2008 State of the Union

[Kashchei]

I'm interested to know if anyone is interested in (planning to watch) tonight's "5 o'clock follies." The best thing I can think of to say pre-speech is that this is the chimp-in-chief's last one. Our long national nightmare has less than a year to go and W will be more and more of a lame duck as the election picks intensity. These are all good things IMHO.

[Naimfan]

I'll bet we hear a lot about how we need to invade Iran. Followed closely by the announcement that it has begun.

And no, I'll not be watching it--I'll be running a rehearsal.

[Iscariot]

I won't be watching it, but I'll probably read a transcript on the Googletubes.

[themadchemist]

I stopped watching this stuff years ago. I'll watch next year, when someone else delivers it.

[hulugu]

I'm interested to know if anyone is interested in (planning to watch) tonight's "5 o'clock follies." The best thing I can think of to say pre-speech is that this is the chimp-in-chief's last one. Our long national nightmare has less than a year to go and W will be more and more of a lame duck as the election picks intensity. These are all good things IMHO.

I can't watch Bush manhandle the English language into a headlock anymore, it's just too awful. I might read a transcript later just to see what the big dummy's going to fail at next.

[themadchemist]

I can't watch Bush manhandle the English language into a headlock anymore, it's just too awful. I might read a transcript later just to see what the big dummy's going to fail at next.

The State of the Union is usually better grammatically, because it's written and then tele-prompted. But it's the egregious ideological assertions that drive me crazy.

[obeygiant]

I'll watch it. As crazy as that sounds.

[hulugu]

The State of the Union is usually better grammatically, because it's written and then tele-prompted. But it's the egregious ideological assertions that drive me crazy.

I've probably gone off the handle on the above, but I just can't watch the man speak in public.

[clevin]

just tell us when the check will be arriving. I need to buy a projector.

[stevento]

i want to hear what george w bush has to say about energy. i am ashamed that he represents our country. i'm sure you all know about him going to saudi arabia and begging for lower gas prices. disgusting.
when hillary (or any dem for that matter) is president we will stand together as a nation as say to saudis "you keep your oil. you need it. we dont"

[Kashchei]

The political analysis I heard over the weekend pointed to W using his final state of the union to attack democrats about being soft on terror by allowing the stopgap FISA agreement to expire at the end of this week. Without retroactive immunity for the telecom companies, we all might all find out all the illegal things that W did while in office and we just can't have that! After all, the interests of the GOP, and this administration in particular, are far more important than the interests of the country.

[freeny]

just tell us when the check will be arriving. I need to buy a projector.

By the way, that money is an advance on your tax return. Youll be paying it back come next spring.

[Desertrat]

"when hillary (or any dem for that matter) is president we will stand together as a nation as say to saudis "you keep your oil. you need it. we dont" "

Ya wanna put money on that?

'Rat

[Naimfan]

"when hillary (or any dem for that matter) is president we will stand together as a nation as say to saudis "you keep your oil. you need it. we dont" "

Ya wanna put money on that?

'Rat

You do realize the percentage of our oil that comes from Saudi Arabia?

[Roger1]

"when hillary (or any dem for that matter) is president we will stand together as a nation as say to saudis "you keep your oil. you need it. we dont" "

Ya wanna put money on that?

'Rat

WHAT?!? You honestly don't think the next Democratic president we have won't tell the Saudis what to do with their oil???! Shame on you!
;)

[mrkramer]

when hillary (or any dem for that matter) is president we will stand together as a nation as say to saudis "you keep your oil. you need it. we dont"

The problem with that is we do need the oil still and will need it for a long time.

[hulugu]

The problem with that is we do need the oil still and will need it for a long time.

However, a real energy policy designed around new and current technologies with an aim towards reducing or nearly eliminating our oil usage would be nice. It doesn't have to happen tomorrow, but we should have been working towards this goal since the '70s. And, we certainly shouldn't be holding the hands of Wahabbi dictators.

[walangij]

I just wish that President Bush would go on and just say "I'm Sorry" for all that's happened. I'm completely sure that things didn't go how he planned, and that his neo-con buddies conned him into being their puppet for their interests. Rarely do we hear people blame Wolfowitz or Rumsfield or Tenet.

[Desertrat]

Yeah, Naimfan, about 15%, per a quick Google for 2006.

[gusapple]

I've probably gone off the handle on the above, but I just can't watch the man speak in public.

I have nothing against Bush, it's just that Frank Calliendo does the best impression to show why it is fun to watch the President's speeches. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE2fPjskYG8 :D

[zioxide]

Here's the good thing about tonight's state of the union: it's Bush's last one. :D

Hopefully Obama will win the election. I'd actually look forward to watching the State of the Union if he was giving it.

[Kashchei]

I have nothing against Bush, it's just that Frank Calliendo does the best impression to show why it is fun to watch the President's speeches. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE2fPjskYG8 :D


I can't tell if Frank Caliendo's the one that does the Shrub impression on the President's Weekly Radio Address (http://weeklyradioaddress.com/) or if it is someone equally talented.

[stevento]

"when hillary (or any dem for that matter) is president we will stand together as a nation as say to saudis "you keep your oil. you need it. we dont" "

Ya wanna put money on that?

'Rat

yep and i bet we'll get osama too. within a year.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Here's the good thing about tonight's state of the union: it's Bush's last one. :D

Hopefully Obama will win the election. I'd actually look forward to watching the State of the Union if he was giving it.
Unless he starts another war, I wouldnt put much past him and his team of draft dodgers.

[miloblithe]

You do realize the percentage of our oil that comes from Saudi Arabia?

Looks like about 17%

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

[7on]

Obama campaigners called me during the speech and asked if I was going to the Obama speech tomorrow (Kansas City) and whether I could volunteer this weekend o_O

[tkidBOSTON]

I think I just watch these things to see the reactions of everyone and to see if the camera can catch anyone sleeping.

[hulugu]

I just wish that President Bush would go on and just say "I'm Sorry" for all that's happened. I'm completely sure that things didn't go how he planned, and that his neo-con buddies conned him into being their puppet for their interests. Rarely do we hear people blame Wolfowitz or Rumsfield or Tenet.

Bush stands up at the podium, waits for the applause to slow, clears his throat: "Well America you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You ********* up - you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it!" :D

[cribbed from Animal House]

[halfprep455]

I almost cried during the State of the Union Speech. I hard solid fact just hit me while I was watching the speech.....................





THIS IS FINALLY BUSHES LAST STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ONLY ONE MORE YEAR LEFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm looking forward to seeing Obama's State of the Union Speech next year:D

[themadchemist]

Watched a bit...Wow, that sucked. The closing bit was awful, except for the last line, "Let's get to their business," or whatever it was. It was a nice line and it was delivered well.

Other than that, a third didn't make sense, a third was distortion and spin, and the last third was fluffy nonsense that didn't say anything. This was weak; you can tell his best speechwriters have abandoned him.

[Dont Hurt Me]

So many lies, so many twists of truths. Like talking about the pork & earmarks, This president never hesitated one time in signing pork bills until the democrats took over then all of sudden he gets it? He never crossed the isle to work with anyone and he talks about working together. Lies,more lies and spin. Its all we have had from this man for 7 years the last wont be any different. Biggest partison S.O.B we have had in the whitehouse ever as far as I can tell. Still spinning his needless Iraq war.
Hypocrite preaching to the other hypocrites, little else.

[Cooknn]

...you can tell his best speechwriters have abandoned him.You'd think after seven years in office he would know how to say "nuclear" :rolleyes:

[themadchemist]

You'd think after seven years in office he would know how to say "nuclear" :rolleyes:

Forget the delivery! In past years, there were at least some beautiful phrases, even if they were inflammatory. I didn't hear any last night. That said, I tuned in and out, but for the parts of it that I heard, it was a mediocre speech. It could have been written by a half-wit college student.

