« number one in the hood, G | Main | Wither America »

final word of the evening

After a review. my final take on tonight's speech. I am damn proud this man is my president. His resolve, his determination and his sincerety are just some of the reasons I will be voting for him in Novemeber. The White House press corp, on the other hand, should be ashamed of themselves.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference final word of the evening:

» Round Up of Reactions to Bush from The Southern California Law Blog
Personally, I thought Bush's speech tonight was canned, uninspired and too general. Here is what the Blogosphere thought: Wizbang fill-in Paul said "Making the election about the war on terror is the biggest thing he could do to help his... [Read More]

» Prez Speech from damnum absque injuria
Dana, Spoons, Black Five, Professor Bainbridge and The Other Xrlq all thought it sucked. Kevin Drum thought it hella-sucked. Then again, Kevin Drum also thinks the 8/6/01 PDB identified actionable intelligence, so who cares what he thinks? On the plus... [Read More]

» What, me trashy? from backlon blog
I might actually want to watch Americal Idol tonight. I'm trying to increase my right-wing blog intake. ASV is a piece of that... I do think that the "link" photo is cute and funny. And whatshername still likes Faith No More. How she has this reaction,... [Read More]


When he hits a subject he really believes in, he talks like a man possessed. Really good stuff.

David Gregory . . . aarrggghhh

The Boss is in charge... always has been, and until Jan 09, always will be.

The press does what it does, and we do what we do. Just wish that more of "us" were selective with the channels we tune to, that's all...

And Michele, don't forget that "Ana Cox" is an anagram for something so evil I won't waste another sip of beer on...

Your girlfriend Wanko says Bush's foreign policy is a "miserable failure." Oh, and his tie sucked. And then she made a big fart noise and everyone laughed.

Michele -- this country has some great good fortune. At the right time, we manage to find the right man.

Well, his tie did suck. It didn't agree with the cameras. I kept wishing he'd stop moving and keep that tie placed firmly behind the microphone.

As far as the rest of it? Great speech and for all the complaints about how unsavvy he is regarding the media---he always manages to get his message out. Even if he has to steamroll over the press corps to do it.

A flattened Helen Thomas is a Helen Thomas, I think, we can all like.

oh please. the hero worship makea me wanna hurl green groceries. he's the lesser of two evils, as it always has been. I won't vote for either of the Evils.

Excellent, bsti.

I do so enjoy when members of the herd choose to thin themselves, instead of making me do it for them.

bsti -- gaze

AnaCox thought his tie sucked, or did she really wanna... well,... you fill in the blanks...

bsti: get on board and get with the program, young man! Dubya's gonna be your President until Jan 09, and there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it! Then again, what's to kick: high employment, high investment, high home ownership, high productivity... the only thing that SHOULD be low IS: interest rates.

Yup, war sucks. If you'd spent some time serving your country, you'd know that already. If you did... good on ya, but then, what's yer beef?! For those of us who did (and still are), we'd just like to see ya quit your little kid bitchin' and get on the team, Dude!

Gee, that was easy...

Ah, don't listen to him, Bsti. He's been hitting the crackpipe too hard, methinks.

High employment, geez? Um, don't you mean high unemployment? That's the case where we live, anyway. The only "high" thing I sense here is the employment rate of the crackpipe. Meow! Heh.

So none of you found the answer to the "who are you handing power over to on June 30" question the slightest bit disconcerting?

Resolve? Determination?

Ah yes... The shrub's resolve to never admit that he misled the nation. His determination to invade Iraq regardless of the consequences. His steadfast refusal to admit that there were no WMDs. His backbone in preventing any photos of returning dead soldiers. His insistence in blocking the work of the 9/11 commission. His courage in refusing to testify without Dick Cheney there to protect him. His conviction on earlier drug charges. (Oops, how did that slip in?) His bravery in cutting taxes and letting our children pay for his war. His commitment to the presidency, where he's spent 40% of his time on vacation.

Yes, I can certainly see all the things you admire about this president. The press corps should, indeed, be ashamed.

PS: And what about his intelligence? Bush would undoubtedly join you in writing "sincerety," "Novemeber," and "corp." He certainly pronounces the words that way.

I believe President Bush is doing the right thing by sticking with the June 30th deadline. Iraq is not our Territory. It is the Iraqi People's nation and even in times of crisis, Iraqis need the power to prove themselves.

However.. Bad News folks! I just found a damning piece of transcript with President Bush and Ben Veniste during their 9/11 commission testimony in private. Even though this was done in private, I did manage to find a transcript and it doesn't look good for President Bush: Optimist Blog

::sigh:: I don't know what to think anymore. I don't want to give up my identity as a fiery Republican, but... I just don't know what to think anymore.

The predictable, paint-by-numbers comments of most Bush critics never fails to amuse.


Clinton lied, Monica got tips.

Really amazed. Michelle you sound just like Zell Miller. Anyhow on to the speech.

That opening statement... "Consequences of failure in Iraq would be unthinkable." But no acknowledgment that we need to do anything differently there, that we need more resouces.


I didn't hear specifics. Nothing. If you fault Kerry for non-specifics (which at one point you did) how can you not fault Bush for the same? I didn't hear anything about HOW to combat terrorism, or how to succeed in making Iraq a democratic nation.

Winning in Iraq is important, key, if we don't we're really really screwed for the next 20 years. In many ways the "Bring them home or not" arguement is really a waste of time and its moot anyway except as a political thing.

Funny stuff about the Press though, left hates them for being to soft, the Right hates for being to hard.

