|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
Bush's rotten speech
 Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:41 am
|
 |
|
Soldiers begrudgingly clapped for Bush but only after encouragement from Bush moles strategically scattered about the audience. The speech would be best described using the title of one of Motley Crue's famous songs, "Same 'Ole Situation". He as always avoided answering the important questions because quite frankly there apparently are no feasible explanations. I really don't see this jacked up talk boosting his abysmal approval ratings either. Jokes like Hannity are trying their best to make the best of this failed attempt at damage control but their deflation is transparent. Newt Gingrich comically stated that Bush's speech was reminiscent of George Washington and his aura of perseverance. Only those on the far right that have been fully brainwashed and programmed by the CIA led media will be persuaded by this latest republican dog and pony show. In other words, the lock-step Maverick goon types out there that have eagerly released their responsibility to think for themselves to those that can't be trusted.
http://www.dailykos.com/
quote:
ABC's Terry Moran just reported that the only time Bush got applause was in the middle of his speech when a White House advance team member started clapping all on their own in order to cajole the soldiers into clapping, which they dutifully did.
So even the applause was fake.
quote:
Update: Apparently, Fox reported the 'fake applause' bit as well. Double ouch.
Not much of a rebound from his fabricated presentation of lies and deception.
quote:
Bush's 50-state approvals
by kos
Tue Jun 28th, 2005 at 18:19:53 PDT
SurveyUSA is kicking ass on these 50-state polls. The latest is Bush's approval ratings everywhere in our great country.
The bottom line, Bush is at 50 percent or above in only 11 states -- Utah (63), Nebraska (60), Wyoming (5 , Idaho (56), Montana (56), Alabama (54), Alaska (53), North Dakota (52), Kansas (51), Kentucky (50), Mississippi (50), and Texas (50).
He's at 40 percent or lower in 14 states -- Ohio (40), Wisconsin (40), Maine (39), Massachusetts (39), Delaware (3, Nevada (3, New Jersey (3, Michigan (3, California (37), Connecticut (37), Illinois (37), New York (33), Rhode Island (33), and Vermont (32).
The weighted average (based on each state's percentage of the US population) is 43 approve, 53 disapprove.
Lots of Red States experiencing a rash of buyer's remorse.
Bush's hits and misses.
quote:
References to "September 11?: 5
References to "weapons of mass destruction": 0
References to "freedom": 21
References to "exit strategy": 0
References to "Saddam Hussein": 2
References to "Osama Bin Laden": 2
References to "a mistake": 1 (setting a timetable for withdrawal)
References to "mission": 11
References to "mission accomplished": 0
_________________
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive" |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:50 am
|
|
|
quote:
I didn't see anything like that one their site..first time I've ever been there.
One of the bloggers probably heard it from one of the Fox News commentators on TV and then relayed the message on to their site. Whoever the Fox employee was, he'll probably soon be looking for a new job.
quote:
I feel contaminated.
Yeah, visting the Fox website inspires "The Crying Game" shower scene type of reaction. You just feel like you've done something very dirty and that you need to scrub yourself clean and ask for forgiveness.
_________________
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive" |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:52 am
|
|
|
quote:
People are not very pleased.
Where? At the Fox site? Whaddya mean? What are those rabid right-wingers bitching about now I wonder?
_________________
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive" |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:03 pm
|
|
|
http://www.bushflash.com/right.html
_________________
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive" |
| |
|
|
Et in Arcadia ego
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 2166
Location: The Void |
|
Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:55 pm
|
|
|
Bush at Fort Bragg—fear-mongering, lies and desperation
Editorial Board Statement
29 June 2005
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
President Bush’s speech before a captive audience of 740 troops at Fort Bragg, North Carolina Tuesday night was a repellant spectacle. It combined the pack of lies that the country has heard over and over again for nearly four years with appeals to backwardness, ignorance and fear, all intended to quash the mounting popular opposition to the war in Iraq.
Filled with non sequiturs and self-contradictory arguments, the speech asserted yet again that the unprovoked US invasion and occupation of Iraq were in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, and that Iraq remained the frontline in the “global war on terror.”