[Desertrat]

I didn't bother to watch, but I've read some comments from folks who are more investment-money oriented. They agree with the idea that our worst problem, for now, is economic. While I believe that terrorism is a real problem, it is adequately dealt with for the time being and didn't deserve the amount of time it was given. The stimulus package is exactly the wrong way to go for the good of the public, the budget deficit, and the overall economy.

I fault its supporters as much as I do Bush, for that matter...

'Rat

[v-ault]

I thought the most striking visual for me was when Bush said something like, "patients and doctors need to make decisions, NOT GOVERNMENT" or what have you... then they flash to Obama and he looks like he just swallowed a fly - just screaming to me "****** that, the government rules!!!!". It was hilarious.

Overall, I think you guys are being cynical - I thought it was overall a pretty good speech, and him lecturing congress for being douches was great... loved it.

On top of that, Keith Olberman needs to take some prozac or something... Jesus H. Christ... no wonder nobody watches him... he's so ****ing acid to listen to.

All night he's been going... "BWAAAAH!!!!!!!! This speech was nothing more than a re-visitation of all the things that he's NOT done and completed through his administration... I mean... WHAT WAS HE THINKING?!?!? BWAH!!!!!!!"

Here's a clue you dumb liberal... the reason his LAST SOTU address brought up initiatives and ideas and priorities that he has spoken about before but have not been accomplished, is because its his last year in office, and he's trying to ****ing TIE UP THE LOOSE ENDS.

Jesus, what a dumb idiot. When you come in and try to do a bunch of ****... do a lot of it, but miss on some things... and you have a year left to try to get as much of you "unfinished business" as possible taken care of... it makes sense that in the big speech you deliver, you make a final push to try to wrap up the **** you see as unfinished.

I thought the democrats were in extremely poor taste tonight... there were SEVERAL times in the speech where he appealed to bipartisanship and common sense, common ground, and those idiots not only didn't stand, but they didn't clap. They looked like bitter, sore assed losers playing obstructionist to an appeal to work together. I mean there was one where he called for "All citizens to be extended coverage and health care" and the ****ing turds stayed on their asses because the president had just talked about ramping up competition and creating health savings accounts.

[SMM]

I thought the most striking visual for me was when Bush said something like, "patients and doctors need to make decisions, NOT GOVERNMENT" or what have you... then they flash to Obama and he looks like he just swallowed a fly - just screaming to me "****** that, the government rules!!!!". It was hilarious.

Overall, I think you guys are being cynical - I thought it was overall a pretty good speech, and him lecturing congress for being douches was great... loved it.

On top of that, Keith Olberman needs to take some prozac or something... Jesus H. Christ... no wonder nobody watches him... he's so ****ing acid to listen to.

All night he's been going... "BWAAAAH!!!!!!!! This speech was nothing more than a re-visitation of all the things that he's NOT done and completed through his administration... I mean... WHAT WAS HE THINKING?!?!? BWAH!!!!!!!"

Here's a clue you dumb liberal... the reason his LAST SOTU address brought up initiatives and ideas and priorities that he has spoken about before but have not been accomplished, is because its his last year in office, and he's trying to ****ing TIE UP THE LOOSE ENDS.

Jesus, what a dumb idiot. When you come in and try to do a bunch of ****... do a lot of it, but miss on some things... and you have a year left to try to get as much of you "unfinished business" as possible taken care of... it makes sense that in the big speech you deliver, you make a final push to try to wrap up the **** you see as unfinished.

I thought the democrats were in extremely poor taste tonight... there were SEVERAL times in the speech where he appealed to bipartisanship and common sense, common ground, and those idiots not only didn't stand, but they didn't clap. They looked like bitter, sore assed losers playing obstructionist to an appeal to work together. I mean there was one where he called for "All citizens to be extended coverage and health care" and the ****ing turds stayed on their asses because the president had just talked about ramping up competition and creating health savings accounts.

Nice response from the uninformed, right-wing contingency. Bush and his cronies are established liars. This entire speech was 'blame everyone but me'. You seem like the only person I have read that was sucked in by it.

[v-ault]

Nice response from the uninformed, right-wing contingency. Bush and his cronies are established liars. This entire speech was 'blame everyone but me'. You seem like the only person I have read that was sucked in by it.

Should I even bother with this drivel?

If you want to talk about justice and war - at least be rational and realistic about it. Bush didn't lie to ANYONE about the damned war man - but the hyper-rabid-acid-breathed critics of the president don't really care about the truth of it. Even the foreign dissenters about the war had intelligence agencies that concurred with the CIA that weapons were present in Iraq - but that wasn't even the full justification for the war. Nobody has ever argued that Saddam wasn't a bloodthirsty tyrant who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people. Nobody has ever argued that he hated America and if he had a chance to cause us harm, he'd do it in a second. Nobody has argued that he has a history and a past of using biological and chemical weapons on not only his neighboring state of Iran, but his own people, and yes - American soldiers as well in 1991.

Oh yeah, and nobody can deny that President Clinton's administration made it the official policy of the United States to seek regime change in Iraq in 1998.

Everyone believed it - so much so that more than 20 Senate Democrats voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq (even though they now run away from that vote now that the public has a distaste for the conflict). It wasn't a lie, the most you could ever say it was, was an overstated argument aggressively sold, sometimes by over-reaching a bit... but never anything even CLOSE to a lie.

And as for the "war for oil" ******** - hasn't this nonsense died yet? We aren't even getting the Iraqi oil - its paying for Iraqi reconstruction. I'm paying over 3.00 a gallon for gas - so it hasn't exactly affected price... revenue for oil companies (which neither President Bush or VP Cheney see a dime of as they've been divested from the market in blind trust) isn't up or down because of Iraq - and global supply is unaffected. I get so mind numbingly tired of hearing the "war for oil" nonsense, so please, do me a favor and back it up with some numbers or just stop demagoguing the issue.

Listen, I've been probably W's biggest critic about budget management. He's failed to spend the time and effort necessary to really crack down on the budget, earmarks, pork barrel spending... he hasn't talked up the economy like Clinton did (the difference in the 6 years of economic growth under Bush and the 4-5 years of growth under Clinton was salesmanship by the Chief executive, and priorities they set) - and at the same time we've been going after an aggressive anti-terrorist campaign internationally, and as such our budget deficit has wratcheted up skyward.

But in reality, the biggest cause of the budget disaster is the Republican Congress that got thrown out in 2006. The year of Democratic Congress hasn't been much better... but still, it was their fault for abandoning the aggressive principles which brought them to power in 1994... the principles that DRAGGED Clinton kicking and screaming and FORCED him to balance the budget... they ditched that in their desire to maintain power, and in so doing lost their soul.

Since then the Republican Party has gone through an identity crisis and is currently in a bit of turmoil, and its going to take a strong leader setting a national agenda and bringing people together behind it to get the party back on track.

But back to my point - I'm not going to cry about the past and the failings of Congress and the President. It is my belief that he always wanted to take care of the budget, and wanted to be "Bill Clinton with a soul" so to speak, to the country when he took office - but that once 9/11 happened he completely devoted himself to national security and decided that was what his presidency was about - and now that he's in the twilight of his presidency he is attempting to clean up the mess and setting up the next president, WHOEVER IT IS, to help fix it... and for that, I'm happy about.

So, I'm not going to sit here and bitch about him - I'll applaud and watch closely to make sure he actually does it.

I'm defending why it wasn't a "forward looking inspirational speech about the future" or whatever it is the critics wanted it to be. Its a "I've got some **** to do that I haven't gotten done for a variety of reasons that aren't completely my fault, nor are they completely yours - so lets get this ****ing **** done by the time I leave please" speech.

