I couldn't bring myself to watch. If someone could provide very brief scoring of the speach I'd be grateful. (I mean, you watched it, right?)
I couldn't either. From what I read, he (1) pulled a typical Bush tactic of adopting popular ideas of his enemies by calling for hydrogen powered cars (I'll believe it when I see it) (2) didn't use the phrase axis of evil and downplayed Iran and Korea but still implied they were terrorist states (3) kept beating the war drum, mostly on chemical/biological because it's pretty clear Saddam has no nukes (4) pledged some whopping sum to help the economy.
Basically he said, " Hey, I found y'alls URL on a wall behind a urinal at Hooters."
O, & there was some crap about how there will be no other presidents ever.
$15 billion over 5 years to fight AIDS in Africa
in answer to your original question, the first half of the speech (domestic agenda and compassionate conservatism) was a solid B+, and the second half (we're gonna fuck saddam up) was a B- (too cowboy). So average B, and then bump that down to a B- since he never actually talked about the state of the union itself.
Yeah, but let me guess, the $15 billion is all going to condom eradication and bible distribution...
I thought it was mediocre, which I guess means a C. The domestic and foreign sections were not well combined, seemed like two different speeches. The foreign part was better written, but didn't really say anything new. Actual evidence against Iraq will be left to Powell to present to the UN. This was not a war speech per se, but trying to balance its different purposes was awkward. I don't think he helped himself a whole lot, though of course there is some immediate rallying effect. He might have elevated the tone of the whole by tying the domestic agenda into the war effort, but that would require admitting to some unpleasant budgetary realities, with the suggestion that Americans might actually have to sacrifice. Instead, the first half as a laundry list typical of any SOTU speech. The stuff about AIDS in Africa was nice, but leaves one wondering why the same compassion doesn't extend to the disease's victims here, who tend to be blacks, gays, women, people outside of his constituency.
Also some juicy details on Iraqi torture methods. Less exotic but not entirely dissimmilar to the cruder U.S. techniques.
The Washington Post did a story on the new unleashed CIA. When they turn a suspect over to another country (such as Jordan) for torturing it's called "rendering."
Here's a passage from that article:
"If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably
aren't doing your job," said one official who has supervised the capture and
transfer of accused terrorists. "I don't think we want to be promoting a
view of zero tolerance on this. That was the whole problem for a long time
with the CIA."
The off-limits patch of ground at Bagram is one of a number of secret
detention centers overseas where U.S. due process does not apply, according
to several U.S. and European national security officials, where the CIA
undertakes or manages the interrogation of suspected terrorists. Another is
Diego Garcia, a somewhat horseshoe-shaped island in the Indian Ocean that
the United States leases from Britain.
U.S. officials oversee most of the interrogations, especially those of the
most senior captives. In some cases, highly trained CIA officers question
captives through interpreters. In others, the intelligence agency undertakes
a "false flag" operation using fake decor and disguises meant to deceive a
captive into thinking he is imprisoned in a country with a reputation for
brutality, when, in reality, he is still in CIA hands. Sometimes, female
officers conduct interrogations, a psychologically jarring experience for
men reared in a conservative Muslim culture where women are never in
control.
In other cases, usually involving lower-level captives, the CIA hands them
to foreign intelligence services -- notably those of Jordan, Egypt and
Morocco -- with a list of questions the agency wants answered. These
"extraordinary renditions" are done without resort to legal process and
usually involve countries with security services known for using brutal
means.
Am I the only person in the world that thinks something like 9/11 could have prevented without resort to such unsavory methods?
i have two words for you: nucular and peninshula.
LOL. Good one Julie!
Tom, can you post a link to that Post article?
It's already in the pay-link category because it's dated 12/26/02. But information wants to be free and my brother emailed it to me so here it is.
Thanks Tom.
You'd have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure torture is illegal under international law (Geneva Convention or some such) regardless of where it occurs. But you've gotta love the idea of just plain trickery: pretending you're in a hard-ass country, or "Sometimes, female officers conduct interrogations, a psychologically
jarring experience for men reared in a conservative Muslim culture where women are never in
control." Sounds like "subversive" art to me. Maybe lying is illegal as such. Or is it just a sin?
C (and that generous!!!) + i'll bet the hydrogen development $$$ go to oil buddies - bbc tv news emphasis on pres + speach writers being "born agains"
|
- jim 1-29-2003 7:20 pm
I couldn't either. From what I read, he (1) pulled a typical Bush tactic of adopting popular ideas of his enemies by calling for hydrogen powered cars (I'll believe it when I see it) (2) didn't use the phrase axis of evil and downplayed Iran and Korea but still implied they were terrorist states (3) kept beating the war drum, mostly on chemical/biological because it's pretty clear Saddam has no nukes (4) pledged some whopping sum to help the economy.
