It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush's address to the Nation..Your thoughts

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Im posting this in order to get an idea of what you guys thought about
Bush's speech to the nation.
Agree or disagree?
Do you believe him?
Did he convience you?

(PLease post after the address is over,Thank you)




posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   
all that stuck was...

He dispatched another carrier to the region, patriot missile defense system, Iran and trying times.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
20, 000 troops is bogus...always trying to start something.

Overall he is trying the sympathy card and well the speech is of I would have to say last chance? Remorse yet with a vision to implement stationary troops and take a stance in the small villages cities in Bagdhad (sp?) Anyway this is the last draw if this doesn't show any improvement time to pull out.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:28 PM
link   
It looked pre-recorded, definitely not live and he was reading cue cards.... pathetic... The speech opposes the American people..



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   
It went pretty much as I expected. Mainly what stands out in my mind was a comment of a coworker after the pre-speech report commented on how much money had been spent on the war: "I hope they don't forclose on the country."

Otherwise . . . he did emphasize a number of times the possibility (inevitability) of increasing violence 'even if the plan works exactly as expected." Hmm.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Pritty much what we've known for weeks. Which also means he didn't really listen to anyone.

Other then that, I heard something about training american civilians to go and fight abroad???? Wth, draft??

Then the last 2/3'd of the speech was the same rhetoric and lies hes been spouting for the last 6 years.

Under Saddam, secterian violence and civil war was imposible, he held them under a tight leesh. And because he was such a totalitarian dictator, there was no chance in hell for any groups like al-Quada to get any kind of foothold in Iraq.

The terrorists got to Iraq because the Bush administration let them go there.

They trew that country in a downward spiral of violence and as the CIA report last year showed, his administration has caused terror and extremist groups to gain massive support and recruitment levels.

He created a big old mess over there and now he wants to send another 20000 US soldiers over there as meat for the grinder. The grinder he instigated.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPhiles
It looked pre-recorded, definitely not live and he was reading cue cards.... pathetic... The speech opposes the American people..


Damn right, too many lives at risk, the Democratic reaction of Dick Durbin says it all...he (Bush) is opposing all his advisors and their stance on this useless war.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
He needs the troops and the money for the security and financing of the Iraqi oil so the private companies can start pumping.

And I am afraid that he is going to get what he wants, because that is the way is going to be.

I have to give it to him and his supporters, he has been very successful in what he has accomplished in Iraq.

He will get his troop and the money.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I just had this underlying feeling that he was saying:

"THIS TIME I know what i'm doing,"

When he's actually throwing another hail Mary down field and praying for the best.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy
"THIS TIME I know what i'm doing,"



I am afraid that he has known what he has been doing in Iraq since the time that he went into that nation.

We the people has been the ones blinded by propaganda.

Bush has been able to stay focus to the end and guess what he is Brilliant



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Digitalis_Purpurea
. . . he did emphasize a number of times the possibility (inevitability) of increasing violence 'even if the plan works exactly as expected." Hmm.


I noticed ... Odd, that.

More troops == More of the same (?)

While I don't support a complete withdrawal, I do have to wonder if this is more a stall than a "final push".



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   
The transcript of the speech can be found here for those who haven't seen it or are looking for his reasoning behind the troop surge.

President Bush's Speech on Iraq




We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing — and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.


Does anyone read anything into the above section of the speech??


[edit on 1-10-2007 by worldwatcher]



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I am yet to see the speach, but interesting some say it was pre-recorded.
thats a bit unusual isnt it?

more troops arent going to acomplish anything in my mind.
What can you do with 160,000 troops, that you couldnt do with 140,000?
And thats not even counting the help the ALLIES have in this coalition.

I think this clearly shows that the IRAQI police/army we are creating, Isnt going to work.
After how many years of training, the situation still relies on addiontal US troops?
So what happens when these 20,000 are spent? done there duty?

20,000 troops in my mind, just means 20,000 more targets, 20,000 more worried and possibly grieving families.

how long is this 20,000 troop addition going to be considered the 'next step' until it becomes apparent that it achieved nothing?
What will we do then ? we cant possibly send in MORE troops....

When you guys saw the speech, did you get the impression bush did this simply to try and contain the mess, so it doesnt totallly explode while he is in office? did it look as if he believed this was his easy street ticket until his terms up ?

Even pulling out isnt a reasonable answer, but thats the only answer we are going to have left should the insurgency/factions NOT decide to just give up and accept the new governemnt.

Whats the ultimate goal with 20,000 troops?


to kill all the insurgents?
to convince all iraqi's to stop fighting?
to scare Iran?

George, there's NO LOGIC BEHIND WHAT YOUR DOING.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   
I'm sorry to say it sounds very reminiscent of the Stalingrad scenario to me. Baghdad will be turned into a battlezone street by street and house by house. Except the Army analysis for this kind of operation required 100,000 additional US Troops not 21,000 (- 4000 going to Anbar = 17,000)

This is also very similar to when Vietnam was 'escalated' and then went on for 10 years and almost 60,000 lives.

It's a military solution to an essentially political problem. Baghdad is in real trouble and it will be turned into Fallujah. That is: Ruins



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East.


Does anybody see the secret message here when he said protect American interest or is me.

This part kind of support my feelings that he needs the troops and the money to protect the oil companies that will be heading into Iraq to start pumping oil once he gets the Iraqi to give away 75 percent of their oil.

Then its going to become an American interest occurs no our interest but we all know who's.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Two major thrusts:

1. 20K additional troops to keep the 9 Baghdad districts stable after they have been secured. This has been missing in the past, since the troops would drive out the insurgents and then leave the area. Once they were gone, the insurgents returned.

2. The Iraqi gov't will lift the restrictions they had previously placed on the coalition forces. For example, last year Maliki refused to allow checkpoints in Sadr City.

Hopefully, they (Iraq gov't) have learned that you cannot win a PC-directed war. If you're being fired upon from a mosque, it becomes a fair target. Time to unleash the dogs of war.

I agree with both proposals, btw. Bush also did mention that Iraq should be responsible for all security by November.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   
From what I saw the speech was damage control mostly and yes, fully scripted, 1000x rehursed and most likely not live.

The fact he spoke the entire speech without making any big screwups is evidence enough for that.

The damage control part becomes obvious when you see that more then half of the address is the same rhetoric hes been spouting over the last 6 years, bleeding heart banter about the troops and their sacrifice and more idiot rhetoric about how important his war on terror is and how his way of doing things is setting the trend for this century.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Transcript of the speech here:

www.foxnews.com...

Btw, nothing at all unusual about the speech being pre-recorded or read from cue cards. There was no Q&A afterward, so why not pre-record it?

Plus, the basic elements of the speech have been known by most people for a week now. The Dem's were already protesting it on Sunday talk shows.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Dems have been crying since the beginning that Iraq is going badly. The dems only counter proposal is "Cut and Run." They want America to look bad to the rest of the world. They want America to lose this war. They believe that anything bad that happens to Bush and America is good for them.

If things were going that bad in Iraq, common sense says more troops would help the situation. A cut and run like what happened in Viet Nam is exactly what the Democrats want.

Dick Durbin is human scum. I actually felt ill watching this troop basher give his speech.



[edit on 10-1-2007 by RRconservative]



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
My thoughts?

Sounded exactly like every other address he's made. 20,000 more is only increasing the risk of more innocent lives.

Bush say's "Responsibility lies with me"... If that's true, bring in the firing squad.

I literally almost saw poo-poo coming out of his mouth as he fumbled his words. What a joke.

I really liked Obama's response to the address. So I will say "what he said"

[edit on 10-1-2007 by Seedless]







 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join