President Bush Addressed the Nation Sunday Night (text of speech)

Whitehouse.gov ^ | Sept 7, 2003 | George W Bush

[ThePythonicCow]

Well said, Starrgaizr.

So, Aunt Enna, would you have gone into Iraq? Given even the advantage of hind sight, what would you have decided?

Are you agreeing that it is good we went, and just quibbling over the purported justifications? If so, enough already. Some damn good stuff has happened, and don't expect my patience for those quibbling at the edges.

Or are you saying we should not have gone? If so, then you are very wrong.

Actually, I sense you are saying something quite different. That it's not so much whether the right thing was done, saving millions from rape, torture, prison, death and tyranny, but whether it was done the right way, with the appearance of perfect consistency at all times in spoken justifications.

How liberal of you ... There is a Right and a Wrong. There is Good and Evil. Sometimes hellish means are required to fight Evil and support Good ... means far more hellish than the refocusing of motivations that your quibbling mind discerns.

[ThePythonicCow]

You're wasting your time

True.

it appears that this thread is a serious troll magnet.

Yeah - I'm supposed to be doing my bills now. It is easier to be distracted by this.

[KC_Conspirator]

Isn't there a slogan somewhere that says " As California Goes, So Goes the Nation"?

That used to be true but not anymore. Once the democrat/liberal state house would pass a wacky law and it would be emulated by other states that had democrat state legislatures so they could feel they were as "progressive" as California. However, Republicans have all but domianted in the state governments and grass root levels for about a decade and growing. Now states have concealed carry and welfare to work programs (like Wisconsin). Furthermore, have you noticed that the liberal media stops saying "As California goes, so goes the nation" when conservative ideas like halting illegal immigration welfare or English only initiatives were passed?

[prairiebreeze]

Well said indeed Starrgaizr. Enna and I have already had the dubious pleasure on other threads. After two occurrances, it was easy to see it's far simpler to just skip over his/her posts.

Prairie

[bushfamfan]

You know what Bush really needs in an address to the nation? To list the WMD evidence and the deceit that the UN weapons inspectors went through years and years after the Gulf War, right up to this war. Saddam Hussein made numerous threats and remarks about destroying America and showed hostilities, not to mention his record of aggression. And the WMD has to be addressed sometime. I thought they were finding SOMETHING, but they are not hinting at anything anymore and seem to be ignoring that part of it. The question is-if Iraq doesn't have them now, where'd they go because we know he had a program going. Of course, we gave him over a yr. to prepare for this so what happened in that time?

[GopherIt]

Thanks for your good post. The claim by America's enemies, foreign and domestic, that WMD was the causus belli, and hence the 'failure' to find them proves that the president 'lied' is a classic attempt to rewrite history and to re-frame the argument. To those I've engaged who have that argument, I've insisted that that they re-read Powell's speech last year which stated the litany of reasons, before I'll listen to another word from them. That speech is here, and I hope you'll find it useful. AuntEmma: take a leap.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm

[ladyinred]

Amen to your post! Many of us are writing to and calling Homeland Security about the horrific law passed here for exactly the reason you said, and they are not happy about it either! The excuse used by the democrats here is that it is a felony for illegals to register to vote and check the square that says they are a citizen! As if they care!!!! It is not legal for them to be here in the first place! This is insanity!

BTW: I happen to know a certain foreigner here right now who possesses 2 drivers licenses and 2 social security cards! They are easily purchased afterall, of course now, they can just go right into the DMV and pick them up for 10 bucks!

[T. Jefferson]

The war was sold to the American people based on the fact that Saddam had wmd's

Nice try, we didn't sell a war. Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions for 12 years. He bought himself a war. Violate a peace treaty, and you'll be removed, provided the President is Republican. WMD sales pitch nonsense is the Democrat carnival sideshow spin.

[Starrgaizr]

The other thing about the shrill dems is that if the WMDs aren't found and that means the war was wrong, do they suggest of we find Saddam that we dust him off and set him up back in his palace with an official apology? If there is no justification for reinstating Saddam (and why not?) then there was no legitimacy for him to govern in the first place. The idea of "sovereignty" without the consent of the governed was a distasteful necessity during the cold war, but why should we respect hereditary despots like Assad and Uday and the rest? If you wouldn't restore Saddam if he is found, then you should clam up.

[ladyinred]

The Starr report was about your slimey president dear, who could have FIRED Starr anytime he wanted. Thing is, he didn't want to, as he controlled the information being put out there.
Go get educated before you open your mouth.

