Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Same shit, different day. 

I think I saw Cheney blink once...just one time! I think hes a robot ;) hahah.

I thought he went on too long about the country and not enough about Iraq.  That is the hot button right now.  I love how he talks about terrorists in Iraq and Shia death squads....THEY WEREN'T THERE until AFTER we attacked!!!

I think he mentioned Iran 3x before he said "iraq".

Anyways, thoughts on the speech??

p.s.  Jim Webb for VP ;)  awesome rebuttal.  his stories about his family were MUCH more moving and powerful then Bush's basketball player, creator of annoying baby videos and the subway superman (who seemed very biased toward the repubs hehehe).

Same bullshit, nothing new....

Two years to go....

Here is the speech in case anyone missed it   :hihi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqE_baKKkRI&eurl=

worth watching, pretty funny.

I thought it was a waste of 1 hour and basically an hour for the president to get his wang sucked with ovations from people that are against him the moment he walks out the door.  Basically nothing interesting was brought up that we didn't know about, and the crap we did know about was just torture to sit through.  I had to love Hillary's scorn when she got her first camera pan.  She looked like the fucking Terminator up there.

Jim Webb, that is, a real war hero, with a kid fighting in Iraq, gives Chicken-hawk-In-Chief his response:

Good evening.

I?m Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia, where this year we will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown ? an event that marked the first step in the long journey that has made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth.

It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President?s message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.

Further, this is the seventh time the President has mentioned energy independence in his state of the union message, but for the first time this exchange is taking place in a Congress led by the Democratic Party. We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs. We look forward to working with the President and his party to bring about these changes.

There are two areas where our respective parties have largely stood in contradiction, and I want to take a few minutes to address them tonight. The first relates to how we see the health of our economy ? how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans. The second regards our foreign policy ? how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion that will also allow us to continue to fight the war against international terrorism, and to address other strategic concerns that our country faces around the world.

When one looks at the health of our economy, it?s almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it?s nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.

In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.

In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy ? that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.

And under the leadership of the new Democratic Congress, we are on our way to doing so. The House just passed a minimum wage increase, the first in ten years, and the Senate will soon follow. We've introduced a broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the American people. We?ve established a tone of cooperation and consensus that extends beyond party lines. We?re working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.

With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.

I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.

Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues ? those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death ? we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm?s way.

We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us ? sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.

The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable ? and predicted ? disarray that has followed.

The war?s costs to our nation have been staggering. Financially. The damage to our reputation around the world. The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism. And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq?s cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.

Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.

Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves ?as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other.? And he did something about it.

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. ?When comes the end?? asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.

These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

Thank you for listening. And God bless America.




(http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/4729/stfu5ea.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

Man, I LOVED Webb's speech....after he said this part:

When one looks at the health of our economy, it?s almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it?s nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.


....I was hooked.  Fantastic speech.  That was one of the most straight forward, no BS, cut to the chase speeches i've heard in a LONG time.

Wow, I really had to take a doubletake now that I remember hearing him spouting off about a Reserve for Civilians to go to Iraq and help in Mission specific jobs.  Now I may not be Einstein, but isn't that what the actual Army Reserve is??? I mean I was a regular Army soldier and totally understand the Army Reservist concept.....but is this really needed?  I mean, the Army Reservists ARE civilians who only fight when their specific mission training is needed. 
So basically to get more people to join this fight, he's going to take away standards such as weight and height and physical requirements, etc just so he can recruit anyone and everyone to come to Iraq and fight?  Totally crazy shit.  Is he on drugs?

I didn't even bother to watch it.

Wait, I just thought of a great idea...........
This Civilian Reserve thing might just work.......just think about it.......all those brokeback Republicans who bitched and moaned about wanting to serve their country, but weren't able to because they had injuries or something..now they can!

They can help fight the good fight, that's right. 

I've been trying that for years to no avail...

Go figure.

I thought it was amusing to watch the "ovations".....from less than 1/2 the room.

When he talked about balancing the budget, in the first 3 min of his speech, I almost choked.  And I knew it was going to be a night of comedy.

And it was.

He stayed away (mostly) from the issues that he knew would get him lambasted, and made idiotic generalities about other issues he thought MIGHT cater to the dems.  And he failed miserably to make any sort of point, or give any clear indication what his actual plans are to make changes, or work with the new congress to make progress.

Essentially, he gave me the impression that we now have an official "lame duck" for the next 2 years....

I wasn't expecting a whole lot, but got slightly more than what I expected.  I'd give it a C+/B-.

Webb's response was damn good.

