Posted on 10/31/2004 2:14:28 PM PST by DBeers
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Daniel,
Thank you for your kind words. I have attached a copy. Hope it helps and I hope you and yours can help get out the vote!
Yours,
Colleen Graffy
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Beers To: Graffy, Colleen Sent: 30/10/2004 22:16 Subject: Oxford Debate "Should President Bush Be Re-Elected?" -You were phenomenal!
Ms. Graffy,
I saw your speech on C-Span -excellent!
I would like a copy/transcript asap -possible?
Thanks.
Daniel Beers
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Colleen Graffy Academic Director Pepperdine University School of Law London Program cgraffy@pepperdine.edu
Oxford Union Debate “This House Would Re-Elect George W. Bush” 28th October 2004
Madam President,
I do not misunderestimate the challenge before us!
The President of the United States has been described as stupid and inarticulate, a warmonger and a cowboy. He used unsophisticated and embarrassing language like, “evil” and sees things too simplistically in black and white.
Perhaps there are many here this evening who might agree with that description of the President. But those words were not written about George W. Bush. They were written about Ronald Reagan.
President Reagan used plain-talkin’ language like “Evil Empire” and “Mr. Gorbachov, tear down that wall.” Reagan was mocked and derided. There were protest demonstrations across the world against US Pershing II missiles deployed in West Germany against the Soviet Union’s SS –20’s. Distinguished figures from the left and from the right --within Reagan’s own Administration --questioned his abilities and challenged his vision.
For decades, America had waged a Cold War, and few believed it could possibly end in our own lifetimes. Reagan was one of those few. It was the vision and will of Ronald Reagan that gave hope to the oppressed, stopped the oppressors, and ended an evil, yes, evil empire.
Now this House may not like the way George Bush walks or the way he talks but lift your eyes from the details to the vision, from the medium to the message:
President Bush has challenged American foreign policy to pursue a strategy to spread liberty to the Middle East. The Economist magazine refers to the President’s vision as nothing less than a “foreign policy revolution.”
For too long, too many nations, including the US, tolerated even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability. Oppression became common, but stability never arrived.
Our security is not found merely in spheres of influence, or some balance of power. The security of our world is found in advancing the rights of mankind. And that requires leadership.
The sort of leadership that changed Afghanistan from a failed state to a fledgling democracy.
Against all dire predictions and threats from terrorists, Afghanistan---formerly the breeding ground of Al Qaeda and under the medieval rule of Taliban fundamentalists---has just held the first presidential election in its bloodstained history.
And, Madam President, as this House celebrates the 40th year of female members of the Union, it may be particularly inspiring to note that the first voter in Afghanistan was a 19 year old female and for the first time ever there was a female candidate for President.
Now I imagine that this House was against the war in Iraq. And I know that many feel that war is just God’s way of teaching Americans geography…
But sometimes it is the reluctance to use force that leads to the wars we all detest: When Mussolini invaded Abyssinia, now Ethiopia, the League of Nations voted 54 to 0 that Mussolini must withdraw. He said no and they did not have the political will to do anything about it. The result? The League of Nations collapsed and who was watching? Hitler.
The President of the United States was right when he said that if the world failed to act against Saddam, Saddam would realise that “the international community had lost its will and would conclude that he could rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, said the President, “ I guarantee you he’ll use the arsenal…if we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the UN Security Council, and clear evidence of a mass destruction program.” That was not George Bush. That was Bill Clinton. (The same President who bombed Baghdad in 1993 and 1998—without a UN Security Council Resolution!)
President Bush has demonstrated vision and leadership:
He was the first US President to declare that there should be a separate and VIABLE Homeland for the Palestinian people.
His support for Africa is unparalleled: Sir Bob Geldof declared Bush the most radical President in US history with regard to Africa:
*Bush is one of only two presidents to make a State visit to Africa during his first term.
*Has met with 24 African heads of state, more than any other president.
*The President committed $15 billion to fight HIV/Aids
*During the last 3 years America has given more international AIDS assistance than the rest of the world’s donor governments combined.
*The President has given $1billion dollars for clean drinking water for people in developing countries.
*Bush has given over a quarter of a billion dollars to stop human trafficking which particularly helps woman and children caught in slave trade and sexual slavery.
*While the Clinton Administration dithered in identifying “elements of genocide” while 800,000 people died in Rwanda, the Bush administration has been working with Sudan for over two and a half years calling the actions in Dafour genocide before the UN has made up its mind.
*Anyone who cares about global poverty should know about the Millennium Challenge Account (www.mca.gov) which provides the largest increase in US development assistance since the Marshall Plan. *Proliferation Security Initiative-a successful multilateral effort to stop WMD proliferation, and the list goes on.
Madam President, at this point, I should remind the House that the choice before it is not between George Bush and fill-in–the-blank: your ideal candidate. If you vote against the motion, you are voting FOR John Kerry.
Let’s take a look at Kerry’s Flip Flop Leadership:
*Kerry attacks the Patriot Act but voted for it.
*Kerry attacks the No Child Left Behind Act but voted for it.
