[IceBreaker]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144976,00.html

WASHINGTON � Following is President George W. Bush's inaugural address:

Vice President Cheney, Mr. Chief Justice, President Carter, President Bush, President Clinton, reverend clergy, distinguished guests, fellow citizens:

On this day, prescribed by law and marked by ceremony, we celebrate the durable wisdom of our Constitution, and recall the deep commitments that unite our country. I am grateful for the honor of this hour, mindful of the consequential times in which we live, and determined to fulfill the oath that I have sworn and you have witnessed.

At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together. For a half century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders. After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical - and then there came a day of fire.

We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause.

My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve, and have found it firm.

We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.

Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty - though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."

The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.

And all the allies of the United States can know: we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom's enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat.

Today, I also speak anew to my fellow citizens:

From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well - a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

A few Americans have accepted the hardest duties in this cause - in the quiet work of intelligence and diplomacy � the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments � the dangerous and necessary work of fighting our enemies. Some have shown their devotion to our country in deaths that honored their whole lives - and we will always honor their names and their sacrifice.

All Americans have witnessed this idealism, and some for the first time. I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your eyes. You have seen duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers. You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs. Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself - and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country, but to its character.

America has need of idealism and courage, because we have essential work at home - the unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty.

In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act, and the G.I. Bill of Rights. And now we will extend this vision by reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time. To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools, and build an ownership society. We will widen the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance - preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society. By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal.

In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character - on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before - ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever.

In America's ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service, and mercy, and a heart for the weak. Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.

From the perspective of a single day, including this day of dedication, the issues and questions before our country are many. From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?

These questions that judge us also unite us, because Americans of every party and background, Americans by choice and by birth, are bound to one another in the cause of freedom. We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes - and I will strive in good faith to heal them. Yet those divisions do not define America. We felt the unity and fellowship of our nation when freedom came under attack, and our response came like a single hand over a single heart. And we can feel that same unity and pride whenever America acts for good, and the victims of disaster are given hope, and the unjust encounter justice, and the captives are set free.

We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul. When our Founders declared a new order of the ages; when soldiers died in wave upon wave for a union based on liberty; when citizens marched in peaceful outrage under the banner "Freedom Now" - they were acting on an ancient hope that is meant to be fulfilled. History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty.

When the Declaration of Independence was first read in public and the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, a witness said, "It rang as if it meant something." In our time it means something still. America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength - tested, but not weary - we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.

May God bless you, and may He watch over the United States of America.

[nath]

Originally posted by IceBreaker:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144976,00.html

WASHINGTON � Following is President George W. Bush's inaugural address:

Least popular returning President since Eisenhower, apparently.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6798213/

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nath:
Least popular returning President since Eisenhower, apparently.

And that relates to the content of the inaugural address in what way?

[nath]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And that relates to the content of the inaugural address in what way?

Use your eyes.

"We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes - and I will strive in good faith to heal them."

The poll I linked to suggest that he is already failing in this aim, two months into a second term.

[Salah al-Din]

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by nath:
Use your eyes.

"We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes - and I will strive in good faith to heal them."

The poll I linked to suggest that he is already failing in this aim, two months into a second term.

his 2nd term started about 50 minutes ago.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nath:
Use your eyes.

"We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes - and I will strive in good faith to heal them."

The poll I linked to suggest that he is already failing in this aim, two months into a second term.

Hey Einstein, the second term starts TODAY. That's what an inauguration is. And any attempt to heal said divisions (which won't happen because Democrats have become nothing more than whining obstructionists) would surely take longer than a month or two.

Nice try.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And that relates to the content of the inaugural address in what way?

It doesn't, but he wants to believe that if a large enough minority protest something then they must of course be right.

[nath]

Originally posted by Millennium:
It doesn't, but he wants to believe that if a large enough minority protest something then they must of course be right.

Not at all. I just think it's strange that a Republican president should be so unpopular by comparison with his predecessors, at a time when his country is at war and we hear so much from people on here about how the Republican point of view is in the ascendancy.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
Not at all. I just think it's strange that a Republican president should be so unpopular by comparison with his predecessors, at a time when his country is at war and we hear so much from people on here about how the Republican point of view is in the ascendancy.

I think we should have learned by now that opinion polls mean very little. If opinion polls were accurate and dependible, it would have been President Kerry sworn in today.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think we should have learned by now that opinion polls mean very little. If opinion polls were accurate and dependible, it would have been President Kerry sworn in today.

