What is Bush going to talk about?
- Thread starter Dreadsox
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
DrTeeth
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
When?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
I think he'll say...
freedom
democracy
stay the course
That about wraps it up.
In all seriousness, I don't see him saying anything new, I think he's desparate to get the support of the people and the support and moral for the troops.
freedom democracy stay the courseThat about wraps it up.
In all seriousness, I don't see him saying anything new, I think he's desparate to get the support of the people and the support and moral for the troops.
BostonAnne
Refugee
I hope he talks about how important it is to Make Poverty History. 
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
And why shouldn't he, this is the most crutial time in Iraq, staying the course until the drafting of the constituion and the elections at the end of the year, but that is an eternity away for the general public who's attention span barely lasts a week.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
A_Wanderer said:
I think when you have Cheney saying the insurgency is at the end of it's life and Rummy saying it can last up to 12 years, telling the American public that an election is really going to change anything isn't enough.
I'm not saying we shouldn't stay the course but a few more answers may actually help him gain a little more support.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Getting the message out is the biggest problem with this administration, it has utterly shithouse communication skills and that allows the agenda to be set every time by sound bytes and plain dumb statements.
If they could get the message that the US is not going to be there for 12 years, that training an indigeneous force to take over is the objective, it would make it slightly more clear.
They need to show that progress is being made, it is a pity that one has to rely on bloggers to pick up that slack in regards to the "boring" stuff like sewage plants, electricity quotas and deals for new infrastructure. The ongoing peaceful political dialogue, the disarming of militias and compromises with tribal leaders.
Training of the Iraqi security forces, it goes on without much coverage, but it is the key, because an Iraqi army fighting for Iraqi's will suceed in defeating any insurgency because they have the support of millions of Iraqi's. The US can hang around as long as it likes with minimal casualties (deaths and injuries on US soldiers in Iraq are small by historical standards) but it will not be able to totally defeat any insurgency.
The domestic insurgency has shown some serious signs of weakening, just look at the Shiite militias and the political solutions found to those problems, in the Sunni regions the same sort of compromises and accomidations are being made which will hopefully end the domestic insurgency. But this will not stop the Jihadists, for whom a free and stable Iraq would be a massive defeat, they will keep fighting even when the US leaves to bring about chaos.
If they could get the message that the US is not going to be there for 12 years, that training an indigeneous force to take over is the objective, it would make it slightly more clear.
They need to show that progress is being made, it is a pity that one has to rely on bloggers to pick up that slack in regards to the "boring" stuff like sewage plants, electricity quotas and deals for new infrastructure. The ongoing peaceful political dialogue, the disarming of militias and compromises with tribal leaders.
Training of the Iraqi security forces, it goes on without much coverage, but it is the key, because an Iraqi army fighting for Iraqi's will suceed in defeating any insurgency because they have the support of millions of Iraqi's. The US can hang around as long as it likes with minimal casualties (deaths and injuries on US soldiers in Iraq are small by historical standards) but it will not be able to totally defeat any insurgency.
The domestic insurgency has shown some serious signs of weakening, just look at the Shiite militias and the political solutions found to those problems, in the Sunni regions the same sort of compromises and accomidations are being made which will hopefully end the domestic insurgency. But this will not stop the Jihadists, for whom a free and stable Iraq would be a massive defeat, they will keep fighting even when the US leaves to bring about chaos.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
What BVS says.
Plus he'll mention evil-doers a couple of times.
Plus he'll mention evil-doers a couple of times.
Last edited:
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
I predict castigation over his use of the term evil-doers as subjective followed by mockery of his pronunciation of the word "nuclear".
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i think he'll talk about how hard, (i mean, it is hard) it is to be president. and that he thinks about Iraq, like, *every day* and that he's working really hard, and it is hard, but progress is being made, but, people, it's *hard.*
freedom America freedom terror freedom democracy God.
freedom America freedom terror freedom democracy God.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
freedom America freedom terror freedom democracy God.
It is FYM.
It is FYM.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
NY Times
June 28, 2005
The Speech the President Should Give
By JOHN F. KERRY
TONIGHT President Bush will discuss the situation in Iraq. It's long past time to get it right in Iraq. The Bush administration is courting disaster with its current course - a course with no realistic strategy for reducing the risks to our soldiers and increasing the odds for success.
