![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Please feel free to skip this one.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but even as cynical as I am about politicians, but tonight was just a bit much.
I am referring, of course, to Shrub's address tonight on The Plan For Iraq.
I expected the self-contradictory statements, such as the indications that we will be turning all power over to a sovereign Iraqi government... BUT our military will remain in place and will have the final word in all police/military/security issues.
And then there was the real kicker, in my not-so-humble opinion.
When you listen to any public speaker, you know that they're addressing a large group, of which you are presumably a part. However, they at least allow you the illusion that they have cared enough to prepare a speech (or read one that someone else has prepared, at higher levels), even in this day and age when we are all only too aware of the teleprompter.
But not this time.
This time, our Illustrious Leader couldn't even be bothered to read through the speech in private before he went out to read it out loud to the nation and the world.
How do I know?
Because if he had, he wouldn't have been talking about "a new, human prison system for Iraq," then stumble when he came to the name of the one Iraqi prison that everyone knows -- Abu Ghraib. Or, as Our Illustrious Leader has re-named it, "Abu G... rob."
I could even forgive him screwing it up once -- hell, even professionals stumble occasionally. But for him to then go on and continue to mispronounce it throughout the rest of the speech ... pretty much gives the lie to his earlier statements of concern and indignation over those abuses in "Abu Garob."
Sorry, I have a hard time believing that you actually give a damn about a place that you can't even recognize when you see the name, and can't pronounce even though it has been on every news station for weeks now... not to mention his various aids and underlings who report to him on such things, both verbally and in writing. I find it inconceivable that the name hasn't come up in his presence before -- he just doesn't give a damn.
I think part of what pisses me off the most is how completely *unprofessional* that was. I mean, if you're an elected official, especially one who is up for re-election, at least do voting public the simple courtesy of reading the speech before you try to give it!
I am definitely adopting the position from Lois McMaster Bujold's "Vorkosigan" series: "He's not *my* president. I didn't vote for him!"
If he gets re-elected, I may *have* to expatriate. I'm not sure I can take four more years of that SOB. That might just make me die of shame.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but even as cynical as I am about politicians, but tonight was just a bit much.
I am referring, of course, to Shrub's address tonight on The Plan For Iraq.
I expected the self-contradictory statements, such as the indications that we will be turning all power over to a sovereign Iraqi government... BUT our military will remain in place and will have the final word in all police/military/security issues.
And then there was the real kicker, in my not-so-humble opinion.
When you listen to any public speaker, you know that they're addressing a large group, of which you are presumably a part. However, they at least allow you the illusion that they have cared enough to prepare a speech (or read one that someone else has prepared, at higher levels), even in this day and age when we are all only too aware of the teleprompter.
But not this time.
This time, our Illustrious Leader couldn't even be bothered to read through the speech in private before he went out to read it out loud to the nation and the world.
How do I know?
Because if he had, he wouldn't have been talking about "a new, human prison system for Iraq," then stumble when he came to the name of the one Iraqi prison that everyone knows -- Abu Ghraib. Or, as Our Illustrious Leader has re-named it, "Abu G... rob."
I could even forgive him screwing it up once -- hell, even professionals stumble occasionally. But for him to then go on and continue to mispronounce it throughout the rest of the speech ... pretty much gives the lie to his earlier statements of concern and indignation over those abuses in "Abu Garob."
Sorry, I have a hard time believing that you actually give a damn about a place that you can't even recognize when you see the name, and can't pronounce even though it has been on every news station for weeks now... not to mention his various aids and underlings who report to him on such things, both verbally and in writing. I find it inconceivable that the name hasn't come up in his presence before -- he just doesn't give a damn.
I think part of what pisses me off the most is how completely *unprofessional* that was. I mean, if you're an elected official, especially one who is up for re-election, at least do voting public the simple courtesy of reading the speech before you try to give it!
I am definitely adopting the position from Lois McMaster Bujold's "Vorkosigan" series: "He's not *my* president. I didn't vote for him!"
If he gets re-elected, I may *have* to expatriate. I'm not sure I can take four more years of that SOB. That might just make me die of shame.
Tags:
What do you think of the Draft coming back?
no subject
At least you get to vote against him come election time, though. The rest of us have to live with the prick and don't even get that much... ::sigh::
Ugh, though. That man is just... he doesn't even care about his own lies anymore, does he? Feh.
no subject
As relevant now as thirty-some odd years ago with another Texan in the White House.
evil architecture
Devo
Re: What do you think of the Draft coming back?
Re: evil architecture
no subject
"He can't even run his own life, I'll be damned if he runs mine."
no subject
(Because, really? I'm not entirely thrilled with Kerry. Would far rather have Edwards, or, believe it or not, Kucinich. No such luck.) And if Bush *does* get another four years? You're going to get a request to look for IR jobs over there. Just... argh.
no subject
If we can't get rid of the electoral college, can we at least send electors in proportion to the state votes? You know -- 30% goes Dem, send 30% Dem electors? ::sigh:: I sense another impending disaster. Here's hoping that's just allergy meds.
Not that I think you are wrong...
There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election.
Where does it say that this is what they are thinking about, vs. trying to pass?
Re: Not that I think you are wrong...
Since the debate would take place before the election this could force public attention on things Bush wants to keep shoving under the table. However, currently both bills are buried in committee and are unlikely to see the light of day. So much for open debate on issues.
Re: Not that I think you are wrong...
Re: Not that I think you are wrong...