The primary point of President Bush’s lengthy, conversational address Monday to a friendly audience at Kansas State University seemed to be that if more Americans understood “there’s still an enemy which lurks out there,” fewer Americans in Congress and otherwise would question his administration’s no-holds-barred prosecution of the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq, including warrantless electronic eavesdropping on Americans.
One regrettable impression left by the speech, part of the Landon Lecture series, was that Bush is having to spend so much time these days justifying his past decisions. Starting with next week’s State of the Union address, he needs to get specific on his vision for the rest of his second term.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
50 Comments
The man just does not give up, it has been shown that Iraq was not a state sponsor of terrorism. The only act of terrorism that Saddam actually did outside of Iraq was the plot to Kill former President G. H. Bush that failed. If Bush wanted a war with a real state sponsor of terrorism there is Iran, Sedan, Libya and Lebanon.
Mr. President if you have done everything to safeguard the American people, why is there no standing response team in the case of a nuclear, chemical or Biological attack? Why was the budget cut for homeland defense, FEMA and counter-terrorism? Why have you taken National Guard troop that would be needed in the case of another attack and sent them to Iraq, which turns out to be nothing more then Rumsfield, Cheney, Rice and yourself ’s folly?
You were warned of the reach of Al-Qaeda soon after your election in 2000, yet dismissed them as swatting flies! Instead you plotted to overthrow Saddam and Sept.11 became your legacy, or I should say Iraq became your baby.
From Richard A. Clarke’s book, “Against All Enemies”Here are the five rationales for the United States invasion of Iraq according to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz. and President G. W. Bush:1: To clean up the mess left by the first Bush administration when, in 1991, it let Saddam Hussein consolidate power and slaughter opponents after the first U.S. Gulf war.
2: To improve Israel’s strategic position by eliminating a large, hostile military.
3: To create an Arab democracy that could serve as a model to other friendly Arab states now threatened with internal dissent, notably Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
4: To permit the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia (after twelve years) Where they were stationed to counter the Iraqi military and were a source of anti-Americanism threatening to the regime.
5: To create another friendly source of oil for the U.S. market and reduce dependency upon oil from Saudi Arabia , which might suffer overthrow someday.
I love the fact they said their were fewer than two dozen protesters.
LOL! You lefties didn’t make it up there yesterday?
Surely you dont mean the “vison thing” do you? Isnt that for girly men? Real men dont need vision, they just need bigger…guns. There is no need to look to the future when the past is so much better.
Isnt this in your bible somewhere? “Where there is no vision, the people perish”. Now there is a passage that both bushco and governor leadership should heed.
January 23, 2006George W. Bush’s Overall Job Approval Rating Returns to Record Low
George W. Bush’s overall job approval rating has returned to its lowest point in Bush’s presidency as Americans again turn less optimistic about the national economy according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Among all Americans, 36% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 58% disapprove. When it comes to Bush’s handling of the economy, 34% approve and 60% disapprove.
******
Speaking to hand-picked crowds doesn’t change the fact: Americans don’t like this man, what he’s done and what he stands for.
Mid-term elections are right around the corner and the Republicans now have a LEPER as their national standard.
BTW, Joe W., more than 120 protestors showed up.
Typical right-wing lie.
As for me Joe, the blackhawks already fly over my farm and I hear the constant clicking of wiretaps on my phone and computer. I didnt want to go and be seized by the s.s., I mean, secret service. :)
ProudLib. I heard that number from the evening news. I didn’t go up there and count them.
Also! How many of the 120 protestors were paid?
Also! The crowd was not handpicked. They did leave a section for military personnel from Ft. Riley, but nothing was hand pick. Anybody could have gone. Another liberal lie.
ksfarmggrl. Good sense of humor. ;)
PAID! Paid by whom? Sheesh, man, I’ve been going to protests for 20 years, and I have never yet met somebody who was paid to be there.
We’re not rich enough to be Republicans.
About 150 people demonstrated outside carrying signs opposed to Bush.
“I oppose everything he does,” said Chris Snyder, a 73-year-old grandmother from Lyons. “He lives in a bubble and has no relationships with common people.”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jan/24/warm_welcome_bush/?nation_world
******
Looks like you heard wrong, Joe. And BTW, you could only get in if you were a KSU student, faculty, or military.
We’re not rich enough to be Republicans.
Right on Proudlib. I am an officer in one of the organizing groups, and I can tell you, we cant even buy koolaide, much less pay protesters. We cant even afford to pay journalists like bushco does.
Joe, I think now you see why bloggers distrust the MSM. I believe the news reported a dozen, and most people unfortunately believe the news. Sounds like “truthiness” to me. Which news organization reported that?
