Speech Thread Time!!

[TheSeventhTiger]

i thought i saw three gerbils running away (from inside the podium) back down the hall.

 

[The T]

You nutters should have watched MSNBC after the speech and this morning. You would hve needed a new box of tissues. These Obama ass kissers were not very kind to him at all. What gives?

Do tell...

I wouldn't count on Lone Lunger posting anything to bolster a point...

 

[The T]

Is Obama still determined that regime change is necessary ?

Does he still believe that Assad must be punished as an example to other dictators who might use chemical weapons ?

Are we still going to arm and train the Saudi mercenaries ?


So much left unanswered

Obama has been given a reprieve by Putin to get his shit straight, his mind right...Kerry has been dispatched to investigate.

 

[The T]

Paddling thru the transcript of the speech this morning…..


For example, a mixed message;

-“[We] should not be the world’s policeman.”

I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warning and negotiations -- but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.

Then, several paragraphs thereafter;

-“My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements -- it has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a better place because we have borne them.”


Whatever…...I don’t know who wrote this speech, maybe it was the former ( and never published) editor of the Harvard Law Review, because, its like reading 2 separate speeches in many instances….. the above should have gone directly there after the ‘world policemen’ remark and hammered home as a counter point to make the case for action.




Then he slips onto more familiar ground, the ole appeal to unite us behind his leadership by…….. Splitting us up…I mean for god sakes whats the point of this? Really? Can he not, just once stop enjoining partisanship, even in the interest of getting his own ass off the hook?



“And so, to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just.

To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor. For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.”

I have to say, semantically? That’s mush….what a horrible and roundabout way to say what he wanted to say…...

And of course any time you have to keep reverting to naked pleas of/for emotionalism;

“Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos…”


You are working a weak hand.


Several senators ( 2 being Dems- Landrieu and Markey tweeted- sent out press releases) shortly after the speech speaking strongly for the diplomatic effort …looking at the whip count from The Hill this morning, he actually lost more senators there after then he had going in to the dat, with the behind the door briefings, the speech.


And,( I have to consider it), maybe that’s what he wanted. I said a few days ago there would be no vote, period, ever ( unless assad would like , fly a crop duster and gas folks in plain sight, then, maybe).

Obama has been manhandled, outfoxed by both Assad and Putin. Have to remember? When Obama was a member of the "Choom Gang" and putting his butts out on the carpet in college? Putin was learning to KILL adversaries with a spoon with the KGB.

 

[Annie]

Paddling thru the transcript of the speech this morning…..


For example, a mixed message;

-“[We] should not be the world’s policeman.”

I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warning and negotiations -- but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.

Then, several paragraphs thereafter;

-“My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements -- it has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a better place because we have borne them.”


Whatever…...I don’t know who wrote this speech, maybe it was the former ( and never published) editor of the Harvard Law Review, because, its like reading 2 separate speeches in many instances….. the above should have gone directly there after the ‘world policemen’ remark and hammered home as a counter point to make the case for action.




Then he slips onto more familiar ground, the ole appeal to unite us behind his leadership by…….. Splitting us up…I mean for god sakes whats the point of this? Really? Can he not, just once stop enjoining partisanship, even in the interest of getting his own ass off the hook?



“And so, to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just.

To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor. For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.”

I have to say, semantically? That’s mush….what a horrible and roundabout way to say what he wanted to say…...

And of course any time you have to keep reverting to naked pleas of/for emotionalism;

“Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos…”


You are working a weak hand.


Several senators ( 2 being Dems- Landrieu and Markey tweeted- sent out press releases) shortly after the speech speaking strongly for the diplomatic effort …looking at the whip count from The Hill this morning, he actually lost more senators there after then he had going in to the dat, with the behind the door briefings, the speech.


And,( I have to consider it), maybe that’s what he wanted. I said a few days ago there would be no vote, period, ever ( unless assad would like , fly a crop duster and gas folks in plain sight, then, maybe).

Obama has been manhandled, outfoxed by both Assad and Putin. Have to remember? When Obama was a member of the "Choom Gang" and putting his butts out on the carpet in college? Putin was learning to KILL adversaries with a spoon with the KGB.

They were trying to avoid plagiarism?

Marc Thiessen: Obama lifted his Syria speech from Bush - The Washington Post

Obama lifted his Syria speech from Bush
By Marc A. Thiessen, Updated: Wednesday, September 11, 8:08 AM

President Obama never misses a chance to “blame it on Bush,” and last night’s address to the nation on Syria was no exception.

