What's up with that?
I finally got around to watching the last few minutes of President Bush's speech from last week. Nothing new content-wise to report, and I remain convinced that it was a speech empty of useful information or truth.
I was struck (as lots of people have been) by the fact that his audience of military men didn't break into applause for him like his normal crowds of loyalty-oath-taking supporters. There were several built-in cheer breaks (every time he talked about how great our nation is, or how great our military is), and they simply didn't seem moved to applause. In fact, the applause at the end felt tepid.
But the oddest moment of the whole speech came at the very end, when our President, who wants to project the image of Macho, manly cowboy, appeared to nearly break into tears, and I really don't quite know why. I've been going over it and over it in my head since watching it Saturday night, and there just wasn't anything there to incite that reaction.
It doesn't appear to have been calculated, because he seemed to be trying to keep his face under control. The rhetoric he was speaking at that moment didn't seem any more emotion laden than any of the rest of the "This is the greatest nation in the world" rhetoric he'd been spouting throughout.
The only thing I can think of is that even with the speech clearly wrapping up, several of his obvious applause breaks didn't gender any response, and perhaps he was wondering if he was going to get out of this speech without even any applause at it's conclusion.
I don't know. But it was odd.
Liam.
posted by Liam at 7/04/2005 01:50:00 PM
3 Comments:
Liam, I know you don't like Bush or his administration and I really know you don't like Rove, but don't you find it fascinating that all of Al Queda's efforts, and that of the other madmen of the extremes in the Muslim Religion are flocking to Iraq to kill the democracy that is beginning there and all of the American Military that are causing it to occur. Isn't it deliriously genius to have caused this to occur instead of them coming to any other place in the world? They are going there to fight...."our military" in a foreign country thus sparing us and our fellow democracies the onslaught of their atrocities. I couldn't have planned it better myself. You talk about a conspiracy theory with the loftiest of intentions.
Monday, July 04, 2005 10:52:00 PM
Your argument is flawed, because it relies on asserting some things which have not been proven.
First, this "fledgeling democracy" of which you speak. Keep in mind that we've helped set up lots of democracies which have turned into bad things. And we only support democracies when they agree with our policies, we've shown we're perfectly happy to support military dictatorships (Pakistan) and other barberous governments when those governments are willing to be allies. I can't think of the country right now, but there's a country that in the last few years we actually supported the military deposing the elected President. I'll look up the reference later.
Point is, we don't have a great record on setting up democracies, nor on supporting democracies.
Second, you assume that al Qaeda and other extremists would be attacking us elsewhere if not in Iraq. SOME would be, but some are just fighting what they see as an injust incursion by a Christian nation into the affairs of the Moslem world. The membership in al Qaeda was falling after 9/11, after the world saw that it didn't particularly harm our country (in terms of making the government collapse) and that it was pretty universally condemned. It didn't start rising again until we invaded Iraq. So tell me again how the fact that they now have additional resources to hit us with, resources that we effectively gave them, was good planning? How does having a highly successful "membership drive" for the armies of the enemy make good policy?
Plus, you make the mistake of assuming that al Qaeda, a group that had the evil tactical genius to plan the attacks of 9/11 would be so easily distracted to only attack us in Iraq. That's insane. If all of these insurgents are al Qaeda (which they aren't), then they'd be planning something bigger over here.
If they aren't hitting us, it's because they haven't yet got the resources to do so, but meanwhile they have a lot more than they did, and a lot more Moslems who feel such would be justified, because of our war in Iraq.
Liam.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005 8:00:00 AM
Liam, you state that some of my facts are not proven ie "fledgling democracy". Are you saying that Iraq is not a fledgling democracy, or are you saying that some fledgling democracies don't turn out well? Either way, my use of the term is correct at this time.
You on the other hand state as fact the the membership of Al Queda was falling after 9/ll, but I don't think that can be proved; nor can it be proved that the membership of same started rising after the invasion of Iraq. What is true is that the number of training camps that Al Queda have in the known world has decreased drastically and the ones we cannot prove do or do not exist are either being kept secret by the host counties (due to fear of being bombed or invaded) or are so small as to keep them secret from the host countries.
You state that you don't think Al Queada could be so easily distracted as to just attack us in Iraq, and I say they are using so much of their resources and their attention in Iraq that they have that as the top of their priority list instead of the US.
I feel you are right that the Iraq invasion has drawn lots of the crazies from the surrounding countries to fight in Iraq, but that just proves my point that the "Iraq as magnet" theory works.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005 2:30:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home