Bush - Speech & alternative speech.

[Ocean Breeze]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9337.htm

Seems there is a "reply" to his "speech"... hmm.

well.......bush wanted so much to be identified as a war time prez...... ( something about napoleonic complex comes to mind)..... and he just might have more than he bargained for. Kinda too bad he is dragging the US population down the toilet with him.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9339.htm

bush flops in prime time.

so the question this raises is : the same questions as before...to which answers are few and far between.

anyone for an encore?? :roll:

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[Jo Canadian]

:lol: Hey I found More!

 

[Ocean Breeze]

EXCELLENT!! gotta tell ya......I look forward to these. who needs words??? ;-)

 

[Ocean Breeze]

We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th attacks."

George W. Bush -- September 17, 2003

To the extend that George Bush had retained the slightest shred of dignity through the whole ugly Iraq imbroglio, it was found in his refusal to fully embrace the biggest of the Big Lies told by his aides: The claim that the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein had played a role in the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The president was never honorable in this regard. He did not go out of his way correct the confusion among the American people, a majority of whom believed around the time of the March, 2003, invasion of Iraq that Hussein's regime was somehow linked with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network. Nor did he step up to challenge the misinformation being spread by members of his administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney, about a supposed connection between Iraq and al-Qaida. And, early on, he actually tried to defend Cheney's statements.

But, even before the the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States established that there was no collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaida, Bush was a good deal more cautious than Cheney. And when the president was directly confronted this spring by reporters and asked whether he shared the vice president's view that a connection had been established, Bush detached himself fully from his vice president's mad ranting and made it clear that he knew of no evidence to support the charge.

In other words, Bush made at least some effort to avoid echoing Cheney's Big Lies.

Until now.

On Tuesday night, however, the president abandoned the narrow patch of high ground that he had staked out and dove into the raging flood of deceit that his administration had unleashed.

In what was billed as a major address regarding Iraq, Bush mentioned the September 11 attacks no less than five times.

Before 750 members of the 82nd Airborne Division and the Army's Special Operations unit, who had been assembled at Fort Bragg, N.C., to give Bush a respectful and unquestioning audience, the president declared, "The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. This war reached our shores on September 11, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us -- and the terrorists we face -- murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression, by toppling governments, driving us out of the region and exporting terror."

Bush went on to claim that, "After September 11, I made a commitment to the American people: The nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy. Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war."

By suggesting that the invasion and occupation of Iraq should be seen as part of a legitimate and necessary response to September 11, as he clearly did on Tuesday, Bush made a deliberate break with reality -- not so complete a break, perhaps, as that of Cheney and the wingnut faction of the administration, but a break all the same.

The president speech was written and delivered with the intent of deceiving the American people into believing things that were never true.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, to be sure, but he ruled as a militant secularist, who gave Christians and members of other religious and ethnic minorities positions of power and authority within the governments he assembled. Hussein saw the rise of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida as a threat, and he meticulously -- sometimes violently -- kept that threat out of Iraq. To the extent that elements of al-Qaida are now on the ground in that country, it is not as a result of Hussein's invitation but as a result of his removal.

The point here is not to defend Hussein. The point is to recognize reality: The invasion and occupation of Iraq did not control the spread of terrorist activity in the Middle East. It handed the terrorists new opportunities for recruitment, and it gave them new territory in which to operate. Until the president acknowledges these fundamental realities -- and his own responsibility for making things worse -- it will be impossible to undo the damage.

George Bush set out to deceive to the American people Tuesday. That was morally wrong, and tactically foolish.

But George Bush also deceived himself, by engaging in the fantasy that some new spin will allow him to avoid taking responsibility for making the world a more dangerous place. Ultimately, that is the bigger, and far more dangerous lie.

all the "justifications" /rationalizations/ excuses aside......bushcons lies have KILLED THOUSANDS of LIVING PEOPLE. In a way this is premeditated murder . as the war was planned well before the onset. Pre-meditated murder for profit and natural resources. Why don't people cut to the chase??? Everything else is just window dressing.

 

[Walrus]

They keep saying it's not like Vietnam but compare it to this speech:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000971144

President Urges Patience on War -- but it's LBJ, in 1965

Tonight Americans and Asians are dying for a world where each people may choose its own path to change. This is the principle for which our ancestors fought in the valleys of Pennsylvania. It is the principle for which our sons fight tonight in the jungles of Viet-Nam.

