Thursday, October 06, 2005


Editor's note:

The following is the text of W's recent speech to the American People dated 6 October 2005. The President's delusions and/or prevarications appear in black. Our corrections appear in true blue italics immediately after the President's all to frequent breaks from reality and honesty.

Kyle "A.J." Kilpatrick

by Kyle, Brandon, Enlightenment, and Advocate 1

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. (Applause.) Thank you all. Please be seated. (They're not children, you yutz!) (Applause.) Thank you for the warm welcome. I'm honored once again to be with the supporters of the National Endowment for Democracy. Since the day President Ronald Reagan (yawnnnnn) set out the vision for this Endowment, the world has seen the swiftest advance of democratic institutions in history. And Americans are proud to have played our role in this great story.

Our nation stood guard on tense borders; we spoke for the rights of dissidents and the hopes of exile; sometimes we aided right wing dictatorships; sometimes we overthrew democractically elected governments; we aided the rise of new democracies on the ruins of tyranny. And all the cost and sacrifice of that struggle has been worth it, because, from Latin America to Europe to Asia, we've gained the peace that freedom brings.

Excuse me, Mister Resident, but it was the Reagen and Bush 1 Administrations which had a huge hand in creating the Islamic terrorism to which you are so foolishly and deceptively trying to link to Iraq. Need we remind you of the fact that Osama Bin Laden was seen as an Anti-Communist "freedom fighter" while he was waging a terrorist campaign against the Soviet Invaders of Afghanistan during the late 1970s and 1980s? Just thought you might like to know, Sir, that it was your daddy who--at least in part-- helped make Osama Bin Laden the danger that he is today.

In this new century, freedom is once again assaulted by enemies determined to roll back generations of democratic progress. (Is this a self-criticism of the "W" Administration itself?) Once again, we're responding to a global campaign of fear with a global campaign of freedom. And once again, we will see freedom's victory. (Applause.)

Vin, I want to thank you for inviting me back. And thank you for the short introduction. (Laughter.) I appreciate Carl Gershman. I want to welcome former Congressman Dick Gephardt, who is a board member of the National Endowment for Democracy. It's good to see you, Dick. And I appreciate Chris Cox, who is the Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and a board member for the National Endowment of Democracy, for being here, as well. I want to thank all the other board members.

I appreciate the Secretary of State, Condi Rice, who has joined us -- alongside her, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld. Thank you all for being here. I'm proud, as well, that the newly sworn-in Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the first Marine ever to hold that position, is with us today -- General Peter Pace. (Applause.) I thank the members of the Diplomatic Corps who are here, as well.

Get on with it already!

Recently our country observed the fourth anniversary of a great evil, and looked back on a great turning point in our history. We still remember a proud city covered in smoke and ashes, a fire across the Potomac, and passengers who spent their final moments on Earth fighting the enemy. We still remember the men who rejoiced in every death, and Americans in uniform rising to duty. (Americans in uninform rising to duty--that's more than you did, bucko!) And we remember the calling that came to us on that day, and continues to this hour: We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire, or rest, until the war on terror is won.(Applause.)

Yes, but what you seem to forget is that our calling was to terminate the brutal regime in Afghanistan, which President Reagen and your father helped to create!

The images and experience of September the 11th are unique for Americans. (To the degree that you continue to exploit them without shame, decency or embarassment.) Yet the evil of that morning has reappeared on other days, in other places -- in Mombasa, and Casablanca, and Riyadh, and Jakarta, and Istanbul, and Madrid, and Beslan, and Taba, and Netanya, and Baghdad, and elsewhere. (Yes--even after you kept inisting that your foolish, self-defeating policies were making the world safer!) In the past few months, we've seen a new terror offensive with attacks on London, and Sharm el-Sheikh, and a deadly bombing in Bali once again. All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random and isolated acts of madness; innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train, or worked in the wrong building, or checked into the wrong hotel. Yet while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane. (Meaning what? That your policy in Iraq has created more terrorism?)

Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. (Some call it American Imperialism descending to the level of the enemy it fears the most.) Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus -- and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics. (The same might be said about the Radical Christian Right which is trying to undermine Constitutional provisions here in the United States in an attempt to create a world wide Christian/American Empire.)

