Debating the President
Many thanks to Marty at Speckblog for providing the transcript to George Dubyah Bush's speech that he gave to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
(See here) where Marty provides the transcript.
I want to open that it is a good thing that our President is not paid by the hour for speaking. We pay the man by the year, and if this speech is an example of how our money is spent, we are better off giving him a yearly salary and avoiding having him punch a time clock.
I will excuse you if you find it difficult to read the entire thing. If you are bold, make sure you have a fresh cup of coffee before you begin. Evin stalwart Republicans probably will nod off while they try and pick out the points contained in the long, very long, speech. Let's put it this way. Dubyah should have waited until the end of his Presidency and then included this speech as a chapter in his memoirs or something. Put a couple chapters together and he could have enough to finance his retirement back in Crawford with a book deal.
Now I am going to admit to not having read the whole transcript myself. I did read enough of it to realize that it must have been an effort by Dubyah to sing to the choir and not convince someone like me to agree with his viewpoint. Let me quote him:
I do not know about you, but I was pissed off after 9-11. When it came time to invade Afghanistan to dethrone the Taliban, I was screaming for blood. As Dubyah wisely conducted the war, I was impatient that the blood was not yet flowing. I DEMANDED blood. I DARED anyone in the world to stand against the righteous revenge that I thought was owed. Actually, I am now going to sing the praise of George Dubyah Bush. I wanted to see fireworks, and in Afghanistan Dubyah showed leadership. He showed we could obtain our objectives without a Normandy style invasion and massive loss of life.
I also remember how the entire world stood beside my country and mourned the loss of our citizens. Around the world candle light vigils were held. The French Newspaper Le Monde even screamed "We are all Americans". NATO, as it never EVER had before, invoked the common defense aspects of the treaty in response to the attacks on America on Sept 11th, 2001.
The entire world was with us. Every soul that had access to the media watched as America got her revenge in Afghanistan.
But after victory in Afghanistan? Well the blood lust was sated. If continuing hostilities, a long slog, was only necessary in Afghanistan, America had the support of the "entire" world in the effort that was required.
But America, under the leadership of Dubyah, was not satisfied with victory in Afghanistan. Under international opposition, and even internal American public opposition (Dubyah never won even 50% support of the invasion from the American people prior to the invasion - that is if the proposed invasion would be conducted without a UN sanction) Dubyah lead us into the invasion of Iraq.
Dubyah says: "Since the attacks of September the 11th, we have been on the offense." Is it possible that we have been a little bit too much offensive?
Dubyah claims the front line of the "War on Terrorism" is now being conducted in Iraq. Yeah, that is probably a truthful statement. But also the truth is that the front line could have been restricted to Afghanistan. In Afghanistan we could have enjoyed worldwide support on the "front line" instead of mucking up the waters in Iraq where we stand alone.
Who is responsible for such pro-American feelings after 9-11 becoming the overwhelming anti-American world wide sentiment now evident?
Who is to blame?
(See here) where Marty provides the transcript.
I want to open that it is a good thing that our President is not paid by the hour for speaking. We pay the man by the year, and if this speech is an example of how our money is spent, we are better off giving him a yearly salary and avoiding having him punch a time clock.
I will excuse you if you find it difficult to read the entire thing. If you are bold, make sure you have a fresh cup of coffee before you begin. Evin stalwart Republicans probably will nod off while they try and pick out the points contained in the long, very long, speech. Let's put it this way. Dubyah should have waited until the end of his Presidency and then included this speech as a chapter in his memoirs or something. Put a couple chapters together and he could have enough to finance his retirement back in Crawford with a book deal.
Now I am going to admit to not having read the whole transcript myself. I did read enough of it to realize that it must have been an effort by Dubyah to sing to the choir and not convince someone like me to agree with his viewpoint. Let me quote him:
Since the attacks of September the 11th, we have been on the offense. I believe the best way to do our duty in securing the homeland is to stay on the offense. And we’re not alone. That’s what our fellow citizens have got to understand.So what is it that we have to understand? Or how about this quote:
As we think about this important front in the war against extremists and terrorists, it’s important for our fellow citizens to recognize this truth: If we were to leave Iraq before the job is done, the enemy would follow us home.Let us take on these two quotes together. Let us crawl back to where our mindset was back in the days following the attacks of 9-11 and ask ourselves to be as brutally honest with ourselves as we ask Dubyah to be with himself.
I do not know about you, but I was pissed off after 9-11. When it came time to invade Afghanistan to dethrone the Taliban, I was screaming for blood. As Dubyah wisely conducted the war, I was impatient that the blood was not yet flowing. I DEMANDED blood. I DARED anyone in the world to stand against the righteous revenge that I thought was owed. Actually, I am now going to sing the praise of George Dubyah Bush. I wanted to see fireworks, and in Afghanistan Dubyah showed leadership. He showed we could obtain our objectives without a Normandy style invasion and massive loss of life.
I also remember how the entire world stood beside my country and mourned the loss of our citizens. Around the world candle light vigils were held. The French Newspaper Le Monde even screamed "We are all Americans". NATO, as it never EVER had before, invoked the common defense aspects of the treaty in response to the attacks on America on Sept 11th, 2001.
The entire world was with us. Every soul that had access to the media watched as America got her revenge in Afghanistan.
But after victory in Afghanistan? Well the blood lust was sated. If continuing hostilities, a long slog, was only necessary in Afghanistan, America had the support of the "entire" world in the effort that was required.
But America, under the leadership of Dubyah, was not satisfied with victory in Afghanistan. Under international opposition, and even internal American public opposition (Dubyah never won even 50% support of the invasion from the American people prior to the invasion - that is if the proposed invasion would be conducted without a UN sanction) Dubyah lead us into the invasion of Iraq.
Dubyah says: "Since the attacks of September the 11th, we have been on the offense." Is it possible that we have been a little bit too much offensive?
Dubyah claims the front line of the "War on Terrorism" is now being conducted in Iraq. Yeah, that is probably a truthful statement. But also the truth is that the front line could have been restricted to Afghanistan. In Afghanistan we could have enjoyed worldwide support on the "front line" instead of mucking up the waters in Iraq where we stand alone.
Who is responsible for such pro-American feelings after 9-11 becoming the overwhelming anti-American world wide sentiment now evident?
Who is to blame?
posted by Little David at 2/16/2007 07:08:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home