Bush - Speech & alternative speech.

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/062805a.html


will be interesting to see what bush has to say. (sort of ) Will it be more of the same rhetoric ??

or will he come clean........as per: alternative speech??

(this 'speech' will probably be replayed ad nauseum for the next few days...---so I figured "we" might as well get in on the "analysis"...... :wink:
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
Just noticed that CNN is running a bit about all the "good " things in Iraq since bush invaded.......making a "political" point in time with "the" speech??? What's a little propaganda , to boost the bush regime ego??? :roll:
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
gopher said:
or another major terrorist attack somewhere in the world...


... and likely orchestrated by Bush ...

indeed. bush regime has found the achiles heel......and will use it anyway they can. (not much different from the "terrorists" themselves. -----speaking of whom......they don't have to do squat now..as bush is doing it for them.)
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
mrmom2 said:
I heard that only ABC was willing to cover this propaganda exercise 8O Is Fox too?

don't have a clue...(and could care less-)........keeping my tv on TLC and watching Lance Armstrong being "overhauled"... :wink:


there will be enough of it online. as in "breaking news alerts" :wink:
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
Bush's Speech: Let's Count the Lies
David Swanson



June 28, 2005
In the coming free 30 minutes of uninterrupted airtime that ABC News and the Disney Corporation will no doubt give to a spokesperson for the majority of Americans who believe that the war on Iraq was a mistake, I expect we'll see some of the following points made about the speech that Bush just gave.

First, it was curious to see Bush adopt usage of the French language, in particular his repeated usage of the word "oui." At one point, he said "Oui, accept these burdens." Some viewers supposed he meant "We accept these burdens," but no one has been able to identify a single burden that Bush has accepted, leading to the consensus that the French word must have been the one on the teleprompters.

Second, and there's no really delicate way to put this, it was stunning to see the extent to which Bush flat out lied his ass off. The Downing Street Minutes and related documents have made clear, among other things, that Bush determined early on to promote two false justifications for the war: asserting a threat from Iraq's fictitious weapons of mass destruction, and blaming the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, on Saddam Hussein. Tonight, Bush said he never made any such crazy claims.

Just kidding. Actually, Bush made them again tonight. Of course, voices in the media believe the fact that he's lying his ass off is "old news," and polls ARE starting to reflect that. But apparently repetition of the lies themselves is new news, worthy of commercial-free airtime that even the Michael Jackson trial never merited. And ABC News had been given the speech transcript ahead of time. They provided commentary on it before and after Bush read his lines. Yet their commentary never touched on the "old news."

Bush came back to September 11th at least four times during the speech. He said that we (oui?) are fighting "a global war on terror," and that "the terrorists we're fighting aim to remake the Middle East…Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war."

"Terrorists on streets of Baghdad are followers of the same ideology," Bush said, that produced the attacks of – you guessed it – September 11, 2001.

But – do we really still have to say this? – the regime that Bush changed in Iraq had exactly nothing to do with those attacks. And the terrorists on the streets of Baghdad were not there until Bush attacked and occupied Baghdad. So, why did he do so?

There was, he just reminded us, "only one course … to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home."

Bush is sticking to the lies that he included in the formal letter and report that he submitted to the United States Congress within 48 hours after having launched the invasion of Iraq. In the letter, dated March 18, 2003, the President made a formal determination, as required by the Joint Resolution on Iraq passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2002, that military action against Iraq was necessary to "protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq," as well as suggesting that the war is part of a global campaign against those behind the attacks of September 11, 2001.

But Iraq couldn't even shoot down an airplane after endless and illegal provocation during the summer of 2002. What was the threat? That they would nuke us in 45 minutes, that unmanned planes would spray us with killer chemicals? These lies have all been shredded, and yet the idea that there was a threat is still new news to ABC News.

"We [oui?] fight today," Bush said tonight, "because the terrorists want to attack our cities and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand. We will fight them there, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won."

So, the disaster that Bush has created in Iraq is now the justification for having created it. But who is this universal group of "terrorists" fighting this global war?