The reason Obama has failed to win support military action in Syria, the president declared last night, is not because he has failed to lay out a coherent strategy — it’s because of “the terrible toll of Iraq and Afghanistan.” Obama further slammed former president George W. Bush for presiding over “a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.”

Put aside the fact that Congress explicitly authorized the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while Obama did not seek congressional authorization before launching his war in Libya — or that dozens of nations joined us in Iraq and Afghanistan, while in Syria we have . . . France.

If Bush was so bad, then why did Obama lift so much of his speech making the case for military action in Syria from Bush’s speech making the case for military action in Iraq?

In his address Tuesday night arguing that the United States must hold a Baathist dictator who used chemical weapons against his own people to account, Obama said: “I know Americans want all of us in Washington — especially me — to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home. . . . It’s no wonder then that you’re asking hard questions. So let me answer some of the most important questions that I’ve heard from members of Congress and that I’ve read in letters that you’ve sent to me.”

He then went on to pose a number of questions raised by critics about the need for military action, and answer them: “First, many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war? . . . Others have asked whether it’s worth acting if we don’t take out [Syrian President Bashar al-]Assad. . . . Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation.. . . Many of you have asked a broader question: Why should we get involved at all in a place that’s so complicated and where, as one person wrote to me, those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights? . . . Finally, many of you have asked, why not leave this to other countries or seek solutions short of force?”

Hmm, that sounded familiar. In his October 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati, making the case that the United States must hold a Baathist dictator who used chemical weapons on his people to account, Bush declared: “Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action. . . . These are all issues we’ve discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.”

Bush then went on to pose a number of questions raised by critics and answer them: “First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. . . . Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. . . . Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. . . . Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. . . . Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? . . . Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure.”

In other words, Obama essentially copied Bush’s speech making the case for military action in Iraq to make his case for military action in Syria.

The similarities don’t end there. Obama also mimicked Bush in laying out the consequences of inaction, Obama said: “A failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran, which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon or to take a more peaceful path. This is not a world we should accept.”

In 2002, Bush declared: “Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. . . . And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear. That is not the America I know.”

While imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, it takes a special kind of chutzpah to plagiarize your predecessor while attacking him at the same time.

Of course, the imitation only went so far. After making the case for military action, Bush issued an ultimatum to the Iraqi regime. After making the case for military action, Obama announced he was deploying . . . Secretary of State John F. Kerry to meet with his Russian counterparts. Presumably Kerry will explain that if Assad fails to comply with Obama’s just demands, the Syrian dictator will face the consequences — a military strike that is “unbelievably small.”

Now that wasn’t lifted from George W. Bush.

 

[The T]

Paddling thru the transcript of the speech this morning…..


For example, a mixed message;

-“[We] should not be the world’s policeman.”

I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warning and negotiations -- but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.

Then, several paragraphs thereafter;

-“My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements -- it has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a better place because we have borne them.”


Whatever…...I don’t know who wrote this speech, maybe it was the former ( and never published) editor of the Harvard Law Review, because, its like reading 2 separate speeches in many instances….. the above should have gone directly there after the ‘world policemen’ remark and hammered home as a counter point to make the case for action.




Then he slips onto more familiar ground, the ole appeal to unite us behind his leadership by…….. Splitting us up…I mean for god sakes whats the point of this? Really? Can he not, just once stop enjoining partisanship, even in the interest of getting his own ass off the hook?



“And so, to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just.

To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor. For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.”

I have to say, semantically? That’s mush….what a horrible and roundabout way to say what he wanted to say…...

And of course any time you have to keep reverting to naked pleas of/for emotionalism;

“Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos…”


You are working a weak hand.


Several senators ( 2 being Dems- Landrieu and Markey tweeted- sent out press releases) shortly after the speech speaking strongly for the diplomatic effort …looking at the whip count from The Hill this morning, he actually lost more senators there after then he had going in to the dat, with the behind the door briefings, the speech.


And,( I have to consider it), maybe that’s what he wanted. I said a few days ago there would be no vote, period, ever ( unless assad would like , fly a crop duster and gas folks in plain sight, then, maybe).

Obama has been manhandled, outfoxed by both Assad and Putin. Have to remember? When Obama was a member of the "Choom Gang" and putting his butts out on the carpet in college? Putin was learning to KILL adversaries with a spoon with the KGB.