Is it really necessary to answer these bogus claims yet again? These were the arguments the administration attempted to sell to the American people before the invasion, manufacturing phony intelligence about meetings between Iraqi agents and Al Qaeda that were debunked well before the first troops were sent in.
Once again Bush employed the injunction that we not forget “the lessons of September 11.” But what are those lessons? No Iraqis were involved in the 9/11 attack, and there was no link between the organizers of that crime and the regime in Baghdad. If there is anything to be learned, it is that the Bush administration seized upon the hijack-bombings—or allowed them to take place—as a pretext for executing longstanding plans to conquer Iraq and its vast oil wealth.
The central justification given when the war was launched—the alleged threat from Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction”—went entirely unmentioned in Bush’s half-hour address.
Bush now casts the war and the continuing occupation of Iraq as a struggle for freedom and democracy. But his speech testified to the disintegration of democratic processes within the United States itself.
He appeared before massed troops, under discipline to sit through his lies and stupidities. He addressed the nation not from the Oval Office, as a democratically elected leader, but from Fort Bragg, so as to project the image of a war-time “commander-in-chief.” Under Bush, this designation has been transformed from an affirmation of civilian control over the military to a byword for militarism and an imperial presidency answerable neither to the law nor the populace.
The basic assumption of those who wrote the speech was that the American people are nothing but fools who can be endlessly manipulated. In an attempt to dissuade the majority of Americans from their well-founded conclusion that the war should never have been launched and withdrawal should begin, Bush claimed “we have made significant progress” over the past year.
He chose the date of his speech to coincide with the first anniversary of what was proclaimed the “handover of sovereignty” to an Iraqi regime headed by a former CIA agent. This was but one of numerous “turning points” that produced only growing resistance and carnage. Since that date, more than 900 US troops have been killed, along with uncounted thousands of Iraqi civilians.
The number of daily attacks and the number of US troops killed over the past month both stand at nearly double what they were a year ago. For the Iraqi people themselves, the conditions of life are worse now than they were a year ago. Violence is endemic, with the US occupation forces and their Iraqi puppets controlling nothing outside of Baghdad’s heavily fortified “Green Zone.”
Less power is being generated today than a year ago, with most people having electricity for only six to eight hours a day. Clean water and adequate sanitary facilities are lacking, producing widespread illness, particularly among children. And at least 40 percent of the population remains unemployed.
Added to these horrendous conditions is the oppression of foreign occupation, with Iraqis deprived of all essential democratic rights—including the right of life itself—by an all-powerful US military force. There is no “sovereignty” under conditions in which 140,000 American troops are deployed in Iraq.
These are the conditions that have given rise to mass resistance which the American military has proven powerless to stop.
Bush’s attempt to dismiss this resistance as the work of “foreign fighters” and “ruthless killers converging on Iraq” is ridiculous. The American military now runs a vast prison system in Iraq, holding well over 10,000 so-called “security detainees.” Out of these, barely a few hundred are non-Iraqis.
As for the “foreign fighters,” Bush noted that they “have come from Saudi Arabia and Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya.” These are countries whose people share with the Iraqis common language, culture and history of anti-colonial struggle. If they are “foreigners,” what are the US troops?
Describing the enemy that the US occupation army confronts in Iraq, Bush declared: “They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of warfare or morality.”
He could well have been talking about his own government, which launched an illegal war of aggression that has claimed an estimated 100,000 Iraqi lives. It has used bombs, missiles and napalm against civilian targets, and reduced Fallujah, a city of 300,000, to ruins. On a daily basis it carries out raids, killing innocent civilians and detaining others.
To justify these crimes with a load of Manichaean rubbish—presenting US imperialism’s dirty colonial war as a struggle for “good” against “evil”—is to appeal to everything that is backward, ignorant and fearful in America.
“We fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand,” Bush said. If Iraq is where people are “making their stand,” it is because it is their country, and they will never accept its conquest.
