TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- President Bush's First Speech in the UK

President Bush's First Speech in the UK

I haven't got a transcript, although i'm sure one will be up on the web soon.

Anyhow, it was a powerful speech, again re-iterating the bond that the US has with the UK. He referred to 9/11 many times, and hit home to british people, that it wasn't just US people who died on that day. He said that no matter how many people terrorists kill, they will continue killing. He stressed the importance of preventing them from gaining assess to WoMD. I can't remember much else.

The president opened up his speech with quite a lot of humour.

He said, "The last representative of the US to visit here, was suspended in a glass box above the river Thames" "I'm sure that many people in this country would like to see the same happen to me"

"As I enter the country,i hear of many people exerting their right of freedom of speech, with ENTHUSIASM!"

and then he continues to say,

"Something which the people of Baghdad and Afghanistan are now able to do"

yup, transcript is here

Free/Freedom: 24 times.
Democracy/Democratic: 22 times.
Liberty/Liberate/Liberation: 8 times.
Just/Justice: 8 times.
Peace/Peaceful: 14 times.
Terror/Terrorism/Terrorists: 17 times.

I heard he had to cancel his trip and speech to Parliament, becuase unlike the US Congress, Parliament members can shout out and ask questions randomly, and we know how much Bush sucks answering

quote:

Originally posted by rizen I heard he had to cancel his trip and speech to Parliament, becuase unlike the US Congress, Parliament members can shout out and ask questions randomly, and we know how much Bush sucks answering

Well, that's what actually happened when he visited AUstralia recently, some members of one of our minor parties stood up and shouted him down, asking him questions about Iraq, why he lied, what about the body count etc.

I'm not sure how much coverage it got in the US, but they were ordered to leave the chamber, refused, and then tried to hand Bush an open letter on Iraw etc.
It was quite funny, members from the government physically blocked them from getting to Bush when he mingled with the parliment.

Impressed by the speech?!?! .. Why should I be?!?!.. Is the same speech over and over again.. same purpose, same meaning.. he's been doing this speeches for a while in the US.. last time he talked, he went on and giving more meaning and converting Iraq into democracy instead of focusing in on stabilizing the reagin rather quick. Whatever.. Al Quaide were the ones who commited 9/11, not Saddam nor Iraq, and Al Quaida is stronger now, commiting all this attacks, and they went on with their word, because they seem to have attacked the British Counsil in Turkey... Bush is an idiot, he should have gone and finish up he's h.w. with AL Quaida instead of going to mess around and pin point all the intelligence tours IRaq, which kinda suck, because they still arent able to find the WMD and Saddam.. oh wait, there probably isnt any weapons..

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Impressed by the speech?!?! .. Why should I be?!?!.. Is the same speech over and over again.. same purpose, same meaning.. he's been doing this speeches for a while in the US.. last time he talked, he went on and giving more meaning and converting Iraq into democracy instead of focusing in on stabilizing the reagin rather quick. Whatever.. Al Quaide were the ones who commited 9/11, not Saddam nor Iraq, and Al Quaida is stronger now, commiting all this attacks, and they went on with their word, because they seem to have attacked the British Counsil in Turkey... Bush is an idiot, he should have gone and finish up he's h.w. with AL Quaida instead of going to mess around and pin point all the intelligence tours IRaq, which kinda suck, because they still arent able to find the WMD and Saddam.. oh wait, there probably isnt any weapons..

I have often stated that this is one of the things that this adminstration has not answered for. We were told that weapons were in Iraq and yet not a single one has been found. With that said, the next thing Stability and Security in all of Iraq is some ways off. This administration truly did not focus on the events after the war. Instead they appointed a bumbling Council of differing Iraqis. Bush has now trumpeted the horns of Democracy for one of the worlds most volatile regions, I am willing to see if he is genuine in this pursuit, only time will tell us. He does need to calm down on the continued speeches of we must defeat terror, this is clear to everyone, the task remains to do it.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Well, that's what actually happened when he visited AUstralia recently, some members of one of our minor parties stood up and shouted him down, asking him questions about Iraq, why he lied, what about the body count etc. I'm not sure how much coverage it got in the US, but they were ordered to leave the chamber, refused, and then tried to hand Bush an open letter on Iraw etc. It was quite funny, members from the government physically blocked them from getting to Bush when he mingled with the parliment.

Yeah I heard about that, and I don't remember it being covered on the corporate media.

That Australian incident was what, TWO people out of over 500? The fact that their comments even got one headline was a travesty.

Some of the press coverage on Bush's speech was great though. It really showed how much they hate to give the guy credit for anything. Basically, every sentence was "President Bush delivered an important speech today, but the real story is that the academics were very surprised at his public speaking ability." The press has to qualify EVERY compliment.

And as for the UK protesters, it was almost an embarassment. Someone from the London police was on the news, and laughed when someone told him that there were "100,000" protesters. He replied, "No...I think that's about 70,000 too high." That, plus the Guardian poll on the President, really put a damper on the anarchists' plans.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok That Australian incident was what, TWO people out of over 500? The fact that their comments even got one headline was a travesty.