Robert cried! Still nobody went to his boring blog.

Bitsy, or whatever your name is: what the hell are "green groceries"? Never mind, I'm not sure I want to know.

Lorri: wow, crackheads can't find jobs? That's so unfair. Down with Bush!


1. When you say that Bush misled the country regarding Iraq do you in fact actually mean that you lack the verbal skills to properly understand the meaning of the plainly spoken words:
" We cannot afford to wait until the threat is imminant?"

2. When you say that Bush would not testify without Cheney present do you understand the word "testify" to mean "sit there quietly and obidiently while Ben Veniste and Bob Kerry peck, bitch, and grandstand at him so that hack partisan journalists and other assorted leftist toads can pretend that this limp faux-Watergate hearing immitation in any way resembles the actions one expects to see at a valid fact finding process such as asking questions and gathering information?"

Julie Anne Fidler sez:
"::sigh:: I don't know what to think anymore. I don't want to give up my identity as a fiery Republican, but... "

Fine, do what I do. Mutter about Bush being a "mush eating liberal wimp" and then vote for him anyway because even a liberal Republican is better than a Democrat.

SSJPabs --- Did you not hear the part where Bush said that anything the general in charge of military operations in Iraq wanted to complete the job he would get? More troops, more resources, he would get what he needed.

As for specifics about this, I don't think it is the president's place to say "We are going to move xxx troops in and yyy resources". You trust the generals to make these decisions.

However, when you are running on a platform of "The other guy is screwing things up royally I will do it MUCH better" you need to be a bit more specific.


The thing that I thought was totally bogus was when the reporter asked Bush what his biggest mistake of the past year was. There is no good answer to that, at least not one you could make without preparation time. So he answered it truthfully. He stated that he is sure he made mistakes but canít answer the question at this time. Sure enough Stephanopoulos came out and said that the president was almost belligerent and refusing to admit mistakes.

Bush is definitely the right man at the right time for this country and I hope his confidence is born out and he is reelected this November.


I love the comment that I saw on Instapundit today.

"That's less than unimportant. It's press corps important."

From here

I am voting for Bush because the left-leaning press corp hates him.

These gutless asshats are working hard towards assuring Americans will be slaughtered so they can have another big story to write.

Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks yet the fucked-up press continues to distract us from that truth. I can only concluded from their words actions that they wish to see all Americans dead, thousands of deaths will provides better headlines. The press has way to much power.

Second Zwichenzug's question, and one of my own: "Did you learn anything new about domestic or foreign policy from the President's opening statement or his answers to the questions that didn't have to do with mistakes?"

I missed the speech last night, went to my Republican district meeting. But thinking, the best answer to "What was the biggest mistake you've made in the past year?" would be, "Calling on you for a question."

Anybody know where Dick Cheney was during the press conference last night? I'm betting he was hiding behind the podium with his hand up Bush's ass, practicing their ventriloquism act.

"Did you not hear the part where Bush said that anything the general in charge of military operations in Iraq wanted to complete the job he would get? More troops, more resources, he would get what he needed."

1. Where are we going to get those troops? The only solution I see that doesn't involve pulling out of Europe completely (which I'm not sure why we don't do) is activate more National Guard brigades.

2. What are we going to do with those resources and troops though? Assumedly restore security. Good. How? Are we going to work with Sistani more closely? Give Muqtada a share in the government? Attempt to totally annihilate the Sadr army? Train more Iraqi police? (Realisticly could we expect them to shoot their own countrymen? Well maybe but not unless we choose them very carefully.)

Thats what I mean. What is the policy going to be here, more international involvement? How? Are we going to share power? Try to see if the UN is capable of running the show (at this point I doubt that too)?

"It's one thing to say we're going to win." It's something else to say "this is how we will win."

A military victory at this point (and I have no idea what that would constitute) gains us nothing. A political victory is what we need to achieve in Iraq (that would be a democratic Iraq) and that kind of process needs to come from the politicians at the top.

BTW Les, thank you for responding to me in the way you did. Very civil. My response was ment to be civil as well.

hmm... overly concerned with anal things aren't we?

SSJabs -- you forgot the DMZ in South Korea. Which we just pulled our units out of, save for one battalion at Panmunjom.

While I don't claim to be a military expert, according to my crack web research (really just a quick google on the words "united states troop deployment numbers"), I ran across this link which claims that we have 1.1 million troops in the Continental United States and Territories. While I don't think we should ship them all out, even 100,000 shouldn't be a big 'loss'. This was a figure from September 2003, which would be after the start of the Iraq war.

As for your second question, that one I don't have a solid answer for. I would imagine that we are going to continue to press for a united Iraq, although a three way split of Iraq wouldn't be the end of the world. If I knew history better, or had access to the research, I would investigate the issues that we had with Japan and Germany in the wake of WWII and try to draw some conclusions from that.



Today's quote comes from Matt Shifrin, a first lieutenant in the US Military Dumbass Corps.

"I don't know if we were fighting terrorism directly by invading Iraq and ousting Saddam [Hussein], but I do know that as long as these extremist groups are planning and expending resources by attacking soldiers in Iraq, they are less capable of attacking helpless civilians in the U.S., Israel and other civilized nations."

Ah, such a nice sentiment that Iraq has been turned into a slaughter ground so that the rest of us can be safe and sound from attacks on our soil by terrorists. Following that same logic, I hope Canada remains safe from attacks because terrorists are too busy blowing up American skyscrapers. You stupid, mindless Reich Whingers never learn. I just wish you were too stupid to breed!