The Great Bush Speech Question

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
What did Bush say during last night's speech that:

1) You didn't know before?

2) Reflects a marked change in his policy for Iraq?

3) Couldn't have been said at any given point in time, verbatim, after the beginning of the insurgency?

4) If you were not convinced before, convinces you now?

5) You believe?
 
I didn't catch the Bush speech (playing BF2 and watching draft ) but the senate had discussions of stuff they wanted the president to do/ address and it proved how much of an idiot John Kerry was when he spoke. He had an EXCELLENT 15 minute speech about the war that if he would have said that exact thing a year earlier he would have been president. It was that good and was very detailed with what he would like seen done.
 
Kerry is an idiot because his speech was good?

I see your larger point, yet I still feel confused.

He wrote a fantastic op-ed in the NYT yesterday, so I think I understand what you're saying.
 
I didn't listen, but I just read the transcript. Not very poetic, but I thought it was good.

I've never disagreed with the purpose of the Iraq war, and wasn't swayed by the "Bush Lied" arguments. I do, however feel that this conflict has been mismanaged from the start. To answer myke's questions:

1) Nothing.

2) No marked changes, in my mind.

3) "Today, Iraq has more than 160,000 security forces trained and equipped for a variety of missions. Iraqi forces have fought bravely, helping to capture terrorists and insurgents in Najaf and Samarra, Fallujah and Mosul. " Couldn't have been said before. I'd like to see the data behind that though.

4) Nothing. I've always been coinvinced that the cause is just. I think he's going to continue to mismanage this.

5) All of this except for one notable exception: "Some Americans ask me, If completing the mission is so important, why don't you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job." He should have sent more earlier, at the start of the conflict.

By disbanding the Iraqi military so quickly, and not having enough forces, he created a power vaccuum, so that civilians turned to militias to ensure their security. The Al'Sadr thing last year is an excellent example. With a larger force, he never would have recruited a militia like he did.

Text of Speech

[quote name='David85']Bush is still alive!!!?!?! I thought he died... Ohhh thts only in my dreams. :([/quote]

I really don't like you. You almost make me want to change my stance on the ignore feature.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Kerry is an idiot because his speech was good?

I see your larger point, yet I still feel confused.

He wrote a fantastic op-ed in the NYT yesterday, so I think I understand what you're saying.[/QUOTE]

I liked that Op-Ed quite a bit. Why do democratic candadates always seem more electable after they lose the election?
 
One assessment of the speech that I've read and agree with is that the purpose of the speech wasn't to try to convince anyone to come over to his side: it was to convince the people already on his side to stick with him for a while longer. If you already disagreed with him, simply put, you weren't the intended audience. It was basically a stop-gap measure designed to at least try to hold his ever-dropping ratings steady and slow his descent into lame-duckness.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Kerry is an idiot because his speech was good?

I see your larger point, yet I still feel confused.

He wrote a fantastic op-ed in the NYT yesterday, so I think I understand what you're saying.[/QUOTE]

yes, because if he would have stopped pumping people with how great he was because he was a Vietnam Vet and talked about Iraq in the same manner as he did the other day, he would have effectively neutralized the issue of national security, an issue Bush clearly won
 
Can't say that I disagree with you, Casey. His op-ed was one of those "Well, well, well, mister. Just where in the hell were *YOU* last year?" moments.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Can't say that I disagree with you, Casey. His op-ed was one of those "Well, well, well, mister. Just where in the hell were *YOU* last year?" moments.[/QUOTE]

I couldn't agree more. The problem is probably that he thought if he grew a set of balls their sheer mass would scare away the moderate voters. I think voters were waiting for him to grow them, and when he didn't they voted for someone who had already proven he had them by being the worst president in U.S. history and telling anyone who disagreed with his insane policies that they could go fuck themselves if they thought he was going to get any saner.
 
[quote name='Drocket']One assessment of the speech that I've read and agree with is that the purpose of the speech wasn't to try to convince anyone to come over to his side: it was to convince the people already on his side to stick with him for a while longer. If you already disagreed with him, simply put, you weren't the intended audience. It was basically a stop-gap measure designed to at least try to hold his ever-dropping ratings steady and slow his descent into lame-duckness.[/QUOTE]

If that's the audience he was trying to reach, and given their dwindling numbers, maybe next time we can just cover the speech on the WB.
:lol:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Can't say that I disagree with you, Casey. His op-ed was one of those "Well, well, well, mister. Just where in the hell were *YOU* last year?" moments.[/QUOTE]
If you paid attention, that's what he was like during his campaign.

The Republican media machine just never laid off of his war record, constantly criticizing him. And whereas all of Bush's speeches were covered, not even half of Kerry's speeches were covered and if you watched CNN most of the were video only with voiceovers by Wolf Blitzer telling you what Kerry was saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top