Many militants are part of global, borderless terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda -- paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, and the Philippines, and Pakistan, and Chechnya, and Kashmir, and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells, inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for our world. ( I'm sure that at some point you will compare this war to World War II.--as you have in the past. But Mister Resident, the type of enemy you just described is nothing, nothing, like what we saw in Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan. Nor is it like a Communist State. The enemies we fought during World War II and during the Cold War were totalitarian regimes with highly centralized political power. You have just confessed that military solutions may not be effective against an enemy which is dramatically different in structure from our World War II foes. Indeed, Mister resident, you have now contradicted yourself. You have just pointed out a major set of differences between our World War II foes and the foes your daddy helped to create. Which makes us wonder--do you ever think about what you do think about?)

We know the vision of the radicals because they've openly stated it -- in videos, and audiotapes, and letters, and declarations, and websites. First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions. Al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, has called on Muslims to dedicate, quote, their "resources, sons and money to driving the infidels out of their lands." Their tactic to meet this goal has been consistent for a quarter-century: They hit us, and expect us to run. They want us to repeat the sad history of Beirut in 1983, and Mogadishu in 1993 -- only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences. ( Again, Mister Resident, you fail to self-examine. Are you not calling on our young people to fight and die? The only difference sir, is that while Osama, evil though he may be, has the honesty to admit that he wants young people to die, your administration depends on an all volunteer military which is using underhanded recruiting techniques in American Schools. Moreover, the Army's latest TV ads look like paid propaganda for an ROTC summer camp. Perhaps the United States Army would like to use lines such as "SIGN UP TO DIE IN IRAQ?" in future commercials? Just a suggestion, Mister Resident.)

Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments. (And, dear sir, just who has made this possible? Saddam Hussein was a butcher, that is true, but let's not forget that he was Mister Reagen's butcher, your daddy's butcher, during the Iran/Iraq war. And I shall repeat a previous point. You, Mister Resident, have turned Iraq into a training ground for international terrorists by removing the butcher who, for all intents and purposes, provided a certain degree of stability in that particular area of the Mid East.Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. Now they've set their sights on Iraq. Bin Laden has stated: "The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries. It's either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation." The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror. (Yes , now that you have blundered into the war and proven that we are unable to provide the required stability.)

Third, the militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. With greater economic and military and political power, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people, and to blackmail our government into isolation. (I will only repeat the central point which you continue to miss--your invasion created the necessary instability in which that could happen. Do you ever, ever, take personal responsibility for anything?)

Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. (Or perhaps impossible, but you can't quite admit that, can you?)Well, they are fanatical and extreme -- and they should not be dismissed. Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, "We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life." And the civilized world knows very well that other fanatics in history, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, consumed whole nations in war and genocide before leaving the stage of history. Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously -- and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.

Defeating the militant network is difficult, because it thrives, like a parasite, on the suffering and frustration of others. (In much the same way, you, Mister Resident, have thrived on fear.) The radicals exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization, in which someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution. They exploit resentful and disillusioned young men and women, recruiting them through radical mosques as the pawns of terror. And they exploit modern technology to multiply their destructive power. Instead of attending faraway training camps, recruits can now access online training libraries to learn how to build a roadside bomb, or fire a rocket-propelled grenade -- and this further spreads the threat of violence, even within peaceful democratic societies.

The influence of Islamic radicalism is also magnified by helpers and enablers. They have been sheltered by authoritarian regimes, allies of convenience like Syria and Iran, that share the goal of hurting America and moderate Muslim governments, and use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West and America, and on the Jews. These radicals depend on front operations, such as corrupted charities, which direct money to terrorist activity. They're strengthened by those who aggressively fund the spread of radical, intolerant versions of Islam in unstable parts of the world. The militants are aided, as well, by elements of the Arab news media that incite hatred and anti-Semitism, that feed conspiracy theories and speak of a so-called American "war on Islam" -- with seldom a word about American action to protect Muslims in Afghanistan, and Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq.
Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001 -- and al Qaeda attacked us anyway. (This Mister resident, is a bald faced lie. Once again, you are attempting to paste Osama Bin Laden's beard on Saddam Hussein, and it just doesn't work. The delusions that you note to support this fanatasy are next to meaningless. The truth of the matter was that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were deadly enemies. Just how in the Sam Hill they end up as allies is beyond the understanding of a rational mind. But then again, who said the Bush Administration was in any way rational?) The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more than 180 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan. (You know as well as we do that Russia has her own problems with Islamic militants--or rather separatists-- in Chechnya. Do you really think the American people are a stupid as you and your cabinet are?)

Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago (I don't suppose you ever heard the old saying by George Santayana--you know, the one about people learning history of they don't have to relive it?) In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.
On the contrary: They target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory. (This, regretably, reveals the one-dimensional thinking of this administration. The fact of the matter is that all forms of human behavior, even those at a national level, even those involving large groups of people, are based on motives. Grievances, my dear Mister Resident, are motives.)

The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet, in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century. Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses. Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, "what is good for them and what is not." And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers. He assures them that his -- that this is the road to paradise -- though he never offers to go along for the ride.

(Note the contradiction from past rhetoric in the above paragraph. One minute the terrorists are like Nazis. The next they're loosely organized like an multi-national corporation. And now they're like Communists. Can this man ever make up his mind about anything?"

Like the ideology of communism, (Joe McCarthy rides again!) our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision. (As you have done with our soldiers in your War of Choice?) And this explains their cold-blooded contempt for human life. We've seen it in the murders of Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, and Margaret Hassan, and many others. In a courtroom in the Netherlands, the killer of Theo Van Gogh turned to the victim's grieving mother and said, "I do not feel your pain -- because I believe you are an infidel." And in spite of this veneer of religious rhetoric, most of the victims claimed by the militants are fellow Muslims.

When 25 Iraqi children are killed in a bombing, or Iraqi teachers are executed at their school, or hospital workers are killed caring for the wounded, this is murder, pure and simple -- the total rejection of justice and honor and morality and religion. These militants are not just the enemies of America, or the enemies of Iraq, they are the enemies of Islam and the enemies of humanity. (Applause.) We have seen this kind of shameless cruelty before, in the heartless zealotry that led to the gulags, and the Cultural Revolution, and the killing fields.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies. In truth they have endless ambitions of imperial domination, (like you do in Iraq?) and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves. Under their rule, they have banned books, and desecrated historical monuments, and brutalized women. They seek to end dissent in every form, and to control every aspect of life, and to rule the soul, itself. While promising a future of justice and holiness, the terrorists are preparing for a future of oppression and misery.

In many ways the last two sentences are a self-description of the Bush Administration's intentions here at home and abroad. The last I knew, many conservative Christians believe that women should be subserviant to men. The Far Right is in a constant war against reproduction rights, including the right to use [now] legal contraception. As for censorship...How many times have we seen right wing goons burning records and CDs to stomp out the evils or rock and roll? Why do born again fanatics often resort to stealing "offensive" materials from public libraries? Why are public and school libraries so frequently threatened with attempts at censorship from self-imposed, right wing moralists? For that matter, why do we not concentrate on the American Taliban here at home befgore we find ourselves in a Christianized version of Afghanistan? The oppression you fail to fight at home--read the Bush Regime--may be tyranical in its own right.)

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy is dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and decadent. (This from the party and president which practices economic Social Darwinism as a virtue?) Zarqawi has said that Americans are, quote, "the most cowardly of God's creatures." (Well, sir, you did skip out on Vietnam, so know that at least one American is a coward.)But let's be clear: It is cowardice that seeks to kill children and the elderly with car bombs, and cuts the throat of a bound captive, and targets worshipers leaving a mosque. It is courage that liberated more than 50 million people. It is courage that keeps an untiring vigil against the enemies of a rising democracy. And it is courage in the cause of freedom that once again will destroy the enemies of freedom. (Might the same be said about your daddy and President Raygun when they were supporting right wing death sqauds in Central America?)(Applause.)