The reality is that the Bush administration's choices have made Iraq into what it wasn't before the war - a breeding ground for jihadists. Today there are 16,000 to 20,000 jihadists and the number is growing. The administration has put itself - and, tragically, our troops, who pay the price every day - in a box of its own making. Getting out of this box won't be easy, but we owe it to our soldiers to make our best effort.
Our mission in Iraq is harder because the administration ignored the advice of others, went in largely alone, underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency, sent in too few troops to secure the country, destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification, failed to secure ammunition dumps, refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces and did no postwar planning. A little humility would go a long way - coupled with a strategy to succeed.
So what should the president say tonight? The first thing he should do is tell the truth to the American people. Happy talk about the insurgency being in "the last throes" leads to frustrated expectations at home. It also encourages reluctant, sidelined nations that know better to turn their backs on their common interest in keeping Iraq from becoming a failed state.
The president must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq. Erasing suspicions that the occupation is indefinite is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.
He should also say that the United States will insist that the Iraqis establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the Constitution and holding elections in December. We're doing our part: our huge military presence stands between the Iraqi people and chaos, and our special forces protect Iraqi leaders. The Iraqis must now do theirs.
He also needs to put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six-month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget needed to deploy them. The administration and the Iraqi government must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.
The administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones and deadlines for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The plan should be shared with Congress. The guideposts should take into account political and security needs and objectives and be linked to specific tasks and accomplishments. If Iraqis adopt a constitution and hold elections as planned, support for the insurgency should fall and Iraqi security forces should be able to take on more responsibility. It will also set the stage for American forces to begin to come home.
Iraq, of course, badly needs a unified national army, but until it has one - something that our generals now say could take two more years - it should make use of its tribal, religious and ethnic militias like the Kurdish pesh merga and the Shiite Badr Brigade to provide protection and help with reconstruction. Instead of single-mindedly focusing on training a national army, the administration should prod the Iraqi government to fill the current security gap by integrating these militias into a National Guard-type force that can provide security in their own areas.
The administration must work with the Iraqi government to establish a multinational force to help protect its borders. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India.
The deployment of capable security forces is critical, but it alone will not end the insurgency, as the administration would have us believe. Hamstrung by its earlier lack of planning and overly optimistic predictions for rebuilding Iraq, the administration has failed to devote equal attention to working with the Iraqi government on the economic and political fronts. Consequently, reconstruction is lagging even in the relatively secure Shiite south and Kurdish north. If Iraqis, particularly Sunnis who fear being disenfranchised, see electricity flowing, jobs being created, roads and sewers being rebuilt and a democratic government being formed, the allure of the insurgency will decrease.
Iraq's Sunni neighbors, who complain they are left out, could do more to help. Even short-term improvements, like providing electricity and supplying diesel fuel - an offer that the Saudis have made but have yet to fulfill - will go a long way. But we need to give these nations a strategic plan for regional security, acknowledging their fears of an Iran-dominated crescent and their concerns about our fitful mediation between Israel and the Palestinians in return for their help in rebuilding Iraq, protecting its borders, and bringing its Sunnis into the political process.
The next months are critical to Iraq's future and our security. If Mr. Bush fails to take these steps, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, costs rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face. Our troops deserve better: they deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice.
June 28, 2005
The Speech the President Should Give
By JOHN F. KERRY
TONIGHT President Bush will discuss the situation in Iraq. It's long past time to get it right in Iraq. The Bush administration is courting disaster with its current course - a course with no realistic strategy for reducing the risks to our soldiers and increasing the odds for success.
The reality is that the Bush administration's choices have made Iraq into what it wasn't before the war - a breeding ground for jihadists. Today there are 16,000 to 20,000 jihadists and the number is growing. The administration has put itself - and, tragically, our troops, who pay the price every day - in a box of its own making. Getting out of this box won't be easy, but we owe it to our soldiers to make our best effort.
Our mission in Iraq is harder because the administration ignored the advice of others, went in largely alone, underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency, sent in too few troops to secure the country, destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification, failed to secure ammunition dumps, refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces and did no postwar planning. A little humility would go a long way - coupled with a strategy to succeed.