Bush made that clear tonight by quoting none other than Osama Bin Laden as saying that "the war is waging in Iraq." But he didn't say that BEFORE Bush launched a war against Iraq! Hey, Ted Koppel, do you guys, like, keep stuff on tape or that sort of thing?

Bush added to his lies tonight, as he does every day in which he maintains silence on key points about which the media will not ask him. He did not say tonight that there will be no permanent US military bases in Iraq. He did not say tonight that the Iraqi people will get to keep their oil. He said he would give no exit date until "the job is done" and the "mission" is "complete," but he did not provide any way for a mortal to measure whether that state of affairs has been reached or not.

"To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents." But won't you always continue to hunt down somebody or other, Mr. President? So, won't the mission never be complete? So, won't there be permanent military bases? And wouldn't you now forswear any interest in giving oil to your cronies if you were ever going to do so?

Bush said nothing about the rise in terrorist incidents since he launched his war on terror, nothing about the steep decline in affection for the United States around the world. He knows that he has made us less safe, yet he asserted that "My greatest responsibility as President is to protect the American people."

But, as Sam Husseini has argued, a good way to reduce the fighting in Iraq and make Americans less hated would be for Americans to take steps to investigate and, if necessary, impeach Bush. The message that would send to the people of Iraq would be far more powerful than any boost in U.S. Army recruitment.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/568

Or, we could all sign up and go kill and die for Bush.

Hmm.

It's a tough choice, I know.

"This 4th of July," Bush said tonight, "I ask you to thank the men and women defending our freedom by flying the flag…or helping the military family down the street."

Why don't you PAY the military family for the work it does, and provide those people with decent health care and education? I'll fly a flag or eat a picnic on one, as I see fit, but it won't be because you lied to a bunch of courageous young people and sent them off to give their lives or their limbs or their sanity for your wealth, ease, and ego, while you mumble lies off a teleprompter about what you're sacrificing.

You want to sacrifice? Take ten minutes and answer Congressman Conyers' letter. Did you know that 128 Congress Members and 560,000 of the rest of us have signed it?

http://www.johnconyers.com/

Do it for your country, Mr. Commander in Chief.

Give 10 minutes back to the nation that has given you so much.

editorial: The lying S.O.B. and he can do it with such "sincerity".too......... :twisted:

(wonder if he is practicing for possible impeachment hearings..... :?


( at least 4 online news sites have called him a "LYING S.O.B " since his speech. Hmmm. About time )
 

Jo Canadian

Council Member
Mar 15, 2005
2,488
1
38
PEI...for now
A VERY SPECIFIC SPEECH

Our President addressed us last night (here's a word count) . He had a lot to say, of course. He's been doing a lot of hard work and a lot of hard thinking. It's been hard.

Leading up to the speech, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan repeatedly promised that George would use the speech to lay out a specific path forward in Iraq:

June 27: "Tomorrow, the President will also talk about the strategy for success. He will talk in a very specific way about the way forward. There is a clear path to victory."

June 27: "As I said, this is a new speech. And the President will be talking in a very specific way about the strategy for succeeding in Iraq."

June 27: "I think we have a clear strategy for success. He's going to be talking in a very specific way about what that strategy is."

June 24:"He talked about how it is a two-track strategy. There's the military track and there's the political track. And he will talk in a very specific way about the way forward to succeeding and implementing that strategy."

Now it's time for a pop quiz!

Read through the President's speech and then answer this specific question: What is President Bush's very specific strategery for success in Iraq?

You can also submit your answers here, Michael Moore is lookin for feedback too.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
Jo Canadian said:
A VERY SPECIFIC SPEECH

Our President addressed us last night (here's a word count) . He had a lot to say, of course. He's been doing a lot of hard work and a lot of hard thinking. It's been hard.

Leading up to the speech, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan repeatedly promised that George would use the speech to lay out a specific path forward in Iraq:

June 27: "Tomorrow, the President will also talk about the strategy for success. He will talk in a very specific way about the way forward. There is a clear path to victory."

June 27: "As I said, this is a new speech. And the President will be talking in a very specific way about the strategy for succeeding in Iraq."

