• This site moved from forums.flightinfo.com to flightinfo.com. Please update your bookmarks.

Speaking of speeches...

T

Traumahawk

This column should be required reading for anyone buying W's mantra of bull.

Ruth, A coulumnist in Tampa, well respected by both political circles...



W's Catapult Loaded And Ready To Fly

DANIEL RUTH


W ithin political circles, when one is said to have ``gone off message,'' it generally means the poor hapless pol had the misfortune of inadvertently committing veracity.


No good comes from this.

Thus it was the case for President Bush during one of his insufferably interminable town hall meetings May 24 to tout his scheme to privatize the Social Security system.

This quote has not gotten a great deal of attention, largely because it was uttered deep into the Colossus of Crawford's opening remarks when the audience had probably fallen into a deeper frozen stupor than Ted Williams.

The leader of the free world opined: ``See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.''



No Link

On Tuesday night, the presidential propaganda catapult was locked and loaded and ready to fling all manner of ... stuff.

No fewer than five times did the Clauswitz of the Beltway directly invoke the memory of the Sept. 11 attacks in a declasse attempt to stir up public support for the U.S. military's ongoing presence in Iraq, which so far has claimed more than 1,740 American lives.

Five times Sept. 11 was referred to, in addition to numerous other more subtle references to one of America's darkest days linking the tragedy to Saddam Hussein and yet not once did the Sun Tsu of Texas mention the yet to be discovered weapons of mass of destruction, which was the Bush Administration's primary - and highly dubious - predicate for going to war with Iraq in 2003.

Indeed even though there has never been any links between the regime of Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks, Bush persisted in relating the two Tuesday night, going so far to describe the deposed Iraqi leader as an `'ally of al-Qaida,'' despite the fact the 9/11 Commission could find no connection between Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

All presidential speeches are moments of political theater - some vaudeville, some Old Vic.



Patient People

So it's understandable why the Bush handlers would conclude having the commander-in-mischief delivering a prime time speech from Fort Bragg, the home of the 82nd Airborne Division, would look swell.

But don't these men and woman in uniform, whose lives have been put at risk by this president and his parallel universe inner circle of Gen. Halftracks, deserve better than being treated as photo-op props for a president with more credibility problems than Ted Baxter?

There is a painfully elegant reason why the Bush White House is suffering from plummeting job approval ratings as well as a growing distrust over the handling of the Iraq war and its aftermath.

As the Fourth of July weekend approaches we are reminded that Americans have always been willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice and die for their country.

But this country isn't willing to die for a lie; it isn't willing to fill up body bags with the war game- fuled hubris.

We're a patient people. We still want to think the best of our leaders.

But after more than two years it has finally dawned on the body politic that America was led into a war on a tissue of conceited deceits; a war expected to be fought on the cheap; a war for which the rationale has become an alibi du jour and a war with less of an exit strategy than a Chinese fire drill.

The American people didn't need another ``my dog ate the war plans'' political speech from its president Tuesday night. It's needed, for once, some honesty. If George Bush wanted an appropriate military setting to speak to the country, he had the perfect backdrop in his own backyard - the Vietnam Memorial, as poignant a tribute to bravery as you'll find in this country as well as the high price of quagmires, too.

This story can be found at: http://tampatrib.com/News/columns/MGBJLMFNLAE.html
 

fugghedabowdit

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2004
Posts
207
Total Time
10000
Amen.

The thought of another 3 1/2 years of this guy makes me want to vomit. This is coming from someone who voted for him in 2000.
 
Last edited:

GogglesPisano

Pawn, in game of life
Joined
Oct 20, 2003
Posts
3,939
Total Time
enough
Traumahawk said:
The leader of the free world opined: ``See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.''
He didn't really say this did he? I'm surprised Karl Rove's head didn't explode.
 

MJG

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Posts
580
Total Time
7000+
Check out:

http://dubyaspeak.com/

Bush is a daily embarrassment to this country. January 2009 can't come fast enough.
 
Last edited:

tuna pimp

carbon neutral
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Posts
228
Total Time
-
Wow, you're right. Bush does sometimes mangle his words. I saw the funny Bushspeak daily calendar at the mall too.
Despite this, I'd take George W Bush over Bill Clinton strutting around the Oval Office with his pants around his ankles any day.
 

DrewBlows

Go Tigers!
Joined
Jun 25, 2003
Posts
2,031
Total Time
4500
tuna pimp said:
Wow, you're right. Bush does sometimes mangle his words. I saw the funny Bushspeak daily calendar at the mall too.
Despite this, I'd take George W Bush over Bill Clinton strutting around the Oval Office with his pants around his ankles any day.
You have a bigger problem with a guy getting a bj than a guy getting over 1700 Americans killed? It's about values isn't it.
 