They were trying to avoid plagiarism?

Marc Thiessen: Obama lifted his Syria speech from Bush - The Washington Post

Obama lifted his Syria speech from Bush
By Marc A. Thiessen, Updated: Wednesday, September 11, 8:08 AM

President Obama never misses a chance to “blame it on Bush,” and last night’s address to the nation on Syria was no exception.

The reason Obama has failed to win support military action in Syria, the president declared last night, is not because he has failed to lay out a coherent strategy — it’s because of “the terrible toll of Iraq and Afghanistan.” Obama further slammed former president George W. Bush for presiding over “a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.”

Put aside the fact that Congress explicitly authorized the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while Obama did not seek congressional authorization before launching his war in Libya — or that dozens of nations joined us in Iraq and Afghanistan, while in Syria we have . . . France.

If Bush was so bad, then why did Obama lift so much of his speech making the case for military action in Syria from Bush’s speech making the case for military action in Iraq?

In his address Tuesday night arguing that the United States must hold a Baathist dictator who used chemical weapons against his own people to account, Obama said: “I know Americans want all of us in Washington — especially me — to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home. . . . It’s no wonder then that you’re asking hard questions. So let me answer some of the most important questions that I’ve heard from members of Congress and that I’ve read in letters that you’ve sent to me.”

He then went on to pose a number of questions raised by critics about the need for military action, and answer them: “First, many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war? . . . Others have asked whether it’s worth acting if we don’t take out [Syrian President Bashar al-]Assad. . . . Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation.. . . Many of you have asked a broader question: Why should we get involved at all in a place that’s so complicated and where, as one person wrote to me, those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights? . . . Finally, many of you have asked, why not leave this to other countries or seek solutions short of force?”

Hmm, that sounded familiar. In his October 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati, making the case that the United States must hold a Baathist dictator who used chemical weapons on his people to account, Bush declared: “Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action. . . . These are all issues we’ve discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.”

Bush then went on to pose a number of questions raised by critics and answer them: “First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. . . . Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. . . . Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. . . . Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. . . . Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? . . . Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure.”

In other words, Obama essentially copied Bush’s speech making the case for military action in Iraq to make his case for military action in Syria.

The similarities don’t end there. Obama also mimicked Bush in laying out the consequences of inaction, Obama said: “A failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran, which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon or to take a more peaceful path. This is not a world we should accept.”

In 2002, Bush declared: “Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. . . . And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear. That is not the America I know.”

While imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, it takes a special kind of chutzpah to plagiarize your predecessor while attacking him at the same time.

Of course, the imitation only went so far. After making the case for military action, Bush issued an ultimatum to the Iraqi regime. After making the case for military action, Obama announced he was deploying . . . Secretary of State John F. Kerry to meet with his Russian counterparts. Presumably Kerry will explain that if Assad fails to comply with Obama’s just demands, the Syrian dictator will face the consequences — a military strike that is “unbelievably small.”

Now that wasn’t lifted from George W. Bush.

LOL! NOT surprising by any stretch. He tried earlier in the day to channel Reagan with the line "Trust but verify"...(Regarding Putin's deal of reigning in the WMD's held by Assad's Gubmint).

Goes again this man isn't original by any stretch, and is trying to save his ass, his Legacy.

 

[hortysir]

Annie, I think you just killed my thread




Thank You

 

[The T]

Annie, I think you just killed my thread




Thank You

Nicely too!

 

[percysunshine]

He copied Bush's speech?

Was Dick Cheney running the teleprompter?

 

[Pheonixops]

Paddling thru the transcript of the speech this morning…..


For example, a mixed message;

-“[We] should not be the world’s policeman.”

I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warning and negotiations -- but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.

Then, several paragraphs thereafter;

-“My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements -- it has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a better place because we have borne them.”


Whatever…...I don’t know who wrote this speech, maybe it was the former ( and never published) editor of the Harvard Law Review, because, its like reading 2 separate speeches in many instances….. the above should have gone directly there after the ‘world policemen’ remark and hammered home as a counter point to make the case for action.




Then he slips onto more familiar ground, the ole appeal to unite us behind his leadership by…….. Splitting us up…I mean for god sakes whats the point of this? Really? Can he not, just once stop enjoining partisanship, even in the interest of getting his own ass off the hook?



“And so, to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just.

To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor. For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.”

