Bush's Speech Annoyed the Hell Out of Me

I wasn't even aware it was on last night until I got on JU this morning.

My husband and I spent last night playing Destroy All Humans and Trivial Pursuit.

Wasn't a problem for me.

Oh, and excellent imagery on Julia Child. Very good bit of writing.

My husband and I spent last night playing Destroy All Humans and Trivial Pursuit.

Yeah, I succumbed to MLB 2006 myself.

Oh, and excellent imagery on Julia Child. Very good bit of writing.

Thank you.

Nice headline ploy, I have to admit, it hooked me in! ;~D

As for Iraq and 9/11, why does anyone question the connection anymore? 9/11 was a terrorist attack against the U.S. and the War on Terror is a result of all the anti western attacks agaisnt the U.S., not just 9/11. If you woke up on that fateful day and suddenly discovered that there are Muslim Extremists who want nothing more than to see all western culture dead, then you probably don't see a connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq.

However, if you have some sense of history, you can see that Muslim extremists have been at war with western culture since the 70s, we merely decided we weren't going to lay still and take it anymore.

Again, great headline hook, good article!!

I turned off my cable service about four years ago, and have never looked back.

If I want to watch TV, I just Netflix the TV series of my choice. Or a movie. I know this means I'm never up to date on this season's popular show, but hey, I'm not that interested in keeping up with the latest pop culture fads anyway. Most of the good TV shows are getting released to video on a regular basis anyway.

Besides, I'm a big sucker for continuity in a show, it's damn hard to keep up with storylines when it means having to carve the same time block out of your week for that purpose, week in and week out, for months at a time. My life isn't that regular, and if it was, I'd be damn embarassed to say that all my free time is based on the TV Guide.

I know, I know, there's TiVo. I've actually used TiVo in the past, and I think it's one of the best things since POW camps. But TiVo also costs money. Below is the full train of thought that led to me cancelling both my cable and TiVo services.

---

+ I can't watch broadcast TV, because the reception is crap and the choices are limited.
+ So if I'm going to watch TV at all, I'm going to have to pay for cable. That way I get good reception, and a wide range of choices.
+ Of course, cable TV costs money, so if I get it, I'm going to have to actually watch TV.
+ But I don't want my life to be based on the Fall Programming Schedule, so I'm going to have to get TiVo (or some other PVR system) to record my shows so I can watch them on my own schedule.
+ Of course, TiVo costs money, too.
+ It's not like money is a serious problem for me, but I could sure benefit from a bit more fiscal discipline, and
+ As it turns out, Netflix is cheaper than cable+TiVo, has a large enough catalog of movies and TV shows to keep me occupied without ever having to watch current programming again, and is convenient enough to fit into my overall viewing habits.

In the last four years, I have never once regretted this decision.

---

First Rule of Netflix: If a TV show is worth your time, it will be released on DVD soon enough.
Second Rule of Netflix: While you're waiting, there will be several other TV shows worth watching, that have been released on DVD already, with which you can pass the time between now and the DVD release of 24 Season 4 or whatever.

One might ask, why should someone listen to you when you've made up your minda about Bush without having listened to his speech?

Obviously, I didn't watch the speech last night (introduced my sweetie to Kill Bill, instead). Not only because of the whole "no TV" thing, but also because I'm a hardcore rightwing conservative nutjob, and I always agree with Bush no matter what he says, so why bother?

As for Iraq and 9/11, why does anyone question the connection anymore? 9/11 was a terrorist attack against the U.S. and the War on Terror is a result of all the anti western attacks agaisnt the U.S., not just 9/11. If you woke up on that fateful day and suddenly discovered that there are Muslim Extremists who want nothing more than to see all western culture dead, then you probably don't see a connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq.

But Iraq did not attack the U.S. That's all I want to get at. Osama Bin Laden did. And Osama Bin Laden is still free to plan another attack. I don't debate the fact that there were probably terrorists in Iraq, as there probably are in all the other Middle Eastern countries that we didn't invade, as there probably are in the United States. I just think we should get the one that attacked us first. That added to the fact that we didn't attack Iraq "to get terrorists", we attacked Iraq "to get WMDs". A little more honesty would have gone a long way.

But hey, I said that I don't have a problem with what he said. I was just giving my two cents about the backlash.

Again, great headline hook, good article!!

Thanks.

I turned off my cable service about four years ago, and have never looked back.

I don't rearrange my time around television, but I have not extracted itself from the stranglehold to the extent that you have. I envy your freedom, my brother.

One might ask, why should someone listen to you when you've made up your minda about Bush without having listened to his speech?

One might ask, why should someone listen to you when you've obviously made up your mind without reading past the second paragraph of the article, despite the fact that none of the article actually says one thing or another about the way that I feel about the president.

Damn, a 28 minute speech ruined your entire evening like that? You need to get out more, Phil.

I didn't say it ruined my evening, it's just annoying. No one needs it on every channel. It doesn't extend to just presidential speeches. Did everyone need to see the O.J. chase for that entire afternoon? Did everyone need to see the lovely aerial footage of the ocean for 9 hours when JFK Jr's plane went down?

Oh, and I have to agree with stute, Netflix is worth every penny. Between that and digital cable with video-on-demand (not to be confused with pay per view, video-on-demand is included in the price, and not only offers tons of movies, but the best of cable favorites, like National Geo, Discovery, A&E, which you can watch at your leisure, pausing or stopping whenever, kinda like TivO) we never have to suffer through the awful, awful experience you had last night.

But if you don't want to or can't afford to get these things, you're pretty much screwed. I just don't see why that's necessary.

Reply By: PhilomedyPosted: Wednesday, June 29, 2005

But Iraq did not attack the U.S.

yes Iraq did attack us, shooting at jets in a no fly zone is an act of war.