SkyBoy1981

Bring a towel!
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Posts
1,482
Total Time
5000
Here's an idea...if these "intelligent" left wing liberals are as wise as they seem to think that they are, then why the hell can't they spend their time coming up with a few constructive solutions? They bash Bush, they bash the war, they bash everything, but they never offer alternatives. Instead they resort to making websites to poke fun of the President's grammatical errors.
 

GogglesPisano

Pawn, in game of life
Joined
Oct 20, 2003
Posts
3,939
Total Time
enough
SkyBoy1981 said:
Here's an idea...if these "intelligent" left wing liberals are as wise as they seem to think that they are, then why the hell can't they spend their time coming up with a few constructive solutions? They bash Bush, they bash the war, they bash everything, but they never offer alternatives. Instead they resort to making websites to poke fun of the President's grammatical errors.
Here are some suggestions:

1) How about not tossing aside the world's good will towards us after 9-11 and squandering all of our credibility by making a 90 degree turn and attacking a country that had nothing to do with 911?

2) How about holding someone accountable for the "bad intelligence" that led to #1? (Even though we know that bad intel had nothing to do with the decision to go to war.)

3) How about not mentioning 911 when invoking support for the Iraq War? Unless the neo-cons are cynical enough to believe that the gullible masses in this country still buy it.

4) How about waking up to the fact that pollution contributes to global warming and "we won't sign on to Kyoto because it might harm our economy" is a pretty selfish excuse. (Why won't every other country say that?)

5) How about realizing the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo might come back to haunt us someday?
 

Goose Egg

Big Jens
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
1,719
Total Time
3k-ish
Traumahawk said:
Thus it was the case for President Bush during one of his insufferably interminable town hall meetings...
Is there any other kind of town hall meeting?

Anyway, those are some interesting points, but I'm not quite sure what it has to do with regional airlines. Let's keep it in the right forum, eh?

-Goose
 

Foldem

Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Posts
10
Total Time
1300
I think the concern about the left wing whatever you are looking to hear from involves the choice of liberals that make it on the air as opposed to the validity of ideas.

Jeannine Garafalo and Alec Baldwin aren't the most informed or interesting people to speak for that side of the acceptable spectrum of public debate.

Go find some left wing person writing outside of mainstream media, you might like some of the ideas. Maybe agree with others.

I'd be called liberal, though conservative, and find that I learn more by reading the opposing side of an argument than something I agree with.
 

Smacktard

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Posts
967
Total Time
4000+
Foldem said:
I think the concern about the left wing whatever you are looking to hear from involves the choice of liberals that make it on the air as opposed to the validity of ideas.
'Make it on the air' seems to be the problem with that statement. Jenneane and company are being propped up and Air America's track record shows it (in the red). The problem is the message. They've got lots of beef against the current administration (which is appealing to first time left leaning listeners) but when it comes to solutions, ideals, goals etc, they fall woefully short. It's the same everywhere. Liberals do better when they run as moderates. Why don't they run on what they believe in? ie, guvment...we're the answer.
 

Ralph Cramden

Took the Red Pill
Joined
May 7, 2005
Posts
351
Total Time
2much
What I want is an education for my kids, health care for my aging parents, safe communities to live in, well run low cost utilities and safe roads.

Bush has given us $2+ gas, war in Iraq, the TSA, massive national debt and the Patriot Act (what do you read at the library?). Every time a bush is in power the oil companies get rich while everyone else looses their job and goes broke.

Why do we have to treat each other as if the other guy is Ossama bin Laden? Where is OBL anyway? Bush doesn't want to catch him or it would upset his hand holding pals that run Saudia Arabia.
 

SkyBoy1981

Bring a towel!
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Posts
1,482
Total Time
5000
GogglesPisano said:
Here are some suggestions:

1) How about not tossing aside the world's good will towards us after 9-11 and squandering all of our credibility by making a 90 degree turn and attacking a country that had nothing to do with 911?

2) How about holding someone accountable for the "bad intelligence" that led to #1? (Even though we know that bad intel had nothing to do with the decision to go to war.)

3) How about not mentioning 911 when invoking support for the Iraq War? Unless the neo-cons are cynical enough to believe that the gullible masses in this country still buy it.

4) How about waking up to the fact that pollution contributes to global warming and "we won't sign on to Kyoto because it might harm our economy" is a pretty selfish excuse. (Why won't every other country say that?)

5) How about realizing the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo might come back to haunt us someday?
So how do you suggest that we deal with terrorists? Iraq is certainly not free from terrorists or people that would love nothing more than to cause harm to our country.
 
T

Traumahawk

Either is any other country...are you still missing the point everyone above is making??
 

