# Bush's State of the Union Speech



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

I did not see the whole thing so I can't make too many comments on it. What I did see seemed to be pretty well spoken.

I also noticed that Cheney was making some odd looking faces during the midde of it. It looked like he was constipated or something. I found it funny.

Any one else have any thoughts, comments, or opinions of last nights speech?

Fire away.


----------



## KozmoKramer (Apr 25, 2004)

I thought W.'s demeanor was _serene_ to say the least.
But why not? He's facing an ugly congress bent on reversing his agenda, he has zero political capital, and a large section of his own party are turning their back on him.

Anyone catch the puss on Hillary the Devil?
That smug, disrespectful smirk of hers makes me sick.
And what about Dennis Kucinich! He took a seat on the aisle for some free face time. I think he claimed the seat last friday and hadnt got up since. What a witless nincompoop...


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2007)

I only managed hear bits & pieces on the radio between calls, but it sounded to me like W was mailing it in. He probably knows the next 2 years aren't going to be easy, and seems to have lost his will to fight. 

I would have been much more happy if he came out swinging, it would have at least made for good entertainment.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

His speech writers deserve KUDOS it was well written and Duba
delivered it well.
If you watched when they panned the crowd and saw the antics
of the dummycrats namely ours it would turn your stomach.
If someone did not prod them they would not have risen to honor
the silver star veteran.
I am disgusted at the people in this state that keep putting these
@$$wipes back in office.


----------



## Andy0921 (Jan 12, 2006)

> That smug, disrespectful smirk of hers makes me sick.


:dito: IMO she's a rude cunt...


----------



## j809 (Jul 5, 2002)

He had some great initiatives, why did he wait six years to discuss them.


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

andy0921 said:


> :dito: IMO she's a rude cunt...


Andy, plain english, please...


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

IMO, it was just more of the same RINO bull-hockey. Up next: amnesty for illegals and no pardon for the Border Patrol guys. Higher taxes ("....read my lips...") and universal health care. Oh, and no social security for the folks that paid into the system: it's reserved for illegal aliens and indigents, American Dummy.

Bring on the resurrection, please.


----------



## Mitpo62 (Jan 13, 2004)

Speech or not, it's past time to bring our sons and daughters home. Period.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper (Aug 27, 2006)

NO, its time to get rid of these assine rules of engagement! Let the soldiers be soldiers, NOT COPS...Hunt the pricks down and kill them and NOT have to wonder if theyre going to be ucmj'd for it.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

justanotherparatrooper said:


> NO, its time to get rid of these assine rules of engagement! Let the soldiers be soldiers, NOT COPS...Hunt the pricks down and kill them and NOT have to wonder if theyre going to be ucmj'd for it.


AMEN blow them off the face of the earth.


----------



## Inspector (Nov 13, 2006)

The Senate reaction today shows a glimpse of what the President can expect from here on in. The Foreign Relations Committee voted to not support the troop buildup. With a Democratic controlled Senate committee this is expected but they were Joined by Republican Chuck Hagel and while other Republicans did not vote for the measure Richard Lugar indicated he was voting against it as the President wouldn't follow it anyway so it was moot. Of all the Republicans only one, David Vitter of Louisiana, stood by the President and gave him any verbal support. Word from Washington is that from here on in those in Washington are looking for ways to bail in light of growing public disenchantment with the war and the President.


----------



## Macop (May 2, 2002)

_npn_323 wrote_
I also noticed that Cheney was making some odd looking faces during the midde of it. It looked like he was constipated or something.

Can ya blame him, sitting in the same room as that liberal douche bag Nancy Pelosi!!


----------



## Girevik (Jan 19, 2007)

I thought the speech was mediocre. However he gave a pretty good SitRep on the War. F****in A-right Justanotherparatropper on the ROE. We took a pussy-handed approach from the begining. We have to finish the job though. We need show these terrosist that they cannot shake our will. That when the USA sets out on a mission to it finishes it, right, wrong or indifferent. The credebility biult by the blood, sweat and toil of countless brave Americans is at stake.


----------



## KozmoKramer (Apr 25, 2004)

JAP is right.
War is not "hearts and minds", war isn't taking a politically correct approach, war is killing people and destroying things.
Either do that, or leave.
Our servicemen are not police, their not social workers and their not security guards.
Nor are they mediators for a centuries old religious war that we have no business inserting ourselves in.
We should only be there to protect the interests of the United States, period.
And if we're worried about Iran and making it a safe haven for terrorists? Thats simple, remove the threat. We have the weaponry that can more than sufficiently fulfill that task.
Unleash war, real war or bring them home.
There is no legitimate or (in my opinion) Constitutional middle ground.


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

:L: Ditto Koz, JAP and everyone else...except Mitpo, apparently.

These people, the Mohammedans, are every bit as intransigent as the Japanese of the World War, Part Two. They can only be defeated the same way: Complete and utter destruction. Collateral damage up the wazoo. Completely destroy there agricultural/manufacturing/refining/pumping infrastructure and reduce them to the stone age. Then swan in with money, jobs, food and Baptist/Church of Christ missionaries...convert them and build them back up to a civilized society, ala Japan (well...except for the "convert" part...wasn't necessary there). End of problem. Forty years from now...so regardless other factors, troops will be in country for at least that amount of time (still in Germany/Japan/Korea last I checked). No need for nukes: neutron bombs will turn the trick.

We can start with Lebanon, "Philistia" (Palestine), Syria, Iran and Pakistan (just because that Paki-bastard in Milwaukee insulted Sergeant Hess). Death to Islam, Satan's running dogs.

</IMG>


----------



## AJNystrom (Nov 2, 2006)

> These people, the Mohammedans, are every bit as intransigent as the Japanese of the World War, Part Two. They can only be defeated the same way: Complete and utter destruction. Collateral damage up the wazoo. Completely destroy there agricultural/manufacturing/refining/pumping infrastructure and reduce them to the stone age.


Correction: The stone age would be an upgrade:lol:


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2007)

The Colbert Report showed that Cheney will prevail!!!


----------



## BombDog (Jan 15, 2007)

Cheney Wins!!!
They should have checked if he was breathing...


----------



## EXTRACOP (Dec 30, 2006)

I am certainly glad to see that at least some people understand what the military should be used for, that is kill people, blow things up and take territory. I just can't grasps the concept of destroying an enemies country then rebuilding it them. The whole Iraq thing should have been aproached like a seach warrant. Kick the door in, look around, nothing found , go home ! I have friends over there that should have been home years ago!


----------



## irish937 (Sep 13, 2005)

The bottom line is, you have to finish what you start. The intelligence was flawed in the beginning. That aside, we NEED to support our military...PERIOD. People on the ground do not care about policy, they care about each other AND going home. I'm sure many of us have friends in harm's way, but we need to secure Iraq. So we leave immediately. What does that leave us years from now?? I think you know where I'm going. 

As for the partisan politics...anyone remember Somalia? When October 1993 rolled around, who was the president? Did he ignore the Republicans (the same thing the Democrats are preaching now) when they told him to stop military action and get out of Somalia? He did then and Dubya did since the current war started. What does that say? Who knows (everyone has an opinion). The boys and girls on the ground have very little concept about politics. For them, it's about surviving. I want my friends home too, but what message does that send to our enemies if we leave before the job is done? I submit that leaving now proves the 3000+ (just ours, not including the Iraqis who have fought for their own freedom) lives are for nothing. Let's support what's most important.


----------