And that's exactly the kind of speech it SHOULD have been.

[leekohler]

Should I even bother with this drivel?

If you want to talk about justice and war - at least be rational and realistic about it. Bush didn't lie to ANYONE about the damned war man - but the hyper-rabid-acid-breathed critics of the president don't really care about the truth of it. Even the foreign dissenters about the war had intelligence agencies that concurred with the CIA that weapons were present in Iraq - but that wasn't even the full justification for the war. Nobody has ever argued that Saddam wasn't a bloodthirsty tyrant who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people. Nobody has ever argued that he hated America and if he had a chance to cause us harm, he'd do it in a second. Nobody has argued that he has a history and a past of using biological and chemical weapons on not only his neighboring state of Iran, but his own people, and yes - American soldiers as well in 1991.

Oh yeah, and nobody can deny that President Clinton's administration made it the official policy of the United States to seek regime change in Iraq in 1998.

Everyone believed it - so much so that more than 20 Senate Democrats voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq (even though they now run away from that vote now that the public has a distaste for the conflict). It wasn't a lie, the most you could ever say it was, was an overstated argument aggressively sold, sometimes by over-reaching a bit... but never anything even CLOSE to a lie.

And as for the "war for oil" ******** - hasn't this nonsense died yet? We aren't even getting the Iraqi oil - its paying for Iraqi reconstruction. I'm paying over 3.00 a gallon for gas - so it hasn't exactly affected price... revenue for oil companies (which neither President Bush or VP Cheney see a dime of as they've been divested from the market in blind trust) isn't up or down because of Iraq - and global supply is unaffected. I get so mind numbingly tired of hearing the "war for oil" nonsense, so please, do me a favor and back it up with some numbers or just stop demagoguing the issue.

Listen, I've been probably W's biggest critic about budget management. He's failed to spend the time and effort necessary to really crack down on the budget, earmarks, pork barrel spending... he hasn't talked up the economy like Clinton did (the difference in the 6 years of economic growth under Bush and the 4-5 years of growth under Clinton was salesmanship by the Chief executive, and priorities they set) - and at the same time we've been going after an aggressive anti-terrorist campaign internationally, and as such our budget deficit has wratcheted up skyward.

But in reality, the biggest cause of the budget disaster is the Republican Congress that got thrown out in 2006. The year of Democratic Congress hasn't been much better... but still, it was their fault for abandoning the aggressive principles which brought them to power in 1994... the principles that DRAGGED Clinton kicking and screaming and FORCED him to balance the budget... they ditched that in their desire to maintain power, and in so doing lost their soul.

Since then the Republican Party has gone through an identity crisis and is currently in a bit of turmoil, and its going to take a strong leader setting a national agenda and bringing people together behind it to get the party back on track.

But back to my point - I'm not going to cry about the past and the failings of Congress and the President. It is my belief that he always wanted to take care of the budget, and wanted to be "Bill Clinton with a soul" so to speak, to the country when he took office - but that once 9/11 happened he completely devoted himself to national security and decided that was what his presidency was about - and now that he's in the twilight of his presidency he is attempting to clean up the mess and setting up the next president, WHOEVER IT IS, to help fix it... and for that, I'm happy about.

So, I'm not going to sit here and bitch about him - I'll applaud and watch closely to make sure he actually does it.

I'm defending why it wasn't a "forward looking inspirational speech about the future" or whatever it is the critics wanted it to be. Its a "I've got some **** to do that I haven't gotten done for a variety of reasons that aren't completely my fault, nor are they completely yours - so lets get this ****ing **** done by the time I leave please" speech.

And that's exactly the kind of speech it SHOULD have been.

People might take you more seriously if you could explain yourself without the extensive use of expletives.

Bottom line- most people in this country disapprove of the job Bush has done. No one has any motivation to "work with him" at this point. He certainly hasn't done much to work with anyone else who might disagree with him. I certainly hope he's held in check until the end of his term.

[skunk]

Bush didn't lie to ANYONE about the damned war.WHERE ARE THE WMDs?
Nobody has ever argued that Saddam wasn't a bloodthirsty tyrant who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people.Your Adminstrations have been in bed with plenty of bloodthirsty tyrants before now. Most of them weren't sitting on oilfields, though.
Nobody has ever argued that he hated America and if he had a chance to cause us harm, he'd do it in a second.
99903
He loved America until America bombed his country back to pre-industrial chaos, and America loved him. As you can see.
Nobody has argued that he has a history and a past of using biological and chemical weapons on not only his neighboring state of Iran, but his own peopleNot many people argued about where he got them from either. You don't really know your history, do you?

Oh yeah, and nobody can deny that President Clinton's administration made it the official policy of the United States to seek regime change in Iraq in 1998.We can all deny that "regime change" is a sufficient reason to launch a pre-emptive strike under the UN Charter, though. Oh yeah.

Everyone believed it - so much so that more than 20 Senate Democrats voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq (even though they now run away from that vote now that the public has a distaste for the conflict). It wasn't a lieMost people believed what the Administration said because they had a residual but misplaced respect for the honesty of the holders of high office.

And as for the "war for oil" ******** - hasn't this nonsense died yet? We aren't even getting the Iraqi oil - its paying for Iraqi reconstruction.Well, that's sheer incompetence for you, isn't it? Imagine going to all that trouble to seize control of the oilfields and then not being able to secure the pipelines! Face it, your boys couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery.

[v-ault]

WHERE ARE THE WMDs?
Your Adminstrations have been in bed with plenty of bloodthirsty tyrants before now. Most of them weren't sitting on oilfields, though.


Logical fallacy there. That was just wrong intelligence-not a lie.


99903
He loved America until America bombed his country back to pre-industrial chaos, and America loved him. As you can see.
Not many people argued about where he got them from either. You don't really know your history, do you?

Please, could you do something better than just posting a photo that dumb 9/11 truthers use as evidence? Where did I talk about where he got them, either? He has used them on our troops is what I said. I don't see the point of anything you said.

Sure we tried to use him against Iran and that was a failure.



We can all deny that "regime change" is a sufficient reason to launch a pre-emptive strike under the UN Charter, though. Oh yeah.

Most people believed what the Administration said because they had a residual but misplaced respect for the honesty of the holders of high office.

Well, that's sheer incompetence for you, isn't it? Imagine going to all that trouble to seize control of the oilfields and then not being able to secure the pipelines! Face it, your boys couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery.

What does this have anything to do with what I said? :confused::confused::confused:

You and solvs are good friends, I bet.

Also, I'm guessing you're not from America?

[Desertrat]

"Where are the WMDs?"

Syria, most likely.

'Rat

[hulugu]

...

At best the Bush administration took intelligence that was known to be weak, that needed more sources, or that was taken out of context and used that information to justify an invasion of Iraq. They misused the intelligence agencies reports, including information from the British to sell the American public on a war that was unnecessary at the time.

No one can argue that once plans were made, the administration then failed at nearly every opportunity, from the creation of the CPA and the political cronyism that brought in the inexperienced Paul Bremer, to the numerous failures of Rumsfeld's own strategic planning. If there were WMDs in Iraq at the time of invasion, which were moved to Syria as 'Rat theorized, then the Bush administration should still be held accountable for losing the very items that made it necessary to invade the country in the first place.

If we invaded Iraq to secure America from WMDs then either the administration botched it and we are still in grave danger or the intelligence was wrong in the first place. And, furthermore, if the intelligence was wrong then not only the CIA, but also the administration who brought such an argument to the fore should be held accountable for launching a war based on bulls**t.

