SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: stockman_scott who wrote (4342)1/29/2003 3:41:22 PM
From: PartyTime  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 25898
 
I agree, Stockman--that was a pretty good counterbalance to what Bush put forward in his State of the Union.

Here's a question to all who're pushing for the Iraq War:

Why didn't Bush once mention Osama Bin Laden in his very important speech, much of the speech having to do with protecting America?

Is it because had Bush mentioned him, he'd detract from the attention he needs in order drum up support for his war? Isn't this mere fact suspicious in itself? I think so!



To: stockman_scott who wrote (4342)1/29/2003 3:58:31 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 25898
 
but failed to mention the degree to which Kennedy has since distanced himself from that bill and the added flaws he never agreed to.

If Kennedy refused to sign on to the changes thats a good sign that they where improvements not flaws.

He failed to mention the soaring deficits these tax cuts have caused

Nonsense. So far the tax cuts have been minimal. The deficits have been caused by the economic slowdown and by spending increases.

his new tax cut, aimed at stock dividends, which will once again benefit the wealthiest Americans.

Because they pay the most taxes.

He proposed the development of cleaner energy technology while increasing energy reliance at home, but failed to explain that this was code for the despoiling of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.

Mainly because it is not.

Bush spoke of liberating Afghanistan, but failed to mention that this was done with the overwhelming approval and support of the international community.

No need to mention that. The important fact was that it was liberated. The support of others is nice but doesn't change what was done or the importance of it having been done.

He failed to describe the premises upon which those 3,000 were detained

The premise of being terrorists and being our enemies in the war on terror. As for specifics that is too detailed for a state of the union address.

and likewise failed to mention that in the process of rendering those others 'non-problematic,' his war in Afghanistan sent more civilians to death than were lost on September 11th.

I don't think that is firmly established but even if it is true it is also true that in the course of rendering the Axis military machine "non-problematic" we killed a lot more Japanese and German civilians then the number of people killed in Pearl Harbor or even the total number of Americans killed in WWII.

He leveled a damning finger at Saddam Hussein, accusing him of hiding anthrax, VX, botulinin toxin and other terrible weapons. He failed to provide an iota of evidence to back up these assertions

He didn't give the raw data but he did list known weapons or weapon related items which we have inteligence info about or which inspectors have discovered or which Saddam had earlier listed, which have not been properly accounted for. A "smoking gun" will probably only be found after Saddam is kicked out, Iraq is about as big as CA and it is ruthlessly controled by Saddam (by such means as threats to kill the whole family of anyone who informs on the WMD program). We could have inspectors there for decades and not root out the WMD. But the evidence that Saddam has been trying to get WMD is overwhelming and the idea that he has been unable to produce any or even to presever any from his previous stockpile is silly.

Bush failed to mention how the American economy could handle the billions of dollars needed to support the war, the inevitable oil shock that would come as a result of the war, the billions more needed for his missile shield, the billions needed to push his new tax cut through, the billions needed to make his old tax cut permanent, and the billions needed to pay for the new programs he proposed.

Not true. The oil shock has mostly already happened, prices will probably go up more but they will go down after Saddam is defeated. As for all these billions they are comming from a $10tril economy. Bush did say that his plan was to keep the growth of government to 4% or less. If he slows the growth of government spending in other areas that will more then provide the billions for the items Pitt mentions. Of course he might not, perhaps might not be able to, slow the growth of other areas of the government but Pitt's complaint was that Bush "failed to mention how...", not that he "mentioned a plan that I don't think he will (or can) follow through on".

He failed to mention the inevitable blowback of terrorism that America would suffer should this war
take place


We are going to suffer terrorist attacks in any case. Taking out Iraq will take out a major sponsor of terrorism and give others reasons to reflect carefully on their sponsorship of terror.

especially if it takes place with a 'coalition of the willing' that does not include a UN sanction.

Quick show of hands. Who thinks that terrorists care about UN approval?

At no time, and in no way, did George W. Bush mention the name Osama bin Laden.

The threat is not one man, it is the Al Qaida and other terrorists groups.

Tim



To: stockman_scott who wrote (4342)1/29/2003 6:57:38 PM
From: RealMuLan  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 25898
 
An very good review of Bush State of the Union. But seems most of people in the US just failed to see these.