And Islamic radicalism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure. By fearing freedom -- by distrusting human creativity, and punishing change, and limiting the contributions of half the population -- this ideology undermines the very qualities that make human progress possible, and human societies successful. (But Mister Resident, the same might be said of the Christian Right--which is neither Christian nor right about anything--here at home. Do not many of your supporters have problems with the right to privacy? Are you not trampling on Constitutional liberties in the names of safety and security? Is your administration not one of the most reactionary political entities to come down the pike in decades? Not to mention one of the most secretive? It seems to me, Mister Resident, that this is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.) The only thing modern about the militants' vision is the weapons they want to use against us. The rest of their grim vision is defined by a warped image of the past -- a declaration of war on the idea of progress, itself. (Of course, the same might be said about right wing, strict constructionists who want to read the Constitution as it was read in 1787--when women and 18-year-olds could not vote; when Blacks were counted as 3/5 human, and, when state legislatures elected by our United States Senators) And whatever lies ahead in the war against this ideology, the outcome is not in doubt: Those who despise freedom and progress have condemned themselves to isolation, decline, and collapse. Because free peoples believe in the future, free peoples will own the future. (Could it be that you and your ilk have, by this particular statement, excluded yourselves?) (Applause.)

We didn't ask for this global struggle, but we're answering history's call with confidence, and a comprehensive strategy. (Another lie, Mister Resident. You all but ran on a platform in which you promised to go after Saddam Hussein. The Downing Street Memos prove that you were looking for at least a part of this conflict, the one in Iraq. Indeed, you dropped the ball on the required war, the one in Afghanistan, to go after the man who threatened your daddy. Or was ot to create a Century for a New American Empire? Oh well. What ever. You did not ask for half of the struggle--the one which you are neglecting in Afghanistan. But you did ask for Iraq.)

Defeating a broad and adaptive network requires patience, constant pressure, and strong partners in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, Asia and beyond. (If you had been patient and had your ducks in line militarily, and actually taken some advice from your own military you wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.)

Working with these partners, we're disrupting militant conspiracies, destroying their ability to make war, and working to give millions in a troubled region of the world a hopeful alternative to resentment and violence. (Ah yes. The Grand Coalition. The last I knew they were bailing out like rats from a sinking ship. I believe we have enough coalition partners now to form a baseball team--or am I being generous?)

First, we're determined to prevent the attacks of terrorist networks before they occur. We're reorganizing our government to give this nation a broad and coordinated homeland defense. (Translated into modern English the bloody damned terrorists have succeeded--you are reacting to their tactcs, not taking proactive measures.) We're reforming our intelligence agencies for the incredibly difficult task of tracking enemy activity, based on information that often comes in small fragments from widely scattered sources, here and abroad. (Hope you did a better job than you did with rearranging FEMA!)

We're (re)acting, along with the governments from many countries, to (form a baseball tournament)destroy the terrorist networks and incapacitate their leaders. Together, we've killed or captured nearly all of those directly responsible for the September the 11th attacks; as well as some of bin Laden's most senior deputies; al Qaeda managers and operatives in more than 24 countries; the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, who was chief of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf; the mastermind of the Jakarta and the first Bali bombings; a senior Zarqawi terrorist planner, who was planning attacks in Turkey; and many of al Qaeda's senior leaders in Saudi Arabia. (Some things never change. In November 1940 at a gala banquet in Berlin, Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim Von Ribbentrop told his Russian counterpart, Vyacheslav Molotov that England had already been beaten. During the banquet, the British Royal Air Force decided to bomb Berlin. Those in attendance went to a bomb shelter, prompting Molotov to ask "If that is so, why are we in this shelter and whose are these bombs which fall?" Many years later, when the "beaten Iraqis" failed to throw flowers and candy at American invaders "W Incorporated" and our corporate dominated-media tried to cloud the issue with meaningless rhetoric about restored electricity and rebuilt schools. Prompting any SANE American to ask: "If these so- called accomplishments are so profound, and if the Iraq is so damned secure, then whose mortars and car bombs are blowing up our soldiers?")

Overall, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least ten serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States. We've stopped at least five more al Qaeda efforts to case targets in the United States, or infiltrate operatives into our country. Because of this steady progress, the enemy is wounded -- but the enemy is still capable of global operations. Our commitment is clear: We will not relent until the organized international terror networks are exposed and broken, and their leaders held to account for their acts of murder. (Yes, yes, we have turned another corner. Someone should tell these people that if you keep turning he corner in the same direction long enough you eventually end up where you started from.)