One might ask, why should someone listen to you when you've made up your minda about Bush without having listened to his speech?

Because maybe he had absolutely nothing new to say. Same ol' drivel.

yes Iraq did attack us, shooting at jets in a no fly zone is an act of war.

Why were there jets in the no-fly zone? (That's not sarcasm, that was a legitimate question)

Aside from that, weighing shooting at planes in a no-fly zone vs. smashing a plane into large buildings on our mainland, I'd have to prioritize with the latter at the top of the list. And while Iraq is no longer shooting at our planes, the guy who put together 9/11 is still there.

As I said earlier, I wouldn't have had so much of a problem if the president had just been honest about the reason for going into Iraq, but he wasn't. All it would have taken was the phrase "Saddam is a bad man and we need to get him." Fine. Good. Go. Get. But we had to enter 9/11 and terrorism and WMD's into it, didn't we? I just don't like being lied to.

Not only were the American and British planes in the no-fly zone, they were dropping bombs on Iraq daily, prior to the start of the invasion, to the tune of 600 tons. Not only were we dropping tons on them, they did not shoot down a single one of ours or the British. So, ya gotta ask ........ who is the agressor?

Now, I'm going to find that link again............... stand by............

#16 by Philomedy Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Why were there jets in the no-fly zone? (That's not sarcasm, that was a legitimate question)

after the first gulf war the United natrions created 2 buffer zones, the zones were patroled by allied aircraft.

Every so often anti aircraft guns opened up on these legal observers.

does not matter that they never hit anything, just the act of shooting is enough.

18 by zinkadoodle Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Not only were the American and British planes in the no-fly zone, they were dropping bombs on Iraq daily, prior to the start of the invasion, to the tune of 600 tons. Not only were we dropping tons on them, they did not shoot down a single one of ours or the British. So, ya gotta ask ........ who is the agressor?

lets see, prior to invasion by ground troops, dropping bombs, hmmmmm never in war has that been done before huh?

fer crying out loud, how many times does it have to be printed, shouted, written talked about, the majority of the intelligence services thought saddam had wmd'smost of the left wing in america agreed that saddam had wmd's kennedy, kerry, clinton both of them. How soon everyone forgets this.

Here is one link from the LA Times.

LATimesLink
..............
Put simply, U.S. aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone were dropping a lot more bombs in the hope of provoking a reaction that would give the allies an excuse to carry out a full-scale bombing campaign, an air war, the first stage of the conflict.

British government figures for the number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq in 2002 show that although virtually none were used in March and April, an average of 10 tons a month were dropped between May and August.

But these initial "spikes of activity" didn't have the desired effect. The Iraqis didn't retaliate. They didn't provide the excuse Bush and Blair needed. So at the end of August, the allies dramatically intensified the bombing into what was effectively the initial air war.

The number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq by allied aircraft shot up to 54.6 tons in September alone, with the increased rates continuing into 2003.

In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq.

The way in which the intelligence was "fixed" to justify war is old news.

The real news is the shady April 2002 deal to go to war, the cynical use of the U.N. to provide an excuse, and the secret, illegal air war without the backing of Congress.

again I say, the iraqis were shooting at United Nation war craft, that act in and by itself is an act of war.

lets see, prior to invasion by ground troops, dropping bombs, hmmmmm never in war has that been done before huh?

fer cryin' out loud, these bombs were dropped before the war. BEFORE THE WAR. Quietly and illegally, dubya began bombing Iraq prior to the UN resolution and prior to any approval by Congress. Fer cryin' out loud, read the freakin' article, fer cryin' out loud.

But Iraq did not attack the U.S. That's all I want to get at.

You missed my point completely. No, Hussein was not involved directly, but he did break several ceasefire agreements with us, he did spearhead an assassination attempt on a sitting U.S. president, even HE thought he had WMD. All of these are legitimate reasons to go to war with Iraq.

Now that we are there engaging the terrorist enemy, there is no reason to stop fighting along side the Iraqis. The minute the Iraqi people chose a new government, it quit being an "occupation" and is now a war to complete the job of destroying terrorists in Iraq.

Missions in war are not static situations. The goals remains the same, but the missions change to fit the situation. Plain and Simple.



Ok, far from "simple", but still pretty plain! ;~D

You missed my point completely. No, Hussein was not involved directly, but he did break several ceasefire agreements with us, he did spearhead an assassination attempt on a sitting U.S. president, even HE thought he had WMD. All of these are legitimate reasons to go to war with Iraq.Now that we are there engaging the terrorist enemy, there is no reason to stop fighting along side the Iraqis. The minute the Iraqi people chose a new government, it quit being an "occupation" and is now a war to complete the job of destroying terrorists in Iraq.

Hey, if we're talking about missing points, this article was about television!

All of them are legitimate reasons to go to war, but they were not the reasons given. We were led to believe that there was imminent threat from Iraq, a claim that revolved around the reports of WMDs. And even if, as moderateman points out, a lot of people thought there were WMDs, A) it was not proven, and how bout an apology? How bout an "I was wrong about the WMD status in Iraq, but here's why deposing Saddam still wasn't such a bad thing" from the president? That would go a long way. The ability to admit you're wrong is something far more valued than being, or thinking that you are, infallible.

So what if Saddam had WMD. North Korea, Seria, Iran,China and scores of other dictatorships have WMD. Having them and using them on a Super Power are two very different things. We would not have been in danger from Saddam even if he had the dam WMD! We have created more enemies that present a REAL DANGER by our invading Iraq then any danger from Saddam. Bush has created the terrorist activity in Iraq and how that makes us more safe is the question. We can not undo the error of Bush in Iraq, but we can make dam sure we do not make the same error again!