Bush Middle East Speech Discussion Thread

[RCW2001]

Bush Middle East Speech Discussion Thread

[Howlin]

CAN=CAN'T

[denydenydeny]

Kudos for your apology to Mark.

[Darlin']

"Even Alan Keyes seemed to like the President's speech, from the portion I heard him discussing it."

FOFLOL. You don't say ? Lordy, they must be ice skating on the River Styx tonight. LOL

[toenail]

"It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to paint it." Great job at the NEA hearing the other day. My boss walked by while I was watching the streaming video on my PC, and he wanted me to fix something. I told him it'd have to wait. Keep hitting 'em between the eyes. They deserve it.

[Torie]

I would have thought the relative hard liners on the Mideast question would have loved the speech. It was an eloquent screw you until you fumigate the place speech. I found it quite transfixing, I really did, and that was just from the text. Bush leads, and people follow, in many instances, and this will be one example. I think it changes the dynamic a bit. Isn't it glorious that the US is the sole super power in the world?

[habs4ever]

Is Levin moonlighting as a new Middle East expert, on top of all his other duties? Damned if I couldn't hear the voice of some other Republican TV host in those posts,where have I heard those utterances before?

Lucky for us that we won't have to hear them for much longer.

[oldvike]

From the June 5, 2002 WH Press Briefing:

Q Ari, if I could change subjects for a second. This morning you said that the President quoted a speech, indicating that the President believes that human activity is largely responsible for the increase in greenhouse gases. But I'm wondering if he also agrees with an EPA report which indicated that human activity is likely the cause of global warming?

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me just read from the President's statement of June 11th on global warming, and let me read from the recent report the EPA submitted to the United Nations. And I think you'll hear that on the key issues, they really sound very, very similar. This is the President on June 11th in the Rose Garden, in a speech where he announced his global warming policies.

"Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially C02, have increased substantially since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity."

That's the President himself speaking. Here is from the report, page 4, that was just submitted to the United States by the EPA:

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as the result of human activities, causing global mean surface temperature and subsurface ocean temperature to rise. While the changes observed over the last several decades are due most likely to human activities, we cannot rule out that some significant part is also a reflection of natural variability."

And I think what you're hearing is the same thing.

Q I'm glad you make the connection explicitly, since the President addressed greenhouse gases, but not specifically global warming. Does the President agree with the conclusion that human activity is likely the cause of global warming?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's what the President said in his speech in June.

Q That's not exactly what he said. He does agree with it?

MR. FLEISCHER: When the President cites the National Academy of Science as saying that the National Academy of Science indicates that the increase is due in large part to human activity, I don't know how the President could say it more specifically than that.

Q He hasn't changed his mind at all?

MR. FLEISCHER: No. Here's -- the bottom line for the President is, number one, he has made a proposal that he believes is a proposal that not only can reduce the problem of greenhouse gases and global warming, but also protects the American economy, so the American economy can lead the world in technological and scientific advances that also have an effect in reducing pollution.

The President has said, citing the National Academy of Sciences, that the increase is due in large part to human activity. The President has also continued, citing both, now this report the EPA has sent to the United Nations, previous evidence from the National Academy of Sciences, that there's uncertainty -- and the recent report notes that there is considerable uncertainty. That's the state of science, and the President agrees with it. I don't think people dispute that.

Q Its uncertainty, but he can still draw that conclusion, that --

MR. FLEISCHER: He didn't June 11th.

Q He didn't exactly do it, but you're saying it now.

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, when the President cites a report by the National Academy of Sciences that indicates the increase is due in large part to human activity, I think you have two reports that are very similar.

Q Why was he --

Q Why did he call it "the bureaucracy" yesterday? MR. FLEISCHER: I think the EPA issued a report that says the same thing. And I think the President was also reflecting about some of the way it was covered, that made it sound as if the report was somehow inconsistent with what he had said previously.

Q I don't think he reflected at all, he just said that, I saw it put out by a bureaucracy. What did he reflect on?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sharing with you his insights.

Q Why didn't he give us his insights?

[kristinn]

Did you notice that Levin leaves and now we have the Keyes folks coming after us -- you want to guess who was Freep mailing Levin to keep it going?

You sound just like Hillary! talking about conspiracies when her man is criticized. Surely you don't believe that.

[habs4ever]

A Jew,like Levin, would have said G_D bless, would he not??


Hmmmmmm.....

[marajade]

What Ari stated doesn't answer my question... Its off topic anyway please forget it...

[scalia_#1]

Great post. I've been on different sides of the issues and have caught fire from both supporters and critics of the president. The important thing is to stick to your beliefs, but be willing to be persuaded. FWIW (which isn't much since I'm late to the party), Bush's speech was masterful today. He set a standard on which most can agree and at a level that the Palestinian leadership must (but probably won't) attain. The principles he articulated are the bare minimum that a society should be willing to accept in order to gain admission into the community of nations, but stating those principles only shows how far those pitiful people have to go. A political solution is the only way out, it was proposed today, and as long as the president sticks to his beliefs, there's a glimmer of hope.

[Deb]

Both Rush and Hannity need an advisor on Israel who has a healthier perspective or who can at least see the issue thru the prism of the war we're involved in.

I can't figure out why Levin thinks Bush is so wrong on this. He did everything but yank the table cloth off Arafat's head and zap him in the butt with it. Levin is the only conservative I've seen today (except Hannity) who thinks Bush was anti-Israel.