- tom moody 1-29-2003 7:35 pm
Basically he said, " Hey, I found y'alls URL on a wall behind a urinal at Hooters."
- frank 1-29-2003 7:48 pm
O, & there was some crap about how there will be no other presidents ever.
- frank 1-29-2003 7:52 pm
$15 billion over 5 years to fight AIDS in Africa
- big jimmy 1-29-2003 7:54 pm
in answer to your original question, the first half of the speech (domestic agenda and compassionate conservatism) was a solid B+, and the second half (we're gonna fuck saddam up) was a B- (too cowboy). So average B, and then bump that down to a B- since he never actually talked about the state of the union itself.
- big jimmy 1-29-2003 8:04 pm
Yeah, but let me guess, the $15 billion is all going to condom eradication and bible distribution...
- jim 1-29-2003 8:19 pm
I thought it was mediocre, which I guess means a C. The domestic and foreign sections were not well combined, seemed like two different speeches. The foreign part was better written, but didn't really say anything new. Actual evidence against Iraq will be left to Powell to present to the UN. This was not a war speech per se, but trying to balance its different purposes was awkward. I don't think he helped himself a whole lot, though of course there is some immediate rallying effect. He might have elevated the tone of the whole by tying the domestic agenda into the war effort, but that would require admitting to some unpleasant budgetary realities, with the suggestion that Americans might actually have to sacrifice. Instead, the first half as a laundry list typical of any SOTU speech. The stuff about AIDS in Africa was nice, but leaves one wondering why the same compassion doesn't extend to the disease's victims here, who tend to be blacks, gays, women, people outside of his constituency.
- alex 1-29-2003 9:08 pm
Also some juicy details on Iraqi torture methods. Less exotic but not entirely dissimmilar to the cruder U.S. techniques.
- steve 1-29-2003 9:32 pm
The Washington Post did a story on the new unleashed CIA. When they turn a suspect over to another country (such as Jordan) for torturing it's called "rendering."
- tom moody 1-29-2003 10:01 pm
Here's a passage from that article:
"If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job," said one official who has supervised the capture and transfer of accused terrorists. "I don't think we want to be promoting a view of zero tolerance on this. That was the whole problem for a long time with the CIA." The off-limits patch of ground at Bagram is one of a number of secret detention centers overseas where U.S. due process does not apply, according to several U.S. and European national security officials, where the CIA undertakes or manages the interrogation of suspected terrorists. Another is Diego Garcia, a somewhat horseshoe-shaped island in the Indian Ocean that the United States leases from Britain.
U.S. officials oversee most of the interrogations, especially those of the most senior captives. In some cases, highly trained CIA officers question captives through interpreters. In others, the intelligence agency undertakes a "false flag" operation using fake decor and disguises meant to deceive a captive into thinking he is imprisoned in a country with a reputation for brutality, when, in reality, he is still in CIA hands. Sometimes, female officers conduct interrogations, a psychologically jarring experience for men reared in a conservative Muslim culture where women are never in control.
In other cases, usually involving lower-level captives, the CIA hands them to foreign intelligence services -- notably those of Jordan, Egypt and Morocco -- with a list of questions the agency wants answered. These "extraordinary renditions" are done without resort to legal process and usually involve countries with security services known for using brutal means.
- tom moody 1-29-2003 10:06 pm
Am I the only person in the world that thinks something like 9/11 could have prevented without resort to such unsavory methods?
- tom moody 1-29-2003 10:09 pm
i have two words for you: nucular and peninshula.
- julie 1-29-2003 10:11 pm
LOL. Good one Julie!
Tom, can you post a link to that Post article?
- steve 1-29-2003 11:45 pm
It's already in the pay-link category because it's dated 12/26/02. But information wants to be free and my brother emailed it to me so here it is.
- tom moody 1-30-2003 12:03 am
Thanks Tom.
- steve 1-30-2003 12:12 am
You'd have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure torture is illegal under international law (Geneva Convention or some such) regardless of where it occurs. But you've gotta love the idea of just plain trickery: pretending you're in a hard-ass country, or "Sometimes, female officers conduct interrogations, a psychologically
jarring experience for men reared in a conservative Muslim culture where women are never in
control." Sounds like "subversive" art to me. Maybe lying is illegal as such. Or is it just a sin?
- alex 1-30-2003 12:33 am
C (and that generous!!!) + i'll bet the hydrogen development $$$ go to oil buddies - bbc tv news emphasis on pres + speach writers being "born agains"
- bill 1-31-2003 1:03 am