NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10253079/
President Bush, facing growing doubts about his war strategy, said Wednesday that Iraqi troops are increasingly taking the lead in battle but that “this will take time and patience.” He refused to set a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces.

Bush keeps giving the same speech every time he steps infront of the camera. what is he thinking?? is he still trying to justifiy the war? all we hear about is how the troops are winning; yet are far from victory. id really like to see Bush try something different instead of "staying as long as necessary."

Heh, if it's not broken, why fix it?

The answer was given on the Colbert Report last night.

Heh, if it's not broken, why fix it?

at least he could be more creative when dodging questions...

Bush himself has admitted to being a subscriber of Goering's theory on jackhammer propaganda.

I thought it was pretty good, he only smirked 4 times, stuttered 6 times, and I didn't hear him misuse any words. ;)

It's a speech that works, without any long words for him to mispronounce, so somebody's decided that it's going to be too much trouble to teach him a new one.

Bush himself has admitted to being a subscriber of Goering's theory on jackhammer propaganda.
Both Republicans and Democrats are officially using the big lie, so I don't know what you're saying here...

Bush himself has admitted to being a subscriber of Goering's theory on jackhammer propaganda.
And wouldn't that be Goebbels?

Both Republicans and Democrats are officially using the big lie, so I don't know what you're saying here...

b-b-b-but Clinton!

b-b-b-but Clinton!
In a real sense, it's less important what politicians say in speeches - in fact, nearly irrelevant.

What they do, what they sign into law, and what they vote for is important. Everything else is probably a lie.

So where does that leave us?

Well, in terms of action Clinton is essentially a Republican. He attacked seven nations without provocation (without any attack on the US), and he "ended welfare as we know it".

Bush, well, we know he likes attacking too, and he's been rather rough with the pen, too.

As for the Democrats in the House and Senate who theoretically oppose him? Well, we hear a lot of talk don't we? But who also voted for the war? And don't give me the "we didn't get all the info". Apparently, most of the Democrats (and Republicans) who voted for the war didn't bother to read the whole 94 page document sent by the White House - some didn't even read the whole summary (which is just a few paragraphs). Kerry himself admits he didn't even read the summary in its entirety before voting.

Check your politicians by their votes and actions - not the bullshit that spews out of their mouths.

It seems i owe the American population an apology for my generalisations. I had always been under the impression that you were all as stupid as your leaders and thus believed and supported "the bullshit that spews out of their mouths" and loved Bush!
From reading the above posts i see this isn't the case, and that you can think for yourselves, Well,
SORRY.

In a real sense, it's less important what politicians say in speeches - in fact, nearly irrelevant.

What they do, what they sign into law, and what they vote for is important. Everything else is probably a lie.

So where does that leave us?

Well, in terms of action Clinton is essentially a Republican. He attacked seven nations without provocation (without any attack on the US), and he "ended welfare as we know it".

Bush, well, we know he likes attacking too, and he's been rather rough with the pen, too.

As for the Democrats in the House and Senate who theoretically oppose him? Well, we hear a lot of talk don't we? But who also voted for the war? And don't give me the "we didn't get all the info". Apparently, most of the Democrats (and Republicans) who voted for the war didn't bother to read the whole 94 page document sent by the White House - some didn't even read the whole summary (which is just a few paragraphs). Kerry himself admits he didn't even read the summary in its entirety before voting.

Check your politicians by their votes and actions - not the bullshit that spews out of their mouths.

A) The vote was not a declaration of war.

B) Read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397_pf.html

A) The vote was not a declaration of war.

It certainly authorized Bush to invade Iraq. And they voted for it.

Like I said, I'm more interested in what a politician does and what they vote for. Everything else is either a lie, a deception, or a mealy mouthed ass-covering excuse.

You can't take back a vote any more than you can take back the invasion of Iraq.

It's news to me that war has been declared. I thought he ignored all that shit and invaded Iraq regardless of what Congress had to say.

It's news to me that war has been declared. I thought he ignored all that shit and invaded Iraq regardless of what Congress had to say.
The resolution authorized the invasion of Iraq.

The resolution authorized the invasion of Iraq.
It did. It didn't declare war, though.

It did. It didn't declare war, though.
So? Is there really a substantive difference? We've invaded Iraq.

Are you going to say now that they can take their vote back? They can't take back the invasion of Iraq, can they?

So? Is there really a substantive difference? We've invaded Iraq.

Are you going to say now that they can take their vote back? They can't take back the invasion of Iraq, can they?
Of course they can't. I don't see why this is being referred to as a war, though.

Of course they can't. I don't see why this is being referred to as a war, though.
Ok, - people, especially the news media - and Republicans and Democrats - are calling it a "war".

Let's say it's not technically correct, but a word in common usage.

So? Is there really a substantive difference? We've invaded Iraq.

Are you going to say now that they can take their vote back? They can't take back the invasion of Iraq, can they?

it would be quite funny if they could

sees images of things being unblown up, people being unshot and statues being erected by american troops before they left.......

Ok, - people, especially the news media - and Republicans and Democrats - are calling it a "war".

Let's say it's not technically correct, but a word in common usage.
I'd noticed. It does make me wonder, though: isn't there a clause or two in the constitution about the President not being able to start a war without the approval of both houses? Makes me wonder what the fuck this is supposed to be.

I'd noticed. It does make me wonder, though: isn't there a clause or two in the constitution about the President not being able to start a war without the approval of both houses? Makes me wonder what the fuck this is supposed to be.

I think that he's allowed to use troops anyway he sees fit for 20 days or so before he has to go to Congress.

I think that he's allowed to use troops anyway he sees fit for 20 days or so before he has to go to Congress.


Thats if he wishes to declare war on a given country.
To my knowledge, unless I have missed something, Bush has not done so.
Thus why this is so duplicitous, is becuse he has not.