Either way you slice this, the Bush administration had made an utter disaster of a grave situation while at the same time nearly losing control of Afghanistan and failing to catch all of the people who attacked us on 9/11.

I would suggest that anyone who suggests that the administration did not lie in some way about Iraq should carefully read through the sources and articles this website (http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/) refers to. Note, I said read the original articles including the 9/11 Commission Report and various news sources, interviews, and books.

[v-ault]

At best the Bush administration took intelligence that was known to be weak, that needed more sources, or that was taken out of context and used that information to justify an invasion of Iraq. They misused the intelligence agencies reports, including information from the British to sell the American public on a war that was unnecessary at the time.

No one can argue that once plans were made, the administration then failed at nearly every opportunity, from the creation of the CPA and the political cronyism that brought in the inexperienced Paul Bremer, to the numerous failures of Rumsfeld's own strategic planning. If there were WMDs in Iraq at the time of invasion, which were moved to Syria as 'Rat theorized, then the Bush administration should still be held accountable for losing the very items that made it necessary to invade the country in the first place.

If we invaded Iraq to secure America from WMDs then either the administration botched it and we are still in grave danger or the intelligence was wrong in the first place. And, furthermore, if the intelligence was wrong then not only the CIA, but also the administration who brought such an argument to the fore should be held accountable for launching a war based on bulls**t.

Either way you slice this, the Bush administration had made an utter disaster of a grave situation while at the same time nearly losing control of Afghanistan and failing to catch all of the people who attacked us on 9/11.

I would suggest that anyone who suggests that the administration did not lie in some way about Iraq should carefully read through the sources and articles this website (http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/) refers to. Note, I said read the original articles including the 9/11 Commission Report and various news sources, interviews, and books.

That's easy for you to say though man. Its easy to armchair quarterback and say he should have done this, or should have done that... but it comes down to having to make choices, and in the end I don't think Bush "ignored a winning strategy"... I think he felt (incorrectly) that the strategy they had planned would have worked well. I mean, do you honestly think if he felt that something was a winning strategy he would have cast it aside and intentionally meandered his way through a tough post-war environment?

Keep in mind that the United States had just invaded Afghanistan, completely overwhelmed the country, pacified it, and began the workings of setting up a quality, pro-western democracy under Hamid Karzai, with people IMMEDIATELY cheering, sending their girls to school, and many other things that had been previously banned under the oppression of the Taliban regime.

Then you look at Iraq - who unlike Afghanistan has a MUCH more developed infrastructure, more natural resources to exploit to help rebuild the nation, and most importantly a groundswell of anti-Saddam and pro-American sentiment. When we beat back Iraq in 1991, the people in the country, especially the Kurds were DESPERATE for us to come in and topple Saddam - and we didn't. He had refugees and advisers from Iraq in exile that were constantly meeting with Bush, and it was their belief (this is the advice they gave to him) that the divisions between the differing ethnic and religious populations were artificially created due to Saddam pitting tribe against tribe. He was advised by Iraqis themselves (particularly three exiles - Kanan Makiya, Hatem Mukhlis and Rend Franke) that ethnic and religious tensions would dissolve without the presence of Saddam.

Given what had JUST happened in Afghanistan, with that very description occurring, President Bush and his cabinet felt strongly that Iraq would happen in a similar fashion, especially with the uniquely sophisticated society and natural resources to allow Iraq to be rebuilt.

The American strategy he approved felt that the greatest problem to be faced in the post-war country was going to be in the reconstruction of the country - not in the political and sectarian problems that ended up occurring. And so, they pressed on with money, time and effort spent on getting electricity running, getting food and water flowing, etc. The army brought in teams of engineers, doctors and technicions - and the focus of their wartime preparations were in this regard. What ended up happening was different than what they thought would happen. Just because SOME people felt it would happen differently doesn't mean much - there are competing theories and ideas about ANY subject, and you have to pick one. Bush honestly believed the political and sectarian problems would not be at the level they ended up being, and really wanted to focus on helping rebuild the infrastructure of the country so it could function.

And yes - you can say "well you can't rebuild infrastructure when there is widespread sectarian violence"... and that's true... but over 100,000 US troops with a few other countries sending in men as well is hardly a ****ing picnick. They simply underestimated the number of troops that would be required to maintain security - and if you want to fault him for that, so be it. I fault Rumsfeld for it, and Bush ended up firing him... perhaps a bit slowly, but still, he did it.

Its easy for us to sit here and say "he should have known better" - but you know what... its not very fair. Had the initial strategy been to overwhelm the country with military personnel to maintain law and order, and vital services like food, electricity, water, healthcare, etc had suffered, the United States would be facing a nightmare of a PR war, with "children starving" and "people with simple illnesses dying".

If we knew then what we know now - we'd have approached it differently... but the world doesn't work that way. The surge is working, 75% of Baghdad is secure, violence is down, and progress is being made politically. If that trend continues, and some irresponsible president doesn't simply ditch the country and run away - and Iraq ends up keeping itself together, then I think you will be VERY wrong and Iraq will be remembered as controversial, but in the end successful. I think the words "mistakes were made" will always haunt the Iraq effort... but if you look through Truman's wiki, you see **** all over the place about corruption, communist infultration into his administration, unpopularity and mistakes across the board... but he is remembered by Americans as one of the great presidents... he ranks no lower than 9th all time.

So, I think removed from the emotion and anger which is REMARKABLY nitpicky in terms of a war effort like this (had Iraq happened in the time of Roosevelt or Truman, I doubt it would even be an issue many american's noticed or cared about) - with time passed and perspective looking back... we'll see him somewhat fondly remembered.

But this is just my guess of course. I'll call you in 20 years.


*note, I never agreed with the war in Iraq or thought the reasons for going to war with them were justified. I'm just keeping things in perspective*

[Rodimus Prime]

People keep screaming we need to get out of Iraq and do it now.

Does any one release by doing that we are leaving a huge power void that some one will fill. Chance are that some one is going to be like Saddam or worse. It would be some war load who would take over the country.

The US pulling out like that just puts things into a huge mess. Having a power void as big as the US would leave leads to only chaos in in chaos War Lords tend to rise to power.

But hey we do not care about that we just want everyone out of Iraq never mind the fact that it would leave a power void and would lead to complete chaos.

[hulugu]

That's easy for you to say though man. Its easy to armchair quarterback and say he should have done this, or should have done that... but it comes down to having to make choices, and in the end I don't think Bush "ignored a winning strategy"... I think he felt (incorrectly) that the strategy they had planned would have worked well. I mean, do you honestly think if he felt that something was a winning strategy he would have cast it aside and intentionally meandered his way through a tough post-war environment?...

Well, considering that there were people who were professionals, who understood CI warfare and had studied it, who understood Iraq and the Mid-East and all of these people were ignored, I don't think my critique can be so easily dismissed as 'armchair quarterbacking.'

Saying that Napoleon shouldn't have engaged his enemies at Waterloo isn't 'armchair quarterbacking' rather it's an acknowledgement of reality. If the administration had reacted to the critiques before the war, or just after when the insurgency began, we might have been able to save lives and treasure. Instead, we got platitudes and Bush in his ridiculous Walter Mitty pose.

It's not just that "mistakes were made" or "As we know there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know," that bothers me so much, it's that this was coupled with political maneuvering and attacks that made anyone who attempted to point out just how wrong the administration was regret it.

As for Bush's legacy, who cares? The Iraqis streaming out into the Syrian desert, the enclave of newly recruited Al Qaeda in Iraq troops, the soldier sweating under his armor just before he kicks down another door in Fallujah, the FBI agent trying to assess a bit of information he can't translate because it's in Arabic, or the Afghan kid who sits in a wire cage staring at the Caribbean sky? I'm sure all of these people are desperately concerned with just where Bush II will be considered as president. For some reason, I'm finding this little bit of trivia suddenly offensive.