Joe, according to the Eagle, there were around 200 protestors. I can assure you that if Bush would have stopped off here in Wicita or Kansas City, there would have been many more, including me.
Protesting may be of no use, Bush only hears the voices of his select few and the one in his head! BUsh the best president that Al-qaeda ever had!
Interesting in the way a local tv station covered it. On this morning’s news, KSN had their “upcoming stories” blurb just before a commercial, and one of the lines was: “Bush faces protestors in Manhattan”.
Considering that there were a few thousand people there to hear him, maybe 200 protestors outside, it is an interesting way of headlining a “news” story, don’t you think?
Especially since his motorcades have a way of flying past protestors.
Typical of the MSM, everyone knows Bush never really “faced” anything in his life, most of all responsibility for his mistakes.
I imagine that there were some Democrat party mandarins there, and I believe those people are paid. I doubt seriously that the grandmother from Lyons saw a dime, however.
That’s pretty newsworthy, too. I mean here you have 100-200 people show up in mid-January, some from as far away as Lyons (elderly to boot), with absolutely no chance to enter the venue, keep warm, and hear President Bush speak.
The real question: what would that number have been if President Bush had replicated his “bring ‘em on” line to *all* Kansans and set up first-come, first-serve seating.
What do you think the ratio of protestors/sitting audience members would have been then? ;)
writerdog
If what Steven Hayes of the Weekly Standard proves to be true, Iraq trained approx. 8000 foreign terrorists in the 4 years previous to our invasion. This information is from Iraqi government documents that we are SLOWLY translating. These documents will eventually be made public so you may as well drop that “Saddam didnt support terrorism” arguement now.
As for the “illegal surveilance of Americans” arguement that so many of you kool-aid drinkers keep flogging- I find it strange that with all the publicity over it I havent heard of 1 single person coming forward and complaining of being questioned or detained due to info pulled by by the NSA. The American Civil Liberties (for foreign terrorists)union has filed suit against the administration, but they dont have one single client claiming that they were unfairly targeted. Could it be you guys are barking up another empty tree?
writerdog
Sudan wouldnt sponsor Islamic terrorists, they are a secular govt.(at least thats what a bunch of lefties have always said of Saddam)
Couple problems, Heck. One, you write that “if” what Mr. Hayes writes is true, but then you appear to go on and advise writerdog to act on your “if” before it’s “proven.” Not vested in this, are you? ;)
Two, the bigger problem with the NSA surveillance is likely to show up in the future. That is, allowing the President to act illegally now, while not perhaps immediately harmful, sets a very bad precedent for future executives. Do you agree?
One thing I find very strange about President Bush’s argument in this area is something David Broder notes. That is, how can the President not know that the Congress cannot legally cede him this authority? For the President to say that Congress “gave” him this power is silly, unless the President is silly. The legislative branch can no more cede to the executive power to spy illegally than it can give the judicial branch power to enforce law. The Constitution is the source and the SCOTUS the final arbiter of what the executive can do. For the president to argue otherwise is silly.
That said, I agree that objecting to illegal NSA spying will likely prove to be a loser politically. Doesn’t make it right, but it does make it unpalatable.
Dear Rhonda,
I am ammused by your choice of words, “…address Monday to a friendly audience at Kansas State University seemed to be…” Seemed to be? I thought his speech was pretty straight forward and easy to understand. Maybe if you had Phillip help you with the big words..
Oh well, as the libs use your BLOG for yet another string of ‘hate-bush, hate-America,’ idiotic comments I thought they might like to refer to the actual speach! Enjoy!
Transcript of President Bush’s speechhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060123-4.html
Hank
Dear Rhonda,
Of course I didn’t find a copy of the question and answer period. I thought that was as good as his speech!
Hank
flike
The only reason I say “if” is Hayes seems to be the only one talking about this stuff. I have no independent way of gauging his accuracy. I have no reason to doubt him, just trying to be a bit objective.
Hank, Rhonda use “seemed to be” to indicate that was her conclusion from hearing the speech.
Unlike you, journalists aren’t allowed to be cock-sure all the time. That’s why they use the word “allegedly” when the police catch somebody in the middle of a robbery.
Journalists aren’t your pastor with a monopoly on the truth.
Ray, “Bush faces protestors in Manhattan”.
And the Lawrence Journal World writes “Bush gets a warm welcome in Manhattan.”
Thing is, they’re both true.
If your point is that media is too liberal, you’re gonna have to work a lot harder than that.
Lib…you are reading things I did not write. I simply mentioned it was an interesting view to the coverage.
