COboeing777 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 693 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 980 times:
ok, sorry if this is a bit off the topic, but why is it necessary to air the same exact speech on 50 different channels live? That is something that I have always wondered about. Is it some way of the networks showing respect towards out president by preempting their regular programming for the time that he is on?
Anyways, great speech by Mr Bush tonight. I am so glad he is our president at a time like this because if Gore was ou president right now he's have out troops over in Afghanistan planting trees for the Taliban or something.
N400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 977 times:
I think so, COboeing777... its respect to the President, Congress, and I believe the American people just want to see it. Yeah, its on the big three, plus the other broadcast networks, the news networks, the government channels, etc etc etc, but then again it only comes once (or, unfortunately, twice like last year) a year.
Hoffa From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 957 times:
I don't like the way our country is singling out North Korea, Iraq, and Sudan as terrorists yet we are cosying up to Pakistan and General Musharraf as a "frontline ally" when Pakistan is a big terrorist supporting country which helped the Taliban to power and let a lot of the 9/11 conspirators roam around free in its borders. If Bush says with us or against us, let it actually be so.
Also, I think the "war on terror" does end in Afghanistan since the US cannot attack the real pigs of this world without a stench of protest from Europe and elsewhere.
Otherwise, a good speech. Nothing personal against W...politics is like that I guess.
EIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1539 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 956 times:
One thing that really bugs me about State of the Union addresses is the frequency and length of the applause. I know know it's customary, but I really find it annoying, as it gives a sense of superficiality to the whole event.
Anyway, Bush's delivery was OK, and he seems to have a very good speech writer, so I can't criticize the speech too much.
N400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 952 times:
I agree on the first point. While we DO need to deal with the DPRK, Iraq, Iran, etc., Pakistan and Musharraf aren't all he makes them look to be. I don't trust Pakistan any more than I trust the other nations mentioned. Hopefully (yes, hopefully), the President is just using Pakistan for the effort, then will get serious with them as soon as Afghanistan is wrapped up.
As for Europe... I don't care if they protest. We're going to do what is best for our country. Period. No amount of complaining, whining, protesting, or whatever should make us change our position. If being kind of "outcast" from Europe means we have better national security, so be it.
And, yeah, overall it was good I thought. I did disagree on his education and welfare-esque ideas. Same with all the other local government issues. Those are best left to... well, local government.
Bravo, though, on the tax issue (although he was a bit too gracious with the Dems), and the military.
"Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay." -- President Bush, 2002 State of the Union Address