There were a few dates that he committed to meeting for elections in Iraq, but other than wanting to demolish the Abu Ghraib, there was nothing new. He was a little bit more specific about what he wants, but how he plans on doing it, well that is still a mystery.
His big lie was saying that on June 30th Iraq will have "full sovereignty." That is just crap and he and everyone else knows that. He knows that having 138,000 troops in Iraq under his control means it is in no way a sovereign county.
Will the media keep the pressure on Bush if what he said does not come to pass? We'll just have to wait and see.
Change any opinions? Nope. It was not carried by the 4 networks, so few likely were to have seen it.
Monday, May 24, 2004
Kill the Messenger
We get the typical anti-free press idiot in the Letters tot he Enquirer (2nd letter):
He is right about one thing: the US government is just handing this crap to the media. That is however not the media's fault. If he wants to blame the bad actions of the military on someone, why not try blaming it on the military? I myself blame the civilian leadership of the military, which is one of many reasons I do not support this Administration.
Showing photos aids the enemyI guess Mr. Banfield prefers only the news that helps out the Army by hiding the truth. We all know that the truth kills people after all. An honest man dies first is what I always say.
The photographs of abuse of 'Iraqi detainees' by American soldiers are a sad tale. Having served in the United States Air Force for 11 years and now serving in the Kentucky Army National Guard, I know this is not the norm for U.S. troops. I'm not excusing their actions by any means and disciplinary actions have already begun.
But should a man, a non-combatant there to help rebuild a nation in turmoil be decapitated for crimes of others? What is the media's hand in this matter? Anyone with the slightest bit of common sense knows the answer. By non-stop coverage and viewing of those prison photos the media has put every American in Iraq and probably in most Middle Eastern countries at risk. ?
Irresponsible journalism is aiding and abetting the enemy. Please stop handing them ammunition.
Steven Banfield
Taylor Mill
He is right about one thing: the US government is just handing this crap to the media. That is however not the media's fault. If he wants to blame the bad actions of the military on someone, why not try blaming it on the military? I myself blame the civilian leadership of the military, which is one of many reasons I do not support this Administration.
Prophetic Woodward
Well, Bob Woodward did not conjure up the claim in his book,“Plan of Attack,” that the Saudis planned on lowering the price of oil in time for the election. He got it from their US Ambassador. So, here starts their "contribution" to the Bush reelection campaign. There may not have been a provable "deal," but Bush is the Saudi choice for President. Their financial contribution to his campaign goes far more than money for attack ads, it goes right into his manipulation of the perceptions of the American people. When the price of gas comes down, what will Bush say? His tax cuts did the trick, but of course. Now, he would be right, if by tax cuts he really meant his personal ties with the oppressive anti-human rights government of Saudi Arabia. A government that turned a blind eye to Anti-American terrorists brewing within its own borders. That is a foreign policy only Henry Kissinger could love.
Sunday, May 23, 2004
Details
The keyword to remember about Bush's speech on Iraq tomorrow is details. The media has that word all over the place when describing what he will be talking about. Will he break with tradition and get specific? I seriously doubt it. If we get anything more than "stay the course" I will be surprised. I believe though that if he does not start giving specifics on what his short and long term plans are on Iraq, he will be in trouble, even with many Republicans.
Bush can't just punt on Iraq until November. He has to survive a long hot summer of militant attacks. He must lay his cards out there. I predict he will try what used to be called a “limited, modified hang out.” He will say stuff that his supporters will eat up as detail, but in reality is only a small portion of what BushCo is planning to do in Iraq. That of course assumes they have any plans other than getting relected.
The speech tomorrow is nothing but a political rally disguised as Presidential address, but how will the media react? Is the bar set where reporters actually expect Bush to say something more than the usual "stay the course" and pat the military on the back dogma? I don't know if they will be suckers or not, but my feeling is that they might pounce if doesn't through them at something new to write about.
Why is Bush scared of making this a full fledged national address from the Oval Office? If he really was planning on a change to his policy would he not actually ask for network air time, which he has not, and start setting things up in a true Presidential forum, not a campaign forum? It is just a sign of the double talk from BushCo. They call themselves strong and decisive leaders, but they don’t really want to announce anything, just make people think they have, while not really changing anything. Is that the actions of anything more than a manipulator?
Bush can't just punt on Iraq until November. He has to survive a long hot summer of militant attacks. He must lay his cards out there. I predict he will try what used to be called a “limited, modified hang out.” He will say stuff that his supporters will eat up as detail, but in reality is only a small portion of what BushCo is planning to do in Iraq. That of course assumes they have any plans other than getting relected.
The speech tomorrow is nothing but a political rally disguised as Presidential address, but how will the media react? Is the bar set where reporters actually expect Bush to say something more than the usual "stay the course" and pat the military on the back dogma? I don't know if they will be suckers or not, but my feeling is that they might pounce if doesn't through them at something new to write about.
Why is Bush scared of making this a full fledged national address from the Oval Office? If he really was planning on a change to his policy would he not actually ask for network air time, which he has not, and start setting things up in a true Presidential forum, not a campaign forum? It is just a sign of the double talk from BushCo. They call themselves strong and decisive leaders, but they don’t really want to announce anything, just make people think they have, while not really changing anything. Is that the actions of anything more than a manipulator?
Typical Bronson
So, Peter gets a press release from a right-wing group claiming the "liberal" college campuses have too many liberal speakers. By too many they really mean any at all. Bronson really needs to get to colleges more, and talk to regular students. Don't just talk to the activists who call him and lobby him to write propaganda column for them, like this one.
If he spent an hour in any business class at any major university he would get, as amazing as it may be, Pro-capitalism dogma preached. Guess what, that is just fine with my, I sat through it myself. That is what business schools are meant to do, prepare students for American capitalism. I am "sorry" that the schools of arts and sciences don't preach the religious dogma Bronson wants them to, but that is not why they are about. They are about individual concepts of being human. They are about open ideas. They are not about bible thumping.
Wes Flinn has far more to say on this column, please have a read.
UPDATE: I wonder what Peter thinks of the horrible "liberals" at Hofstra University who booed E.L. Doctorow for making "Anti-Bush" remarks during a commencement address. What is most horrible is the Bronson likely would have been booing as well, even though he complains when others boo Bush Administration officials.
If he spent an hour in any business class at any major university he would get, as amazing as it may be, Pro-capitalism dogma preached. Guess what, that is just fine with my, I sat through it myself. That is what business schools are meant to do, prepare students for American capitalism. I am "sorry" that the schools of arts and sciences don't preach the religious dogma Bronson wants them to, but that is not why they are about. They are about individual concepts of being human. They are about open ideas. They are not about bible thumping.
Wes Flinn has far more to say on this column, please have a read.
UPDATE: I wonder what Peter thinks of the horrible "liberals" at Hofstra University who booed E.L. Doctorow for making "Anti-Bush" remarks during a commencement address. What is most horrible is the Bronson likely would have been booing as well, even though he complains when others boo Bush Administration officials.
New Local Blog
Nick Spencer, former City Council Candidate has a new blog on Cincinnati politics and culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)