philomedy philomedy

Bush's Speech Annoyed the Hell Out of Me

▼

Bush's Speech Annoyed the Hell Out of Me

Now that you're all here...

from JoeUser Forums
Let me go ahead and say, first and foremost, that this article is not about the president's speech last night, because I did not watch the president's speech last night. The title was simply a brilliant little ploy on my part to get you all here. As I write this, however, I can't help but make one little point about the speech, the contents of which I've managed to gather from various front page headlines:

Was everyone really that shocked that the man is still connecting 9/11 to Iraq? Come on, folks, if he wasn't convinced a year ago, he's not gonna be convinced now. He who does not want to see the truth will be forever blind, no matter how many people put that magnifying glass in front of his face. That being said, I don't see what the hell everyone's problem was with what he said...but then again I don't see why everyone's panties got all bunched up over what Karl Rove or Dick Durbin said either.

Anyways, this article is not about the speech, because as I mentioned, I did not watch the speech. The problem is that I could not watch anything else either. That is because all, I repeat, ALL of the major networks (and even some of the minor ones) had the damn speech on!!! CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, FOX, and Univision all had the damn speech on at the same damn time!!!

WHY??? WHY??? FOR THE LOVE OF SWEET ALL FORGIVING CHRIST, WHY?????

I was reduced to having to watch one of four things: A rerun of Julia Child, a rerun of Bewitched, All Of Us on UPN, or some third-rate Rambo wannabe thing on the Spanish channel. If you don't speak Spanish, eliminate the last choice from the list, and accept my deepest condolences, as you were obviously worse off than me.

Now, let me explain what was wrong with the situation last night. Julia Child, for all her culinary talent, was, (God bless her soul) a beast of a woman. She was built like a linebacker. She frightens me. If I woke up and saw her shadow on my wall, I would assume Dr. Frankenstein had rented the spare space in the cellar and spawned something. Add all that to the fact that she moves about as quickly as Cool Whip, and you will see why her show completely fails to hold my attention.

Bewitched is a sitcom. That in itself is unacceptable, unless the sitcom was created during the period of time between 1992 and 1999 when sitcoms were any good. Anything created outside of the timetable is worthless and not worthy of my time. For examples on both ends of the spectrum, see the aforementioned Bewitched (pre-1992) or Coupling (post-1999). For clarification, that is the American Coupling, not the British one. The British, I'm happy to report, still know what the word funny means.

So we move on to All Of Us, a sitcom on UPN. I think this one explains itself.

So now, I am left watching bad Rambo in Spanish with a cast of the same 8 actors that appear in every Goddamn weak spin-off movie to be filmed in Spanish. Lovely.

So, then, on to the point. Here is what I propose: Make this like the Super Bowl, or the NBA finals, or any other major sporting event. All of the networks are obviously clamoring for these political event ratings, so let them bid on the rights to broadcast political speeches exclusively. You put up the cash, you get 100% of the viewership, you collect on 100% of the advertising, capitalism works, and I don't have to tear my hair out while listening to Juan Rambo bitch about how he didn't get any "respeto" after coming back from Vietnam. (THE DAMN MOVIE WAS SET IN MEXICO!!! WHY WOULD HE HAVE COME BACK TO MEXICO FROM VIETNAM!?!?!)

Anyways, I think that my proposal provides a happy solution for everyone. Y'all can watch the speech, and as long as NBC doesn't win the bidding wars, I can sit down to enjoy Who Wants To Be A Hilton.

That is all.
6,206 views 33 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.


You do understand if fighters were shot at in any way they were authorized to retaliate?



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!


Of course you were in danger. Saddam had an obsessive hatred for the U.S., just as you have an obsessive hatred for Bush. Saddam had terrorist connections and was doing everything he could to get sanctions lifted by France so he could have free reign.

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!


Bush hasn't created terrorist activity. Terrorists themselves have decided they don't want Iraq to be free and have decided to try and stop it.

Removing Saddam has started the spread of democracy in the region, but you don't see that. A democratic Middle East will ensure safety for all eventually. However, you can't look past the headlines you see from the media who is just as obsessed as you are.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hey, if we're talking about missing points, this article was about television!


Touche!! ;~D
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
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,


Actually, Prs. Bush said many times that Iraq wasn't an "imminent threat", in fact I believe his exact words in the State of the Union Address were:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/


Also, Prs. Bush has already admitted that he was wrong about the build up of WMD in Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/wmd.iraq/

Apparently his admission didn't go as far as you and I would have hoped, but admissions rarely do much for any politician.

The fact is, Prs. Bush gave 4 reasons to go to war with Iraq:

WMD
Hussein's support for anti western terrorism
Hussein breaking the terms of the Ceasefire of 91 and
To Free the people of Iraq from Hussein's Tyranny.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

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

Because the UN told them to be there, based upon the 91 cease fire.

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: zinkadoodlePosted: Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Here is one link from the LA Times.

Did you write that?  Or do you just parrot others OPINIONS.

Pretty stupid if you ask me.  Citing an OPINION piece as facts?

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
But Iraq did not attack the U.S


Actually they did! British and US jets were observing a UN enforced no-fly zone. And dang if they didn't shoot at our planes! That my friend is an attack in "anyones" book and is also considered an act of war.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
ere 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.


Awww for christ's sake! This is an op-ed piece! Want to try again?
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, the No Fly Zones were part of the Safwan Accords (which became the Ceasefire of 1991). They were never endorsed by the UN, in fact the UN wanted nothing to do with that part of the ceasefire.

You have to remember, there was the Ceasefire agreement, which was signed by US and Iraqi Military Leaders, and there was UN Res. 686 & 687 (which adopted most of the terms of the ceasefire, but not all).

The actual ceasefire of 1991 is still classified. The UN never accepted the No Fly Zones, but then again, the Desert Storm was not a UN run war either.

The whole Iraq situation is a great study on how international bodies like the UN can be of great importance and how it can become the problem.