Second, we're determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes, and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation. The United States, working with Great Britain, Pakistan, and other nations, has exposed and disrupted a major black-market operation in nuclear technology led by A.Q. Khan. Libya has abandoned its chemical and nuclear weapons programs, as well as long-range ballistic missiles. And in the last year, America and our partners in the Proliferation Security Initiative have stopped more than a dozen shipments of suspected weapons technology, including equipment for Iran's ballistic missile program.

This progress has reduced the danger to free nations, but has not removed it. Evil men who want to use horrendous weapons against us are working in deadly earnest to gain them. And we're working urgently to keep weapons of mass destruction out of their hands. (This sounds all right on the surface, but there is an element of irony here. The Administration is hardly in favor of any kind of nuclear disarmament. It has however, advoated a nuclear, first strike option and talked about bunker busting nuclear warheads. So, we can't exactly say that our Doctor Strangelove Administration is opposed to nuclear devastation.)

Third, we're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes. State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they deserve no patience from the victims of terror. The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally as guilty of murder. (Applause.) Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account. (What is this? A lowering of the standards which might prevent future invasions? This is too easy. A president could merely claim that a nation is protecting terrorists and launch a first strike. It SOUNDS reasonable but it is actually another way to concentrate more hands into the office of the United States President.)

Fourth, we're determined to deny the militants control of any nation, which they would use as a home base and a launching pad for terror. For this reason, we're fighting beside our Afghan partners against remnants of the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies. For this reason, we're working with President Musharraf to oppose and isolate the militants in Pakistan. And for this reason, we're fighting the regime remnants and terrorists in Iraq. The terrorist goal is to overthrow a rising democracy, claim a strategic country as a haven for terror, destabilize the Middle East, and strike America and other free nations with ever-increasing violence. Our goal is to defeat the terrorists and their allies at the heart of their power -- and so we will defeat the enemy in Iraq.

Our coalition, along with our Iraqi allies, is moving forward with a comprehensive, specific military plan. Area by area, city by city, we're conducting offensive operations to clear out enemy forces, and leaving behind Iraqi units to prevent the enemy from returning. Within these areas, we're working for tangible improvements in the lives of Iraqi citizens. (We've been hearing this song and dance for more than two years now, and it sounds just as disingenuous now as it did to begin with.)

And we're aiding the rise of an elected government that unites the Iraqi people against extremism and violence. This work involves great risk for Iraqis, and for Americans and coalition forces. Wars are not won without sacrifice -- and this war will require more sacrifice, more time, and more resolve. (That's right, Mister Resident. But for your war of choice, only the lower classes are being asked to sacrifice. In World War II we raised taxes. We bought War Bonds. We conserved. We recycled everything from rubber and metal to fabric. We rationd gas, sugar, eggs, iron etc. In this half baked [mis]administration we funded an expensive war, gave tax cuts to the rich, and did nothing to promote conservation until a Hurricane threatened our national fuel supply And now they want to cut programs for the weakest and most desperate of our fellow citizens. From an economic view you must wonder--just who does Bush see as the enemy? Terrorists? Or lower class Americans and minorities?

The terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we've ever faced. They're unconstrained by any notion of our common humanity, or by the rules of warfare. No one should underestimate the difficulties ahead, nor should they overlook the advantages we bring to this fight.

Some observers look at the job ahead and adopt a self-defeating pessimism. It is not justified. With every random bombing and with every funeral of a child, it becomes more clear that the extremists are not patriots, or resistance fighters -- they are murderers at war with the Iraqi people, themselves.

In contrast, the elected leaders of Iraq are proving to be strong and steadfast. By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress -- from tyranny, to liberation, to national elections, to the writing of a constitution, in the space of two-and-a-half years. With our help, the Iraqi military is gaining new capabilities and new confidence with every passing month. At the time of our Fallujah operations 11 months ago, there were only a few Iraqi army battalions in combat. Today there are more than 80 Iraqi army battalions fighting the insurgency alongside our forces. Progress isn't easy, but it is steady. And no fair-minded person should ignore, deny, or dismiss the achievements of the Iraqi people.