[solvs]

I have nothing against Bush
Then you haven't been paying attention.

While I believe that terrorism is a real problem, it is adequately dealt with for the time being
Tell that to Afghanistan.

The stimulus package is exactly the wrong way to go for the good of the public, the budget deficit, and the overall economy.

I fault its supporters as much as I do Bush, for that matter...
Can't argue with that.

People might take you more seriously if you could explain yourself without the extensive use of expletives.
Or things like "dumb", "idiot", "liberal" as a derogative, and "BWAHHH!!!" But he's a political science something or other, so we should just believe him despite all evidence to the contrary. Because we the ones who are partisans. :rolleyes: Love the shoutout to me BTW. I'd do my usual and argue every point with links to back them up, but I'm thinking I shouldn't bother based on our last conversation that he never responded to after telling me I was wrong based on nothing but condescension.

Call me if you'd like to argue facts other than "Keith Olbermann is a dumb idiot liberal no one watches so he should shut up".

People keep screaming we need to get out of Iraq and do it now.
Most reasonable people don't mean right this second, except for people like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. There won't be an immediate withdrawal. It'll have to be a slow and gradual withdrawal. But we need to leave someday, better to prepare for it now.

Does any one release by doing that we are leaving a huge power void that some one will fill. Chance are that some one is going to be like Saddam or worse. It would be some war load who would take over the country.
It probably would be anyway, just like with the 'stans right now, but that's how Saddam got in power the last time, so yeah, it's almost like we don't learn our lessons and keep making the same mistakes over and over and can't admit them until long after it's been lost (cough: Vietnam).

[v-ault]

Then you haven't been paying attention.


Tell that to Afghanistan.


Can't argue with that.


Or things like "dumb", "idiot", "liberal" as a derogative, and "BWAHHH!!!" But he's a political science something or other, so we should just believe him despite all evidence to the contrary. Because we the ones who are partisans. :rolleyes: Love the shoutout to me BTW. I'd do my usual and argue every point with links to back them up, but I'm thinking I shouldn't bother based on our last conversation that he never responded to after telling me I was wrong based on nothing but condescension.

Call me if you'd like to argue facts other than "Keith Olbermann is a dumb idiot liberal no one watches so he should shut up".


Most reasonable people don't mean right this second, except for people like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. There won't be an immediate withdrawal. It'll have to be a slow and gradual withdrawal. But we need to leave someday, better to prepare for it now.


It probably would be anyway, just like with the 'stans right now, but that's how Saddam got in power the last time, so yeah, it's almost like we don't learn our lessons and keep making the same mistakes over and over and can't admit them until long after it's been lost (cough: Vietnam).

Look, it's solvs! Solvs, one day you're gonna need to learn to like me. I plan to be the president of the United States before my life is over :p

[hulugu]

Look, it's solvs! Solvs, one day you're gonna need to learn to like me. I plan to be the president of the United States before my life is over :p

Well, unless you plan on being the first 'undead' president. ;)

[solvs]

Guessing I won't be getting that fact based argument from you, will I?

Look, it's solvs! Solvs, one day you're gonna need to learn to like me. I plan to be the president of the United States before my life is over :p
You sound just like Bush, so I'm guessing you'll be just as successful. We've even been distracted from talking about the abysmal showing of the SOTU. Well done. SL would be proud, "dumb, idiot, liberal" comments and all.

How about the factual errors in Bush's speech? His claiming to want to work together, despite years of doing the exact opposite? His claims on FISA being needed to provide security, despite there already being laws in place to do that? I could go on. If you'd like to have a real debate, let's do this. If you want to continue the rhetoric, I guess we're at a standstill.

Maybe that works in politics, but we have higher standards here.

[v-ault]

Guessing I won't be getting that fact based argument from you, will I?


You sound just like Bush, so I'm guessing you'll be just as successful. We've even been distracted from talking about the abysmal showing of the SOTU. Well done. SL would be proud, "dumb, idiot, liberal" comments and all.

How about the factual errors in Bush's speech? His claiming to want to work together, despite years of doing the exact opposite? His claims on FISA being needed to provide security, despite there already being laws in place to do that? I could go on. If you'd like to have a real debate, let's do this. If you want to continue the rhetoric, I guess we're at a standstill.

Maybe that works in politics, but we have higher standards here.


I'm arguing his speech sucking. The fact remains he had no reason to have a great inspirational speech. He's going into his last year as president and must tie up loose ends.

The loose ends he's talking about are up for debate. I never said i agreed with everything he said--quite the opposite. But he's going into his final year and wants to tie up loose ends for his legacy. time will tell if he accomplishes what he said he'll do in this speech.

I in no way thought the speech was a BAD speech. I thought it was a good speech and the type of speech he NEEDED to make. Whether or not you agree or disagree with what he thinks, that's up to you and me, but he's the president, not us.

You can believe it was horrible, and I don't care because I know we think completely different. you're entitled to your opinion.

But anyway, I blame your situation on the teachers in our universities.The people teaching in universities are the people who are professional students and spend their lives in academia... they swim with theory and cynicism and do not live in the real world.

But worst of all, they are the ones in control of the education of our college students, so they indoctrinate then and create a brand new generation of liberals who don't even know why they're liberals.

At least liberals in the 1930s were liberals for a reason... these post-1960s academics are largely niave and devoid of critical thinking.

Nothing annoys me more than professional students who go right into teaching. Professors should be retired people from the real world who can actually teach you about what the hell is really going on around you.

[v-ault]

Well, considering that there were people who were professionals, who understood CI warfare and had studied it, who understood Iraq and the Mid-East and all of these people were ignored, I don't think my critique can be so easily dismissed as 'armchair quarterbacking.'


You're acting like the military officials in the joint chiefs and across the military command structure were screaming at Bush to have a strategy, and he discounted it in favor of the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz strategy.

That simply isn't the case. The majority of the generals, the joint cheifs, and the military infrastructure as a whole was on board with the way it was being done at the time. Yes, there were dissenters who turned out to be right - but what the hell dude, you can't be held hostage by dissenters - he's not clairvoyant, he doesn't know which ones are going to end up being right, and which ones are crackpots. He has to go with what he honestly believes to be the most effective decision.

I remind you again, he was running for re-election in 2004. He was hardly going to skimp on the strategy out of "loyalty to Rumsfeld" or some other ********. He wanted to win the war, then rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq and get the ball rolling on a constitution and political answer to how the country will be governed. Given the information he was presented with, he felt the strategy they went with originally, a strategy that many prominent DEMOCRATS, especially the ones who were briefed (the armed services committee for example) concurred with.

He is hardly alone on this mistake - so looking back and pointing fingers like you or anyone else has the righteousness to have been right where he was wrong is foolish.

What it really came down to was that no strategy, no matter how perfect you think it was at its birth, would have missed SOMETHING once you got on the ground in a real sense. This particular strategy failed to predict the growth of the insurgency - which was born out of the de-Ba’athification of the country, which Sunnis viewed as being an attack on them - thus the Sunni Triangle gave birth to violence. They miscalculated the response of the Iraqi people - and I can understand why. That miscalculation lead to the birth and growth of the insurgency, and the drastic problems in restoring law and order and infrastructure to the country.

And come on, I'm hardly giving him a free pass. I'm simply saying that no president is perfect, and it comes down to a very basic fact - he made a decision which he felt was in the best interest of the country and our military effort in Iraq, and he most certainly wanted it to go as well as it possibly could (remember, the man was heading into a tough re-election fight).

