« SOTU pre game talk | Main | or was her lipstick just smudged? »

facing the enemy

Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

--President Bush to the people of Iraq.

If I took but one statement away from the speech, that would be it.

He really hit his stride with the AIDS in Africa segment. As Stephen said "Bush is not his father's generation on this issue."

But it was the war talk and the outlining of Saddam's offenses where Bush hit the mark. He said the magic words: Iraq/al Qaeda link.

We are ready to bring freedom to the people of Iraq.

Disclaimer: I had a cocktail of NyQuil and Robitussin before the speech, so take this from where it comes. I'll clarify and/or deny my thoughts tomorrow.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference facing the enemy:

» State of the Union from American RealPolitik
A link to the text from the Washington Post which also provides a synopsis. Doesn't the rebuttal by Gov. Locke sound weak in comparison? Bush is talking about incredibly serious [Read More]

Comments

I might buy the "not of his father's generation" re AIDS if it hadn't been for the Commission debacle.

I don't like the timing of waiting until February 5th to send Colin Powell to address the U.N. I'd have had him on the plane first thing in the morning, and addressing the weeniecrats tomorrow afternoon.

Obviously the balloon isn't going up at the end of this month, which I find disappointing. Hopefully another month won't make too much difference...

I took note of that same statement(I wrote it down). It was good.

What was better was the hope he extended to Iran: ..."aspirations to live in freedom".

THis was really ggreat. I hope the Iranians were listening. I hope it was not an empty wish.

I know, I hope we don't wait until the "brutal" Iraqi summer arrives to get the job done. It would be as bad as the "brutal" Afghan winter, which would cause our efforts there to get bogged down in a "quagmire..." Huh? We won? Never mind.

It just seems the press can't get enough of telling us how horrible conditions will be...well, whenever America may fight for its interests.

Ok, I admit I missed the State of the Union address (and am NOT trying to pick a fight here...)

But what does the state of Iraq or Africa have to do with the "State of the Union"? There's people getting laid off left and right here, that I'm sure were hoping to hear some good news about our economy.

I'm just asking.

interesting how he dropped that one quick abortion comment and then moved on

it was like
ECONOMY
WAR
AIDS
and oh im taking away that pesky freedom to choose thing
yeah its late term abortions for now

but we all know whats next
roe vs wade vs bush
meanwhile
can someone please
for the love of god tell him
its not NU CU LAR

sheesh

It's never been about bringing freedom to the people of Iraq.
If it occurs, it will be incidental.

It is, and always has been about protecting US interests, which is arguably a good enough reason.

BarCodeKing: After the speech, Fox News quickly interviewed (if I remember correctly) Senator Biden, who mentioned that the President had already scheduled another telecast to present more information on Iraq. He didn't give a hint as to what day, but Bush will be meeting with Blair in the next day or two and some of us are expecting a joint televised statement with more evidence.

Rossi:

One abortion comment was more than enough. He is asking for the elimination of partial birth abortions (you know, suck the brains out of the skull while the baby is still in the vagina). I didn't hear him asking for an overturn of Roe V Wade. (As far as I'm concerned, that matter should be returned to whence it came...a STATE's issue).

The Economy and possible war were the prime issues tonight. (I just wish he hadn't waited so long to get to the business of Iraq, but it was worth the wait.)

And yes, please, someone tell GWB it is NU-CLE-AR!

cheshirecat

So basicly he's doing a great job for putting back in place something he took away when he got into office.
One of the roles of planned parenthood is the prevention of aids. Condoms aren't perfect, abstinence doesn't exist.
When bush took office the US has planned parenthood offices in almost every impoverished country. They where gone 2 months later. So, now he's putting them back and suddenly he's a hero.

Hows that bullshit your swallowing taste?

Edgar:
"So basicly he's doing a great job for putting back in place something he took away when he got into office."

What are you talking about, specifically?

"One of the roles of planned parenthood is the prevention of aids. Condoms aren't perfect, abstinence doesn't exist. "

Condoms aren't perfect, but it's a whole lot better than using nothing...abstinence does exist, there are plenty of people who do wait until marriage or whatever.

"When bush took office the US has planned parenthood offices in almost every impoverished country. They where gone 2 months later. So, now he's putting them back and suddenly he's a hero."

a) Since when is Planned Parenthood a department of the Executive Brance
b) You have a source for this, other than a left-wing organization or Planned Parenthood?
c) GWB made no mention of PP in his speech, his reference to aid to Africa was about medicines and education, my only problem is who is going to administer this funding and who exactly the funding is going to.

"Hows that bullshit your swallowing taste?"
It would have been better if you had put some spices in it. Take it back to the cook and tell him to try again.

cheshirecat

I thought the speech was well-written (I can't help but think of Kermit the Frog whenever I see Bush speaking, so I hesitate to say it was well-delivered, but thats just me) and I got especially excited at the parts on promised money for research into automotive hydrogen/fuel cell technology and at the call for reducing our dependency on foreign oil. I'll be more excited if I actually see either of these things happen, but that isn't a slam against Bush (but actually his predecessor), as after 8 years of broken Clinton promises I hesitate to expect much from a SOTU address.