Cracker

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2003
Posts
88
Total Time
Enough
The 'point' that is illustrated by this thread is that you can support both sides of an argument very well with well picked "facts" and quotes. Just be sure that you listen to the other "facts" to see how they compare with your "facts".

That is why this political season was really good. Most educated adults don't want to simply follow thier leader blindly without anything to base it on. Both sides of the aisle have given compelling arguments to support thier ideas.

Besides, you don't win elections by illustrating how you correct you are. You win them by showing how wrong the other candidate is.
 

Smacktard

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Posts
967
Total Time
4000+
Ralph Cramden said:
What I want is an education for my kids, health care for my aging parents, safe communities to live in, well run low cost utilities and safe roads.

Bush has given us $2+ gas, war in Iraq, the TSA, massive national debt and the Patriot Act (what do you read at the library?). Every time a bush is in power the oil companies get rich while everyone else looses their job and goes broke.

Education. We spend more per student than almost every other country on the planet, yet our performance is below that of most other civilized countries on the planet. Bush gave you that? I'd argue that politics, unions and the government being involved in education is to blame for that. Which side do those unions vote on? Which side have they voted on for 50 plus years? Pull your head out.

Health Care. We have the best medicine on the planet, without some control of the massive effects of litigation and high insurance, there isn't any one person to blame for its problems, least of all Bush. As for us caring for your elderly parents, they're the ones that put us in the this situation. You can't create a system of health care that is paid for by those coming behind you. The numbers are showing us the result of that plan.

The TSA. Agree with you completely, Bush caved to the democrat notion that it would be a unionized government agency.

The national debt. So the end of the 90's and high tech firms with over-inflated values had nothing to do with that? What do you think Clinton's budgets were based on? The bubble popped, the economy right sized itself and the Democrats were screaming that the Republicans were going to starve the elderly when they repubs introduced budgets that were only set to grow 5% as opposed the earlier 8%, according to the dems this was a cut of 3% but the program was still growing. Bush sent ridiculously high budgets over to the house and they gleefully kept the money flowing. He certainly hasn't been the most spend thrift Pres. But surely you can't place all the blame at Bush's feet. The culture of the 90's had more to do with that than Bush's 9 months in office before it all came to a screaching halt.

The war in Iraq. While highly debatable, will have some long term effects on keeping at bay those THAT WANT INNOCENT CIVILIANS TO DIE BECAUSE WE DONT SEE THINGS THEIR WAY. You're forgetting that eventually the terrorists will have to be dealt with. They're aren't going to go away. Should we let them fester for another decade and then maybe they can kill 100,000 in one shot? Or should we negotiate with them and sent them money to keep them quite? Clinton tried the 'turn the head the other way' method and look where it got us.

Oil Companies. Ahh, the old Bush is paying back his croonies and Halibuton is getting rich tactic. How about the environmentalists preventing the construction of ONE SINGLE NEW OIL REFINERY in this country since the late 70's? Think that might have some affect on the price of gas? The Gulf of Mexico is getting hit with a hurricane this week, the refineries are shutting down. Gas is up! One refinery has a fire and closes for 3 days, the price of oil is up. Hmmm, maybe we should build a few new refineries the help ease the burden. No way, not here, it might hurt the spotted squirrel.

Typical liberal rants without any solutions other than Bush lied. Time to face the facts, the democrats had control of house and senate for 40 years prior to 1994, with Presidents in half of those years. Do you think those policies might have had some bearing on the state of our nation today? Education, Health Care, Economy, Terrorists. You name it. Sure Bush has had screw ups but how else do expect to undo decades of abuse by the big government/you're not responsible for your own well-being mentality of the Democrats?
 

PCL_128

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Posts
15,296
Total Time
5000+
Traumahawk said:
Either is any other country...are you still missing the point everyone above is making??
No one is making a point at all on your side. You all just continue to yell that "Bush lied, people died," and "No blood for oil!" How 'bout (and I know this is very revolutionary for you crazy libs) you try offering some other solutions to the problems instead of just b!tching and whining? I have yet to hear any liberal offer a solution on the Iraq war, yet you all continue to complain. Whenever a liberal is asked whether they think we should leave Iraq, they always say that "No, we can't just leave now. Bush already got us in there. We have to finish it now." Of course, they never say how they would be doing anything differently, they just continue to whine and shout slogans dreamed up by Micky Moore and Ted "I didn't drown that girl" Kennedy. So please Traumahawk, tell us in your great wisdom how you would fix everything in Iraq and fight the war on terror. I wait with great anticipation.
 