Bush made the unlikely claim that the bloody catastrophe in Iraq is inspiring people throughout the Middle East. If anything, the events there have provoked mass revulsion and outrage in the region. Bush sought to claim credit for elections in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon, though votes in the former have been taking place for several years, and in the latter for decades.
There was, underlying the specious claims of progress and vows to “complete the mission,” a definite strain of desperation. Bush has often chosen to use soldiers as extras in his televised performances, but this time his audience was somber, interrupting his speech with restrained applause just once—and then at the prompting of a White House advance man. No doubt, back-to-back tours in Iraq and the prospect—enunciated by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld—of a dozen more years of fighting has dampened enthusiasm within the ranks.
The speech concluded with an appeal for American youth to consider a “military career”—a bit of hustling for the military that was prompted by a disastrous decline in recruitment, posing before the Pentagon the potential shipwreck of the all-volunteer army.
At the same time, Bush invoked the need for “sacrifice,” without ever spelling out what he meant. He suggested merely that Americans fly the flag on the 4th of July to show their support for the troops. Nowhere in his speech did he acknowledge that nearly 1,750 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, or that his administration has expended approximately $200 billion on the war.
The clear implication, however, was that the killing and dying, and the squandering of vast sums will continue indefinitely. The speech constituted a warning. The American ruling elite is not about to accept another Vietnam. It has no intention of allowing popular opposition to force an end to the war.
This is not to deny the existence of divisions within the political establishment over the conduct of this war. The Democrats have emerged as the faction pushing for more decisive action and criticizing the administration for mismanaging the war effort. No less than the Republicans, they are committed to “completing the mission” in Iraq, i.e., subjugating its people by military force and assuring US hegemony over the oil-rich Persian Gulf.
The Democrats’ chief foreign policy spokesman Senator Joe Biden praised Bush for speaking to the American people on Iraq, declaring, “Unless we regain their support, we’re in real trouble.” He repeatedly warned that there are not enough US soldiers on the ground, and suggested that more force is needed to do the job.
While the mass media interrupted their prime time schedules to broadcast Bush’s speech, some commentators expressed concerns afterwards that the president had failed to supply any new arguments or policies to reverse the sharp decline in support for the war. This failure is not a matter of poor speechwriting. Like it or not, the administration confronts an objective reality in Iraq where everything it has asserted or predicted has been refuted by events.
In concluding his remarks, Bush declared, “When the history of this period is written, the liberation of Afghanistan and the liberation of Iraq will be remembered as great turning points in the story of freedom.” On the contrary, when the history of these events is written, the US interventions will be cited as turning points in the resurgence of naked imperialist aggression on a scale not witnessed since the fall of Germany’s Third Reich.
The decisive issue posed by the eruption of American militarism is the need for the building of a political movement against war, independent of the Democrats and Republicans and based on the American working people. Such a movement must begin with the demand for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq. It must reject the entire fraud of the “war on terror,” and insist that all those who conspired to launch the war in Iraq be held responsible both politically and criminally.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jun2005/bush-j29.shtml
_________________
"If the President has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution." |
| |
|
|
Et in Arcadia ego
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 2166
Location: The Void |
|
Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:33 pm
|
|
|
When you apply critical thought to this whole situation you can catch the gleamings of a masterful Dialectic at work.
Indulge me in a 'fictional' drama:
A fictional administration has a long term agenda. What this agenda actually is, whether it's the removal of all capable men & women between the ages of 17-35 for the purpose of installing a foriegn police force or the Christinsanity-based synthesis of biblical Amageddon is beside the point.
Here we're interested in 'How to win friends & influence people via Hegelian Dialectic'.
So, a sub-agenda for this would be the re-instatement of the Draft. This fictional Administration is very much aware of the fact that it's country is seriously opposed to such an endeavor, so it determines how to accomplish it while keeping it's own image as untarnished as possible.
While making a strategic error in under-assesing the number needed for ground troops to be successful in counter-'terrorist' engagements isn't the best thing a fictional Commander in Chief could do, it's far less despicable than directly re-instating a Draft. This fictional Commander in Chief has always been vocally against the Draft, but secretly requires it for the full Agenda.
