|
And I feel dirty.
I am a bit suprised by this transcript, though. Normally, when his transcripts are posted, he sounds smarter when you read the transcripts than he does if you hear him read them. That is, of course, because the words aren't his, and seeing the words in print doesn't fully do justice to his sheer idiocy and all of the mispronunciations and awkward, inappropriate pauses.
But here's a few excerpts:
Let me -- I wish I didn't have to say this, but we're still at war. And that's important for the citizens of this commonwealth to understand. You know, no President ever wants to be President during war. Bullshit. Bush sure as hell enjoys it. "I'm a war president"... But this war came to us LIE!!!, not as a result of actions we took LIE!!!, it came to us as a result of actions an enemy took on September the 11th, 2001 LIE!!!. And I -- (applause) -- and I vowed that day, starting when I was in Florida and got on the airplane to head across the country, that I would use everything in my power -- obviously, within the Constitution -- but everything in my power to protect the American people. That is the most solemn duty of government, is to protect our people from harm. Unless its the month I'm on vacation, or I'm at Camp David or my ranch in Crawford for the weeked, or I'm fundraising.
<<<snip>>>>
...We're on the hunt for an enemy that still lurks. I know, because I'm briefed on a daily basis about the threats that face the United States of America. And my duty is to assess this world the way it is, not the way we'd like it to be. Hey, Bush. if that's the case, I am still terrified. You were briefed on the threats that face America many times before 9/11, and look what happened...
<<<snip>>>
...And the reason why is because he (Saddam) was sponsoring terrorism. He was shooting at our airplanes. He had attacked his own people with chemical weapons. I mean, the guy was a threat. Gee, that's odd, because I sure as hell don't remember any protest from the conservatives in the US, especially in the Reagan Administration, when Saddam was actually doing a lot of these things. And, in the '90s, when he was shooting at our planes, I seem to recall a bunch of Republicans attacking President Clinton for bombing Iraq with UN approval...
<<<snip>>>
We gave the opportunity to Saddam Hussein to open his country up. It was his choice. He chose war, and he got war. And he's not in power, and the world is better off for it. Yeah, but I seem to recall you saying something along the lines of "If Saddam lets inspectors in and proves that he has disarmed, then he has nothing to fear". So, according to you, you wouldn't have taken us to war with Iraq if there were no WMD. Well, there apparently were not WMD. So you're saying that, under your terms of this war, Saddam would still be in power?
<<<snip>>>
The hardest decision I made as your President is to put troops into harm's way, because I understand the consequences. I see the consequences when I go to the hospitals. No, the only thing you see when you go to the hospitals is the opportuntiy to make a cheap, tasteless joke about being wounded in battle while on your ranch. You compared a scratch you got while on vacation to the wound a soldier received when shrapnel from an expolsion tore off his leg...
<<<snip>>>
Secondly, you've got the border patrol. The reason why the border is necessary is because there's suiciders coming in from Syria into Iraq. And the Iraqis have got to be able to enforce their border in order to be able to protect their democracy. Who do you think you are fooling, Bush? You can't even control our borders!
<<<snip>>>
By the way, democracy works in Iraq just like it does here -- you're going to vote for somebody who thinks that they can bring character to the office and they're going to help your life. But unlike in America, that person who has character and is going to help your life might actually get enjoy his win. Here in the US, the election goes not to the winner, but to the highest bidder. You vote for the most qualified candidate, and he wins. But then some drunken moron masquerading as a cowboy is handed the victory. Is that what we are bringing to Iraq? Bush-style democracy?
<<<snip>>>
The Iraqi economy has got a great chance to succeed. They got oil and gas revenues. They had been having trouble getting some oil and gas revenues up to the levels we anticipated because of the infrastructure damage -- done by Saddam Hussein, by the way - Oh, good, that's a relief. I had this crazy notion that it was "Shock and Awe" that did all that damage to the infrastructre. But apparently it was Saddam who did that.