I don’t remember saying anything about ‘liberal media’…I even re-read what I wrote and didn’t see that there at all. I just found it an interesting viewpoint.
Little touchy, Lib???
Dear ProudLib,
Perhaps your right, I was a little hard on Rhonda. I just read her editorial in the paper today and I thought it was pretty fair all in all.
Hank
She still amuses me though.
Damoon,
President Bush has faced more in his life than you could probably imagine.
Someone doesn’t become President by winning the lottery.
It takes alot of hard work for anyone to make it that far regardless of what you might think about them or their policies.
Your hate Bush for everything attitude is getting the best of you damoon.
Hard work my a$$. Bush got there because of some very deep pockets.
Sorry, “k”, that doesn’t wash. Remember Ross Perot? His pockets are deeper than Bush’s, but he didn’t win.
Try again. It takes more than just cash.
Can I ask the liberals that are on this blog some questions. Do you guys know each other outside the blog? Do you guys hang out and go to Democratic Party luncheons and rallies?
Joe – can’t speak for anyone else but I do know one other “liberal” here but haven’t seen him in some time. Don’t really have much time for “hanging out”
Ray’s right. For a former party-hardy Yale frat boy who tried to follow his dad’s footsteps in the oil business, but failed, tried to get a Texas congressional seat like his dad, but failed, eventually got set up by his dad’s friends to run a Texas baseball team that got a nice socialized taxpayer-funded stadium, but didn’t go anywhere in the American League competition, then got his New England accent nicely changed via tutoring into “Texan” at age 44, so he could sound like a down-home boy and win the Texas governorship, then become a President who had no interest or knowledge about foreign affairs, Bush didn’t have deep pockets. But somebody who put the puppet on the stage did.
It’s also noteworthy that according to an old-fashioned thing called vote-tabulating, Bush didn’t actually win the 2000 election. With the benefit of incumbency, he barely marshalled 50% of the vote–and Diebold’s CEO predicted the company would deliver Ohio for hom, Diebold being the automated voting machine company whose machines have been rejected by several states because they can be hacked and their voting tallies falsified. Bush got Ohio’s majority, where Diebold machines were in place widely. Otherwise, Kerry would have won the 2004 election.
Even though he had no clear majority mandate, Bush decided to act as if he had overwhelming public support. Or, more accurately, his handlers decided this.
We went to war based on fictions. The then-candidate said he would become the “Education President” [sic]. He said in 2000 that he wouldn’t engage in “nation building” [sic]. He said he would be “a uniter, not a divider” [sic], i.e. that he would work collegially with Democrats. Bush isn’t necessarily a liar. He just doesn’t do what he says he will do.
What does Bush know about terrorism? Did he fight terrorism while obtaining oil-drilling contracts in Texas? While being governor of that state?
Why was the administration looking at attacking Iraq BEFORE 9/11?
Oh, here’s something interesting. Iraq is estimated to have 100 billion barrels of oil reserves. Within a decade, this will be worth about $10 trillion. That’s 1 followed by 12 zeros. A small coterie that can finagle its way to capture a mere 10% of that can become fabulously wealthy. Is it possible that American soldiers and marines are dying in Iraq, rather than the Sudan, to sacrifice themselves so that somebody else can pocket the a piece of the value of Iraq’s oil resource? Ten percent of 10 trillion is 1000 billion dollars.
The 9/11 attack killed some 3000 people. That’s fewer than 1 month of US highway fatalities. It’s less than two weeks of fatalities caused by medical malpractice in US hospitals. Has the Bush administration mounted any effort to reduce highway hospitalities or hospital mistakes, which are much more injurious to Americans than isolated acts of terrorism? Why not?
Some people don’t mind NSA staffers snooping into their communications. They don’t mind 80-year old grandmas being declothed and searched at airports, because their grandmas have nothing to hide, so they shouldn’t mind being humiliated.
Ray–that’s why I said “if your point is . . .” See the “if.”
Apparently it isn’t your point. Which makes it kind of . . . pointless.
My point is exactly what I said it was, to note the interesting view of the news coverage. I did not place a label like you are so fond of doing. I did not make any accusations.
My point is very clear..simply that it was an interesting position for a news channel.
Is it not possible to make an observation without being challenged? Settle down, lib..I was not making any attacks or labelling anyone/anything.
Heart–
Check your history, 18 times a president with less than 50% of the vote has won..including Clinton in both terms–and he had the incumbency benefit. Kennedy was another, as was Nixon.
