Full text of (President!) Bush's inaugural address

The White House, via grandforks.com ^ | 1/20/05 | A great American

[Rennes Templar]

Right, the egocentric mind has a hard time with issues of
the heart.

[Willie Green]

After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical - and then there came a day of fire.

SABBATICAL???

Anybody know what the heck he's talking about?

Are Gulf I, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo supposed to HAVE beEN "sabbaticals"??

[RichardAubrey]

I am sure the liberal will trash the speech, but it remarkably similar to JFK's:


"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

[Spiff]

In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character - on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before - ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever.

I'm sorry President Bush, but I beg to differ.

The words of the Koran led to 9/11. Period. To equate the Ten Commandments and the Holy Bible with the book that inspired the attack on America on 9/11 is reprehensible. To pretend that the words of the Koran are somehow beneficial to America is delusional. Damn your incessant pandering.

[Miss Marple]

"Sabbatical" refers to the Clinton's refusal to do with the hard issues in foreign relations, as I am sure you know. You are simply trying to start another vein of Bush-bashing on this thread.

[arasina]

On the contrary: I would not be happy with a president who allowed himself to be manipulated by hotheads into insulting all members of one of the largest, fastest growing religions on the planet. I don't like Islam ("Submission") anymore than you do -- I think Islam is the antithesis of freedom and love. It wouldn't surprise me if Dubya thought so too. But it would be stupid and amateurish for him to say so to the world.

I thought the speech remarkable and monumental because Dubya threw down the guantlet to the rest of the world, declaring that in this new millenium, America will strive to make the enslaved, free. Instead of attacking and offending people on the basis of their religion -- as you would have him do, and which would be monumentally stupid -- Dubya spoke in terms of freedom and slavery. It was wise of Dubya: Morally, there is zero concern about offending those who advocate slavery.

You reason wisely and speak/post your thoughts eloquently. So wonderful that I had to cut and paste your post in its entirety. Applause for Finny!

[Miss Marple]

Let us be realistic here. There are American citizens who are Muslims. There are allies, like Jordan and Pakistan, which are Muslim countries. We are currently fighting WITH Muslims in Iraq, in order to defeat the terrorists.

Apparently you wish to enrage citizens, alienate allies, and destroy the progress we have made in Iraq....all for a sound bite that will feed your anger.

I think not.

[Right_in_Virginia]

BUMP for later.

[iconoclast]

I'm anxious to find out who wrote it.

[Spiff]

Let us be realistic here. There are American citizens who are Muslims. There are allies, like Jordan and Pakistan, which are Muslim countries. We are currently fighting WITH Muslims in Iraq, in order to defeat the terrorists. Apparently you wish to enrage citizens, alienate allies, and destroy the progress we have made in Iraq....all for a sound bite that will feed your anger.

I'm not asking that the President publicly condemn the Koran - but to include it in the first Inauguration Address following the Islamic attack on America is disturbing. Moreso, that the Koran has never been mentioned in an Inauguration Address before. We had Muslims in America in 2000, we had Muslim allies in 2000, etc. Why didn't Bush mention the Koran then? What changed between then and now? Why mention it now? Why didn't he just NOT mention the Koran?! Did Bush enrage the Buddhists in the U.S. and alienate our Buddhist allies because he did not mention Buddha? Did he offend Hindus because he did not mention Krishna?

[Miss Marple]

Because to NOT mention the Koran would immediately cause the groups like CAIR to start in about how Islam was being disrespected. Their ads would inflame the Americna Muslims, and would be used in propoganda abroad.

When you propose an alternative strategy, it is helpful to think ahead further than immediate gratification. Leaving Islam out of the speech would also direct their enmity to the Jews in even harsher terms, since Judaism was mentioned.

I see nothing wrong with what the President said, and I refuse to subscribe to the idea that anti-Muslim statements woul be at all productive.

[Willie Green]

"Sabbatical" refers to the Clinton's refusal to do with the hard issues in foreign relations, as I am sure you know.

Oh, you must mean like the "sabbatical" that Dubya is taking on the illegal immigration issue.

Thanks, now I understand.

[deport]

Karen Hughes was interviewed earlier today on Fox News by Britt Hume [if I remember correctly] talking about the speech. She indicated that Michael Gerson who has crafted most of the President's major speeches since 2000 and the President begin discussing it immediately after the election. Ideas and words begin to be put to paper.... After some time the drafts were circulated among others such as herself, VP Cheney, Andrew Card, Condi Rice, etc. They all had some input or suggestions... There may have been as many as 21 drafts up to the delivery today.

[Spiff]

The kind of American Muslims who give a crap what CAIR says are not going to be impressed by anything the President says. They hate him and the rest of America all the same.

And if the President, as you say, is pandering to the Muslims in America out of fear...FEAR... is all the more disturbing.

I see nothing wrong with what the President said, and I refuse to subscribe to the idea that anti-Muslim statements woul be at all productive.

Again, no one is asking that the President make an "anti-Muslim" statement, but that he not equate the Koran with the Bible. Best that he not mention it at all.

He doesn't care if he offends Christian Americans because we're not the ones threatening to slit throats, behead people, crash jetliners into skyscrapers, and blow stuff up. So, he's pandering to those who support that and do that out of fear. And you're OK with that?

[Finny]

Thank you for your kind praise. It made my day!

[Miss Marple]

What part of alienating our allies, including Iraq, Jordan, and Turkey, do you not understand? What part of the Constitution have you not read that you think it would be constitutional for a President to name a religion as an enemy?

I am out of patience with folks like you. You are bigots, and I am not certain but what you are on this forum just to make it look like a weirdo site.

[Spiff]

What part of alienating our allies, including Iraq, Jordan, and Turkey, do you not understand? What part of the Constitution have you not read that you think it would be constitutional for a President to name a religion as an enemy? I am out of patience with folks like you. You are bigots, and I am not certain but what you are on this forum just to make it look like a weirdo site.

Are you really that freakin' dense!!? I never said that the President should "name a religion as an enemy". I denounced his mention of the Koran in the Inauguration Address. Did the President name the Hindu religion as an enemy when he did not mention Krishna? Puh-lease....

[Finny]

You describe Dubya's acknowledgement of positive things in the Koran as "pandering" and his motivation as fear.

Indulge me, as this has bearing. As a waitress, after long bitter experience I found that the only sure way to deal with rude, asshole customers was to be as sweet as pie to them. It accomplished many things. It made them feel like the chumps they were, especially when they left without leaving a tip, which they inevitably did -- their shame was too profound to dare leave a dime. It made observers more sympathetic to my plight. It gave me more strength and self-respect than had resulted times before when I succumbed to justifiable and righteous anger. It was also just plain fun to see the powerless rage in the assholes when they saw that I would only respond with smiles and contrition and politeness.

An ignorant or short-sighted observer would perhaps have lamented that I was pandering to the rude customers out of fear of losing a tip or generating a complaint to my boss.

But in truth, the boss probably would have backed me up and kicked the people out had I snapped, and either way, sympathetic customers who witnessed what I had to put up with would usually compensate generously for any lost tips by over-tipping themselves.

Most important, and what made me so certain that "respecting" their bad ways was so correct, was the fact that they dared not look me or anyone else in the eye by the time their meal was through. They knew they were the chumps, so did everyone else -- and I hadn't said a single nasty word. They had no excuse, no foundation for offense. I learned a lot from rude customers.

You choose the words "fear" and "pandering" to describe Dubya's motives and actions. I know better.