June 27: "I think we have a clear strategy for success. He's going to be talking in a very specific way about what that strategy is."

June 24:"He talked about how it is a two-track strategy. There's the military track and there's the political track. And he will talk in a very specific way about the way forward to succeeding and implementing that strategy."

Now it's time for a pop quiz!

Read through the President's speech and then answer this specific question: What is President Bush's very specific strategery for success in Iraq?

You can also submit your answers here, Michael Moore is lookin for feedback too.

excellent stuff Jo C. (gotta wonder why he wasted good airtime -which could have been used for advertizing Viagra or ???? :idea: . :wink:
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
Deception, Denial, and Demagoguery: Bush Speech Sets A Record
How many lies can this President cram into a single speech? That question may have been answered tonight. 9/11 was invoked at least 5 times as a jusification for the invasion and conquest of Iraq.

But we now know -- some of us always knew -- that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The President has even admitted it on occasion. There is no evidence that the 9/11 hijackers had any assistance from Iraq, or that Osama bin laden and Saddam Hussein were bosom buddies: quite the opposite. Ah, but now we're fighting "the terrorists" who have carved out a base of operations over there. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that the President almost seems to relish.

It's hard to get one's mind around the debased demagoguery of the President's appeal. The insurgents, said Bush, want to attack our country "and kill us." Yet who is attacking whom? The President gloats that "we're on the offense" -- and explicitly justifies this on the grounds that we have to go after them before they go after us. Yet why it is impossible for them to attack the U.S. anyway, even while fighting American troops in Iraq, no one seems to know. Surely Al Qaeda is recruiting hand-over-fist in Iraq, these days, and how many will eventually show up on our shores is an open question. What's happening in Iraq today is that for every insurgent killed, three rise to take his place.

"Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: 'This Third World War is raging' in Iraq. 'The whole world is watching this war.' He says it will end in 'victory and glory or misery and humiliation.'"

No doubt Osama wants us to focus on Iraq, as he outflanks us yet again and his followers show up on our shores. If only the troops preoccupied with pacifiying Iraq were put to work inspecting all the unexamined cargo coming into our ports, the threat of another 9/11 would be considerably reduced. Unfortunately, we don't have the troops to do it. We're securing Fallujah -- but not the Port of New York.

"There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home."

The flaw in the President's logic is that we are creating more terrorists than we are killing. The people we are supposedly defeating in Iraq -- raiding their homes, killing their loved ones, pushing them around on a daily basis -- will not forget, or forgive. If the next terrorist attack is launched by Iraqis, instead of Saudis, how many will be surprised?

"Our mission in Iraq is clear. "

No, it isn't. Or else why this speech?

"We are hunting down the terrorists."

The ones that pulled off 9/11? Too late for that. In spite of all the invocations of Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden, the truth is that we are fighting a homegrown nationalist insurgency in Iraq, people who oppose the American occupation -- and are fighting the "foreign fighters" simultaneously.

"We are helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror."

Does the President know what's going on in Basra?

"We are advancing freedom in the broader Middle East."

More delusions of grandeur. Hezbollah, Amal, and the pro-Syrian factions are the victors in the Lebanese elections cited by Bush. Egypt's "reform" is a cruel joke. Saudi Arabia's local elections are equally meaningless.

"We are removing a source of violence and instability and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren."

Nonsense: we are doing precisely the opposite. Where there was once relative stability, we have created -- I would say quite deliberately -- great instability. We are birthing -- and providing a training ground for -- a new generation of anti-American terrorists.

The insurgents, the President averred, are losing. But are they? He points to their alleged failures:

"The terrorists, both foreign and Iraqi, failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty."

Yet this "transfer" was entirely symbolic. It was a cermonial affair, and not a substantial one. The fiction of Iraqi sovereignty is underscored by the "agreement" -- forced on the Iraqis at gunpoint -- that U.S. soldiers and contractors are not subject to Iraqi law. If you are an Iraqi living in "liberated" Iraq, a U.S. soldier who "accidentally" kills your three-year-old child, your husband, your entire family, is insulated from your vengeance and your government: you cannot even sue them for civil damages. When the occupation forces burst into the house of the head of the Islamic Party -- the only substantial Sunni party to take part in the government -- beat the family up, and hauled the party leader off to jail, President Talabani complained that he knew nothing about this raid in advance, even as the Americans were apologizing for their "mistake." Some "sovereignty"! Some "liberation"!