Not really, as they expressed what a lot of people are feeling. Where are the weapons, and why did bush lie/use such shaky intelligence to justify a war.

Do you really believe that Bush "lied"?

The CIA, MI6, FSB, DGSE, etc. all believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The question was over what the nations of the world were going to do about it. If those intelligence bureaus truly believed that there were no weapons, then how come the debate was war vs. more inspections rather than war vs. do absolutely nothing?

For the people who truly believe Bush lied, that's giving him a lot of credit, isn't it? (Especially for people who think he's an idiot). To believe that he lied, you have to believe that Bush knew more than all of those intelligence services combined, and then went on to actively deceive the world. This anti-war rhetoric may sound nice, but it's factually flawed.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Do you really believe that Bush "lied"? The CIA, MI6, FSB, DGSE, etc. all believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

WTF are you getting your info, FOX? IIRC CIA's george trenet testified in congress, stating that Iraq had no WMDs. MI6 also report the same.

quote:

For the people who truly believe Bush lied, that's giving him a lot of credit, isn't it? (Especially for people who think he's an idiot). To believe that he lied, you have to believe that Bush knew more than all of those intelligence services combined, and then went on to actively deceive the world. This anti-war rhetoric may sound nice, but it's factually flawed.

Lets see... PNAC. Powell said in front of the UN they knew exsactly where the WMDs are, yet didnt want to give the info to the UN inspectors. Chalaby when asked "WHERE ARE THE WMDs" he replied something along the lines of "Who cares, we're already in Iraq".

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok For the people who truly believe Bush lied, that's giving him a lot of credit, isn't it? (Especially for people who think he's an idiot). To believe that he lied, you have to believe that Bush knew more than all of those intelligence services combined, and then went on to actively deceive the world. This anti-war rhetoric may sound nice, but it's factually flawed.

Errr...no you don�t. You just say one thing while the evidence says another, you don�t need to be a genius in order to do that. Ones honesty is not a reflection of their intelligence.

quote:

Originally posted by Spin Doctor Errr...no you don�t. You just say one thing while the evidence says another.

You missed my point. Because the evidence didn't "say another," the claim that Bush lied necessarily means that he actually did know more than all of the world's intelligence services. That's my point here.

People say Bush lied...but then, so did everybody else. (The French, Russians, Saudis, etc.) As I said before, the world's intelligence services never disputed that Iraq had WMD's. They all believed he did. The UN dispute concerned what to do about it.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok People say Bush lied...but then, so did everybody else. (The French, Russians, Saudis, etc.) As I said before, the world's intelligence services never disputed that Iraq had WMD's. They all believed he did. The UN dispute concerned what to do about it.

you either missed my post, or are a complete idiot. Also where did the French, Russians, Saudies, etc lied in Iraq's WMD situation? So far France and Germany are right, NO WMDs. GG.

quote:

Originally posted by rizen you either missed my post, or are a complete idiot. Also where did the French, Russians, Saudies, etc lied in Iraq's WMD situation? So far France and Germany are right, NO WMDs. GG.

I never said that France, Russia, et al. lied. Nobody lied.

Your argument: France says there are no WMDs. Russia says there are no WMDs. Bush tells the world that there are WMDs, but truly believed that there weren't any. Ergo, Bush lied.

Reminder at this point: a lie is an active deception.

The problem with your argument is that France and Russia said no such thing. Every major intelligence agency in the world believed there were WMDs in Iraq, although the amounts were debatable. (I believe the official French position was that there was "no irrefutable proof that WMDs had been retained or destroyed.") But as I said before, the debate in the UN was war versus inspections, not war versus do absolutely nothing. Lest we forget, Clinton pursued WMD disarmament as well. Was he a liar? Would he have bothered arguing for disarmament if he truly believed that there were no WMDs there? "Yeah, I'll just waste my time here at the UN. There really aren't any WMDs, but it would be cool if I said there were."

I have no problem with someone reveling in the fact that the intelligence agencies of the world were wrong. But to suggest that Bush is a liar is to suggest that every other intelligence agency in the world was in on the deception.

Go ahead and scream, "Bush was wrong!" But yeah, I know, it doesn't have the same power as "Bush lied!" I can sit here and debate this all day, because frankly, I need the posts.

p.s. The people who were the most surprised about not finding any WMDs were probably the French. After all, Israel in 1981 didn't destroy everything that France sold Iraq. There was plenty of equipment that's now completely unaccounted for.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Reminder at this point: a lie is an active deception.

By that definition of lying, the Bush Administration continues to lie about the link between Iraq and the Sept. 11th attacks.

OK! Now everyone can say Bush lied!

Nov 27, 12:27 PM (ET)

By TERENCE HUNT

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - President Bush made a surprise Thanksgiving visit to American troops in Baghdad Thursday, flying secretly to violence-scarred Iraq to thank U.S. forces for serving there.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.