Viet-Nam is far away from this quiet campus. We have no territory there, nor do we seek any. The war is dirty and brutal and difficult. And some 400 young men, born into an America that is bursting with opportunity and promise, have ended their lives on Viet-Nam’s steaming soil.

Why must we take this painful road? Why must this nation hazard its ease, its interest, and its power for the sake of a people so far away?

We fight because we must fight if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny, and only in such a world will our own freedom be finally secure.

This kind of world will never be built by bombs or bullets. Yet the infirmities of man are such that force must often precede reason and the waste of war, the works of peace.

We wish this were not so. But we must deal with the world as it is, if it is ever to be as we wish.

The world as it is in Asia is not a serene or peaceful place.

Of course, some of the people of South Viet-Nam are participating in attack on their own government. But trained men and supplies, orders and arms, flow in a constant stream from North to South. This support is the heartbeat of the war.

And it is a war of unparalleled brutality. Simple farmers are the targets of assassination and kidnapping. Women and children are strangled in the night because their men are loyal to the government. And helpless villagers are ravaged by sneak attacks. Large-scale raids are conducted on towns, and terror strikes in the heart of cities.

The confused nature of this conflict cannot mask the fact that it is the new face of an old enemy. The contest in Viet-Nam is part of a wider pattern of aggressive purposes.

Why are these realities our concern? Why are we in South Viet-Nam?

We are there because we have a promise to keep. Over many years, we have made a national pledge to help South Viet-Nam defend its independence. And I intend to keep that promise.

To dishonour that pledge, to abandon this small and brave nation to its enemies, and to the terror that must follow, would be an unforgivable wrong.

We are also there to strengthen world order. Around the globe from Berlin to Thailand are people whose well being rests in part on the belief that they can count on us if they are attacked. To leave Viet-Nam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of an American commitment and in the value of America’s word. The result would be increased unrest and instability, even wide war.

We are also there because there are great stakes in the balance. Let no one think for a minute that retreat from Viet-Nam would bring an end to the conflict. The battle would be renewed in one country and then another. The central lesson of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next. We must say in Southeast Asia -- as we did in Europe -- in the words of the Bible: "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further."

Our objective is the independence of South Viet-Nam, and its freedom from attack. We want nothing for ourselves-only that the people of South Viet-Nam be allowed to guide their own country in their own way.

We will do everything necessary to reach that objective. And we will do only what is absolutely necessary.

We do this in order to slow down aggression.

We do this to increase the confidence of the brave people of South Viet-Nam who have bravely borne this brutal battle for so many years with so many casualties.

We will not be defeated. We will not grow tired.

We will not withdraw, either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement.

We hope that peace will come swiftly. But that is in the hands of others besides ourselves. And we must be prepared for a long continued conflict. It will require patience as well as bravery, the will to endure as well as the will to resist.

I wish it were possible to convince others with words of what we now find it necessary to say with guns and planes: Armed hostility is futile. Our resources are equal to the challenge.

Because we fight for values and we fight for principles, rather than territory or colonies, our patience and our determination are unending.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Walrus: you just beat me to posting that same speech. :wink:

echos from the past ........

(but notice that the speech is at least a tad more intelligent/articulate??? :wink: (than anything coming out of the Oral office now?? ,oral as in lots of talk......lies :twisted:

 

[jimmoyer]

We picked the wrong side in Vietnam.
We should have made friends with Ho Chi Minh.

Ho Chi Minh was a young man when he approached Woodrow Wilson with a request to have his own country out of French hands after WWI, the Versaile Peace Treaty.

In fact WWI Versaille Peace Treaty actually drew the map of the world much more than WWII Yalta did.

In fact even the Kurds approached Woodrow Wilson to have a Kurdistan boundary drawn after WWI.

When Ho Chi Minh died, a book lied open on his desk.

It was the story of John Brown, the abolitionist who was hung in Charles Town West Virginia (at that time Virginia) roughly 30 miles from where I live.

Ho Chi Minh read extensively about the American revolution and of all the actors in that time of history.

He knew us much more than we made a point to know him. We would have done well by making him an ally, by giving him his country and forcing the French to not keep Indochina.

Ho Chi Minh was no Saddam.