| |
|
Monday, July 28, 2003
|
|
Who does the White House belong to?
The Washington Post wrote
For example, a photo released for this year's speech shows him working on the address. The caption reads: "Sketching notes in the margin of speech drafts, President Bush rewrites portions of the address in the Oval Office Jan. 23, 2003." The president's meticulous devotion to detail was also highlighted in the photo display from the 2002 State of the Union. The White House wouldn't give permission to use the photo focusing on two cufflinked forearms editing a speech draft Do I detect an inconsistency here? From the Boston Globe:
a conservative group that supports Bush's policies has built a fundraising campaign around an official Navy photo of the president on the ship's deck.
:
After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the National Republican Congressional Committee, an organization that supports the party's House candidates, was criticized for using in a fund-raising appeal an official White House photo of Bush aboard Air Force One following the attack." So conservative groups can't be stopped from using White House photographs to raise money in support of President Bush, but newspapers can't use White House photographs.
8:19:53 PM 
|
|
What mission Dubya said was accomplished
Here is the context of Dubya's only uses of the word "mission" in his speech on the Abraham Lincoln:
"Yet all can know, friend and foe alike, that our nation has a mission: We will answer threats to our security, and we will defend the peace. Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike."
The only mission mentioned is answering threats to the US's security. One could argue that with the fall of Saddam's regime, that mission was accomplished in Iraq. Of course, I think the evidence shows that Iraq was never a serious threat to the US's security.
6:58:03 PM
|
|
Dubya's critics are overlooking what?
In Sunday's Dallas Morning News, Keith Rosenkrantz has an opinion piece entitled, "Critics are overlooking all the obvious signs of success". Here are the "obvious" signs that Keith says I am overlooking:
"Mass graves have been uncovered"
Everyone knew that Saddam was an evil man. Why is this a success?
"many of the ruthless individuals who supported Saddam's regime have either been captured or killed"
And how many of them have been turned over to an international court for justice?
"Iraq's secret nuclear weapons programs...was uncovered"
Are we talking about the partial centrifuge that had been buried under a rose bush for 12 years? I feel a lot safer knowing that it is now in American hands.
"Water and power ore being restored and oil production is at 1 million barrel a day"
This is good news, but they are still not much better than pre-war levels
That's it. Were are spending $4 billion a month and an averaging more than one troop killed a day, and those are all the successes Keith Rosenkrantz can come up with. I particular found this funny:
Yet for all that our armed forces have accomplished, President Bush continues to be criticized because so-called weapons of mass destruction have not been found. Where were the critics when Iraq's secret nuclear weapons program - ready to be reconstituted once U.N. sanctions were lifted - was uncovered? I challenge Keith or any other person who still feels the invasion was a great idea to go to someone who lost their son or daughter, husband or wife, and say, "You should be proud that they gave their life to protect America from a partial centrifuge that had been buried under a rose bush for 12 years."
6:26:06 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2003 Unrelated Disney.
Last update: 8/1/2003; 6:15:05 AM.
|
|
|