Those were exit polls, weren't they? I seem to remember the last opinion polls were pretty even. Exits are much more unreliable than popularity ratings, mainly due to people lying about who they voted for. Same thing happened in 92 in the UK.

[UNTeMac]

Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of homophobia, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nath:
Not at all. I just think it's strange that a Republican president should be so unpopular by comparison with his predecessors, at a time when his country is at war and we hear so much from people on here about how the Republican point of view is in the ascendancy.

And the spin continues...

Let's look at the vote totals, for they are the real way to guage the public's feeling - 100,000,000 people compared with, what, a 900-person survey

1992 election: Bill Clinton wins with 43.0% of the popular vote
1996 election: Bill Clinton wins with 49.2% of the popular vote
2000 election: Bush wins with 47.9% of the popular vote (Gore: 48.3%)

2004 Election: Bush wins with 51% of the popular vote

"So unpopular compared to his predecessors"?

[nath]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And the spin continues...

Let's look at the vote totals, for they are the real way to guage the public's feeling - 100,000,000 people compared with, what, a 900-person survey

1992 election: Bill Clinton wins with 43.0% of the popular vote
1996 election: Bill Clinton wins with 49.2% of the popular vote
2000 election: Bush wins with 47.9% of the popular vote (Gore: 48.3%)

2004 Election: Bush wins with 51% of the popular vote

"So unpopular compared to his predecessors"?

Least popular returning President since Eisenhower, apparently.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6798213/

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
Those were exit polls, weren't they? I seem to remember the last opinion polls were pretty even. Exits are much more unreliable than popularity ratings, mainly due to people lying about who they voted for. Same thing happened in 92 in the UK.

The polls were all over the place. They were predicting everything from a Kerry landslide to a Bush landslide to a complete deadlock.

But it is pretty moot anyway. The purpose of polls is to try to predict what will happen in an election. It is an election that determines the legitimacy of a politician. You seem to have this backward. Ignore the election result, tout a stupid opinion poll. As if opinion polls meant anything.

Bottom line: polls are overrated, error prone, estimations of public opinion that are also easily manipulated and misinterpreted. Governments and the public should ignore them as much as possible, whether they seem to favor your position, or disfavor it.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nath:
Least popular returning President since Eisenhower, apparently.

I just showed you the vote results, champ. 100 million voters with all the chips on the table.

All you've got is a little article highlighting some 1000-person poll.

Hmmmm... who to believe: 100,000,000 voters on election day, or 1000 random, unverified people who answered some survey questions.

I'll take the 100,000,000 voters. thanks.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The polls were all over the place. They were predicting everything from a Kerry landslide to a Bush landslide to a complete deadlock.

But it is pretty moot anyway. The purpose of polls is to try to predict what will happen in an election. It is an election that determines the legitimacy of a politician. You seem to have this backward. Ignore the election result, tout a stupid opinion poll. As if opinion polls meant anything.

Bottom line: polls are overrated, error prone, estimations of public opinion that are also easily manipulated and misinterpreted. Governments and the public should ignore them as much as possible, whether they seem to favor your position, or disfavor it.

Were that true then neither party would spend the millions they do on polling. It's a science, albeit not an exact one.

I'm not saying Bush didn't win the election or isn't legitimate. I'm genuinely surprised at his current ratings.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nath:
Were that true then neither party would spend the millions they do on polling.

Now you're going into the finances of the polling industry in an inaugural address thread?

You've got nothing.

[spacefreak]

dp

[nath]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I'll take the 100,000,000 voters. thanks.

Well, we all take our good news where we can find it.

Given the mess this administration has got itself into, you might be best shutting yourself in a cupboard for the next four years and chanting the election results to yourself.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nath:
Given the mess this administration has got itself into, you might be best shutting yourself in a cupboard for the next four years and chanting the election results to yourself.

I knew it would eventually come out.

So, about the inaugural address...

[nath]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You've got nothing.

Why are you so boggle-eyed then?

Seriously, I can almost see the vein pulsating in your neck!

[nath]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
So what were you saying about today's inaugural address?

That the stated intent to heal division within the US is probably already doomed to failure. Bush's current ratings are the lowest for a second-term presidency since 1957, which I found surprising.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nath:
Bush's current ratings are the lowest for a second-term presidency since 1957, which I found surprising.

