Bush's 9/11 Speech

[monsoon]

I guess that depends upon where they serve. Everybody that I know that went to Iraq and came back says that Iraq is a lost cause and they are not accomplishing anything over there. And the military just this week said they have lost the war in the Anbar Province. This was a mistake, it serves no purpose at all, and Americans will keep dying until we leave.

More Americans have died in Iraq than died on 9/11 and I note a fact that Bush completely avoided in his speach. 3000+ dead Americans and tens of thousands more maimed and injured for life were not caused by a happy people chearing them along in their endeavors.

Anybody that supports the Bush Administration's actions in Irag is just a plain ----------. (sorry the rules won't let me say that here)

[monsoon]

A US Army outpost was hit today. 2 American soldiers where killed and 25 more were severely injured and sent to a triage center.

110 dead Iraqs were also found today. Inthe last 2 months we have seen the worst violence in Iraq to date. Does this sound like a plan to anyone given that we are in the 4th year of this damned occupation? Conditions are getting worse not better. This is Bush's "Staying the Course"

You can't deal with terrorism with platitudes of "You are either with us or against us". That isn't a military plan for anything. People are naive who believe this.

[Snowguy716]

Metro, nice to see an authority that follows the rules!

Anyway, my post has more to do with the civil liberties side of the thread.

A German pastor by the name of Martin Niemoller said this in 1945 about his country:

"In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."

Very powerful words that highlight the important of questioning those in power and dissenting, and even breaking the law if the law is truly unjust and hurts the people.

Below is what his original text, in German, said. It actually made no reference to Catholics and Protestants, but instead Social Democrats:

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,

habe ich geschwiegen;

ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,

habe ich geschwiegen;

ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,

habe ich nicht protestiert;

ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie die Juden holten,

habe ich nicht protestiert;

ich war ja kein Jude.

Als sie mich holten,

gab es keinen mehr, der protestierte.

[monsoon]

....

Very powerful words that highlight the important of questioning those in power and dissenting, and even breaking the law if the law is truly unjust and hurts the people.

Indeed. Yet Bush, Cheney, and the Republican leadership are quick to accuse anyone who disagrees with their policies as supporters of terrorists, are no better than the people who appeased the Nazis, and even worse than that, have implied they are not true Americans. This is deplorable behavior.

BTW General Colin Powel, Bush's first secretary of state, had this to say about Bush's "war on Terror".

• “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,”

This is an obvious rebuke of what Bush has done and no doubt the reason he resigned from this corrupt administration. It's a huge damnation of Bush's actions.

[Charlotte_native]

This is an obvious rebuke of what Bush has done and no doubt the reason he resigned from this corrupt administration. It's a huge damnation of Bush's actions.

Too bad his lockstep supporters won't even question why one of his own is calling him out on this. They will trash him and come up with reasons why he shouldn't be listened to. I have HUGE respect for Colin Powell and always have. Him being quiet, actually silent, after the Iraq invasion said quite a bit about who was in charge and what better informed and more experienced administration officials believed. He was shut out because he told the truth.

It is amazing how this administration can recover from anything -- even a slew of retired generals, even the conservative ones, came out stating what a mess we are in over there and they were discounted. Simply amazing.

[Snowguy716]

These statements were made by Powell after the president made a visit to Capitol Hill to get the Republicans to support a bill he proposed that redefines our interpretation of the Geneva Convention which would allow CIA interregators to use wide-ranging interrogation techniques and be protected from prosecution.. including the "water-board" which simulates drowning on terrorist suspects to get them to talk.. but is not considered torture by the Bush administration.

4 Republican senators and 11 democratic senators in the committee voted for an alternative bill that would give the terrorist SUSPECTS less rights than American citizens but more than Bush proposes... like maybe not torturing them...

Bush has whipped the house into shape. They intend to support his bill. It is pretty clear that the senate will likely not pass Bush's bill.

Bush warned the senate and responded by saying that not voting for his bill would "Put the American people in danger"..

When, in fact, people like John McCain believe that by voting for Bush's bill, it puts American soldiers in danger, because if the U.S redefines the Geneva convention, what's to stop other countries from doing that?

Bush said that he was just "seeking clarification on the geneva convention"..

John McCain responded by saying "Please, no other country has sought to change the convention for the first time in 57 years."

[monsoon]

Bush warned the senate and responded by saying that not voting for his bill would "Put the American people in danger"..