Did you notice Cheney and Bush taking a drink at exactly the same time at one point?  "Bush never speaks while Cheney is drinking water, check that shit out." -- Robin Williams

Not much I didn't expect; all I got out of it was a good laugh when he would do that that self-pleased grin after every ovation. 

I was under the impression that idea was for non-combat reserves (linguists, communications etc...) to "help" when called upon.  still, it was incredibly retarded and i too did a double "HUH!!".  When you have polls saying 70% or so are against your war, who in the world is going to volunteer for something like that!?!??!

Pilferk - great assesment on the speech, i think you summed it up perfectly.  It was a lot of words but he wasn't really saying anything.

i have a valid question.

for those of you who are really in the know as far as american politics go (i'm not american myself), i have two questions actually. is it likely at all that bush can be impeached (i doubt his friends in the supreme court would convict him of anything), and also, is it at all possible that bush has to leave the oval office? if his approval ratings dropped even further as a result of what will probably be another failed iraq plan, is it possible that his resignation is demanded? what it boils down to is this; is it more than likely that bush will stay in office for the whole remaining period? the huge stir it would cause to remove a president from office (which has only happened once before), is it worth it for america or are people more likely to say "let him stay in office the remainder of the period and rather focus on how to fix for the future the damages he has caused"? how hard will it be to get bush impeached or removed from office? when nixon was impeached and removed it involved crimes, and even though you can call bush a war criminal, the decision to go into iraq, however wrong it was, was legally voted for and passed in congress.

With that I agree, wholeheartedly.  It ALMOST made watching the GW power hour worth watching....

He'll certainly serve out his remaining term.

The incoming dems have made a LOT of noise over the fact they do not want to do to Bush what the Repubs did to Clinton...spend millions of taxpayer dollars and use a huge chunk of federal resources in order to investigate him, and his administration, with an eye toward impeachment, etc.   I think they'll be true to their word.  So unless someone inadvertently uncovers something we don't know about yet...we'll be dealing with GW for the next couple of years.

And no matter how bad his approval ratings get, no one is going to call for him to resign (or, not anyone serious, and not enough to be taken seriously).

The question is: Just how effective can he be, and how effective will he try to be.  His legacy, more or less, is already set...his presidency pretty much defined.  I think he's going to (if he hasn't already) resign himself to being a lame duck, make token efforts to clean up this mess, and leave it for the next guy (or girl) to actually address....especially if the "surge" doesn't work...but we'll have to wait and see.

thanks for the response :)^
guess we are stuck with him for two more years then.

yeah all the talk about budget balancing was just funny. i mean, there is no way they are going to do that and even if they try it will take Forever!!

Clinton did it.

But Bush just can't....not unless he ignores the funding for the war (which is likely what he's doing) when talking about balancing the budget and reducing the federal deficit.

Bush's proposed budget, if it's balanced without any rise in taxes, is going to have to cut a whole lot of stuff out.....which I'm sure he'd be willing to do.  Of course, congress won't pass it because, lets face it, we all know the types of programs Bush would be likely to cut.

I suspect Bush's proposed budget is going to, largely, be a way to try to extort some political capital from the current session of Congress....but I doubt it's going to work.

Its a Washington politician show at its best. The American public gets to see the system at work, with all its animosities and bullshit posturing.

I wish we get a president someday to say this is our situation and if you don't like it, get off your ass and come up with something better.

 ???

What does this even mean?  Could you give an example?

While youre first sentence says otherwise, it seems youre infatuated with tough-guy posturing yourself.

http://www.drinkinggame.us/

LMAO are you saying there were no Iraq and Shia death squads until AFTER we attacked?? I hope you are joking...i would check out another news source besides The New York Times and CNN.....

Did anyone see Colbert's "blink count" between Cheney and Pelosi?  Classic.  In one span she blinked 42 times or something and Cheney only once or twice.  hysterical.

HES NOT HUMAN! ;)

haha or maybe SHE is not human...she blinked NON STOP!!!! thats what all that plastic surgery will do to you...

Do you have any evidence suggesting this?

thats normal - esp during a bush speech - i think she was trying to stay awake.

i couldn't NOT blink for as long as Cheney did if I tried.  Seriously, try to not blink for a full 60 seconds......

What replay footage I saw of it made me horrified. Cheney looked like he was about to fall asleep and how many fuckin' times did Pelosi fuckin' blink?!!! For fucks sake, what was she doing, sending morese code?  :rofl:

John McCain wasnt. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkkTFVIxMQs&eurl=)  He was probably dreaming of giving the speech himself.