He made the decision he thought was right - it turned out to not be right, and he fired the man who bungled the post-war effort and made a major adjustment to the strategy - one that has proven to be wildly successful by comparison to what was being done before. That is something that Johnson and Nixon never did in Vietnam... they never said, "you know what - the way we've been doing this isn't working, lets come up with a strategy that will address the problems we have encountered that we did not originally see"... admitting a failure of strategy and fixing it is something to be commended, especially given the bubble that presidents live in.

I repeat, you are viewing this BACK through colored lenses - making judgments about it from a perspective 3 years ahead. That's simply not fair - and its not this simplistic black and white world you are painting it to be for the president.

I'm still at a loss for words about what you think happened? That there was a groundswell of opposition being spit in the presidents face telling him that "it wasn't going to work"... which there wasn't (there was some that said it, but it was by far the minority), that he completely discounted/ignored it... which he didn't... and you are ignoring the fact that he was given a strategy which nearly everyone in the military command structure agreed with (save Powell and Armitage) - so its hardly a sin of evil to concur with the recommendations being made to him given the groundswell of support for it.

I get where you're coming from - he should have had a more critical eye and judged the situation cynically. But what I'm saying to you is that given his personal experience speaking with Iraqis in exile, the recommendations of his policy makers and the joint cheifs, and the previous experience in Afghanistan, its not exactly hard to see how ANY clear thinking president might have made the same decision that Bush did.

In the end, it was a failing strategy, and he adjusted it to the point where it is now reaping results. Yes, its very sad the strategy seems to have cost American lives, and I would never DREAM of making light of that or discounting lives as nothing more than numbers - but keep in mind that 3900 Americans have died in this conflict in the past five years, and in Vietnam for example, there were an average of 20,000 casualties every five years (much more than that for the greatest period of violence in the conflict) - so these lives are hardly being thrown away on a political whim... the soldiers on the ground are doing a magnificent job not only trying to put the country back together and end the sectarian violence, but in protecting themselves and their fellow soldiers.

Presidents aren't psychic - they often can't tell between consensus and groupthink... and they are held hostage by the imperfections of the presidential decision making process. Its something that simply can not be avoided.

And I take SEVERE exception to your assertation that he didn't listen to opposing viewpoints on not only the strategy - but the war itself. I just finished reading Dead Certain, a very balanced look at the presidency of GWB... and one thing was VERY clear reading it - he heard it all, listened to it all, considered it all, and in many instances ANGUISHED over the decision between ideas... he spent more than three weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 going for long LONG walks by himself with what people who saw him described as a "face of stone" and a very "sullen looking" face... as he considered if he should invade, or not invade.

He heard it all - he simply made a decision on how to proceed that ended up being inadequate to deal with the on the ground situation.

And again I say to you, had he gone with a massive troop buildup to attempt to pacify the country as his initial strategy - I can see that by itself spawning an insurgency - because not only would it look to the Iraqis like a colonizing force had taken over its country, but they would be spending their time patroling the streets, threatening citizens, and electricity, doctors, engineers and technicians would not have been as present/prevalent, and the Iraqi people would have looked at the Americans as "ignoring their needs"... I believe it may have caused its OWN insurgency.

And having that kind of troop level in the country was not called for given the situation - there WAS no insurgency until several months after the invasion began. The roots of the insurgency began with the de-Ba’athification of the country. The REAL folly of the post-war reconstruction was the POLITICAL mis-steps, not really the military ones.

Its entirely possible that whatever insurgency that came to prominance in Iraq would NEVER have happened had the political solutions been better.


So, the vitrialic hate for Bush in this regard is foolish, and when it is looked back on in history, from a somewhat calm and neutral standpoint, especially given what might end up happening in Iraq after he leaves office - I think its at least fair to CONSIDER that the current view on him, Iraq and his entire presidency will end up greatly different than the current public opinion on him.

Are you not willing to at least CONSIDER that possibility - because I have to tell you dude, its happened dozens of times in America's history... a leader faces popular opposition and loathing, anger and condemnation, and when time passes and world events play out, a somewhat different perspective emerges.

Just try to imagine what it will be like when the judgements of history are being made by people who weren't alive during Bush's presidency... lets say 50 years from now, when my grandkids are entering college.

Think of you and me, and how we think of the world 50 years ago (now we're talking about the 1950s) - it seems far away, removed from reality, antiseptic - words on a page. We don't feel the impact of having lived it, or being colored by our perceptions, the media portrayal or any of that ****. You and I are now free to enter into debates about concepts and ideas, strategies and history from a very different place than you and I are arguing about this now.

When you and I talk about the Korean War and Soviet Communism, we have a very disassociated point of view about it, because we weren't hiding under desks, we didn't see or live with the fear - the entire experience is very "stand offish" and so we judge the era differently than those who were in it at the time. We snicker at "duck and cover", ridicule government propoganda, and idealize certain politicians and policies - but we don't feel the opposition, the passion, anger and all the other things that really articulated what the time was about.

Just try to entertain the possibility man.

[Rodimus Prime]

Most reasonable people don't mean right this second, except for people like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. There won't be an immediate withdrawal. It'll have to be a slow and gradual withdrawal. But we need to leave someday, better to prepare for it now.


It probably would be anyway, just like with the 'stans right now, but that's how Saddam got in power the last time, so yeah, it's almost like we don't learn our lessons and keep making the same mistakes over and over and can't admit them until long after it's been lost (cough: Vietnam).

That is the problem very few people understand that we need a very gradual withdrawal. Which I think will be over a matter of years and during this withdrawal keeping an eye on how the power their is changing. If it looks like war lords are starting to gain power we should build it back up and keep the that from happening.

To me that is one of the lessons we should of learned from vietnam is the sudden pulled out ment in only a matter of hours the country was over ran. At the same time Vietnam was very different. But we can see what a sudden huge power void would cause.

[leekohler]

I'm arguing his speech sucking. The fact remains he had no reason to have a great inspirational speech. He's going into his last year as president and must tie up loose ends.

Edit....

Are you sure you're not Rush Limbaugh?

What a load of crap. You think college students are too dumb to think for themselves and make their own choices?

And talk about devoid of critical thinking. This post illustrates you clearly aren't capable of that, nor do you value it. Go back and read it again- then think about who you sound like. You want to make the world into your own ideal from what you've said- all teachers will be the same and teach the same way. You think that's encouraging critical thinking? It isn't. It's exactly the opposite.

[v-ault]

Are you sure you're not Rush Limbaugh?

What a load of crap. You think college students are too dumb to think for themselves and make their own choices?

And talk about devoid of critical thinking. This post illustrates you clearly aren't capable of that. Go back and read it again- then think about who you sound like. You want to make the world into your own ideal from what you've said- all teachers will be the same and teach the same way. You think that's encouraging critical thinking? It isn't. It's exactly the opposite.

If saying we need good teachers with actual experience makes me devoid of critical thinking in your mind, I'm fine with that.

[NAG]

I didn't watch it myself because after he lied to us nonstop in the early ones I figured I could just make a speech up in my head and it would be just as accurate.

Anyway, I did hear about what he said and I have to say I love the statement from the historian CBS interviewed after. What can Bush do in his final term? Nothing. lol

[leekohler]

If saying we need good teachers with actual experience makes me devoid of critical thinking in your mind, I'm fine with that.

But that's not what you said. You said you want all teachers to be the same- retired from whatever profession they teach. Well then- what of subjects that are entirely academic, such as philosophy? Oh but, that's a useless subject, right? Even though the whole point of such subjects is to indeed teach critical thought. I'm sure you'd like to see such things done away with. They make poor, defenseless kids with no brains into liberal zombies- correct?