Yes we have addressed this above. Bush uses the threat of the terrorists to justify every illegal action he takes. It's nothing new. Nobody buys that anymore. He wants to torture prisoners as he claims Saddam Hussein did and of course our laws and international treaties that we have signed onto prevent this as they should.

[Pillsbury]

Bush warned the senate and responded by saying that not voting for his bill would "Put the American people in danger".

I saw a bumpersticker this morning on a car while I was getting coffee at Burger King (not bad coffee). The sticker read: "Bush/Cheney in 1984, 'War is Peace.'" Just a couple of years ago I would have laughed at that sticker (even as a Democrat). Nowadays, I'm not so sure.........

[AuLukey]

Agreed, accounts of the few hardly accounts for the many. I was aware, even while writing that post that there is bias in the military. In a way I'm glad. I'm glad that some soldiers have a positive outlook about it. I'd rather have someone fighting for us that believes in the cause rather than a person over there against their will. Fighting a losing battle seems a little Vietnam-ish. Is that where this war is headed? Are we destined to fail?

[monsoon]

Are we destined to fail?

Given that we have never been told what Victory means by the President, then how can we fail? But a whole lot of people are certainly dying in the process.

[Snowguy716]

One of my best friends is a marine and served 7 months near Fallujah in 2004/early 2005. THis is when they led a massive assault on the city.

My friend was a grunt who had to kick in the doors to the houses. A few of his good friends there were killed in combat.

He was not happy about Iraq when he came back. He was a changed person. He started to doubt whether he'd want to re-enlist.

Then he went back to Iraq in September of 2005 and was there until April of 2006. This time he was not in so much danger, but on a routine mission, an IED exploded, severely injuring several in the group and causing 2nd and 3rd degree burns on his arms, chest, and face and fracturing bones in his ankles.

The doctors told him they were simply torn ligaments and that physical therapy would fix it. His superior continued to make him do normal duty.

He now has surgery scheduled and will receive $25,000 as an injured veteran. His walking could be affected permanently by the incompetance of his superior officer and the doctors that treated him.

He can not re-enlist now and said he would not if he could. He no longer believes in the war in Iraq and has been very soured by the president and the military because of the poor treatment.

Of course this is again, only one account. But it certainly reflects what you hear from a lot of marines that are doing the fighting over there. Many army soldiers are sitting in offices and never see combat. Of course they're going to come back and butter up the picture. It all depends where you are.

My friend has seen the worst of Iraq and he never wants to go back. I told him I hoped that we could all take a vacation to a peaceful Iraq in 20 years. He said "I'll never go back to that craphole" without even thinking about it.

Him and his wife are just biding their time so he can get out of the marines and he can get cheap loans to start a business.

[monsoon]

Yes, this is another tragedy that nobody talks about. The tragedy of so many maimed and scared soldiers (physically and mentally) for having to live so long around the killing and they will never the be same for the rest of their lives. One only has to look at the plight of the Vietnam soldiers that came back and it is being repeated again now. They too were ignored and it took more that a decade after that war was over for the country to realize the hell these guys had been put through and the hell they continue to suffer.

The President, who used political connections to avoid being drafted to serve in Vietnam when it was his turn, is a cold heartless man when he uses terms like "Bring It On!" when crap like that means more honorable soldiers will be put into the same position as your friend.

[AuLukey]

It's a sad story that probably happens every day over there. I hate the thought that we are sending men over there for a cause we aren't entirely sure has an end. But while it may seem cruel to say this, our military is full of volunteers. Soldiers are not forced to go to Iraq. They signed a contract saying they'd give their life for our president no matter what. And that's what many of them are having to do. Is it our country's peace keeping nature, our greed, our hunger for natural resources, or is war just human nature?

Is it our fault we live in the most powerful country in the world (pending the EU never fully unites) and that we treat ourselves as peacekeepers when it is in no way our responsibility? I remember watching the air raids on Iraq during the Clinton administration. Was that not war then? This fight has been going on since pre-Kuwait, yet it is now that we have finally sent nearly our full force into the Middle East. Are we not "invading?" Or are we trying to finish the fight we started long ago?

[monsoon]

You know aussie luke, you can try to tap dance around this presidents failures as much as you like, but there is absolutely no reason for us to maintain an occuaption of Iraq. If you think the war is just and you support it then why don't you just say so and stop the thinly veied excuses that have nothing to do with what is going on over there now.

The fact of the matter is Bush lied to justify an unprovoked attack on a nation that posed no threat to us, the entire world except for Britian thinks the USA is a bully now, and most important, thousands and thousands are dying at the hands of this man. We are no longer "peace keepers" as there is no peace in Iraq.

