The President's Speech - Live Thread

carton253

[Wild Thing]

Thanks for the ping AFPhys, your post is excellent. I agree with you.

I don't know you Peach is or the others you mentioined. hahaha But I tend to think for myself so it does not matter anyway. haha

Your statements AFPhys are right on target.As far as being attacked again, it will simply instill just as you said....."more steel in our spineless class." Amen! Sad that it takes an attack to bring a person to feel Patriotic and want to defend our great country but it did to those that don't remember what our Freedom cost.

I pray we do not have another attack but if it happens I also pray those that run on apathy and weakness finally learn why we are a Free country and cling to it with all they are.And that they never forget as they have been doing since 9-11.



Wild Thing

[MEGoody]

"Yes it did. And I would assume that we would go after the terrorists behind 9/11 instead of fulfilling policy plans put forth by the PNAC."

The war on terror is not limited to those directly responsible for 9/11 - those guys are already dead.

The war on terror is against any terrorist group that threatens the U.S. and any nation that harbors them.

We went after Iraq for many reasons. And it's good we did. Two terrorist training camps were being harbored there. Saddam had been openly rewarding homicide bombers' families. Copies of his 'recipe books' for chem and bio weapons were found in a terrorist cell in France.

While Saddam was not directly involved in 9/11, he is a terrorist.

[MEGoody]

"If 9/11 hadn't happened, we would have had to create it ourselves."

Horse hockey. That is the silliest comment I think I've ever read on any thread.

[LS]

One-note samba. It's out of tune.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Great response. Of course, beyond a cute quip, there is nothing else you could say.

[LS]

Of course, beyond a one-note samba, there's nothing YOU can say. That was the point!

[ohioWfan]

Haven't seen an argument out of you yet.

Perhaps that's because I've been responding to your vacuous defense of Jimmy Carter......

[ohioWfan]

God hasn't forsaken Iraq, Joe. He loves those people just as much as He loves you.....

[ohioWfan]

People like billbears don't have the foggiest idea what the War on Terror is about.

That's why they don't understand what the President said last night, and even when reading or listening to a speech FILLED with information and logic, they hear nothing............they just don't get it.

[Joe Hadenuf]

God hasn't forsaken Iraq, Joe. He loves those people just as much as He loves you.....

Yeoowsa...

[Joe Hadenuf]

Of course, beyond a one-note samba, there's nothing YOU can say. That was the point!

Nothing I can say? Here we have hundreds of thousands of people entering our country illegally, at will, routinely, from God knows where, and you talk about a war on terrorism and home land security?

Do you not see something brutally wrong with this picture?

[huck von finn]

I was counting too, but I lost track! I went to the transcript and did a search. Twenty-nine.

[ohioWfan]

What? You don't believe it?

[CyberAnt]

Well .. I guess the point I was trying to make is the important part of the statement was "terrorist attacks are INVITED by the perception of weakness".

And .. as Rush was saying this morning, if we did what the dems are all saying we should do - WE WOULD BE INVITING TERRORIST ATTACKS BY THEIR PERCEPTION OF OUR WEAKNESS.

And .. this only proves the dems still cannot be trusted with national security.

[Robert_Paulson2]

"Indirect costs to the US economy for the past 2 years are greater than 500B$ and probably amount to paring 3+% off the growth rate of the economy. This economy could well have been screaming along without the drag from 9/11, but nobody wishes to admit that, apparently because in a real sense, that is admitting that BinLadin and his fanatics succeeded. "

---

Point made: the 87 billion, as an abstract number seems like just more government spending... but putting it in that perspective is a lot more clarifying. I wonder if the American people "got it?"

I had to think about it for a while. There could have been a way to say that more specifically... for slow on the uptake folks, like me.

It was in retrospect a very good speech... for those who "got it" but for those who "instinctively" don't like expanding gov't programs ad infinitum... it sounds like a lot more "down the rat hole" money... used for nation building.

In this generation, Nation Building... is a necessity. We built Japan, Germany and much of Europe after ww2... it is at times an historical necessity... and it is now.

Couched in terms of "terror prevention' and "investing in freedom for America and middle eastern nations that are under oppressive tyrannical religionists..." it makes for a lot easier for my limited "comprehension"... as Luis Gonzales also pointed out earlier to me.

I KNOW we need a much stronger, not "leaner" military... LOTS. Had Clinton not "invested" (wasted) the cost savings from the end of the cold war on his programs, but instead left it in defense and intelligence . . it is doubtful that 9-11 would have happened as it did.

We should have invested in overthrowing the bad guys and human intellitgence in about a dozen tyrannical regimes with our "military cost savings" from the cold war... we would surely be singing a different tune now.

However, we do need to watch our spending and cut social spending in a major way NOW... and up our spending on issues that promote our national defence... with those cuts.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Bumping his words, ONE MORE TIME. :o)

President Bush 9/7/03 "We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength - they are invited by the perception of weakness..."

We used to know this. Somewhere along the line we forgot it.

[billbears]

Regarding WMD - we know he had them because he used them

Of course he used them!! Back in the 1980s when the current administration turned its head instead of turning Iraq in to the UN. War between Iraq and Iran was still going on and the current administration backed Iraq.

Did you know that all the intelligence agencies for the nations on the Security Council at the UN believe he had them and thus the 17 resolutions that dealt specifically with WMD.

Maybe you should ask yourself if I care. Maybe even better you should ask yourself why do you care about resolutions going on in an organization most conservatives want out of in the first place

Why do you think Hussein chose war rather than reveal their whereabouts? Why do you think Hussein chose war rather than permit the UN inspectors free access?

Hmmmmm, let's see, to save face? I know that may come as another shock to you but he didn't want to lose face in the Middle East. So let's see, stand up to the administration, allow war to come, have a definite exit strategy, make the US look less than perfect when no WMDs were found, and appear as a martyr and loved one to all the Islamic kooks out there. Nah, that would take actual thought and from the reponses on this thread the only ones capable of rational thought are President Bush and the PNAC

[Jorge]

Heard anymore about those papers 'tying' Al Qaeda and Iraq? How about the caches of WMDs that we just 'knew' were there?

Yes and yes.
Not that we needed to though.

The fact that Saddam had WMDs was supported by the UN, the intelligence agencies of numerous countries, including those opposed to military action, by both Clinton and Gore, and by most of the Dems who are now pretending Bush made it up.

[billbears]

The fact that Saddam had WMDs was supported by the UN, the intelligence agencies of numerous countries, including those opposed to military action, by both Clinton and Gore, and by most of the Dems who are now pretending Bush made it up.

Find them. Then prove how they were a threat to the borders of this nation of states. To do that, I suppose they're going to have to find the 30,000 munitions President Bush said were there. I can see why the Iraqis were so unprepared. They must have been spending all their time in the lead up to the war burying stuff!!

[Peach]

The only one of your theories I'll both to debunk is the one that Saddam used WMD in the 80's - as though that were the last time. It wasn't the last time. He used them in the 90's after Gulf War I.

And BTW, if Saddam was trying to lose face rather than let in UN inspectors, I guess he lost that face because he isn't the LEADER anymore and is hiding or dead. How much more face can he lose? His sons are dead, he has no palace, no $$, nothing.