are doing so now.

Pages