So you have an engagement where the troop numbers are lower than is permissable for sustained success. You have events where very high authorities claims a 'last throes' enviornment is occuring. This is contrasted with diametrically opposed statements by the military commanders directly overseeing this conflict. In a conflict situation, anyone with common sense is inclined to listen to the feedback of those embeded in the theater of combat. This is re-inforced by raw numbers suggesting that this 'terrorist' activity is unsurpassed & self-sustaining.
One walks away from this contradiction convinced that those in charge are in a 'state of delusion'.
This is a gross miscalculation of logic. It's exactly what this fictional Adminstration wants one to believe. The reason for that becomes self evident when outcries against this fictional Administration by other government servants begin to call out for more troops. It becomes evident when you see a Bill for re-instating the draft is placed on the table for debate in Congress.
This fictional Administration says, "Hell no, forget the Draft!". But it's *seemingly* incompetent decisions manipulate it's critics to DEMAND a Draft as they see it as the only way to shorten a 'quagmire' situation. In this way, the fictional Adminstration achieves it's original goals and places credit for such controversy squarly upon the shoulders of it's loudest detractors. In this way, those in chains crawl forth on their knees begging to be bound even further. In this way elected officials feel the only way to minimize loss of life for their constituents is to 'sacrifice' more of them in the hopes of overwhelming brute force accomplishing a goal that from the begining had no intended resolution.
A peerless Hegelian Dialectic successfully applied.
Fictionally speaking of course.
I would never accuse the current Administration of implementing such underhanded tactics. Were one to believe such a thing, they'd soon be finding themselves believing all sorts of rubbish like 9/11 bieng an inside job. One might even lend credibility to these outrageous assertions that things like the NWO are valid and Bilderbergers annually urinate on a chessboard comprised of pieces representing you, me, and all our government created adversaries.
Or even that persistent contrailss are not water vapor.
God Forbid.
_________________
"If the President has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution." |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:13 pm
|
|
|
Know-This:"Only those on the far right that have been fully brainwashed and programmed by the CIA led media will be persuaded by this latest republican dog and pony show."
This is shortsighted.
Plenty of brainwashed, and programmed nitwits on THE LEFT...just as much as there are on the right.
John Kerry won't save you.
Bill Clinton won't save you.
They are all going along with the NWO agenda. |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:35 pm
|
|
|
Of course there are NWO stooges on the left, just less of them. As the record showed of who voted for The Patriot Act and the war, there was a much higher percentage of Righties voting for it.
Generally, the left is fighting Bushco more than the right.
I don't see Clinton or Kerry as "Liberals". They are moderate Republicans.
I'll say it again, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Both are the Real Deal.
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
David
Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 1381
|
|
Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:52 pm
|
|
|
A pack of fools led by a beady eyed, swaggering, alcoholic junkie named bush feeding us the same tired lines over and over again.
I vote revolt, national revolt. A good old fashioned overthrow should go nicely.Then trials for treason and high crimes followed by appropriate punishment. If we don't do it some other country will and we won't like the outcome.
Nothing this weasely puke does is legal and he should be made to answer for his crimes. He is truley a pimple on the face of humanity. |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:35 am
|
|
|
quote:
This is shortsighted.
Plenty of brainwashed, and programmed nitwits on THE LEFT...just as much as there are on the right.
John Kerry won't save you.
Bill Clinton won't save you.
They are all going along with the NWO agenda.
I stand behind what I said. I wouldn't expect Kerry or Clinton to save me. The point is, the speech was clearly intended to secure the confidence of those on the far right, the few that still believe in this war and even a draft. That was the target audience of this speech and that's all I said. It has nothing to do with whether or not there are still those on the left being misled as well. I was talking specifically about the reactions to this speech in particular. I do know one thing though, a Kucinich and what he stands for could never even exist in the Republican Party.
This speech was obviouly designed to energize the republican base, the die-hard loyalists. The only ones still likely to believe anything that he says anymore. That group represents his current wavering 40% approval rate in the polls. That's what I was elduding to.
_________________
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive" |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 3:05 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