So what should the president say tonight? The first thing he should do is tell the truth to the American people. Happy talk about the insurgency being in "the last throes" leads to frustrated expectations at home. It also encourages reluctant, sidelined nations that know better to turn their backs on their common interest in keeping Iraq from becoming a failed state.
The president must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq. Erasing suspicions that the occupation is indefinite is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.
He should also say that the United States will insist that the Iraqis establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the Constitution and holding elections in December. We're doing our part: our huge military presence stands between the Iraqi people and chaos, and our special forces protect Iraqi leaders. The Iraqis must now do theirs.
He also needs to put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six-month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget needed to deploy them. The administration and the Iraqi government must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.
The administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones and deadlines for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The plan should be shared with Congress. The guideposts should take into account political and security needs and objectives and be linked to specific tasks and accomplishments. If Iraqis adopt a constitution and hold elections as planned, support for the insurgency should fall and Iraqi security forces should be able to take on more responsibility. It will also set the stage for American forces to begin to come home.
Iraq, of course, badly needs a unified national army, but until it has one - something that our generals now say could take two more years - it should make use of its tribal, religious and ethnic militias like the Kurdish pesh merga and the Shiite Badr Brigade to provide protection and help with reconstruction. Instead of single-mindedly focusing on training a national army, the administration should prod the Iraqi government to fill the current security gap by integrating these militias into a National Guard-type force that can provide security in their own areas.
The administration must work with the Iraqi government to establish a multinational force to help protect its borders. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India.
The deployment of capable security forces is critical, but it alone will not end the insurgency, as the administration would have us believe. Hamstrung by its earlier lack of planning and overly optimistic predictions for rebuilding Iraq, the administration has failed to devote equal attention to working with the Iraqi government on the economic and political fronts. Consequently, reconstruction is lagging even in the relatively secure Shiite south and Kurdish north. If Iraqis, particularly Sunnis who fear being disenfranchised, see electricity flowing, jobs being created, roads and sewers being rebuilt and a democratic government being formed, the allure of the insurgency will decrease.
Iraq's Sunni neighbors, who complain they are left out, could do more to help. Even short-term improvements, like providing electricity and supplying diesel fuel - an offer that the Saudis have made but have yet to fulfill - will go a long way. But we need to give these nations a strategic plan for regional security, acknowledging their fears of an Iran-dominated crescent and their concerns about our fitful mediation between Israel and the Palestinians in return for their help in rebuilding Iraq, protecting its borders, and bringing its Sunnis into the political process.
The next months are critical to Iraq's future and our security. If Mr. Bush fails to take these steps, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, costs rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face. Our troops deserve better: they deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
He has no credibility anymore.
It does not matter, much.
His barn storming for his crack pot Social Security Reform failed.
They have misrepresented or flat out lied too many times.
put a fork in him, he's done.
It does not matter, much.
His barn storming for his crack pot Social Security Reform failed.
They have misrepresented or flat out lied too many times.
put a fork in him, he's done.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
deep said:
oh, Deep, be nice.
it's really HARD to be president! did you hear that? he said it was hard work.
and he thinks about Iraq *every day.* he works on Saturdays too, and i hear he even came in on Sunday once.
you're just a Bush hater, as is everyone and anyone who holds a view contrary to our Dear Leader.
sulawesigirl4
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Anytime I am listening to the radio (BBC Worldservice) and they have a clip where Bush talks, I turn it off. I can't stand listening to his lying, whining, good-ol-boy, bullshit blahblah any more. And I don't HAVE to. Man, I 
the OFF button.
the OFF button.
unosdostres14
Refugee
lol Irvine...you're incredible...If i were gay, I'd fall deeply in love with you like *that* (snaps fingers)
As for what Bush will say? I think it'll go something like this:
TERRORISM TERRORISM
9/11 9/11 9/11
GOD BLESS AMERICA! (well only the non-gay, Christian, NRA member, Iraq war supporters of America)
As for what Bush will say? I think it'll go something like this:
TERRORISM TERRORISM
9/11 9/11 9/11
GOD BLESS AMERICA! (well only the non-gay, Christian, NRA member, Iraq war supporters of America)
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
He's scheduled to talk about Iraq. The polls show that support for the Iraq effort is falling and he wants to change that. This administration isn't good at communication, I doubt if a speech can change the polls.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Does it matter what GWB says? Based on some of the comments, people seem clear as to what they will hear.
