LIVE THREAD: Bush's Speech on Iraq (8:00 P.M. EDT)

www.freerepublic.com | May 21, 2004

[Howlin]

Speech begins at 8:00 P.M. EDT; carried on MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, and CSPAN.

[John Lenin]

I think it was a good speech for the times, if he would have come across arragant and cocky with whats going on that would have looked bad during the next tragedy. It was a calculated speech not meant to be a pep rall.

[Texasforever]

give him slack because there are 5 more to go. We'll see what the sum total is after the 6 are given. He shouldn't shoot his load all at once.

I think that is why there will be 6 speeches. Tonight was the executive summary with the next 5 devoted to one part of the 5 part plan. That is the way I would struture it anyway.

[Howlin]

Too bad he didn't say that back when O'Neill was all over TV; and louder.

[snopercod]

Then was the "text of the speech" as posted here not the whole text?

[bray]

When W gets his 4-5 point bump in the polls, Morris et al will proclaim what a brilliant speech this was. It set the course for all of us who were getting weary of the bad news and no response. This was the outline for the details and well delivered at just the right tone. I loved this speech.

Pray for W and Our Awesome Troops

[hole_n_one]

Don't you have a dog to kick, or something?

[Darlin']

Exactly !

[ride the whirlwind]

I'm sorry she's left the reservation. Argh - did Alan Colmes get to her already?! ;-)

[summer]

I watched the speech with a swing voter in FL, whose vote went back to GW, after what that voter thought was an excellent speech by GW. (And, Joe Biden's remarks did not sway that voter back the other way.)

[Cold Heat]

Ten bucks says the Iraqi's will want to keep it!

[Christian4Bush]

"So the question on my mind is: #1. Will the president wear make-up to cover his scrapes from the bike fall?

#2. Will the networks tomorrow morning give free air time to a rebuttal of the speech the same networks didn't cover."

If #2 is yes then I think that's a little unfair...they didn't air it...oh!...stupid me...we are talking the alphabet press...they don't have any rules!...

Yes, #2 will be true, so I will just do this: in response to their not carrying the speech, I won't listen to their rebuttals. (I'm on the left coast, so I wouldn't have watched them anyway.) I certainly won't listen to Laura Ingraham who, for all of her talk about the navel- gazing media bias, spends half her show replaying it.

I'll listen to Rush's replacement, Hannity, Larry Elder, and Frank Pastore (former major league pitcher and atheist who is now a Christian defender).

By the way, I thought the President did a great job. The prayers for him were powerful and effective.

[arasina]

Bob Kerrey on Blow'Reilly right now.

[longtermmemmory]

lets not forget this is 1 of 6. (a six shooter series of speeches for the a presidential cowboy?)

[Mo1]

People know we haven't had a terrorist attack in three years! Morris seemed like he was trying to get the President to "set himself up for a fall."

Exactly ... and that is the reason I think he is still working for the Clinton's

I know I could be way off base on that thinking .. but Morris should know better

[jwalsh07]

No, not to the poltically clued in. But overwhelming majorities of Americans are not clued in. To those who watched they learned something about Iraq and Islamofascism.

[John Lenin]

not meant to be a pep rally.

[Miss Marple]

Yes, but you TOLD us!! And I think YOUR sources are a heck of a lot better than Rita Cosby's!!!

Oh, worthless ex-Senator Kerrey is on O'Reilly now griping that Jim Angle revealed Clark's statements about the President. I swear these 9-11 commisioners are camera hogs.

[Torie]

Well I use to describe myself both "moderate" and "neo," because I am a fist in the velvet glove type on foreign policy, and neo's on domestic matters are not always moderate; they tend to swing both ways, more than being moderate, although it does vary, neo by neo.

[GOP_1900AD]

Mean faced clipped haired....

[Peach]

Definitely. And Woodward hyped his book to make it sound like he thought all kinds of dirty tricks were up regarding Iraq when I understand an actual reading of his book (shudder) doesn't say that at all.

I have Woodward's first book "Bush at War" and thought it was a fair assessment and got rid of this nonsense about how we were planning for war with Iraq even before 9/11. Anything for $$, I guess.