"They failed to break our coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. "

What world is this President living in? Italy, Spain, even Ukraine -- most of our "coalition" members have withdrawn their troops, or are about to.

"They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war."

They didn't need to incite one, since we've already done such a good job of making a civil war inevitable. We handed the Iraqis a provisional constitution that locked most Sunni Muslims out of the political process, and a radical "de-Baathification" program that purged the school system, the universities, and the government of most Sunnis and seculars. Is anyone surprised now that a civil war is breaking out along religious and regional lines? It's a miracle it didn't happen sooner.

"They failed to prevent free elections."

True, although one could quibble about the relative free-ness of the Iraqi election process, where whole sections of the population were prevented from running for office under the terms of the provisional constitution. But so what? What good are elections if the elected government can't defend itself?

"They failed to stop the formation of a democratic Iraqi government that represents all of Iraq's diverse population."

Except for the Sunnis -- at least 20 percent of the total population, and easily the most educated and the most alienated.

"And they failed to stop Iraqis from signing up in large numbers with the police forces and the army to defend their new democracy."

These troops have largely been useless: their unreliability is legendary. The reason is not because they lack "training" or weapons, but because they don't know or care what they're fighting for. They're signing up because they need the money: unemployment is somewhere near 50 percent or more, and people have to live. Yet so are the insurgents signing up: the police and the Iraqi security forces are massively infiltrated. That has been the cause of some of the most spectacular and damaging suicide bombiings.

The President may be right: the insurgents are not winning. Neither are we. The Iraqi rebels have, so far, fought us to a standstill. All they have to do in order to achieve a de facto victory is to stave off defeat. The generals know this. The soldiers in the field know it. The President, if he knows it, will never admit it.

In spite of all the bluff and bluster, there were some subtle indications, I believe, that the President, like the country, is beginning to tire of this quagmire. At one point, when he said: “By taking these critical steps and meeting their deadlines,” Iraqis are marching into a glorious “multiethnic” future, etc. etc., there was an awful lot of emphasis on the word "deadlines." There was also much emphasis on training the Iraqis, so that we can "stand down as they stand up," as the President put it.

Yet what training have the insurgents had? This is a question that I've heard exactly no one ask. Yet the insurgents seem to be doing all right militarily without "training" seminars in how to fight an insurrection. The war against the occupation has turned the whole country into one big training camp offering a crash course in how to kill Americans, and the insurgents seem to be learning fast. Why can't the Iraqi government troops display a similar learning curve -- could it be because they are far less motivated?

The President continues his campaign of deception -- he's lying when he says we're fighting the perpetrators of 9/11 in Iraq: we're fighting Iraqi nationalists, for the most part. The effort to scare us into supporting his foreign policy by conjuring the threat of domestic terrorism is also ongoing -- when the reality is that we're renewing and emboldening the trend represented by Al Qaeda, who rise like Myrmidons from the blood-soaked soil of Iraq. More shameless demagoguery in a time of acute crisis in his policy -- and a stubborn refusal to admit error.

This war will end in a negotiated settlement, or an American defeat -- but the insurgency will not end until our presence comes to an end. It's as simple as that. The President can make all the speeches he cares to, but after a while -- as the bloody reality continues to rear its ugly head on the evening news each night -- people will simply stop listening. I know I passed that point some time ago -- and it looks like most Americans, a majority of whom now believe the war wasn't worth the expenditure of lives and dollars, are not far behind.
 

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
56
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
RE: Bush - Speech & alter

Was not really much of a speech. Just trying to put a good spin on a bad situation (Iraq). Also why does he keep implying Iraq was involved with 9/11? When it is not true.

Too bad the government can not fall like they can in Canada and the UK. The American people are stuck with this moron for another 3.5 years..........