[prairiebreeze]

It seems to me that this is the hypocrisy of the libs at this point. They crab and whine about a supposed (in their minds) lack of post-war plan, and worry about costs etc. but when pressed on it they agree that we can't back off now. (At least the Dims I saw in the post-speech analysis admitted that much.)

It's just a damned shame that they are more concerned with their own power than with what's good for the nation. And that the media licks their feet.

Prairie

[Sparta]

Bush gave a pretty good speech tonight. He laid out his case well and restated Iraq's role in the War on Terror. He also stated that the US will not leave until victory has been accomplished.

However, I see Bush getting only a few points bounce in the polls. This speech was not intended to gain new support, but only to reassure supporters about the righteousness of our involvement in Iraq.

[ThePythonicCow]

do they suggest if we find Saddam that we dust him off and set him up back in his palace with an official apology?

Well, I'm sure they'd agree with the apology bit.

Of course it would be wrong of us to set Saddam back up in power; who are we to say who should be governing Iraq?

You see it's not about what we should do, nor is it about what's right and wrong.

With the leftists, its about being weak, because being strong is dangerous. They trust those who speak at length and carry a short bent stick.

They'd replace the engines in our ships with oars, to lessen the risk of (or at least speed of) going astray. Engines are dangerous.

... guess if you lack a moral compass, power is dangerous ...

[Starrgaizr]

Right. Why not "bring the troops home" and let Saddam return in triumph if the war was a mistake? They are the hypocrites.

[ThePythonicCow]

However, I see Bush getting only a few points bounce in the polls.

Probably so. Which will provide the liberal media with a grant chance to brand the speech a failure and a disappointment to Republican chief schemer Karl Rove, because "it didn't provide the hoped for recovery in Bush's rapidly falling support ..."

don't own no TV, don't subscribe to no papers ... who needs 'em when you've got the FreeRepublic !!!

[HardStarboard]

>>> The only issue that might be a problem is that he called for a multinational division to be put under AMERICAN control.<<<

That would only be "a problem" if he really wanted to have multiple nations involved, wouldn't it? And for my part, neither do I!

[Sparta]

Which will provide the liberal media with a grant chance to brand the speech a failure and a disappointment to Republican chief schemer Karl Rove, because "it didn't provide the hoped for recovery in Bush's rapidly falling support ..."

If Bush's poll numbers just hold steady, this speech did it's job, regardless of what the left and the isolationists say.

[Starrgaizr]

Being strong isn't just dangerous to them, it's wrong. They feel guilty that we have a strong and wealthy country. It fitss right in with multiculturalism and moral equivalence. Every culture and people and nation-state is equally valid and worthy. Therefore, we should never make anyone else change or even influence them to be more like us.

Today's liberals are closet dictators. They just don't realize it. But they like the French have a soft spot for dictators -- just think of Fidel. The world would be perfect in their minds if only they could be or pick the right benevolent dictator.

Liberals are fonder of Fidel Castro than they are of George Bush -- and they view the former as a more legitimate head of state. That is a frightening thing. I loathed Clinton, but I cherish the process that allowed my misguided fellow citizens to elect him twice. When did liberal democrats go so wrong that they stopped championing human rights EXCEPT when there is no national interest in doing so? They are ashamed of being Americans and of America's power. Viet Nam made this generation of liberal leaders lunatics. They deserve political oblivion.

[ThePythonicCow]

Being strong isn't just dangerous to them, it's wrong

Yup. Sad.

Sometimes I long a bit for the innocence of my youth, in which none of what you wrote would have made a damn bit of sense to me.

Now it's all too real.

Viet Nam made this generation of liberal leaders lunatics

Though their roots go back for generations, yes, the Anti-War Movement was a formative time for this generation of leftists.

Last night I was reading, and listening on the radio, to some of the conspiracy theories surrounding LBJ's purported involvement in JKF's assasination. The baby boomers were the first generation raised in such wide spread leisure, free from day-to-day concerns of basic needs, and free of much of the education in our nations history and form of government that had been the foundation of our citizenship until then. Not surprisingly, many of them turned on their elders, loathing, despising, and distrusting them.

They might have actually been half right about LBJ. He may well have been worthy of their distrust. It wouldn't surprise me if the allegations that he had JFK killed were true. He may well have been a deeply dishonest person.

If you read enough of that conspiracy stuff, you can come away glad that Bush has chosen "a new tone", and avoided trying to call to justice his predecessors (Clinton, in particular). If the depth of treachery, murder and power lust is as bad some claim, and if Bush had attacked it head on, he'd be gone by now.