Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rascal who wrote (80444)	3/8/2003 8:59:37 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 281500

take another shot at Bush... the speech was sober to talk to the men and women in uniform... to their families.. It was not a time to take lightly.. imo Some of these reporters need to move to be human shields.

To: Rascal who wrote (80444)	3/8/2003 9:36:48 AM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

<<<Have ever a people been led more listlessly into war? It's tempting to speculate how history would have changed if Winston Churchill or FDR had been as lethargic as Bush about rallying their nations in an hour of crisis. There were times when it appeared his train of thought had jumped the tracks.>>> Tom must have missed about 5 or ten of Bushes prior speeches. The ones that brought out the terms Cowboy and Hawk. So now its a Namby-Pamby ? And Bush is sharing the load with others, like Jack Straw who told the UN the "way it would be" and got applause for doing that. Nice to have friends Sig

To: Rascal who wrote (80444)	3/8/2003 5:11:16 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

His speech was definitely slurred.

To: Rascal who wrote (80444)	3/8/2003 8:17:09 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Doctors,Do you think he is medicated? Bush's Wake-Up Call Was a Snooze Alarm By Tom Shales So far the one account of that speech that seemed to fit what I saw. Well, with the one exception of someone on BBC.

To: Rascal who wrote (80444)	3/9/2003 1:06:52 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Tom Shales is a TV critic....SNL at that. Wonder what someone serious would have written? Did you think President Bush should have been yuking it up? Dancing in the street like some in the ME do? Cracking jokes? Popping off a missile to a tent someplace? Or what?? Ppplllleeeaaaassssseeeeeeee

To: Rascal who wrote (80444)	3/9/2003 3:08:53 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

President still hasn't made his case By MARY MCGRORY SYNDICATED COLUMNIST Sunday, March 9, 2003 seattlepi.nwsource.com WASHINGTON -- The president's press conference Thursday night was meant to be a demonstration -- as he stands on the brink of unleashing "shock and awe" on Iraq -- of how much he hates war. One of many unasked questions was: Does he hate war as much as he hates press conferences? The president has a profound aversion to being called on to explain himself, and he has conveyed this not only by keeping to three the number of formal press conferences he has held since taking the oath but also by using body language that conveys his resentment at the process. He had obviously been counseled to be calm; characteristically, he overdid it, and appeared comatose. Message: I am not a bully. He kept saying war could still be averted, but never said how. He said he respected the opinions of dissenting nations and then declared we will not be deterred from going it alone. The strangest thing was his way of recognizing reporters. He was going by a chart that had the names and the order in which he was to call on them. "This is scripted," he said in an aside. What he did was to meld the name of the reporter he was about to recognize into the sentence he was uttering on some great matter. Without any pause or inflection, he made the name part of his declaration. It tended to deprive what he was saying of any seriousness or significance. Example: "The risk of doing nothing, the risk of hoping that Saddam Hussein changes his mind and becomes a gentle soul, the risk that somehow inaction will make the world safer, is a risk I'm not willing to take for the American people, John King." The president is aware that while his performance as frontier sheriff fighting terrorism still goes down well, if slightly less well, in the country, it has bombed in the world. Old Europe is miffed, and our closest neighbors, Mexico and Canada, are offended by crude hints of vengeance if they vote in the United Nations against us -- against war. We'll be friends again, he said. He made a point of our solicitude for the Iraqi people, about our elaborate plans to avoid what up until now the military has referred to cheerfully as "collateral damage." High-tech, laser-guided bombing and sharper intelligence will seemingly avoid a repetition of the 3,000 casualties in Baghdad in the first Bush War. All week the brass has been out emphasizing a concern for Iraqi citizens that Saddam Hussein has never shown. A briefer at the Pentagon emphasized the need to be nice if we intended to stay and mold Iraq into a democracy. Supreme commander Tommy Franks injected a note of reality. He was making no promises: War is war, he said in effect. The Pentagon is torn between bragging about what it can do and boasting about what it won't do as we liberate Iraq. In the middle of the stream of reassurances of our mercy was a jarring reminder of our overwhelming power. The Air Force unveiled a 20,000-pound bomb without saying where it would be used. The pope sent over a cardinal for an 11th-hour appeal to the Oval Office. The pope was trying to warn the president of the baleful consequences in the Arab world of invading a Muslim country. Retired Gen. Anthony Zinni made the same point before a congressional hearing. His nightmare was the prospect of seeing, on a split TV screen, Israelis killing Arabs on the West Bank and Americans killing Arabs in Iraq. He suggested it might stimulate enlistments in al-Qaida. Bush does not like to hear about the consequences of his obsession and deals harshly with those who discuss them. The most severe punishment was meted out to Larry Lindsey, his erstwhile economic adviser, who put the bill for the war in Iraq at $200 billion. He was fired. Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the Army's chief of staff, committed the error of truth-telling and was set down hard. When asked, he estimated that it would take 200,000 troops to occupy Iraq. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz landed on him. "Way off the mark," he steamed. Bush said at his press conference, almost airily, that the costs of the war would be taken care of in a supplemental appropriation. In the Bush circle, zeal is much prized. Machiavelli's advice to courtiers is followed: "Do not question the ends of the prince -- just tell him how to best do what he wants to do." Bush insists that war or peace is all up to Saddam. To the American people he says, remember 9/11, trust me. As he said at his press conference, "when it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission." In other words, let the shock and awe begin. _____________________________________________________ Mary McGrory is a columnist with The Washington Post. Copyright 2003 The Washington Post.