Some observers question the durability of democracy in Iraq. They underestimate the power and appeal of freedom. We've heard it suggested that Iraq's democracy must be on shaky ground because Iraqis are arguing with each other. But that's the essence of democracy: making your case, debating with those who you disagree -- who disagree, building consensus by persuasion, and answering to the will of the people. We've heard it said that the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds of Iraq are too divided to form a lasting democracy. In fact, democratic federalism is the best hope for unifying a diverse population, because a federal constitutional system respects the rights and religious traditions of all citizens, while giving all minorities, including the Sunnis, a stake and a voice in the future of their country. It is true that the seeds of freedom have only recently been planted in Iraq -- but democracy, when it grows, is not a fragile flower; it is a healthy, sturdy tree. (Applause.)
As Americans, we believe that people everywhere -- everywhere -- prefer freedom to slavery, and that liberty, once chosen, improves the lives of all. And so we're confident, as our coalition and the Iraqi people each do their part, Iraqi democracy will succeed.

(Listening to this guy talk about democracy is a little like listening to Typhoid Mary give a lecture on public health. Remember the Republican goons who stopped the ballot count in Florida? Remember the fact that he was SELECTED by our own Supreme Court? Yeah. I do too. Moreover, the issue that Bush fails to address here is that American troops may actually contribute to the instability that we now see in Iraq. Bush has yet to understand that the Iraqis had not real experience with democracy. Nor did they experience the historical movements which led to Western Democracy. They did not have a Reformation. They did not have an Enlightenment. Likewise, Bush failed to understand that Iraq had basically been thrown together by Europeans with little regard for ethnic background. What you have today is an extrmely tribalistic society which practices vengence as a virtue. Every time an innocent Iraqi [please don't tell us this never happens] you are, for all intents and puproses, creating more terrorists. Unless of course these innocent victims have no brothers, children, cousins, fathers etc, but somehow I don't think that is the case.) As for Iraqi government, what can I say? This wonderful Constitution Bush keeps touting is hardly fair to women. It has major flaws, and the argument over federalism is no where near settled.)

Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. This is a dangerous illusion, refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people, and its resources? ("A simple question." Perhaps the question is too simple? You wouldn't be worried about Bin Laden if you hadn't convinced yourself that the Iraqi people would throw candy and flowers. Perhaps the Demander and Thief thinks it is better to slowly bleed ourselves dry while the violence escalates on a daily basis? Another example of "faith based thought" instead of rational thinking.)

Having removed a dictator who hated free peoples, we will not stand by as a new set of killers, dedicated to the destruction of our own country, seizes control of Iraq by violence. (Another admission that you removed a source of stability with no plan to replace it. Of course, if you had only decapitated the Iraqi Army, purged it of the worst Ba'athists and used the Iraqi military for your own purposes, you might have seen a better outcome. Instead, you sent the army home with no pay and created even more hostility towards the American-led invasion force. In short--you made an already unstable situation even more unstable.)

There's always a temptation, in the middle of a long struggle, to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world, and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder. This would be a pleasant world, but it's not the world we live in. (And in what "La-La Land do you reside, Mister Resident?)

The enemy is never tired (even though our soldiers are exhausted) never sated, never content with yesterday's brutality. This enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation to greater violence. In Iraq, there is no peace without victory. We will keep our nerve and we will win that victory. (Applause.) (Empty, meangless rhetoric--right up there with Hitler in the bunker screaming "THE WAR IS NOT LOST!" while Russian troops poured ionto Germany.)

The fifth element of our strategy in the war on terror is to deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East. This is a difficult and long-term project, yet there's no alternative to it. Our future and the future of that region are linked. If the broader Middle East is left to grow in bitterness, if countries remain in misery, while radicals stir the resentments of millions, then that part of the world will be a source of endless conflict and mounting danger, and for our generation and the next. If the peoples of that region are permitted to choose their own destiny, and advance by their own energy and by their participation as free men and women, then the extremists will be marginalized, and the flow of violent radicalism to the rest of the world will slow, and eventually end. By standing for the hope and freedom of others, we make our own freedom more secure. (And what would you do if your democratic Iraqis decide they want stronger ties with Iran? Would you be content to see the Iraqi south anex itself to Iran? That is a risk here--you DO know that. Don't you?)

America is making this stand in practical ways. We're encouraging our friends in the Middle East, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to take the path of reform, to strengthen their own societies in the fight against terror by respecting the rights and choices of their own people.
(Same question as above.)