I did not say dubyas pockets were deep. I said he got there because of deep pockets. He was installed by corporations for corporations. And you are right Ray; it does take more than cash. The republikans knew the small minded religious right would come out in droves if something stupid like gay marriage was on the ballot. Score one for your masters who know how to motivate their ignorant followers. You won’t turn off Survivor to vote any other time, but try to give homosexuals equal rights and you would swallow glass shards to get to the polls.
Back off on the venom, “k”. I have never missed an election, even when out of the country. I have no masters. I did not vote for the gay marriage ban. But, you have clearly made up your closed mind, and are not interested in facts.
Your hatred is affecting your ability to read. You want to label everyone who doesn’t agree with everything you say as the ‘right wing enemy’ and you are wrong. You are off base and insulting in the process.
K, when they call you names, you know you’ve won.
Joe Williams, have you stopped beating your wife? If I say I know other posters, you say “see, they’re all in league.” If I say no, I know no one, you say, “that’s why you lose, you won’t get organized.”
Truthful answer–I know one other liberal post-er personally.
K, good posts btw. It was good to be reminded of how W. acquired the White House dispite the will of the American people.
Jumping the gun a bit there ProudLib. I was just curious. I wasn’t going to come back with something mean or even say anything.
Calling names? If saying “Liberal” the same thing calling somebody names?
You’re pretty defensive, plus you posted something very insulting. You actually lost all crediablity with me, but that doesn’t come at a surprise. I’ll just keeping on ignoring every single one of your post.
Joe, I know 3 posters personally. I work with 2 and the other is a close longtime friend. No, we don’t go to “Democratic luncheons” together. 2 of us are Lib, 1 conservative, and 1 right of center. Not exactly fodder for “Democratic lunceons”, do you think?
Heckler, first the Weekly Standard is the baby of Bill Krytol. His father is the mentor of the PNAC. I would not depend of that rag for the weather forcast. If you were to define traitor,Krytol’s picture would be at the top. An example would be the PNAC.
Joe, all the liberals in northwest kansas are making progress and coming to get you. We have graduated from having our meetings in a phone booth to being able to fill one restaurant booth. Quite a dangerous conspiracy, wouldnt you say? We will know we have arrived when we have to push TWO tables together for a meeting. :)
I lost credebility with JoeW. sob!
The question about beating your wife is an old old example of a loaded question. It’s not an insult.
Sorry you weren’t aware of it.
I earnestly desire that we become better strangers, Joe.
How will you ever live with yourself PL?
And Joe Williams joins Heckler, Hank/Nathan on the list of posts I ignore.
I know no other poster here. I have found the other “liberal” posters here quite kind though and would doubtless call them friend.
The only conservative poster that I have even a hint of respect for is Kansasam.
Hey X? I gotta wonder how you can hang with womeone on the right, or even right of center. I applaud you your diplomacy. ( I think) Personally? I do not associate with conservatives. So far it has “cost” me my former best friend and one crazy aunt who actually shook hands with ol’ shrubby. I am gladly and forever separated from those beknighted folks.
All that said; bush’s apperance in Manhattan was just one more staged, scripted event. Did anyone notice him reading from notes on the podium before him during the Q&A? My mo caught that and watching it again I did as well. No surpre there. Remember the Q&A with the troops in Iraq? Same ‘ol same’ol.
Hey bushies? Mr. p(Resident) ? I got a challenge for ya. Let’s put all the swaggering bravado to a REAL test. One hour, or a half hour, or even 10 minutes open forum. The ENTIRE audience anti-bush. (turnabout fair play ya know) I think that would only be fair. Make the “elected” executive of the most powerful nation on the planet face an audience composed only of his DETRACTORS…..you know, representative of about a little more than half of the country! What say you? Bring it on?
I thought it was funny that in Manhatten Kansas there wasn’t one student who could think of a single meaningful question AND a woman who has TWO relatives serving in the new Iraqi government. I wasn’t aware K State students were so dense or that Manhatten KS was so diverse. Now I know.
huh huh…Mr Dubya huh huh…are you gonna catch that one flick about the gay dudes? huh huh….awesome dude…
I dont know anyone here but nwkansas. He and I are the only two liberals in the phone booth when we have our meetings of pinkos out here. We split over water issues from the other two liberals who live in Hays, so we dont need the table for 4 anymore. :)
Nwkansas is a very sweet and smart guy and I am glad to call him friend.
A majority of Kansans disapprove of Bush’s performance just like the rest of the country.
Astonishingly, not a single negative question was entertained by our fearless leader in front of the incredibly “diverse” crowd.
“Mr. President, should I love you more for the tax cuts or bringing freedom to Iraq?”