Of course it's surprising. You are basing your entire position on a single, 1000-person survey.

In real surveys where over 100,000,000 people voice their feelings (we call them elections) Clinton got 49% of the popular in his 1996 reelection whle Bush got 51% in 2004.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nath:
That the stated intent to heal division within the US is probably already doomed to failure.

Why is that? Could it be because the Obstructionist Party prefers bitching, whining, and complaining to doing actual work?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Of course it's surprising. You are basing your entire position on a single, 1000-person survey.

In real surveys where over 100,000,000 people voice their feelings (we call them elections) Clinton got 49% of the popular in his 1996 reelection whle Bush got 51% in 2004.

I still have no idea how this relates to the content of the inaugural address. Yeah, Bush talks of a divided nation, and the need to heal, but nowhere does he say he's the most "popular" president.

[nath]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Why is that? Could it be because the Obstructionist Party prefers bitching, whining, and complaining to doing actual work?

Maybe it's because 48% of the country voted for "the most liberal man in the Senate*" and 51% voted for a man who might be described as slightly to the right of Genghis Khan?

I'd say that simple electoral fact is more likely to cause division than the obstruction of any one party.

[adamk]

Originally said by George Bush:

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

so is china worried?

[placebo1969]

Originally posted by nath:
Maybe it's because 48% of the country voted for "the most liberal man in the Senate*" and 51% voted for a man who might be described as slightly to the right of Genghis Khan?

You can't be serious? Maybe you are.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
Maybe it's because 48% of the country voted for "the most liberal man in the Senate*" and 51% voted for a man who might be described as slightly to the right of Genghis Khan?

I'd say that simple electoral fact is more likely to cause division than the obstruction of any one party.

First: Kerry's record in the Senate is his record. He is very liberal by contemporary American standards, but he wouldn't be especially liberal by European standards. Your idea that Bush is especially right wing is equally quaint. It just shows how little you understand this country.

Second: don't make the mistake of thinking that either party is a monolith. A good chunk of the Democrat's 48% aren't all that different in their opinions from the 52% who voted for Bush. And the same is true in reverse. And in fact, the two candidates agreed on a great deal -- including a lot of issues that would probably have driven you crazy if Kerry had been elected. For example, Kerry opposed Kyoto, and considers the War on Terror a real war.

Third: this is a two party country. Since you live in the UK, a country that does not have proportional representation, you ought to be conversant with the idea that the majority rules. The size of the popular majority is pretty much irrelevant. What matters are the political levers of power handed a president and his party by the election.

For at least the next two years, the ball is politically completely in Bush's corner and that of his party. He is 100% the president, there is no 52/48% about it. His party also controls both houses of Congress. The Democrats nationally have been rejected. It is up to the Republicans to deliver, and the people to judge.

And that is the American people, by the way.

[Kodachrome]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:

wow.. great speech!

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
First: Kerry's record in the Senate is his record. He is very liberal by contemporary American standards, but he wouldn't be especially liberal by European standards. Your idea that Bush is especially right wing is equally quaint. It just shows how little you understand this country.

Well, the reference to Kerry was a direct quote from a GOP campaign ad. The 'Genghis Khan' point was tongue-in-cheek, and from my perspective, not an approximation of Bush's position in the American political spectrum.

I think if I understand the US a little then that's not too bad. At least, I'm probably surpassing your understanding of British politics, all recent contributions on the subject considered.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It is up to the Republicans to deliver, and the people to judge.

Yes - my intial point in reference to the new approval ratings was that their judgement so far doesn't appear to be positive. I'll bookmark this and we'll come back in a year and see if he's doing any better.

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by Kodachrome:
wow.. great speech!

Read the transcript and then read his version

[Kodachrome]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:


Read the transcript and then read his version

The President's speech was awesome!

you don't agree?

[macintologist]

Bush basically admitted he will bomb Iran in his 2nd term:

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."

The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.

And all the allies of the United States can know: we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom's enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat.

Who is he talking to? He is obviously talking about Iran and the people there who want freedom from the oppressive regime there.

Let's get back on subject!!

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by Kodachrome:
The President's speech was awesome!

you don't agree?