If you want to address any of that then please do so.

[ironchapman]

I believe a more in depth assessment of the President's speech is need that what I previously provided.

The speech itself was well written. President Bush, who is not necessarily known for his oratorical skills, delivered this speech very well when compared to many other speeches he has given and other public statements he has made, such as those given at press conferences.

Once again, the President proved he would stand by his decision to invade Iraq and even defend it while American opinion, according to polls, is going against the war. For a man in his position of power to show this kind of moral backbone is amazing especially as he faces the threat of impeachment and the loss of popular opinion as more and more people want to get out of Iraq.

But what is wanted and what is needed are two entirely different things.

Let's see what else has come up in the topic....

110 dead Iraqs were also found today. Inthe last 2 months we have seen the worst violence in Iraq to date. Does this sound like a plan to anyone given that we are in the 4th year of this damned occupation? Conditions are getting worse not better. This is Bush's "Staying the Course"

Slightly off topic, I was taught that, if you start something, you had better damn well intend on finishing it. Similarly, we started this mess, and we need to finish it. It may take years, but we need to finish the job.

We have made progress. Government officials have been elected, elections have had HUGE turnouts, and just recently (last week, I believe) we turned over the control of the Iraqi military, which has been effective in combatting insurgent attacks and otherwise aiding our troops, to the Iraqi government. These, of course, are only a few examples. If we leave now, the effects upon the stability of Iraq will be devastating.

Given time and dedication, we can help the Iraqis create a government based upon the natural rights of man and one that is not controlled by a particular religion or religious denomination or sect. There has been religious infighting in the region for a long time. Europe, too suffered from this after the Protestant Reformation, yet secular governments exist there today. The same can be done in Iraq, but we have to realize these things come with time.

Indeed. Yet Bush, Cheney, and the Republican leadership are quick to accuse anyone who disagrees with their policies as supporters of terrorists, are no better than the people who appeased the Nazis, and even worse than that, have implied they are not true Americans. This is deplorable behavior.

I do not agree with the idea that those who do not support the war support the terrorists as well just by default. However, there are those out there who do indeed support the terrorists, whether they realize it or not, and there are those who want the terrorists to win the war on terror

Honest dissent is by no means unconstitutional or unpatriotic during a time of war. However, we must realize the difference between that which is dissent and that which is subversion and/or demonization, which are indeed wrong. Most, but not all, Democratic politicians, for example, who give speeches against the war and cite specific reasons for their opinion are dissenting. However, people like Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and those people beind places like MoveOn.org and Democratic Underground frequently go beyond dissent and instead choose to demonize Bush (remember Cindy Sheehan wanting to kill baby George W. Bush?) and portray things as distorted versions of what they really are.

These statements were made by Powell after the president made a visit to Capitol Hill to get the Republicans to support a bill he proposed that redefines our interpretation of the Geneva Convention which would allow CIA interregators to use wide-ranging interrogation techniques and be protected from prosecution.. including the "water-board" which simulates drowning on terrorist suspects to get them to talk.. but is not considered torture by the Bush administration.

4 Republican senators and 11 democratic senators in the committee voted for an alternative bill that would give the terrorist SUSPECTS less rights than American citizens but more than Bush proposes... like maybe not torturing them...

Barring extreme circumstances, I would not support the use of torture. Torture is illegal under US law and the Bill of Rights, but that is not what Bush wants discuss.

Bush wants clarification as to what qualifies as to, as Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions says are "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment". What qualifies as this is what Bush wants to know.

Is it an outrage upon personal dignity to, among other things:

• Be deprived of sleep?

• To have loud music played in your cell?

• To have your lights kept on all night?

• To be yelled at by interrogators?

• To be placed on reduced rations?

• To be deprived of commissary privileges?

Bush wants to know this so we can successfully abide by the Hamdan decision from the Supreme Court as well as the Geneva Conventions.

For those of you interested, here is a fact sheet from the DOD on Guantanamo (Word Document)

[monsoon]

The speech itself was well written. President Bush, who is not necessarily known for his oratorical skills, delivered this speech very well when compared to many other speeches he has given and other public statements he has made, such as those given at press conferences.......Once again, the President proved he would stand by his decision to invade Iraq

Nobody here doubts that Bush is a good politician. He does his best speaking in a controlled environment such as that. Put him on the stand and ask him questions and we end up with nonsense like "Stay the Course", "Bring it own", "Your are either with us or agianst us".

