« Twin Blogging! Pics from the park ... | Main | Jhimmi Carter - the shoes keep dropping »

January 24, 2007

SOTU

Michael Ramirez

I'd give the speech a B. I disagree policy wise with the President's immigration proposal (no amnesty, period, and start jailing employers), and I'm very leery of Federal fiddling with "health care". It is such meddling that has gotten us to this point (better than Canadian care, but ...). He was very strong and specific about Islamist terrorism. That can't be said enough. It was great to hear him actually name Hezbollah and set the record straight on their total responsibility for the war in southern Lebanon.

Was Pelosi having some weird reaction to botox? There was the distracting eye flutters and then she was chewing her lip as if it were numb. There was a shot of McCain looking as if he was napping and then a red-nosed John Warner with such a drawn face one would thought someone just shot his pony. Hey Warner, that yellow stripe up your back beginning to bother you?

BTW, just what is the Dem candidates plans to deal with Islamism? How much security am I to feel when either they won't even name it, or only want to talk to it, yet the Islamists just want to just murder us.

Technorati: ,

Posted by Darleen at January 24, 2007 06:40 AM

Comments


Darleen said....
"BTW, just what is the Dem candidate’s plans to deal with Islamism?"

Exactly
I would invite commenters to this blog to tell me the answer to that question...with one caveat: No "should have, could have or would have" explanations. Tell me what you would do today if you were handed the reins. History is replete with examples of Presidents and Legislators that were forced to deal with the hand that was dealt them.

Let us hear your answers to the question: "...just what is the Dem candidate’s plans to deal with Islamism?"

Posted by: Hugh at January 24, 2007 05:23 PM

Presumably about the same thing Bush has been doing, minus the ill-conceived and damaging invasion of countries that had nothing to do with attacks on the United States. Also, whipping up Ramirez-esque hysteria about a tidal wave of terraists coming to eat our babies is probably not on the agenda either.

Posted by: Josh at January 24, 2007 07:20 PM

I see that Josh is reading from his talking points again and not actually giving any answers. You know, it's all Bush's fault. They won't do what Bush did, blah, blah, blah!
And when he does get around to saying what he "might" do, it still slams Bush. BDS all the way dude.

Posted by: Pothus at January 24, 2007 09:55 PM

It was a pretty good speech, formwise. Substance? Not much there.

Bush pretty much ignored the 360 KG gorilla looming over his whole administration by spending just a few minutes dealing with Iraq, in a speech lasting almost a full hour.

Can't blame him, though. If I were he, I'd spend as little time as possible on the Iraq war too.

Paraphrasing a line from Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream:

He had a speech 1 hour long, and by one hour, was too long....

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at January 25, 2007 08:31 AM

I see Pothus has trouble reading. I said they'd probably do what Bush has done, minus the stupid invasion of Iraq, "dude". I'm not familiar with the term BDS - is that where you are so infatuated with the guy that you are compelled to defend his every action, no matter how foolish?

Posted by: Josh at January 25, 2007 09:30 AM

I felt almost sorry of Hillary (not really). She couldn't get a camera shot without Osama Obama sitting in front of her. I'm sure she probably wasn't happy about having her image eclipsed by him.

Posted by: beth at January 25, 2007 09:04 PM

And I notice that Josh has trouble comprehending. I "read" your comment, but let us refresh...

"Presumably about the same thing Bush has been doing, minus the ill-conceived and damaging invasion of countries that had nothing to do with attacks on the United States."...okay, let us see where I got your comment wrong. Presumably the same as Bush. . . So you would fight the terrorists, but where? Oh, that is right; you will not fight them in Iraq. A country that had nothing to do with attacks on the US. Right, okay, got you. How about Afghanistan? Oh, that is right; they did not attack us either. So let us see, if we do not fight the terrorists in those countries, then where would we fight them? Hmm, oh, I know, we wait until the terrorists attack us again, here on American soil, because we cannot have this “invading a sovereign country for no reason argument” again. Therefore, I guess we would have to call on the U.N., to protect our nation from terrorists and have them talk with these terrorists and make them like us again. Because it is all about the world and the terrorists liking us. Got you. Therefore, we do not fight the terrorists in any country but the U.S. Okay got you. But wait, then you would not be doing presumably the same thing that GWB has done.