I have to say, semantically? That’s mush….what a horrible and roundabout way to say what he wanted to say…...

And of course any time you have to keep reverting to naked pleas of/for emotionalism;

“Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos…”


You are working a weak hand.


Several senators ( 2 being Dems- Landrieu and Markey tweeted- sent out press releases) shortly after the speech speaking strongly for the diplomatic effort …looking at the whip count from The Hill this morning, he actually lost more senators there after then he had going in to the dat, with the behind the door briefings, the speech.


And,( I have to consider it), maybe that’s what he wanted. I said a few days ago there would be no vote, period, ever ( unless assad would like , fly a crop duster and gas folks in plain sight, then, maybe).

Obama has been manhandled, outfoxed by both Assad and Putin. Have to remember? When Obama was a member of the "Choom Gang" and putting his butts out on the carpet in college? Putin was learning to KILL adversaries with a spoon with the KGB.

They were trying to avoid plagiarism?

Marc Thiessen: Obama lifted his Syria speech from Bush - The Washington Post

Obama lifted his Syria speech from Bush
By Marc A. Thiessen, Updated: Wednesday, September 11, 8:08 AM

President Obama never misses a chance to “blame it on Bush,” and last night’s address to the nation on Syria was no exception.

The reason Obama has failed to win support military action in Syria, the president declared last night, is not because he has failed to lay out a coherent strategy — it’s because of “the terrible toll of Iraq and Afghanistan.” Obama further slammed former president George W. Bush for presiding over “a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.”

Put aside the fact that Congress explicitly authorized the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while Obama did not seek congressional authorization before launching his war in Libya — or that dozens of nations joined us in Iraq and Afghanistan, while in Syria we have . . . France.

If Bush was so bad, then why did Obama lift so much of his speech making the case for military action in Syria from Bush’s speech making the case for military action in Iraq?

In his address Tuesday night arguing that the United States must hold a Baathist dictator who used chemical weapons against his own people to account, Obama said: “I know Americans want all of us in Washington — especially me — to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home. . . . It’s no wonder then that you’re asking hard questions. So let me answer some of the most important questions that I’ve heard from members of Congress and that I’ve read in letters that you’ve sent to me.”

He then went on to pose a number of questions raised by critics about the need for military action, and answer them: “First, many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war? . . . Others have asked whether it’s worth acting if we don’t take out [Syrian President Bashar al-]Assad. . . . Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation.. . . Many of you have asked a broader question: Why should we get involved at all in a place that’s so complicated and where, as one person wrote to me, those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights? . . . Finally, many of you have asked, why not leave this to other countries or seek solutions short of force?”

Hmm, that sounded familiar. In his October 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati, making the case that the United States must hold a Baathist dictator who used chemical weapons on his people to account, Bush declared: “Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action. . . . These are all issues we’ve discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.”

Bush then went on to pose a number of questions raised by critics and answer them: “First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. . . . Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. . . . Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. . . . Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. . . . Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? . . . Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure.”

In other words, Obama essentially copied Bush’s speech making the case for military action in Iraq to make his case for military action in Syria.

The similarities don’t end there. Obama also mimicked Bush in laying out the consequences of inaction, Obama said: “A failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran, which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon or to take a more peaceful path. This is not a world we should accept.”

In 2002, Bush declared: “Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. . . . And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear. That is not the America I know.”

While imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, it takes a special kind of chutzpah to plagiarize your predecessor while attacking him at the same time.

Of course, the imitation only went so far. After making the case for military action, Bush issued an ultimatum to the Iraqi regime. After making the case for military action, Obama announced he was deploying . . . Secretary of State John F. Kerry to meet with his Russian counterparts. Presumably Kerry will explain that if Assad fails to comply with Obama’s just demands, the Syrian dictator will face the consequences — a military strike that is “unbelievably small.”

Now that wasn’t lifted from George W. Bush.

I said the same thing last night.........

Man, he's wearing a lot of makeup

My opinion on the speech is that it was a bunch of shitty used up rhetoric which was used by the previous Administration. How long has Syria had those weapons? Now it's suddenly a "problem" because he allegedly used them "against his own people" (One of the complaints about saddam). How many of "his own people" were killed bu conventional weapons vs the current weapon in question?

During the Civil War, the case could be made that Lincoln was "killing his own people".
The current Administration was one that I thought would shun acting unilaterally and instead take the case before the UN and let hem handle it.