And, yes, this is a person that is unwilling to admit he has made a mistake. If he had a definition of Victory it might be different. But tell me Ironman, what is his goal in Iraq beyond removing Saddam? Maybe you know something the rest of us don't know.

Slightly off topic, I was taught that, if you start something, you had better damn well intend on finishing it. Similarly, we started this mess, and we need to finish it. It may take years, but we need to finish the job.

This is for school kids. It isn't for the President of the United States when it causes people to die. Especially when you have the opportinuty to take other measures to accomplish the same goals without using the military. The sign of a true leader is to make the good decisions not to use Military power. Bush, could have avoided the attack completely and we would be safer now because of it.

We have made progress. Government officials have been elected, elections have had HUGE turnouts, and just recently (last week, I believe) we turned over the control of the Iraqi military, which has been effective in combatting insurgent attacks and otherwise aiding our troops, to the Iraqi government. These, of course, are only a few examples. If we leave now, the effects upon the stability of Iraq will be devastating. Given time and dedication, we can help the Iraqis create a government based upon the natural rights of man and one that is not controlled by a particular religion or religious denomination or sect.

Have you been sleeping? We are sending yet more American troops there, more people are dying, and the military has given up on 1/3 of the Nation? Saddam had huge turnouts for his elections too. He had full control of his military and unlike the occupation now, there was no violence. These are not signs that we have a successful government there or anything close to one.

Nobody looking at the facts believes we are going to end up with a secular stable government in Iraq. (Which ironically is exactly what Saddam had) The fact the President of Iraq was in Iran shaking hands with the President of the biggest Islamic republic in the middle east is testimate enough to that. This is going to be a government controled by the crapes or its going to end in civil war. Take your pick and our occupation is not going to make on iota difference to the final outcome. The only question now is how many more Americans do we let die before even the hard heads admit it was a mistake. To them, I say get a rifle and go over there for a few days. It's easy to advocate for wars when sitting from the safety of your living room.

Finally why is it that Bush needs to re-write the Geneva Convention? It has worked for 57 years. The answer of course is that he is breaking the Geneva Convention. This is also known as a War Crime and he is looking to legally protect his own butt when the details of this comes out in the next administration to run this country.

You have not provided any clarifications as far as I know, you have only regurtated Bush's play book and we already know that he is a liar.

[kayman]

I believe a more in depth assessment of the President's speech is need that what I previously provided.

The speech itself was well written. President Bush, who is not necessarily known for his oratorical skills, delivered this speech very well when compared to many other speeches he has given and other public statements he has made, such as those given at press conferences.

Once again, the President proved he would stand by his decision to invade Iraq and even defend it while American opinion, according to polls, is going against the war. For a man in his position of power to show this kind of moral backbone is amazing especially as he faces the threat of impeachment and the loss of popular opinion as more and more people want to get out of Iraq.

But what is wanted and what is needed are two entirely different things.

Let's see what else has come up in the topic....

Slightly off topic, I was taught that, if you start something, you had better damn well intend on finishing it. Similarly, we started this mess, and we need to finish it. It may take years, but we need to finish the job.

We have made progress. Government officials have been elected, elections have had HUGE turnouts, and just recently (last week, I believe) we turned over the control of the Iraqi military, which has been effective in combatting insurgent attacks and otherwise aiding our troops, to the Iraqi government. These, of course, are only a few examples. If we leave now, the effects upon the stability of Iraq will be devastating.

Given time and dedication, we can help the Iraqis create a government based upon the natural rights of man and one that is not controlled by a particular religion or religious denomination or sect. There has been religious infighting in the region for a long time. Europe, too suffered from this after the Protestant Reformation, yet secular governments exist there today. The same can be done in Iraq, but we have to realize these things come with time.

I do not agree with the idea that those who do not support the war support the terrorists as well just by default. However, there are those out there who do indeed support the terrorists, whether they realize it or not, and there are those who want the terrorists to win the war on terror

Honest dissent is by no means unconstitutional or unpatriotic during a time of war. However, we must realize the difference between that which is dissent and that which is subversion and/or demonization, which are indeed wrong. Most, but not all, Democratic politicians, for example, who give speeches against the war and cite specific reasons for their opinion are dissenting. However, people like Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and those people beind places like MoveOn.org and Democratic Underground frequently go beyond dissent and instead choose to demonize Bush (remember Cindy Sheehan wanting to kill baby George W. Bush?) and portray things as distorted versions of what they really are.