[v-ault]

But that's not what you said. You said you want all teachers to be the same- retired from whatever profession they teach. Well then- what of subjects that are entirely academic, such as philosophy? Oh but, that's a useless subject, right? Even though the whole point of such subjects is to indeed teach critical thought. I'm sure you'd like to see such things done away with. They make poor, defenseless kids with no brains into liberal zombies- correct?

Well, teachers having real world experience are better than professional students becoming teachers.

I actually don't have a problem with philosophy; i enjoy it.

[leekohler]

Well, teachers having real world experience are better than professional students becoming teachers.

I actually don't have a problem with philosophy; i enjoy it.

Sure- real world experience is valuable. But from your post, it sounded like all you wanted were teachers who were conservatives and agree with you, because then there wouldn't be any liberals. There are plenty of real world people who are liberals- a lot more than you think (many who have lots of cash too!), who weren't brainwashed by professors.

[hulugu]

You're acting like the military officials in the joint chiefs and across the military command structure were screaming at Bush to have a strategy, and he discounted it in favor of the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz strategy.

Edit....

Just try to entertain the possibility man.

Having talked to people who were in positions of analysis in 2003, who were close to the opening stages of the war, there were lots of objections that didn't get filtered up for whatever reason.
My opinion hasn't been formed by looking back, my opinion of the strategy came before the invasion even happened and I've spent most of the last couple of years saying to myself and others, "they're going to do what?"

More men on the ground would have stemmed the insurgency, most experts in the CI field agree. Keeping the Iraqi army and police forces would also have helped. And, more of our guys would have meant that while the spearhead forces were pushing into the outskirts of Baghdad (and Baghdad Bob was still making his clearly untrue statements) we could have had a stronger supply-line, the National Guard troops like Jessica Lynch (just one example) wouldn't have been fired on (or would have been ready to respond), and we could have secured the numerous ammunition dumps that were left unattended and are even now being used against us. Just where do you think all those artillery rounds and RPGs came from? Not to mention the Library of Baghdad, the offices of the various government officials, or the WMDs we went in for in the first place.

Not everyone in the CIA or DoD agreed on the invasion, but it was pushed through by Cheney, who wanted regime change at any cost, by Rumseld, who sought to prove his own strategy, and Bush who was inexperienced and prone to political theater.

Try Fiasco, the 9/11 Commission Report, Imperial Life in the Emerald City, and Cobra II.

I do have vitriol for Bush and I won't deny it, but I'm not there because of some mistaken feel for the war, the issues behind it, or because I just like sitting in my lazy-boy and screaming at the referees. I there because they messed up a war of our choosing, failed to accomplish the missions we established, and started a civil war that is only calming down because thousands of people have either been pushed out of the neighborhoods or have left the country entirely. We have failed to find the WMDs, we have failed to protect the Iraqis, and we have helped set in motion an orgy of ethnic cleansing that will reverberate in Iraq for generations. We failed to learn the lessons of the Philippines, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia. And, yet I'm wrong because I'm not willing to concede that maybe Bush isn't quite the heroic figure so many keep pretending he is.

If Bush had to take long walks into the night, tough.

[themadchemist]

But anyway, I blame your situation on the teachers in our universities.The people teaching in universities are the people who are professional students and spend their lives in academia... they swim with theory and cynicism and do not live in the real world.


Their primary job is to do research. Would you like to kill the research enterprise entirely so that you can have people from the "real world" go in and teach? This works for certain subjects, esp. things like business, but it does not work for the sciences, history, economics, political science, etc. There, you do want people who have spent their lives systematically studying the fields and producing academic work--all that time they are "swimming" in academia is spent trying to delve deeper into their fields.


But worst of all, they are the ones in control of the education of our college students, so they indoctrinate then and create a brand new generation of liberals who don't even know why they're liberals.


Or perhaps a look at the past demonstrates over and over again why liberalism presents an advancing framework for development, while conservatism represents a regressing one. I know why I'm a liberal and the things to which I was exposed in college certainly bolstered that perception. As another point, the strong antipathy of American conservatism to higher education and intellectual development, as demonstrated in your post, also makes it hard for those who work at and attend many colleges and universities to swallow the movement. The constant tying of college education to elitism and an out-of-touch status is deceptive and harmful to those vast swaths of conservative kids who need to know that college is a positive place for developing your thinking skills, abilities, and job prospects, regardless of your political beliefs.

And if it seems like college kids are liberals, it's because young people tend to be more liberal. Correlation not causation, my friend, another thing that people ought to pick up in school.


At least liberals in the 1930s were liberals for a reason... these post-1960s douchebags are largely retarded and devoid of critical thinking.


One thing I learned in college was that ad hominem attacks are the province of those who have nothing better to say.


Nothing pisses me off more than professional students who go right into teaching. Professors should be retired people from the real world who can actually teach you about what the hell is really going on around you.

So again, you want to end the research enterprise. Can you really think of someone better equipped to teach, say, medicinal and organic chemistry than the professor at my university who developed a blockbuster drug? Who better to teach neurobiology than a world leader in circadian rhythms research? Who better to teach American history than people who have studied it painstakingly, producing book after book analyzing the past? Great researchers don't always make great teachers, but that's not because they are somehow less knowledgeable about their fields than a person in the "real world." No more vibrant atmosphere for the development of some of these fields exists than the one in our great universities. And moreover, I want people to learn how to produce scholarly work, how to think analytically about these fields. Education isn't just about learning the facts and the arguments, it's about learning the methodology, and in most cases, the leading researchers will have the best insight on all of those fronts. Again, I agree that exceptions exist, but for the vast majority of fields, I don't think you can point to an adequate replacement outside of academia for the professor.

And for your information, as someone who is spending a very long time in school in order to practice medicine and do research at an academic medical center, I find your comments personally insulting.

[solvs]

... but I noticed you still didn't actually respond to why I disliked the speech, instead we get this:

But anyway, I blame your situation on the teachers in our universities.The people teaching in universities are the people who are professional students and spend their lives in academia... they swim with theory and cynicism and do not live in the real world.

Edit...
Which has nothing to do with anything. I'm 30 years old, not a college student. I actually dropped out of junior college in my first year to attend a technical school, which I can assure you didn't teach "liberalism", especially in that small redneck town I lived in, whatever point your trying to make. I didn't even care about politics until Iraq. I watched as the towers fell in 2001 too. I had family there. I was angry and felt as patriotic as the next person. But then we started pulling troops away from the 'stans to go to another country. I watched as my best friend was shipped off to Iraq, as his wife screamed at Bush on the TV, asking outloud why we're going there, knowing they had nothing to do with 9/11. Hearing how it was possible they didn't have WMDs, not that we had time to continue looking, we were too busy releasing the names of undercover CIA agents who's husbands dared to point out what we now know is the truth.

I didn't like Kerry, still don't, and criticize the Dems all the time. I criticized Clinton too. Still do. I'm going to criticize Bush too, and point out why, and I don't appreciate you trying to make it seem like we're all partisans who hate him for no good reason, no matter how many times you try to inject the caveat of us being welcome to our opinions, which along with the rest of what you're saying, also just comes off as condescending. Just like Bush's speech, where he seems like he's trying to take credit for things he's been against, or worse, acting like his administration's utter failures are somehow triumphs. The state of the union is not great, and a lot of us are pissed off for very valid reasons, which you either choose to ignore or attempt to mitigate responsibility to others in defense of Bush. You can attempt to blame it on bias or perception as well, still doesn't make the concerns any less valid, and still doesn't remove the responsibility of the person who heads the administration in charge.

So again, I point out that if you'd like to have a reasonable discussion, let us speak of the points raised and their validity. Preferably with proof if challenged. Ad hominems, disparaging terms do nothing to further your argument and merely make you look like the brainwashed youth you seem to think we are. And while your opinion is fine, if it's based on a fallacy, especially when disproved, it completely negates your argument. You can ignore what we say to counter you, but I don't see how you expect us to take you seriously if you do, especially if you go off on a rant that's nothing but rhetoric and bring up something like the above that has nothing to do with anything other than an attempt at an insult to discredit us.

