What was your favorite quote from the SOTU tonight?

January 28, 2003

[William McKinley]

He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

Repeated several times to drive home bullet points of evidence. I have this as my favorite because what has been missing from the administration's handling of the politics of Iraq has been a way to counter the Iraqi and Democrat obfuscation over Saddam's lack of compliance. This isn't a search for a smoking gun. There are things Saddam had, that we knew he had, that the UN knew he had, that he admitted to having back when the Gulf War ended, that he has to show and account for and he has been unwilling or unable to do so.

[William McKinley]

I remember Eliza. Coded her a few times. In LISP, in Pascal, in C, and much later in Java.

That said, if you can't tell the difference in being asked to substantiate opinions with reasoning so as to give more to talk about and discuss from Eliza, maybe you should sit next to John Edwards and simply chew gum and watch.

[Taxbilly]

This picture must have been touched up, I saw her on TV last night and she looked really, really, ugly, old, tired and added to uglyness with that famous forced smile.

You're right see never looked so good. I saw a quick shot of Dasshole and he looked like someone ripped off his bicycle.

[kaylar]

Another vote for #13. "The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others."

[Attillathehon]

Bennett retorted, "Well, what did Hitler ever do to us?"

And what did Milosovik ever do to us Ms. Sarandan?

Your bias is showing.

[carton253]

I'm not going to quote it exactly right... but I liked the line that went... (talking about Saddam) If this is not the definition of evil, then I don't know what is.

[aruanan]

"The first thing we do," said the character in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is "kill all the lawyers."

And the weird thing is that in Shakespeare, the killing of the lawyers was for the purpose of getting rid of those who upheld the law against despotism so that the despot would have nothing to impede his oppression.

[aruanan]

... not one line retorts that are cute.

Or one line retorts that are NOT cute.

[kaylar]

I said this is my favorite:

"The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others."

Why?

Because within 48 hours after 9/11, I noticed a strange "tone" in the news articles and editorials at the EU sites I read. A certain surpressed excitement, maybe even glee. The editors and reporters were cagy, but not the European LTTE writers. They came right out and said it:

"The US will now be desperate for EU support. We must force them to ratify Kyoto and the ICC, for starters, as the price of this support."

There was an article published 09/22/01 or thereabouts, by the UK Evening Telegraph. It was posted to FR, and I tried to find it to post a link. I could not find it in the FR archives or on the Telegraph's web site, but basically, it described Blair,Chirac, and Scroeder having phone consultations with each other re: the implications of 09/11. Schroeder is quoted as saying that this is "a golden opportunity to bring the US back into the international fold" and defeat the "isolationists" in the Bush administration. IOW, make us ratify Kyoto, the ICC, and various other "multilateral" accords under the aegis of the UN.

Tell me that's not dancing in the blood of our slain, trying to use the terrorist attacks to destroy the US economy, give the EU a permanent trade advantage, and end our national sovereignty vis a vis the UN and the ICC.

All the "antiamericanism" to come out of the EU over the last year or so is nothing but a primal scream of rage as we refuse to do as they knew we'd "have to." They went from thinking we'd compromise our sovereignty, to knowing we'd have to, to feeling certain they were entitled to the empowerment they eagerly anticipated. Because they're our moral superiors, don' tyou know.

Going to the UN may have given the US time to get our forces in place and beefed up, and to demonstrate reasonableness not only to the world outside the US , but to those Americans who believe we should defer to the UN. But it was interpreted by many as an admission that the UN has the right to veto any decisions made re: US defenses, the safety of Americans, antiterrorist measures etc etc, and that the US would obey the UN and not our Constitution .

If we allow France and Germany to dictate to us via the UN, you can bet they will be encouraged to try to force us to cave on the ICC, Kyoto, and Lord knows what else.

I appreciate this line because I interpret it to mean GWB will not compromise on US national sovereignty.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people."

