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

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.

Colorado Ryder

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...tory?id=1565032

Chance3290

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.

__________________
Please, don't MOO at the cows. It only confuses them.

wolfix

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.

__________________
"I rule my world with a cellphone."

wolfix

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.

__________________
"I rule my world with a cellphone."

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."

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

Chance3290

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 crap out of any foreign leader. Mr T as Sec of State.

__________________
Please, don't MOO at the cows. It only confuses them.

Colorado Ryder

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

limerickman

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

Don't shoot the messenger.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

Colorado Ryder

But Mr. Tisdall isn't. Thank God.

limerickman

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

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.