Critics say Bush speech lacked specifics

[sabra]

<<SNIP>>
http://www.kait8.com/Global/story.asp?S=3533571

Critics say Bush speech lacked specifics






UNDATED Democrats and other critics of President Bush's Iraq policy say his prime-time speech to the nation needed more specifics.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says Bush's Iraq policy is "adrift." The Nevada Democrat also said staying the course "is neither sustainable nor likely to lead to success."

Arkansas Democrat Vic Snyder says the U-S has no choice but to make things work in Iraq. Otherwise, he says the war will have converted "the police state of Saddam Hussein, into a failed state" where terrorists can thrive.

Political analyst Larry Sabato -- at the University of Virginia's Center for Politics -- says it's unlikely the president will be able to stem growing public uncertainty with a single speech.

Sabato says more and more Americans are starting to see Iraq as "Vietnam without the jungle."

<</SNIP>>

[xray s]

1. Sabato is a Bush family friend

If he's turning, that says alot.

[sidpleasant]

11. Sabato was a leading anti - war activist at U. Va. in the early '70s

I remember that almost every day he had a card table laden with anti - Vietnam war literature and underground newspapers set up in the hall outside the cafeteria at University of Virginia when I was a student there in the early '70s. Sabato didn't shrink from arguing the war with ROTC students. Perhaps he's recognized the parallels between Johnson's quagmire and Bush's quagmire.

[EndElectoral]

2. Hey GW...how bout that exit strategy you wanted from Clinton!!!

In 1999, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo, and yet he refuses to apply the same standard to his war.

George W. Bush, 4/9/99:

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

And on the specific need for a timetable, here’s what Bush said then and what he says now:

George W. Bush, 6/5/99

“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

[magellan]

10. Bush** would just say "The world changed after 9/11"

...and people would nod, not bothering to remember that Islamic terrorism made its preview back in the 70s, and when it struck on US soil in '93, Clinton had the perpetrators hunted down and jailed.

Why doesn't Bush** keep his promise to the American people? WHERE'S BIN LADEN? And if bin Laden no longer matters because killing/capturing him won't stop the rest of al Qaeda, why don't Americans worry about the terrorist recruits we've manufactured by killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in a country that never attacked us? What part of "There are more people in the ME who hate and want to kill Americans now than before" don't people get?

Bushbots can say what they want; the truth is BushCo has done nothing but exploit 9/11 for personal and political gain. Everything they do is counter-productive to our security because it has nothing to do with our security...except superficially for show.

[MichiganVote]

3. There aren't any specifics

[customerserviceguy]

4. I didn't hear him say

a damn thing that I didn't expect him to say. I have to wonder what the whole thing was about, other than to wrap himself up in the respect that most people have for individual members of the military.

[Javaman]

5. If he had talked specifics, that means...

he would have to do some of that hard work he's always blathering about.

[LiberalFighter]

6. You mean gw*dipshit would had had to tell the truth

[flordehinojos]

7. re: "Critics say Bush speech lacked specifics"

nothing new there--isn't bush the king of platitudes, and generalities? after all, isn't he the kind-0-man who never wants to be pinned down on anything?--except perhaps for the fact that he will admit to being our rambo--excuse me--war pRESIDENT!

[malaise]

8. CNN emails this morning

are 80:20 against the speech according to Chad.

[Catfight]

9. How come CNN polls always slant to Bush? Two words for Bush one

for opposing his speech? "Worrying?" How about saying, "disturbing." I thought CNN was trying to be legitimate news outlet, at this rate it's worse then ever. It's still a joke, Comedy News Network.