Just adding to this a little bit.

I think the main reason NOT to impeach Bush is the fact that there could only be one fate worse than him running the country right now.

Cheney!!!! :no:

It doesn't matter who's president as he's not the one running things anyway.

this question is for booker floyd as he seems to be a living encyclopedia when it comes to american politics, but of course anyone else are free to answer it too. do you agree that it is very unlikely that bush will be removed from office before january 2009?

LMAO are you serious?? its common knowledge she has had a TON of work done...just look at her pics over the past 10-15 years....haha thats like asking me if i have any evidence that Michael Jackson had work done.....

Yes, it is very unlikely.


So the answer is no. 

While youre not backing up your claims, perhaps you can touch on this (http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=42487.msg859734#msg859734).

Look, even King George does some investigative journalism before making an accusation that she's had "work" done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsrBb3m_qsA

I think what he is trying to say is that maybe Bush should CHALLENGE congress to come up with a better solution on how to WIN over there....this way they would have to stop finger pointing and come up with an idea...but the truth of the matter is this...we either stay over there and fight until Iraq can then take care of themselves...or we come home now....The cut and run solution is still not poplular enough in this country yet for it to actually happen.but its getting there.....It is easy for democrats to say "bushs plan wont work" but its alot harder to say "this plan I came up with Will work"  Booker, what was your view on Iraq as far as how to handle it? not sure if you answered this in other posts...dont feel like going though them all...are you in favor of withdrawing immediately?

Can you define "win" for me?  I mean...really define what you think "winning" means?  Total destruction of the terrorist over there?  Successful democracy in Iraq?  What are the conditions for "winning"?

Once you do that...you'll have done more than this president has done......

Thanks.

Good luck winning Guerilla Warfare boys... :hihi:

For me "winning" would be killing as many terrorists/insurgents as humanly possible...and having Iraq able to take care of themselves as a successufl democracy...a successful democracy in the middle east would be a major blow to Al Qaeda..it is obvious because they are trying so hard to stop that from happening...that to me would be "winning" whether or not we are on the right course to get there is another story....

1) "Killing as many terrorists as humanly possible":  You have to remember, it's almost like an infinite shooting gallery over there.  For every one we kill, two more get recruited....largely because we killed the first.  Our very presense does a lot of Al Qaeda's recruiting for them (along with the civilian casualties that accrue because of our presense)...many of the recruits view us as invaders of their homeland.  So, by choosing to fight the war on that front...we're essentially bolstering the enemies forces.  And if we stay long enough to "kill as many as humanly possible"...we're likely never going to leave because the supply of terrorists is unlikely to run low until we're not there anymore.  So, what's the end game?  When do we "win" in this objective.  Something quantifiable would be sort of nice.....

2)  Democracy in Iraq:  It's a noble idea.  But the thing is democracy is fickle.  It exists by the will of the people...or at least the majority of them...and the ability for it to defend itself.  We can't force Iraq, by sheer force of will, into a democracy.  We can train their forces...make them better able to defend themselves...but that requires a fraction of the deployment we currently have.  What we're doing now is doing their job for them...which I could understand if the training was making any real progress.  But it's not, or rather it's making much slower progress than it should, by all accounts.  So again, what's the end game.  I suppose you're going to say "a STABLE democracy in Iraq" but, once again, you're talking a decade or more of involvement.  That's not realistic and it's certainly not fair to ask the U.S. population to absorb that cost in both funding and resources.  So what's a quantifiable "win" in this objective?

On the "blow to Al Qaeda"...I hate to break it to you, it's not the democracy their fighting (that's a peripheral fight).  It's US.  Literally, the U.S.A.  They want a front to visibly fight us on, and we gave them one in a destabilized Iraq.  They wanted exactly what they got: Not a battle they could "win", but a battlefield on which they could make us look the fool to the world.  The fight against "democracy" is used as a rallying cry to recruit secular radicals, and as an ancillary goal for the rest.

GW gave  them EXACTLY what they wanted.  And has not yet ONCE provided anything close to a "win" scenario or a list of goals to accomplish so that we can untagle ourselves from Iraq.  He's just started to vaguely HINT at a set of goals....in justifying the surge...but even then he hasn't been specific.

Nobody really has.  That's the problem.

that was a good post....I am always of the opinion that if we kill a terrorist over there..it is then IMPOSSIBLE for the same terrorist to end up riding the subway in New York City... Is that the best option in the world? of course not...but it seems to be the ONLY option....other than just sitting around and not doing anything and waiting for the terrorists to come here....This group of religous fanatics wants to kill you, me and every other American...they can care less about our political beliefs...they want us all dead....so I am asking you..How do you think we should deal with them?  I am not even being a prick...I am honestly asking you...is there another option besides a.whats going on now, or b. doing nothing.....because I cant think of one....and apparently neither can any politician...