This was my favorite quote from the SOTU...but I have my reservations. I want to believe that this is true...and trust me I believe GWB has more character, integrity, and dedication in his thumbnail than Clinton had in his whole body. But I just can't get past the fact that more needs to be done to really defend our freedom and security.

GWB IS a great man, but he's a so-so conservative. I think many people see the fact that he IS so much better of a man than Clinton and thgen believe that he's the answer to all the problems we face in the U.S. today and will magically roll back 50 years of Great Society/PC/feminmale/anti-American liberalism in 4 years. There is much to be done...and a moderate/centrist cannot/will not do all the things needed in order to accomplish this.

I consider gun rights; making abortion prosecutable as murder; making it easier for businesses, (especially industrial) to set up shop, operate and make a profit in the U.S.; securing the south and north borders; eliminating the NEA and IRS (for starters); get out of the UN and get the UN out of the US; eliminating government sponsored social security; making it easier for state militias to exist, thrive, and bear more responsibility for the defense of the homeland; explore and exploit the natural resources within this country (i.e. ANWR, eliminate the Green policies in the pacific NW in order to make logging possible and profitable, etc.); and diverting more tax dollars toward the military and less toward all forms of welfare as very BIG priorities that deal directly with the freedom and security of the U.S.

Iraq and DPRK should be dealt with swiftly and with full force of U.S. militarys might...but the issues at home need attention too...THAT is what conservatives need to start caring about and being stirred up into a frenzy about. The war frenzy may be helping GWB's approval rating, and it may eliminate a threat to world peace (whatever world peace is nowadays)...but its doing little to advance conservatism and to roll back what 50+ years of liberalism has done to this great nation. I appreicate my freedom (and would fight for it), and I want my kids to enjoy the same freedoms and be willing to fight for them as well. I don't want this country becoming a third world hell-hole. I love America...but its slipping away before our eyes.

/rant off

[Theophilus]

The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity.

[alethia]

I think that the President took the wind out of their sails -- both domestically and internationally. The entire tax cut piece was fabulous -- the jabs against frivolous lawsuits was rich -- and the President co-opted the left big time on the topics of AIDS, addiction, and mentoring. The true core of being a compassionate conservative is shining through.

Most of them wouldn't touch the Iraq issues with a 10 foot pole other than to say we should be going after Bin Laden first -- yikes, we'd have never won in WWII fighting on one front.

I hope all of this really comes back to haunt them -- after the next two weeks, national focus will be on the pounding Saddam is taking in Iraq.

[Bryan24]

"Whatever the duration of this struggle and whatever the difficulties, we will not permit the triumph of violence in the affairs of men; free people will set the course of history."

Stop and think about the will and commitment behind that statement. Repeat it to yourself several times slowly.

[kaylar]

Re : My post # 189. I found my article. This one is dated Sept. 20 2001 (only 9 days after the WTC atrocity) and is from the Guardian. I invite anyone who doubts me when I say the Euros were gloating about us being forced to ratify Kyoto , the ICC, etc, to read this.

I found this by looking in My Comments, as I'd reposted the link "fairly" recently (09/2002) in a reply . The last time I'd checked MC , they were only going back about a month. I hadn't realized the selfsearch was back to full capacity.

Paragraph 5:...the German chancellor, who .... believes the crisis represents a golden opportunity to reverse a dangerous trend towards American isolationism.

[amused]

Probably off-topic on this thread, but I loved William Bennett's question to Alan Colmes on H&C. Colmes was defending Susan Sarandon's anti-war bleatings, noting that her question "What did Iraq ever do to us?" had not been answered.

Bennett retorted, "Well, what did Hitler ever do to us?"

I saw that too. I am not Bennett's buggest fan but that was outstanding.

[amused]

"All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies."

I nearly fell out of my chair when he said that with his arm draped across the podium John Wayne style.

[subterfuge]

peroxide

Hey no one-word cute retorts dammit!