<<<snip>>>
And so things are good. I'm confident we'll succeed. And it's tough, though. The enemy has got one weapon -- I repeat to you -- and that's to shake our will. I just want to tell you, whether you agree with me, or not, they're not going to shake my will. We're doing the right thing. So, let me see if I understand this correctly... The insurgents, who never actually have any effect on Bush in any way, can't shake his steely resolve. No matter how many people die, he won't back down. But, when the War on Christmas shows up at his door, he suddenly loses that resolve? Didn't his Christmas cards say "Happy Holidays?" Did it even mention Christmas, at all? Why did this man, who claims to be a strong Christain, give in to those evil secularists? What happened to his great resolve then? Jesus may have "changed his heart", but Bush sure as hell won't stand up for him.
<<<snip>>>
these troop levels will be decided by our commanders. If you run a business, you know what I'm talking about when I say -- it's called delegating. You count on people to give you good advice. The best people to give any politician advice about whether or not we're achieving a military objective is the people you put out there on the ground. I told you I've got good confidence in these generals and the people who report to them. These are honest, honorable, decent, very capable, smart people, and they'll decide the troop levels. They hear from me: Victory. And I say to them: What do you need to achieve victory? Is he reffering to the same commanders who told him many times over the past few years that troop leves were insufficient, and that they needed more armor for the troops? The ones that he ignored, and sometimes even fired or forced into resignation whenever they expressed concern about the progress of the war? Those commanders?
<<<snip>>>
And the answer to that is, I'm going to do what they (the commanders) tell me to do. And that depends upon the capacity of the Iraqis to help us achieve victory. Unless they tell him something he doesn't want to hear. And, besides, what's with this "I will do what they tell me" BS? I thought that he was a cowboy, who did what was right and what he wanted, to hell with everyone else...
<<<snip>>>
Europe is whole, free, and at peace because of democracy. No, Europe is whole, free, and at peace because their leaders aren't arrogant, power-grabbing douchebags.
<<<snip>>>
I firmly believe that years from now people are going to look back and say, thank goodness the new generation of Americans who rose to the challenge of a war against terror had faith in the capacity of freedom to help change the world. And, many of the people who support the war now will look back and say, "Thank Goodness that so many Americans who actually love the country were willing to fight the war for me, because God knows I was too chickenshit to go over there!
<<<snip>>>
And now, the question and answer
In response to a question about whether he feels there will ever be an end date to the War on Terror (such as VE day or VJ day):
So, in other words, it's not going to be that kind of -- it's not the kind of war that you talked about earlier, and so the peace won't be the kind of peace that we're used to.
There you have it, folks. Unending war. It will go on as long as it has to, in order to ensure total Republican dominance.
Next was a question about NSA Spying. It asked whether there would be an investigation about who leaked the story about the spying.
Bush did not answer this question, but elected instead to ramble for a few minutes about the importance of Spying on Americans and the importance of the Patriot Act.
The next question is actually an intersting one, although it came after a brief moment of ass-kissing by the person asking it.
You have said many a time to all those who will listen that the two major pillars of democracy are free and fair elections, and the separation of church and state. However, historically, and to date, a vast majority of the Islamists across nations do not believe in that simple fact of separation between church and state. Therefore, how can we help change their belief, that for democracy to succeed, certain elements must be in place?
BUSH'S RESPONSE: Well, I have to paraphrase here, because Bush rambled for quite a while. Essentially, he said that as democracy spreads, so will the concept of Separation of Church and State. He never really addressed how that would happen. And, of course, the person asking failed to ask if it was hypocritical of him to expect Iraqi's to keep Islam out of their government, while embracing Christianity here at home and trying to include it in our government.
The next questions were about Immigration (which he has no plans to do anything about, despite what he says), Education (same as immigration, just about everything he said was empty rhetoric), and Health Care (as expected, he blamed all the troubles on lawsuits).
Its an infuriating read.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