Im always bewildered by those who earnestly believe the "were fighting them there so we dont have to fight them here" justification.

If invasion/occupation of a country containing terrorists is the only solution you can fathom, wouldnt you suggest occupying Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc? 

ok Booker..give me a solution to the problem...stop dancing around it.....

Dancing around it?  I posted in response to the question once and made no effort to answer it.  The reason was to see if you could rationalize your own suggestion - feel free to answer my question.

To answer yours, terrorism is probably better countered through effective counterterrorism practices than invasions of hostile countries, so that should be the focus.  That includes local and foreign intelligence and law enforcement; all of which is presumably done now.  Do you really think its best to be willfully simple-minded and state that the only options available to us are waging foreign wars and sitting around and not doing anything?  Do you genuinely just dismiss giving the topic any serious thought and skip right to giving the most brash, jingoistic response you can think of?

Your tone has been more sensible in the past day or so, so perhaps you are giving these things more thought, but judging from the post above, you might still have a way to go.

The insurgents in Iraq will/won't/never would have made it to this country. There are specific cells that train specific people to come here and hit us. I'd say 99.9% of insurgents in Iraq are poor and uneducated, the opposite of the terrorists on 9/11. They have open boarders and there is no way to stop them from flooding in. So fighting them over there is not keeping terrorists away from here. In all honesty, the terrorists who are going to eventually strike us are probably already here.

Home grown terrorists are who I fear most nowadays.

which question do you want me to answer? about invading other countries?

Agreed - and they will get their intelligence/training/funding and orders via the internet from terrorist groups in other countries.  Whats really fucked up is the US's own invasion of Iraq is what is going to motivate the home grown terrorists to attack.  Bush went to Iraq to "fight terror" only to create it within our own borders.

What a f'ing douche.  :-\

As for the Iraqi terrorists that are "poor/uneducated".  You don't need a brain to strap a bomb to your chest or carry a small knife on a plane.  with the right funding anyone can get to mexico and walk across our border.  Shit, if they can operate a lite brite machine they can cause panic in major metropolitan areas!!!

And the "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" nonsense is utter bullshit.  Tell that to the troops in Iraq and their families.  If people who want to justify the war in iraq with those kind of statements then they should be so brave to go to iraq themselves to fight the war on terror.  assholes.

If invasion/occupation of a country containing terrorists is the only solution you can fathom, wouldnt you suggest occupying Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc?

There's lots of other options, many based on small scale strikes of their leadership based on intelligence, rather than fighting a never ending supply of "soldiers" on  front that we can't possibly get to an endgame scenario.  The problem with the recruits that Al Qaeda is now drumming up in Iraq is that they are not ever going to ascend to top leadership in the organization...they're simply cannon fodder....and they'd never, ever be able to get into the US to actually be a threat.  Cut off the head of the snake...and the snake dies.  Unfortunately for us, the heads of the snake are nowhere near Iraq....so no matter what we do there, it's not really going to cause much damage to AQ...which is precisely the point of them engaging us there.  We get involved with their cannon fodder begging to be martyred, while they sit thousands of miles away, with our attention somewhat diverted, so they can try to plan more attacks on the world.

In addition, asking ME for additional options is a straw man.  I'm not remotely as informed as those in a position to make these decisions.  Hell, I'm not even aware of all their available resources.  But, just from a cursory observation, it looks like there are many other options for dealing with the terrorist.....not so many with stabalizing Iraq.

People talk like terrorism is some new thing....it's been around for decades.  We've found VERY effective ways of dealing with them, without engaging them in mano y mano fighting on a traditional front.  Yes, 9/11 was awful...the problem is that it's cause was as much from a failing of the administration, and the intelligence community, as it was a function of anything else.  We need to fix those problems.  We need to go after those that actually perpetrated the attack, and not their canon fodder....cannon fodder who aren't even protecting the castle gates, so to speak, but are rushing our walls thousands of miles from where their top brass are sitting. 

When put in that perspective, it seems sort of pointless, in the "war on terror" to be paying much attention to the "front" in Iraq, doesn't it?  What does fighting them actually accomplish?

How would they get over here, Hanna? If that were true they would all ready be here doing it.

My point is, every terrorist that has attacked us have not been the "average" fanatic. The ones who come here are not the same as the ones over in Iraq.