You all just wait till Fred Smith comes around and explains to you why THAT is exactly not the case.
Especially you butcher boy … What you been saying here, huh? Bunch up Georg W. Bush together with other more common politicians, did you? Just wait till Fred sets you right.
I’m not sure that even Fred Smith could say the speech reflects anything new.
Give him a bit more time, will you? I am convinced Fred can lay it down in no ill terms how also this speech again reflects GWB as a great visionary and as a politician standing out way above the usual assortment of the political (non-)class and how this was NOT the usual hot air voiced at press conferences.
One can say a lot about Fred but not that he is unreliable or disloyal.
Not like Chuck Hagel or that John Danforth. Or that Doug Bereuter guy, that Colin Powell or that Paul O’Neill.
Run a search for “O’Neill disloyal” and you’ll easily get more than 6,100 hits. Powell gets more than 21,000 hits. Danforth has fewer than 700. Hagel’s got 3,400 hits.
Oddly, if you run a search for “Bush traitor” you get 708,000 hits.
You know how if you look at a tree every day, you don’t see any changes,
but if you look at it only once a year you see the differences?
In my case, I cannot stand to hear or look at King George.
But I did watch a bit of the speech, and something really struck me.
Bush seemed weary, aged, stooped. Apparenly his full time schedule of
lying has gotten to him. Apparently his praying has been in vain too.
Take a look also at how Jimmy Carter aged across 4 years.
Maybe we can dig up some photos to prove the point. “W” is OLD.
(not wise unfortunately). Seems like the Presidency ages you at 3x rate.
Not Clinton though, now there’s a vigorous leader with some
lead in his pencil for a change.
I know I’m not the most objective voice to point out that the emporer has
no clothes, but Bush, wow, the W is for Weak, Worn down, Weary, Washed out.
He’s sure not Wired. More like Tired… or Expired…
Give him a bit more time, will you? I am convinced Fred can lay it down in no ill terms how also this speech again reflects GWB as a great visionary and as a politician standing out way above the usual assortment of the political (non-)class and how this was NOT the usual hot air voiced at press conferences.
One can say a lot about Fred but not that he is unreliable or disloyal.[/quote]
“Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”.
I have this fantasy in which all the Forumosan’s are drafted and sent to Iraq
(or Iran or Syria, whatever the war-du-jour is). And what I wonder is,
which of us would be the first to get fragged by friendly fire?
I’ve heard that ever since the Hagel disloyalty incident, Bush’s hand has begun to tremble in public. His signatures on documents is now a shaky scribble that is hardly legible and his doctors have to keep him on a never-ending regimin of “vitamin” shots that allow him to get up in the morning and allow him to go to bed in the evening.
Maybe he should have stuck to his jogging schedule.
I found the speech more of the same but needed. This message needs to get through. I have known from the very beginning that we were going to make a commitment to Iraq that would last 60 years. I believe that we will be involved in Afghanistan perhaps just as long. The new war is in the Middle East and just as in the Cold War, our troops will be stationed in distant locales for a LONG time. We are still in Korea. We are still in Germany. We are still in Japan. We will be in the Middle East for a long time. Terrorism is being concentrated now in Iraq. The Duelfer report never said that there was NO connection between Iraq under Saddam and al Qaeda. It said that there was no proof that Iraq under Saddam had cooperated with al Qaeda to effect 911. We will win in Iraq. The problem is and always has been that if there is no fight in Iraq or Afghanistan where do you think that these terrorists will go? home? Why is it that the Algerian civil war has become very quiet now? Somalia? Kashmir? Chechnya? Kosovo? Bosnia? The thugs that used to be stirring up conflicts in these places are now free to move to other areas. Just by way of comparison, hundreds of women are dead in Ciudad Juarez and the police are unable to catch the killer or killers. Imagine multiplying such people by 1,500 and you see the dimensions of this problem. Chasing the killer or killers out of Ciudad Juarez however does not mean that they will suddenly stop killing people. Serial killer do not change, they would just move somewhere else and terrorize a new set of people.
Bush is right and history will prove him right. Those who argued against the war in Vietnam have now been proved wrong as well. We have the accounts from the generals in North Vietnam who admitted that they lost the war around Tet with the local insurgency destroyed but they crowed about their ability to infect the American population with defeatism and so their military disaster became a political triumph. That is the true lesson of that war not “quagmire.” Also, I note that the left has never once apologized for allowing South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia to fall under these brutal regimes that slaughtered millions. Isn’t it ironic and strange that during the entire brutal American occupation of South Vietnam that there were no massive refugee flows. This only happened after the country had fallen to the communists. Curious huh?