*Kerry attacks the North American Free Trade Agreement but voted for it.
*Kerry voted AGAINST the First Gulf War even though there was a clear invasion of Kuwait, multilateral backing by allies AND United Nations approval.
However in a letter to a constituent opposed to that war he wrote that he was against giving the president authority. In another letter to a constituent who was in favour of the war he wrote “from the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported the President’s response to the crisis.” Unfortunately, those letters were to the SAME constituent.
*To the Arab American Institute he called the Israeli fence a “Barrier to Peace.” To the Jerusalem Post he described it as a “legitimate act of self defense.”
*He opposed the B-1 bomber that dropped 40% of bombs in Operation Enduring Freedom
*He opposed the B-2 bomber that delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
*He opposed the Apache helicopter that took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War.
*He was against the Patriot Missile, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, the Trident missile, the F-14, the F-15, the F-16 and so on.
But, in all fairness, he does go duck-hunting.
If you are thinking of voting against this motion remember that, based on his record, a President Kerry:
Would use Pre-emption and Unilateralism. Would not support the Kyoto Protocol. Would not support the International Criminal Court. Support National Missile Defense.
Kerry voted FOR the current actions against Iraq and says that if he’d known then what he knows now about missing WMD, he would still have voted for it.
His foreign policy plan is to do “the same thing” but, somehow, “differently.”
His plan for Iran to end its nuclear ambition by having the US supply them with fuel was immediately rejected by Iran. They have no desire to have the US control their fuel supply.
His plan for bi-lateral talks with North Korea would unravel the carefully crafted multilateral talks that Bush, the alleged unilateralist, set up.
The notion that countries like France will send troops to Iraq just because Kerry is President and asks in French—even with a s’il vous plait, is naïve.
Where was his leadership in the Senate? There is no known bill with his name on it.
His leadership on the Senate Intelligence Committee included holding only 8 meetings on terrorism in the 4 years before 9/11. You know, those years when the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed, the US responded by striking targets in Afghanistan and Sudan and the USS Cole was attacked.
Kerry missed 75% of public hearings conducted by the intelligence committee during his 8 years of service and won’t release his attendance record for the private ones. Wonder why.
The security of our world is found in advancing the rights of mankind. And that requires leadership and vision.
Despite the daily tragedies from Iraq. Despite the uncertainties. Despite the setbacks:
The world after Iraq is a world where:
Libya is disarming. AQ Khan is out of business. Pakistan and India are speaking. Afghanistan is not a failed state. Iraq is not a rogue state. And there is a glimmer of light for the reformers in the Middle East.
In these troubling times, if you think America needs prevarication and a “which-way-does-the-wind-blow” President, vote for John Kerry and against the motion.
For leadership and vision-- albeit not as eloquently expressed as a member of this House might say it--vote FOR the motion to Re-elect President Bush.
Professor Colleen Graffy Academic Director Pepperdine University School of Law London Program cgraffy@pepperdine.edu
ping
ping
bump for later read
bump for later reading
Ping!
I saw some of this yesterday. I didn't see the arguement in favor of re-electing W though. I did see the young gentleman that thought himself funny. You know the one that kept trying to make little quips here and there. The beginning of his argument he states that his oponent was making his first point for him - about reality. Well he made me physically ill so I had to watch something else.
So many dumb "intellecuals" in this world - so little time!
OK, but which way did the Oxford Union vote go?
< P>I can't find anything on the vote.
Just brilliant.
Great post. Great read. Much appreciated.
Did anyone else see that kook Richard Dreyfuss.....lmao!!!!!
Everyone should rease this. It makes the choice as about black and white as you can get. Bush will lead America.
Does anyone know how the vote turned out?
When we (the Conservative Party) were up against Kerry's people (the Liberal Party), we usually beat them. Click below for more information on that. (Go to Post #3 for the link that works.)
Congressman Billybob
that's fantastic!
Best argument I've heard yet. Bravo.
Nice post.
You know what kills me is when people roll out the "stupid" label on Bush. The man is educated, has flown in the national guard, is a very successfull business man, and he knows who he is and what he stands for. Democrats can't counter his ideology, so they attack him personally, and unfortunately, it sticks in the minds of many. If Bush is stupid, at least he is not a fraud like kerry; who has one of the worst records I've ever seen by a candidate. Of course whats funny, is that Bush scored higher on his SATs than Kerry. The truth hurts.
Not only is she brilliant she's eye candy, I think we will see more of her in the future. Hello FOX!
Yeah I love how he stated the creation of Isreal signified the beginning of the end of the world. Why get out of bed!
-it would be nice to see Colleen appear on FOX prior to Tuesday!
Yesterday in an interview with Kerry, Tom Brokaw confronted Kerry with the facts that some analysts had determined from the Bush and Kerry military records that Bush had a higher IQ than Kerry. Kerry didn't deny it, said something like "More power to him, although I wonder how they got that information since my records aren't public." A relative bomb-shell as campaign tid-bits go, yet the exchange and the admission of a lower IQ than Bush hasn't found it's way into any MSM stories.
If it doesn't fit their agenda, you won't hear about it from the MSM.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.