Golightly Grrl
Refugee
I have a two hour yoga class tonight so I won't be watching Bush's speech. However, I am taping this show on PBS tonight:
http://www.pbs.org/opb/thenewheroes/
Here's a brief blurb on what the show is about:
"The New Heroes tells the dramatic stories of 14 daring people from all corners of the globe who, against all odds, are successfully alleviating poverty and illness, combating unemployment and violence, and bringing education, light, opportunity and freedom to poor and marginalized people around the world.
Also known as "social entrepreneurs," they develop innovations that bring life-changing tools and resources to people desperate for viable solutions. What is possible? You'd be surprised. Take a journey into a world where people take action to make a big difference."
http://www.pbs.org/opb/thenewheroes/
Here's a brief blurb on what the show is about:
"The New Heroes tells the dramatic stories of 14 daring people from all corners of the globe who, against all odds, are successfully alleviating poverty and illness, combating unemployment and violence, and bringing education, light, opportunity and freedom to poor and marginalized people around the world.
Also known as "social entrepreneurs," they develop innovations that bring life-changing tools and resources to people desperate for viable solutions. What is possible? You'd be surprised. Take a journey into a world where people take action to make a big difference."
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
nbcrusader said:
I think we're just going by his previous attempts at addressing the nation. When you're 10 for 10 on saying the same exact thing, it's hard to believe the 11th time will be any different.
Sherry Darling
New Yorker
Damn....I counted...it did not even take him 5 seconds to mention 9/11
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Dreadsox said:
He had support from ALL sides after 9/11.
najeena
War Child
Trying, yet again, to link 9/11 to the war in Iraq is the only straw he has to grasp.
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
Reminds me of that Manic Street Preachers lyric...."and on the street tonight an old man plays with newspaper cuttings of his glory days..."
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
I think that it is a fine speech, and tying Iraq as a battle in the GWOT is a legitimate point, the two are entwined, removing obstacles to democracy and liberty in the region does a favour in the fight against radical Islam. This is not saying that Saddam was behind 9/11, it is stating that a free and democratic Iraq is a bullwark against Islamism and can help catalyse democratic change throughout the region.
Anyhow
for the speech, it adresses the points that I outlined in my prior post.
Anyhow
for the speech, it adresses the points that I outlined in my prior post.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
A_Wanderer said:
Define 'Islamism'.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
The political movement within the Islamic world that holds Islam is not strictly a religion but also a political system that holds divine authority. The Deobandi's are an example of Islamists, the Taliban regime was Islamist in nature. Bin Laden is an an Islamist and Al Qaeda and many other Islamic terrorist groups subscribe to an Islamist ideolgy. Things like restoring the caliphate by toppling the current regimes in the Islamic world, reconquering territory lost centuries ago like Andalusia, creating pan-Islamic states ~ so a group like Jemaah Islamia would see Indonesia, Malaysia and the Southern Phillipines all be melded into a theocratic superstate.
Support for these groups - the neoconservative movement maintains - is due to despiration born not out of US foreign policy or the existence of Israel, rather the absence of political freedoms in their own countries which leads to a resentment that is adventageous to groups that offer any alternative to the nationalist governments of the region.
A free and democratic middle east would mean that people have political and social freedoms, avenues to express themselves and get proportional representation. The great thing about a democracy is that it is usually effective in marginalising extremists as their ideas are scrutinised and the people have a say against it.
Support for these groups - the neoconservative movement maintains - is due to despiration born not out of US foreign policy or the existence of Israel, rather the absence of political freedoms in their own countries which leads to a resentment that is adventageous to groups that offer any alternative to the nationalist governments of the region.
A free and democratic middle east would mean that people have political and social freedoms, avenues to express themselves and get proportional representation. The great thing about a democracy is that it is usually effective in marginalising extremists as their ideas are scrutinised and the people have a say against it.
Last edited:
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
A_Wanderer said:
'Usually effective in marginalising extremists'
Indeed.
Similar threads