We're standing with dissidents and exiles against oppressive regimes, because we know that the dissidents of today will be the democratic leaders of tomorrow. We're making our case through public diplomacy, stating clearly and confidently our belief in self-determination, and the rule of law, and religious freedom, and equal rights for women, beliefs that are right and true in every land, and in every culture. (Applause.) (Of course there have been times--like during your daddy's reign with President Raygun,--when we were associated with repressive regimes.)

As we do our part to confront radicalism, we know that the most vital work will be done within the Islamic world, itself. And this work has begun. Many Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism, often citing Chapter 5, Verse 32 of the Koran, which states that killing an innocent human being is like killing all humanity, and saving the life of one person is like saving all of humanity. After the attacks in London on July the 7th, an imam in the United Arab Emirates declared, "Whoever does such a thing is not a Muslim, nor a religious person." The time has come for all responsible Islamic leaders to join in denouncing an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends, and defiles a noble faith. (But Sir, the Koran, like the Bible contradicts itself. There are chapters which promote violence, repression, and second class citizenship for women--as the Radical Christian Right knows all to well. Besides, our actions tend to speak louder than words.)

Many people of the Muslim faith are proving their commitment at great personal risk. Everywhere we have engaged the fight against extremism, Muslim allies have stood up and joined the fight, becoming partners in a vital cause. Afghan troops are in combat against Taliban remnants. (Yes, and the President is the Mayor of Kabul; the poppies are back, and the warlords are back in power. This is not progress--it is feudalism after you dropped the ball.)

Iraqi soldiers are sacrificing to defeat al Qaeda in their own country (As have more than 2000 American soldiers--not to mention thousands more left with permanent disabilities and injuries.) )These brave citizens know the stakes -- the survival of their own liberty, the future of their own region, the justice and humanity of their own tradition -- and that United States of America is proud to stand beside them. (Applause.)

With the rise of a deadly enemy and the unfolding of a global ideological struggle, our time in history will be remembered for new challenges and unprecedented dangers. And yet the fight we have joined is also the current expression of an ancient struggle, between those who put their faith in dictators, and those who put their faith in the people. Throughout history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision -- and they end up alienating decent people across the globe. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that regimented societies are strong and pure -- until those societies collapse in corruption and decay. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent -- until the day that free men and women defeat them. (Winston Church said it better in many ways, but since you seem to have contradicted years of Saddam equals Hitler rhetoric, you really can't go there, can you?)
We don't know the course of our own struggle -- the course our own struggle will take -- or the sacrifices that might lie ahead. We do know, however, that the defense of freedom is worth our sacrifice. We do know the love of freedom is the mightiest force of history. And we do know the cause of freedom will prevail. (Applause). (Excuse, me Sire, but which way do you want it? This entire paragraph is self contradictory.

May God bless you. (Applause.)

My God, that the best the Demander and Thief can do? This is old wine in a new bottle. Only now the wine has turned into vinegar.

1 comment:

Daniel Gallagher said...

I can't believe you did the whole speech.

There wasn't a single new word in the speech. Not an original phrase that we couldn't have found in any number of previous speeches. In fact your deconstruction was more interesting than the original text.

Of course we had another interesting turn of events which may or may not be coincidences. On the same day shrub gave the speech, we lost 6 Marines in a Road side bombing. And then we had another "terrorist alert," which Homeland Security has not taken too seriously, but which the Republican Mayor of New York is using to help boost the President's sagging approval ratings. The interesting thing about this is that it can be argued from two different directions. It could be argued that we have another terrorism alert at a time when Shrub's approval rating is at an all time low. In which case we could argue opportunism and media manipulation. On the other hand, if there is a legitimate threat and if some kind of incident does take place (in New York or elsewhere) we could just as easily argue that his war on terror has proven to be an outright failure. I was especially interested by the fact that some of the initial reports claimed that this information supposedly came from outside Baghdad. Again, we have no way of knowing this. For that matter the story itself could simply be a false news flash placed in the media to help Bush regain his footing. Either way the speech, the six deaths, and the terrorism alert (which may or may not be legitimate) are nothing more than more proof that this administration finds a way to ruin everything it touches.