Replies

It was late and I confess to skimming the latter part of the article. Seems that most posters had the same initial reaction. I have now read it slowly and deliberately. I still do not think much of it. This game of diminishing the President and everything he says and does has gotten very old.

That is why, despite his fine words and his dazzling insight into the nature of the war, President Bush's strategy is not good enough. It leaves the initiative where it has been all along - in the capitals of the terror masters - instead of shifting it where it belongs - in our hands.

If he believes that the US is not actively involved within Iran, then he has no credibility. Why does everyone feel the need to announce to the world, in great detail, every strategy and operation we implement?

I also find his use of the idea that the initiative "belongs in our hands" given the penchant to rail against the US as imperialists. Remember, "Imperial Hubris?" I haven't heard that charge for some time...perhaps he is trying to bring it back to life.

SOTU February 2, 2005 - President George W. Bush:
To promote peace in the broader Middle East, we must confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder. Syria still allows its territory, and parts of Lebanon, to be used by terrorists who seek to destroy every chance of peace in the region. You have passed, and we are applying, the Syrian Accountability Act -- and we expect the Syrian government to end all support for terror and open the door to freedom. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you.

In eleven days, Iraq will elect a permanent government to lead them for the next four years. All this bluster from the talking heads in the media and the halls of CONgress, days away from this momentous occasion, is not being done for any good reason, imho. Let the Iraqis vote before we undertake any other MAJOR advances.