Now to your next comment:

"Also, whipping up Ramirez-esque hysteria about a tidal wave of terraists coming to eat our babies is probably not on the agenda either."

This part, if I read right, sounds about right. Sort of. The Dhimms just love everyone, because, as you know, we all live in a happy world and we must get along with everyone. (BTW: its terrorists, not terraists). But unfortunately, these Islamofacist really do want to come here and KILL EVERYONE. So hysteria? I do not think so. Need to pull your head out of the sand and actually understand that Osama really did tell the world when he started all of this, that he wants to KILL EVERY AMERICAN, WESTERNER, ANYONE NOT A MUSLIM!!! But I guess you did not read that in the news.

Otherwise, I thought I read your comment quite correctly.

Now as to your last remark: “I'm not familiar with the term BDS - is that where you are so infatuated with the guy that you are compelled to defend his every action, no matter how foolish?”

If you do not know the term BDS, fine. However, infatuation with the President of the United States has nothing to do with my comment. I respect the man and believe he is doing a good job with what little support he has received from the people on the other side of the aisle. (The Democrats and some Rinos). War is tough and he was thrust into this situation, just like the rest of this country, not of our choosing. War! That is what is happening right now and the sooner everyone understands this, the sooner we can stop the Islamofacists from doing what they most desire, the end of the Western Civilization.

You say foolish. I say brave and steadfast.

Posted by: Pothus at January 25, 2007 11:55 PM

Oh, that is right; you will not fight them in Iraq.

Well, I won't. I doubt you will either. But unfortunately, now that the invasion has turned Iraq into a terrorist haven, the US military will have to fight them there to some extent.

How about Afghanistan? Oh, that is right; they did not attack us either.

Sure they did. The Taliban and Al Quaeda had an operational relationship. Where have you been the past 6 years?

Not sure why you're mentioning the UN, since I never brought it up. It's almost as if you're unable to consider these issues yourself and are just reading off a script.

The Dhimms just love everyone, because, as you know, we all live in a happy world and we must get along with everyone.

Indeed. Either the terrorists are loving people who we can talk to, or they're about to overrun the country. Nothing in between those two extremes, nosirree.

(BTW: its terrorists, not terraists).

I guess you haven't been listening to Bush's speeches.


Need to pull your head out of the sand and actually understand that Osama really did tell the world when he started all of this, that he wants to KILL EVERY AMERICAN, WESTERNER, ANYONE NOT A MUSLIM!!!

Yeah, and I told the world I want to play in the NBA. And I believe certain people wanted to transform the Middle East into a collection of first-world democracies. Sadly, what one desires does not always come to pass, even for Osama Bin Laden.

I respect the man and believe he is doing a good job with what little support he has received from the people on the other side of the aisle. (The Democrats and some Rinos).

Sounds like my definition was right. If you think the invasion and occupation was "a good job," I'm afraid BDS is the diagnosis.

Posted by: Josh at January 26, 2007 07:05 AM

Pothus writes, I respect the man and believe he is doing a good job with what little support he has received from the people on the other side of the aisle. (The Democrats and some Rinos).

Oh, REALLY? You mean Bush is supported by a majority of Americans -- it's just those Left Wing wackos who are spoiling everything for the rest of the nation?

Then how do you explain this Newsweek poll:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16840614/site/newsweek

The president’s approval ratings are at their lowest point in the poll’s history—30 percent—and more than half the country (58 percent) say they wish the Bush presidency were simply over . . .
Public fatigue over the war in the Iraq is not reflected solely in the president’s numbers, however. Congress is criticized by nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of Americans for not being assertive enough in challenging the Bush administration’s conduct of the war. Even a third (31 percent) of rank-and-file Republicans say the previous Congress, controlled by their party, didn’t do enough to challenge the administration on the war.

Is that just the liberal MSM lying again?

Posted by: Brad at January 27, 2007 11:39 AM

Brad..."Is that just the liberal MSM lying again?"
Yes.

Posted by: Pothus at February 2, 2007 03:10 AM