1. You quoted UNTiMac that made a little fun of the speech.

2. And no. That speech was a bunch of self-serving drivel wrapped up with a bunch of hypocracy.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
That speech was a bunch of self-serving drivel wrapped up with a bunch of hypocracy.

when you point a finger at someone remember that three fingers of your own hand are pointed back at yourself.





and..yes...

I can imagine which finger you are pointing at me now.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
I think if I understand the US a little then that's not too bad.

That's a big if.

Originally posted by nath:
Yes - my intial point in reference to the new approval ratings was that their judgement so far doesn't appear to be positive. I'll bookmark this and we'll come back in a year and see if he's doing any better.

You still don't seem to understand the difference between an election and an opinion poll. The voters' judgment is expressed in elections. Opinion polls are irrelevant.

[Spliff]

Is every US presidential inauguration this ostentatious and talked about? Because, for the life of me, I don't remember hearing or seeing anything about Clinton's inauguration.

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
when you point a finger at someone remember that three fingers of your own hand are pointed back at yourself.





and..yes...

I can imagine which finger you are pointing at me now.

But to get serious for a moment. The reason I say this is because as long as the US supports Israel and shuns the Palestinian right to a state and the Palestinian right to return all his talk of spreading democracy is just hypocritical.

There are several other issues that I have with this speech but I'll wait 'til tomorrow to post that because I respect that today your elected president took office and I'm gonna let you have that day to enjoy the freedom you have.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spliff:
Is every US presidential inauguration this ostentatious and talked about? Because, for the life of me, I don't remember hearing or seeing anything about Clinton's inauguration.

The TV coverage in 97 was pretty much identical -- live on most channels. I was out of the country in 93, but I imagine it was the same.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:


But to get serious for a moment. The reason I say this is because as long as the US supports Israel and shuns the Palestinian right to a state and the Palestinian right to return all his talk of spreading democracy is just hypocritical.

There are several other issues that I have with this speech but I'll wait 'til tomorrow to post that because I respect that today your elected president took office and I'm gonna let you have that day to enjoy the freedom you have.

My reading of President Bush's speech would be that it applies just as much to the Palestine people as it does to Iranian students, indeed as freedom should apply to every person on earth:

Pres. Bush: "So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world".

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
My reading of President Bush's speech would be that it applies just as much to the Palestine people as it does to Iranian students, indeed as freedom should apply to every person on earth:

Pres. Bush: "So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world".

This line in particular is what I'm thinking about.

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

This is the biggest pack of lies I've heard in a long time. There is nothing the US has done except ignore the Palestinians and excuse(and even go as far as defend) the Israelis.

[Buck_W]

Just finished watching Fox News video stream of the inaugural address.

But then again, I think character and governing by principle matters. I also want a President who upholds the Constitution instead of trying to circumvent it.

Go Bush!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Kerry . . . considers the War on Terror a real war.

Just curious: when did you draw this conclusion? After his concession speech?

[vexborg]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
This line in particular is what I'm thinking about.

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

This is the biggest pack of lies I've heard in a long time. There is nothing the US has done except ignore the Palestinians and excuse(and even go as far as defend) the Israelis.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

It really scares me that Bush now has a second term - the world is going rapidly downhill with his interfering in other countries politics.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by macintologist:
Bush basically admitted he will bomb Iran in his 2nd term:

Yeah, that's how I read it, too. As I was reading that speech, I had one of those "oh ****" moments when I realized that it had two meanings -- the superficial one which sounds all happy and the deep meaning which is foreboding.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

That sounds all happy, until you realize that we have "expanded liberty" in two nations by invading over the past four years. Is American policy now that we will invade all countries that we don't consider "free", one by one, to ensure our national security by "expanding freedom"?

[busterhide]

Great Speech, Europe should wake up now or they are gonna miss the train again.

[spacefreak]

I have no problems with Bush putting a little scare into Iran while they are screwing around with their nuke development.

Half of the responses in this thread seem to think he was talking about Iran, so hopefully Iran heard this loud and clear.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And any attempt to heal said divisions (which won't happen because Democrats have become nothing more than whining obstructionists) would surely take longer than a month or two.

Nice try.

...and because Republicans and Democrats refuse to compromise to a position or agreement with the other party.

You need to just the hell up and listen to yourself for a change. Completely one sided, blaming everything on the other party, then complaining that it's their fault you can't heal the divisions between the parties. Everyone doesn't believe in the same things you do, or follow the same faith, or act the same way.

To heal any divisions it requires compromise, and you obviously don't support that.