[oldvike]

You guys are making claims that a public figure called our President the anti-Christ yet you refuse to provide the exact exchange. I provided the one direct post to TG by holdonnow and it would in no way imply that he's calling President Bush the AC. Either provide the exact reference to him calling the president the AC or give it a rest.

[kristinn]

What are you implying ?

[Howlin]

I would have thought so, too. Just can't seem to please them.

And, yes, it is!!!!

[CIB-173RDABN]

The name of this thread should be changed. It quit being a discussion of the speech somewhere along the line.

For whatever it is worth, I believe there is more going on around the world right now, then we know. Tonights speech was just one part of it.

Perhaps it is true what has been said about the attention span of the American people due to television shows. We want everthing wrapped up in 30 or 60 minutes.

A major re-alignment is taking place, but at the speed of a glacier. We can not see the movement, but when big hunk of it falls into the bay, we will take notice.

It was not so very long ago that Arafat felt strong enough and comfortable enough to turn down a deal that gave him most of what he said he wanted. Now, he is on his way out. He must be asking himself what happened.

Those in the middle east have been holding a sword over the rest of the world, that sword being oil. The trouble is, soon that weapon will be neutralized. Besides that, I have read that the Saudi Arabians have been out spending their income. When the oil money stops, they will have a problem. They will soon be asking themselfs what happened.

Will the Palistinans accept the offer made tonight? I don't think so, and in truth, I don't think anyone in Washington thinks so, but the offer had to be made. As someone else mentioned, the clock is now ticking. How much time is on the clock on a few know, and they are not talking.

I would expect another bombing from the Palistinians as their answer. Would that be the signal to begin the Invasion of Iraq?

I am not going to pretend to be as knowledgeable as the people in this current administration. I do not know what they know. What I do know is that each time someone has underestimated President Bush, they came out with the short end of the stick.

[EternalVigilance]

Having supported Pres Bush since 1994, I probably know his mode of operation a lot better than most of the detractors on here and when the chips are down he will come through.

Your loyalty to the President, and knowledge of his operations, are not in question. It is commendable.

I don't mean on such things as CFR which some folks on here still don't understand his reasoning which is just Politics 101 --

Of course you and I disagree on that one...as you know, I believe he should have vetoed it no matter the political cost because it is a direct infringement on the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights....and you know I also believe that the political costs of a veto were vastly over-rated.

...there is a Senate to win if the bashers really care.

There are many people here like myself who are doing everything in their power to defeat the Daschle Democrats...I don't think we deserve to be treated as if we aren't by other members of the Republican coalition.

There is a difference between political matters and something like the safety of this Country.

Our elected leaders swear to uphold and defend the Constitution...ultimately that is the most serious national security concern of all. Also, remember that I, and the vast majority of conservatives, are staunch defenders of our military our national defense.

President Bush loves this Country and will do everything he can to protect it.

I totally and completely agree.

What's wrong with admiring someone for doing what I believe is the right thing when the chips are down.

Not a thing on God's green earth.

Sure is a lot better than going around criticizing everything he does when some people don't even read what he says.

Those who do that have no excuse.

This President has been trashed for everything imagineable on here including some people referring to him as committing treason.

Those who make such wild claims make fools out of themselves, I agree.

Why don't you go read the threads that went after Jim Robinson on the weekend and come back and tell me that conservatives like that.

I read them all. Jim used the opportunity quite well, I thought, to make his thoughts and feelings known. Who knows...perhaps those threads were cathartic for many.

I have tried not to engage in the name calling but I don't like being compared to Hitler if you don't mind and called other names by the Keyes people and why -- because I asked for debate to be taken off an activism thread and it wasn't even a debate -- it was bashing!

I don't know what you are referring to...I wasn't there.

I have not hidden the fact that I did not agree with the Education bill but I will also state that if we had a Republican Senate, that control would have been returned to the local level in a lot of instances. That is on the drawing board for the minute we Take Back the Senate. There are many other plans that were scuttled because of Jeffords but that seems to be lost in the shuffle.

From your mouth to God's ear.

The people that supported the losing campaigns very seldom, if ever, give him credit for anything.

I endeavor to give him credit where credit is due...I hope you realize and understand that.

The name calling of this President who is an honorable man is beneath my contempt and the reason that a lot of us have begun to react against the bashing.

I have called for an end to the name-calling...I think it is costing us all bigtime.

I don't go on Keyes threads and bash -- why do Keyes people feel free to bash on any Bush positive threads?

I don't think anyone should go on any thread on FR and bash...I think the atmosphere of civility around here has been greatly harmed by it in fact.

As I have been stating -- I am a Republican leaning conservative because I don't want to be associated with the so-called "real conservatives" that believe you cannot like Pres Bush and be a "real conservative!"

I bet if you and I would get together and state clearly 'what we are'...it would be the exact same description: Christians first, Americans second, 'republicans' third (believers in our republican form of governence), and 'Republicans' would come somewhere further down the list along with particular leaders we may tend to favor.

Perhaps we all should focus a little more on the things we agree on, and when we disagree, disagree like the allies we are.

Have a great night.

EV

[Amelia]

I would have thought the relative hard liners on the Mideast question would have loved the speech. It was an eloquent screw you until you fumigate the place speech.

That was what I thought too. Funny how wrong you can be, huh?

[PhiKapMom]

That Hmmmmmmmm is right on!

[Torie]

Yes, now that I have passed 50, I keep asking my younger partners if I am losing my edge. Perhaps this is a leading indicator.