PBRstreetgang

Registered Abuser
Joined
Mar 4, 2002
Posts
3,241
Total Time
Total
GogglesPisano said:
He didn't really say this did he? I'm surprised Karl Rove's head didn't explode.
He did, it is really quite simple, the liberal press were using unauthorized bluetooth technology which interfered with W's earpiece-speechdelivery unit.
Rove was unable to pull the puppet strings and make the dummie dance, tragic really, W had to rely on his own intellect to create speech material.
BAAAHAAA
PBR
 
T

Traumahawk

PCL_128 said:
No one is making a point at all on your side. You all just continue to yell that "Bush lied, people died," and "No blood for oil!" How 'bout (and I know this is very revolutionary for you crazy libs) you try offering some other solutions to the problems instead of just b!tching and whining? I have yet to hear any liberal offer a solution on the Iraq war, yet you all continue to complain. Whenever a liberal is asked whether they think we should leave Iraq, they always say that "No, we can't just leave now. Bush already got us in there. We have to finish it now." Of course, they never say how they would be doing anything differently, they just continue to whine and shout slogans dreamed up by Micky Moore and Ted "I didn't drown that girl" Kennedy. So please Traumahawk, tell us in your great wisdom how you would fix everything in Iraq and fight the war on terror. I wait with great anticipation.
(First of all...this stereotypical crap you put forth, and your thought process, god help the people who fly with you. Really, I can't imagine some of this doesn't transfer over.)



NOW.....

Let me say this ONE MORE TIME...because you, and a few others are very, very, very slow.

We went to Iraq because Bush led everyone into thinking terrorists would get their hands on Iraq's W of MD!!!
THATS IT! PERIOD. PARAGRAPH.

WE FOUND NONE. Now, look at what we have. It's a mess, and it was an unplanned mess.

Heres couple couple quotes from the beggining of this false advertising campaign. Bush was having a lot of trouble selling the notion of going to Iraq before 9/11. Soon after, he had a reason. Much like Daley trying to close Meigs before and after 9/11.

BEFORE 9/11

24 Feb 2001 - [size=-1]In Cairo, Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."[/size]


7 Aug 2001 - [size=-1]President George W Bush declares: "He's been a menace forever, and we will do -- he needs to open his country up for inspection, so we can see whether or not he's developing weapons of mass destruction."[/size]

AFTER 9/11- Pretty much, in terms of time, overnite,
and we see this...

26 Aug 2002 - [size=-1]Vice President Dick Cheney declares: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."[/size]

Nov 2002 - [size=-1]During a speech at the Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport, President George W Bush declares: "This is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, promised he wouldn't have them. He's got them... He said he wouldn't have chemical weapons, he's got them."[/size]


But there were none. A lot of sand. A lot of dust. A lot of bull.

I am not the president. You aren't either...(thank god). Bush was elected as President. His job, is to do what is in the best interest of the American People. (so u don't have to come onto flightinfo and ask me what to do)
Iraq was not in the best interest of our Nation, but even if it HAD been an honest mistake, what the H$LL kind of strategy did the people, who's jobs are to come up with valid warplans, come up with???

They thought it would be a quick win. They were wrong.
Do you remember "Mission Accomplished"?? Do you? Well, not quite.

This is not ONLY your country sir. And it's not only Bush's or the people who supported him for reasons BEFORE this mess. We went there without the support of the country, and without the support of the world. And to put it plainly, I don't care WHERE you get your news.....uh, we got caught with our pants down. Mass bombings, shootings, an enemy we can't target or tactically conquer efficiently, in a form of inner city warfare we have never really experienced on this level. You think we were ready?? Turn on the TV, you think the scene you see was alllll part of the plan after "Mission Accomplished"??

Reread the reason I put at the top of this post. That is the reason we went. It wasn't a good reason for ALL of this. It's not enough to justify the outsome of this blunder. And on top of it, the guys in charge did a lousy job planning this scheme in the first place. The shortage of body armor only adds to the list.

And by the way, you know who is going to pay for all of this?? I bet you do.
When a Dem is elected and raises taxes to even begin trying to balance our budget(again), I'm sure you can rest assured when a Republican like Bush runs against him, the DEM will be hung for raising taxes and being financially responsible. You can bet the ranch. And around and around we go.

T-Hawk

A couple quotes from this wonderfully written artice:

But after more than two years it has finally dawned on the body politic that America was led into a war on a tissue of conceited deceits; a war expected to be fought on the cheap; a war for which the rationale has become an alibi du jour and a war with less of an exit strategy than a Chinese fire drill.
The American people didn't need another ``my dog ate the war plans'' political speech from its president Tuesday night. It's needed, for once, some honesty. If George Bush wanted an appropriate military setting to speak to the country, he had the perfect backdrop in his own backyard - the Vietnam Memorial, as poignant a tribute to bravery as you'll find in this country as well as the high price of quagmires, too.
 
Last edited:
Top