[it5five]

But anyway, I blame your situation on the teachers in our universities.The people teaching in universities are the people who are professional students and spend their lives in academia... they swim with theory and cynicism and do not live in the real world.

But worst of all, they are the ones in control of the education of our college students, so they indoctrinate then and create a brand new generation of liberals who don't even know why they're liberals.

Nothing pisses me off more than professional students who go right into teaching. Professors should be retired people from the real world who can actually teach you about what the hell is really going on around you.

L.O.L.

Oh, yes, there is a huge liberal conspiracy in college to indoctrinate the youth and turn them into mindless liberal zombies!!! OH NO!!!!!

There isn't any liberal indoctrination, partly because if any such things did go on, conservative students run to the administration faster than you could blink.

Plus, a more liberal viewpoint would be much appreciated after your k-12 education in which the history you learn is whitewashed, inaccurate, and often with a very pro-capitalist/flawed viewpoint.

[WinterMute]

Let's keep the language under control please.

Speaking as a professional lecturer at an UK University I find most of my colleagues to be creative and complex individuals who have no wish to indoctrinate the students, they are usually industry pros who know their subject practically and theoretically.

University is not the political hotbed it used to be, most students want a degree and a good job, its just too damn expensive to throw away a graduate education now.

/end OT

[yg17]

Well, teachers having real world experience are better than professional students becoming teachers.


One of the worst teachers I had, no, make that the worst teacher I had in college spent his entire life in the industry he taught. And the best teacher I had was only a few years older than me, who was a recent graduate at the same college.

And before you claim it's a liberal conspiracy, both of them are republicans :rolleyes:

[it5five]

One of the worst teachers I had, no, make that the worst teacher I had in college spent his entire life in the industry he taught. And the best teacher I had was only a few years older than me, who was a recent graduate at the same college.

And before you claim it's a liberal conspiracy, both of them are republicans :rolleyes:

Agreed. Most of my better professors up to this point have spent most of their lives in academia. They understand how to teach much better than older industry-types since they've been doing it for years.

[v-ault]

All solvs does is find the posts where I bash liberalism and says this is just rhetoric. I think those are the only posts of mine he bothers to respond to because everything else is just beyond him.

And what the hell is he talking about I was disproved? I wasn't disproved in ANY way in this thread. I'm close to adding him to my ignore list. What the hell is he talking about why I didn't respond to why he didn't like his speech. Am I suppose to make you like it? I did respond and stated I thought it was a good speech and that he's trying to tie up loose ends, but that's not how you look at it. What do you want me to do? Make you like it?! Bush could have given the "i have a dream" speech and all of you would say it's garbage- yes you guys hate him that much. Again, if you want an inspirational speech, go listen to Obama on youtube. Bush was talking business.

[solvs]

All solvs does is find the posts where I bash liberalism and says this is just rhetoric.
That's because that's what that is, rhetoric. You bash liberalism, call us all liberals, and back up nothing you're saying. Throw in the condescending attitude, and you have your trifecta.

I think those are the only posts of mine he bothers to respond to because everything else is just beyond him.
I've tried. All you do is refute my posting of links (which is actually what we do here to back up what we're saying) without actually backing up what you're saying. Because we're supposed to take you as some sort of authority. I pointed out why I don't like the speech, what was wrong with it, you went off on the school system and how I just don't understand, which you're still doing.

What's beyond me is why I bother responding to trolls who flout the rules of the forum. :rolleyes:

you guys hate him that much.
We hate him no matter what? Is that what you're saying? Couldn't possibly be the reasons we've posted? You've posted why you don't like him, do you hate him for irrational reasons? Why do you automatically assume we do?

And yes, I am focusing on your tactics, because how are we ever going to be able to rationally debate your points if that's how you conduct yourself. Insults and talking down to people is not how we do things here. I've made my points, you've made yours. If you'd like to discuss them, we're all ears. Who knows, there may even be somethings we'd agree with, provided you stop all the "liberal" stuff and acting like some of us aren't deserving of your time.

[solvs]

I admit I was a little rough, as I was with SL, who I also felt deserved to be disputed. But I did try. At least not to be a ****. I was still open for debate and hoping for the best. I know it sounds weird, but I always hate when I see someone get banned like this, no matter how much I disagreed with him. I understand why, and I abide by your decisions mods, but I can't say I feel a sense of victory. Quite the opposite really.

Sorry, but I had to share lest I think the worst of myself and wallow in the schadenfreude.

[hulugu]

I admit I was a little rough, as I was with SL, who I also felt deserved to be disputed. But I did try. At least not to be a ****. I was still open for debate and hoping for the best. I know it sounds weird, but I always hate when I see someone get banned like this, no matter how much I disagreed with him. I understand why, and I abide by your decisions mods, but I can't say I feel a sense of victory. Quite the opposite really.

Sorry, but I had to share lest I think the worst of myself and wallow in the schadenfreude.

There's no victory with people like v-ault.

While I disagreed vehemently with Swarmlord at times, he was occasionally funny and some of his posts were actually interesting.
v-ault, on the other hand, was going to be an agent of flamewars and outright verbal combat.

[skunk]

There's no victory with people like v-ault. Victory is not important. The whole reason I spend time on this forum is to debate things with people I do not agree with. Both Swarmlord and v-ault made challenging and valid assertions from their own viewpoint. I think it's a great pity they have both been banned.

[hulugu]

Victory is not important. The whole reason I spend time on this forum is to debate things with people I do not agree with. Both Swarmlord and v-ault made challenging and valid assertions from their own viewpoint. I think it's a great pity they have both been banned.

I'm not thrilled about members being banned because of this forum, however in v-ault's case, I can see why the mods were motivated to do so. While his arguments were valid and challenging, he was also disrespectful to other members of this forum.

I understand victory isn't important (I was being flippant, sorry), however in a good debate/conversation space such as this there should be an acknowledgement by both sides that the other person isn't spreading "liberal propaganda" or some other dismissal. I'm frankly tired of discussing issues with people who immediately resort to name-calling or v-ault's ridiculous assertion that his ideas are simply beyond other forum members.

Maybe I took his remarks personally.

[solvs]

The whole reason I spend time on this forum is to debate things with people I do not agree with. Both Swarmlord and v-ault made challenging and valid assertions from their own viewpoint.
I would argue against the valid part. SL constantly got the entire story wrong, but started to refuse to admit he was mistaken and would simply stop arguing after myself and others would take the time to make our case against his. V made some valid points, but it was buried in rhetoric about how we and the media are all "liberals" and how we should just listen to him because he was so superior and we just didn't get it. While saying things like "lolz" and "bwah" instead of actually debating the points we were trying to make. I like to debate, not get pissed off at trolls who have nothing, so feel the need to resort to less than mature tactics. I've been to other boards that degenerate into that sort of thing, and there's a reason I don't go to them anymore. Telling me that posting links just means I can't think for myself is completely against what we're supposed to do in these forums.

You and others have schooled me in things I was wrong or stubborn about, and I appreciate it because you can do so intelligently in a way that proves to me you know what you're talking about, links and all.

While his arguments were valid and challenging, he was also disrespectful to other members of this forum.

Maybe I took his remarks personally.
Ditto, especially since so many were directed against me when I saw what was coming. I noticed you, and a few others, were having the same issues. As I said, I take no pleasure in this, and wished he could have settled down enough to change tactics so we could debate the points he did bring up, but sadly that wasn't how it happened, and I completely understand why the mods had to do what they did.

I miss stu. :(