To: stockman_scott who wrote (4342)1/29/2003 7:10:56 PM
From: Rollcast...  Respond to of 25898
 
Speech Watchers React Positively to Bush's Call to Arms
But are dubious about president's economic program

gallup.com

by David W. Moore
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- An instant reaction poll of speech watchers last night found President George W. Bush receiving high marks for his State of the Union address, although considerably lower than last year. The speech appears to have persuaded many viewers about the need for an invasion of Iraq, but viewers are dubious about the impact of Bush's economic program. When asked which issue was more important to them in the president's speech, respondents chose terrorism and Iraq over the economy by a 56% to 31% margin.

The major findings of the CNN/USA Today/Gallup instant reaction poll are as follows:

Eighty-four percent of speech watchers say their overall reaction to the speech is positive, with 50% saying "very" positive. Last year, 94% said positive, with 74% very positive.
Forty-four percent say that as a result of the speech, they have more confidence that the United States will be able to deal with the problems it has to face, while 7% say they have less confidence, and 47% say the same amount of confidence.
Seventy-one percent say the policies being proposed by Bush would move the country in the right direction, while 20% say the wrong direction. Last year the comparable numbers were 91% vs. 7% respectively. Still, the results last night represent an improvement over this same group's responses in a poll conducted in the days just prior to the speech, when 52% said the right direction and 40% said the wrong direction.
By a margin of 67% to 30%, speech watchers say Bush has made a convincing case about the need for the United States to take military action against Iraq. Prior to the speech, this same group of Americans was about evenly divided, with just 47% saying Bush had made a convincing case for military action and 52% saying he had not.
Speech watchers are dubious about the economic program Bush presented in his speech: 49% say the program is likely to get the country out of its current economic problems, while 43% say it will not. Last year, speech watchers were far more optimistic about Bush's economic program, with 73% expecting his program to work and just 22% saying it would not. When the elder President Bush delivered his State of the Union address in 1992, in the midst of a recession, the speech watchers then reacted in a similar way to last night's speech watchers: 47% thought the elder Bush's economic program would work, while 47% did not.
Most speech watchers, 61%, say their confidence in Bush's economic leadership has not changed as a result of the speech. Another 28% say they have more confidence and 10% say less confidence. In 1992, speech watchers reacted quite similarly: 32% said more confidence and 9% said less confidence, with 58% saying no change.
Speech watchers are much more positive about Bush's arguments for his tax cuts and the changes he has proposed for Medicare. By 67% to 23%, viewers say Bush made a convincing case for the changes in Medicare, and by 58% to 36%, they say he made a convincing case for the tax cuts.
Although a recent Gallup Poll found Americans saying that the economy is more important than Iraq to the country as a whole, by 52% to 37%, speech watchers were more interested in what Bush had to say about Iraq and terrorism than about the economy -- by a 56% to 31% margin.
Republicans Outnumbered Democrats Among Speech Watchers

Typically, presidential speech watchers disproportionately identify with the party of the president. Last night, the imbalance in favor of the president's party was about average, with 40% of respondents identifying as Republicans, 31% as independents, and 28% as Democrats. That 12-percentage-point Republican advantage over Democrats is much smaller than last year's margin, when 50% of speech watchers were Republicans and 25% each were independents and Democrats.

Among those who watched President Clinton's speeches, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by margins that ranged from 7 to 15 percentage points. When the senior Bush gave his last State of the Union address, Republicans outnumbered Democrats in the post-speech poll by just 6 percentage points, 37% to 31%. An instant reaction poll to George W. Bush's first major speech to the nation in February 2001 found a large Republican skew in the audience similar to that for last year's State of the Union address.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with -- 440 -- speech watchers, aged 18+, conducted Jan. 28, 2003. For results based on the total sample of speech watchers, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±5 percentage points.

Survey respondents were first interviewed as part of random national adult samples by Gallup between Jan. 20-27, 2003, at which time they indicated they planned to watch the President's 2003 State of the Union address and were willing to be re-interviewed by Gallup after the speech. Respondents' pre- and post-speech answers are shown for those questions that were asked on both surveys.

The sample consists of 40% of respondents who identify themselves as Republicans, 28% who identify themselves as Democrats, and 31% who identify themselves as independents.

Polls conducted entirely in one day, such as this one, are subject to additional error or bias not found in polls conducted over several days...

*************************************

SHREEK... The "vital and burgeoning" peace movement is SHRINKING.