All in all, although I know Bush will be criticized by liberals as their default impulse I think the speech really hit home. Bush (or his writers/advisors, whoever you feel like crediting) seems to have his finger on the pulse of the nation to me, and I look forward to him achieving what he set out tonight.

But thats just my $.02

The information came from an abc news piece some 16 months ago. Unfortunately I don't have an immediate source to provide you... you have my appology for not having a source. I believe 60 minutes also did a segment on it, but don't quote me on that.
The fact is the president of the united states has alot of countrol over a rather large discressionary fund. You know as well as I do that most federal agencies (such as planned parenthood) answer to him for their funding. If you don't know that .... look it up.
Planned parenthood in cooperation with other agencies was also responsible for such medications, or more so the distrabution of the medication, as well as education.

Are their people that wait till marriage? yes, there are... but they are a very small minority. a rough guess would be 3 out of 1000. Count on your hand honestly the number of people that you know that waited for marriage. preaching abstenance is about as effictive as stopping a semi truck with a tampon.

Edgar:
Are you refering to the actions referenced here?:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1132127.stm

If so, fine, I'll respond...I don't think our tax money should fund abortion in other countries...let those countries foot their own bill. Our money is better spent here.

The ban had been there forever until Clinton reversed it in 1992..far as I know, there have been abortions going on in the EU for years before then. And, if you maintain it is discretionary, fine, the president has the discretion to fund it or not...he chose not. As I said, EU is not poor, they can fund their own abortions.

I'll give you credit about the federal funding issue...

I know at least 10 people who are abstaining, or had until they got married. But with an effective rate of over 95%, a condom alone should be sufficient...combined with other contraceptives, you can bump it up to nearly 100%.

Still, I am not advocating the elimination of abortion outright, just that it be relegated back to the states, where it belongs. I do think that partial birth abortions serves no medical purpose. If the mother's life is in danger, the child could easily be removed via C section.

I have no qualms with you on your position vis-a-vis abortion, but in the large scheme of things, it is a insignificant blip, and certainly not worth more than a line in a State of the Union address.

And with that, I shall address this issue no further.

cheshirecat

"The ban had been there forever.."

Okay, 1982, I being figurative.

cheshirecat

I heard the speach on radio. Did he look as tired as he sounded?

Peat: I heard half of it on radio and saw half on TV. On TV he looked strong and resolute and calm. On radio he sounded tired if resolute. It's funny how that works.

Sylvain: Freedom for the people of Iraq is in our national interests. Just as freedom for people oppressed from communism was in our national interests. The two go together, and making this about moral issues like liberty is not just smart politics; it's the right thing to do.

To the abortion debaters: cutting funding for abortion clinics abroad is not the same as cutting funding for medications, sorry. Also, the vast majority of American women oppose partial-birth abortion, and I was pleased that the President DID NOT soft-peddle that issue, thankyouverymuch, but took it on head on. Which he should have, since only an insane lunatic equates that with "freedom of choice."

Ok, shoot me if you think this is a stupid comment (no, not really), but all this talk about liberating countries like Iran necessarily a good thing? I mean, look at the Soviet Union. When communism ended, those people had lived in that type of lifestyle so long, that they fell apart without the structure they were used to. Yeah, maybe they're doing better now, but it's taken them a long time to get there. I think the people in afghanistan, and iran, and any other country that has been very oppressed are going to have the same problems. I don't think you can take a country from extreme oppression to our level of freedom within the span of time it takes to get rid of their dictator. It's just not as simple as saying "You're free! Go have fun."

I had this conversation a while back with a friend.
The artical you referenced was not directly the one I was referring to. You can choose to focus on the abortions, which do happen, or you can look at all of the other stuff that comes out of it as well. I personally don't agree with abortion, but do agree that its not my choice.
As far as Partial birth abortions.... They are illegal in 48 states in cases where the mothers life is not in jeapordy. They are illegal in 24 states even when the mothers life is in jeapordy. Those numbers are about 1 year old and can be found at abortioninfo.com
Partial birth abortions are a cheap distraction from the real issues. But people easily get caught up in it.

I'll be wading through the mud of the state of the union address later this week on my own site. I like some of what he had to say, but I also see the bullshit. Comon sense is what should rule over all.

Tracy, I think the issue in Iran is much different than the old Soviet Union. It hasn't been that many years that they have been living under the thumb of the Assaholas (remember Jimmy "Sit on my thumbs and let Reagan free the hostages" Carter?). Althought the Shah had his bad moments many, many there can remember a more progressive time. Any transition of government can be hard and take a long time, but I'm glad the President has stepped up and recognized the struggle in Iran. When Iraq falls this might embolden the protesters, after all it was the same street protests that brought what they have now.

Edgar, I look forward to your spew on what you didn't like about the speech.

You classified Jimmy carter as "Jimmy "Sit on my thumbs and let Reagan free the hostages" Carter"

But you forgot to classify Ronald "We wont negotiate with terrorists, oh ok, here's some guns, I don't recall so chew on Ollie" Reagen.

It will probobly be a day or two until I get to going through the speach. And you won't see just what I don't like, but also what I do like.

"Freedom for the people of Iraq is in our national interests."
No it isn't.

If if weren't Saddam in power, but another dictator that was friendly with the US, we would have zero interest in liberating them, regardless of how oppressive the regime may be, and little to zero interest in seeing Iraq disarmed.