Barring extreme circumstances, I would not support the use of torture. Torture is illegal under US law and the Bill of Rights, but that is not what Bush wants discuss.

Bush wants clarification as to what qualifies as to, as Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions says are "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment". What qualifies as this is what Bush wants to know.

Is it an outrage upon personal dignity to, among other things:

• Be deprived of sleep?

• To have loud music played in your cell?

• To have your lights kept on all night?

• To be yelled at by interrogators?

• To be placed on reduced rations?

• To be deprived of commissary privileges?

Bush wants to know this so we can successfully abide by the Hamdan decision from the Supreme Court as well as the Geneva Conventions.

For those of you interested, here is a fact sheet from the DOD on Guantanamo (Word Document)

Off topic: Question, how old are you and are you a Republican? I'm sorry, but most of what Bush said has been seen by the majority as b******t.

[AuLukey]

Off topic: Question, how old are you and are you a Republican? I'm sorry, but most of what Bush said has been seen by the majority as b******t.

I can see the party affiliation, but what would age have to do with anything?

[Charlotte_native]

If all of the listed harsh techniques of questioning (notice we can't say torture) were used against our troops, better yet say your friend or son or daughter, would you be happy about it? Why is this war different than any other? Why do we need, now, special ways of questioning captives -- certainly these methods might have been helpful and saved lives in World War II, or any other war for that matter, but we didn't resort to Soviet style "questioning" in those wars.

We are becoming the enemy in the eyes of many in the world. We are becoming what the Russians were when I was young. The big, bullying, super-power that has secret prisons (gulags), harsh questioning tecniques (torture), prisoners with no rights and no contact with the outside world or legal council (China, Russia, Khamer Rouge), wiretapping of our own citizens (Gestapo, KGB). All going on before our eyes so we can be fooled into feeling "safe".

W. standing behind his decisions isn't moral backbone, it is boneheaded-ness -- standing behind a bad decision is not a good idea. Ever.

No one wants the terrorists to win anything. To believe so is to fall for every Faux News storyline and administration political spin to discredit their critics. That very notion is absurd. Face it, there is no real War on Terror. There is a war in Iraq which didn't have "terrorists" until we invaded them. The only War on Terror happended in Ahaghanistan (which most everyone did, and still, supported), but as we approached the finish line we switched race paths. Our war in Iraq is not against terrorists -- we are in their land unprovoked. I am not against my country, not in the least, just against the morons that got us into this mess. The fact that they can still get others to follow them is frightening to most of us that pay attention.

Why in the fancy bullet points of what Bush wants clarified is water torture and water boarding not included? Does making a person think they are being drowned (by practically drowning them) seem like torture to you? It sure as hell does to me -- I hope I never have to endure it. Funny how that biggie got left off your list.

As for progress in Iraq being portrayed as successful elections -- why are we digging a trench around Baghdad? Isn't that an amagingly extreme action to be taking when we are moving forward and finding success? I mean the thought of digging a trench around a city of 3.5 million people -- that is a MASSIVE undertaking of proportions I can't recall in my lifetime. Ony 28 ways in and out of a city that large because things are so bad over there only extreme measures are considered. We give up Anbar Province (1/3 of the country) and wall everyone into a safe area. Remind me how successful we are...

[kayman]

I can see the party affiliation, but what would age have to do with anything?

He just sounds like he's not seeing the entire picture. Something that becomes very evident with age and experience.

[AuLukey]

He just sounds like he's not seeing the entire picture. Something that becomes very evident with age and experience.

I know some very single minded older people. On both sides of the ball. I do agree that with age comes experience and the ability to look at things from the ominous point of view, but with time also comes stronger bias.

As for progress in Iraq being portrayed as successful elections -- why are we digging a trench around Baghdad? Isn't that an amagingly extreme action to be taking when we are moving forward and finding success? I mean the thought of digging a trench around a city of 3.5 million people -- that is a MASSIVE undertaking of proportions I can't recall in my lifetime.

Saddam always wanted a moat. I can understand doing things like this, but only if it's REALLLLLLY bad. This fact takes my opinion of our condition over there down a notch.

[kayman]

I know some very single minded older people. On both sides of the ball. I do agree that with age comes experience and the ability to look at things from the ominous point of view, but with time also comes stronger bias.

Saddam always wanted a moat. I can understand doing things like this, but only if it's REALLLLLLY bad. This fact takes my opinion of our condition over there down a notch.

Very true. I have met some ignorant older individuals that makes me want to act like they don't even exist.