Comments? Input? The Usual Derision?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38638

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Nice speech. I liked the part where he adressed the torture of Iraqi prisoners.

nice speech, however i already knew most of the facts he stated. unless he had teleprompters all over the audience, it is amazing, how he spoke freely for half an hour without a single "eh". Iraq sounds better all the time as a place to emmigrate too, but i fear the us will install too much beaurocracy; he said, that allready 12 ministries/departments (of how many?) were independent, imo 4 ministries (defense, interior, state and finance) would be enough, what do you need 12 or more for?
i found the pattern of applause in the audience strange, i would have expected bush to be interrupted by spontaneous applause more often, but when there was applause it came and ceased quickly, like in tv shows.

Yea, he doesn't want to make another America, just another American bureaucracy.
Yea, but did you look at the audience? A bunch of hard-ass military types. Those guys probably don't show too much emotion.

All in all, I thought it was a good speech. I can't get over the fact that Bush just isn't a good speaker. No matter the message, it just sounds bad coming out of his mouth. Even when he says all the words correctly, his delivery leaves much to be desired. Pick any one of his speeches and put the words in a different person's mouth, and we would have a completely different world.

Even so, what he had to say is important. Still, we have folks who want to say there's no timeline - I don't know how much more specific you can get than June 30th and January of 2005. There's those who question the amount of authority the Iraqi's will get on June 30th - I don't know how many more times the administration needs to say "complete authority" or "full sovereignty" or "the occupation ends on June 30th" before people get the idea. Yet, they're right on one point, only time will tell. Personally, I'm excited for the unfolding.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

i watched the videofeed from whitehouse.gov, the audience was not shown.maybe i am easily impressed for i am no native speaker, but i dont think he sounds bad at all.

Why? Would you listen to anyone pointing out that the speech reads like a joke you tell at a party after a few many drinks? (It does, anyway)

There's really only two problems with the speech, to be honest. The intro and the outro(and many bits in between, but I'll simplify it for convinience). They are full of the general platitudes about foreign affairs that bear no resemblance whatsoever with reality, which we have come to know as the hallmark of the Bush administration. In a welcome change, however, the scriptwriters have decided to insert a very pragmatic on- site examination into the main part of the speech, and it is shameful that the speech do not contain anything else to put those comments in the appropriate context. He speaks of a changing battlefield, the challenges put on the forces, how Iraqis is trusted to partake in stopping the violent insurgents and how the challenges of change will be overcome together with the Iraqi people. Great stuff.

Yet the insurgents, in "Falluja, Najaf and elsewhere", are not merely Iraqi resistance. They are indeed the same enemy as the US is fighting in Afghanistan now. They are the same as Taliban and they are also the same as the ones that bombed Madrid. We are to understand, therefore, that because terrorists bombed a night- club in Bali and a railway in Madrid, the US should be applauded in dealing with those incidents now that they're working on the insurgents in Najaf and Falluja, incited by "this young cleric", which currently is the front against the "war on terror" and represent "the enemy" just as well as Taliban or Al- Quida. We are also to understand that the US didn't choose to come to where they are today, but that the war on terror just happened to find them just across the Eufrat somewhere while they were minding their own business.

Oops. I seem to have written something that might be considered a ridicule, yet I have not tried to and I have also kept a pretty strict discipline in not saying anything that the President have not stated himself. A real problem, that.

Still the pragmatic on- site examination is so extremely welcome that I'm going to applaud the President's scriptwriter once again for apparently not disregarding everything in the real world and at least giving an impression that there are, at least now, a plan for how the future government in Iraq is supposed to work, and that the previous reluctance in cooperating with other forces - that is, "them" - is not altogether outside consideration anymore. So if the President would be so kind as to do away with the "the enemy" term as well for everything that apparently does not want a "free Iraq", we would be doing serious headway. Other than that, thank god that Monkeyboy is not the leader of our goverment or I would've been seriously embarassed. What, for instance, posesses the goverment in order to send their representative to have a speech half the world will await with interest and make him say:"The swift removal of Saddam Hussein's regime last spring had an unintended effect: Instead of being killed or captured on the battlefield, some of Saddam's elite guards shed their uniforms and melted into the civilian population.". Aha. I guess we know now who to blame for the failures, eh? Or: "The terrorists' only influence is violence, and their only agenda is death. Our agenda, in contrast, is freedom and independence, security and prosperity for the Iraqi people.". I suppose that the "only influence is violence" bit was included as a mitigating circumstance, no?

It will be educational to watch wether the Bush admin actually hands over some true political power to the interin government, and not just a symbolical one. For the new government to work out, they have to have vetoe powers over any military operations on the field. If the US Army decides to start another campaign like Fallujah,(wich the interin govt. members have already said they strongly disagreed with) and if they can´t have a say in what goes or not, chances are rifts will continue to appear in their relationship. Many members of the interin govt. have already expressed that they won´t be puppets in the hands of american generals.
The same happens with the new proposed UN resolution. The US wishes the UN to step in with military forces and rebuilding funds, but yet it refuses to pass any form of control to the UN, and that simply cannot be accepted.
If the UN joins as just another smaller partner in a coalition, they would just be adding cannon fodder for the american operations.
If the US is serious about wanting to take the UN onboard, they have to give them absolute power of decision.
As it is, it just seems the US is on the lookout for any warm bodies it can find to replace their battle wery soldiers.
The US can´t have it both ways, they can´t have their cake and eat it too.
A choice has to be made.

"..the prison of Abu Gaa...aaraib..."???
Dubya

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.