- js reader version
- view hidden posts
- tags and related articles
Thursday, Jun. 30, 2005 at 8:57 PM
translating the speech from last night
>The terrorists who attacked us and the terrorists we face murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent.
And I murder in the name of freedom. What did that BTK dude murder in the name of?
>Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression by toppling governments, by driving us out of the region and by exporting terror.
Our aim is to remake money remaking the countries we destroy, drive ourselves deeper into the region and export oil.
>The terrorists believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent and, with a few hard blows, they can force us to retreat. They are mistaken.
We believe that corrupt and decadent societies are free, and that we can remain free while fighting on every front. We are mistaken.
>After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people:
Well, actually, I made it before Sept. 11th, but I couldn't get away with announcing it then.
>This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy.
And if we take the fight to someone who is not an enemy, we'll make an enemy of them right quick.
>Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war.
Did I say Iraq? I meant Iran.
>Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York and Washington and Pennsylvania.
And I don't like competition when it comes to the murderous ideology department.
>There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home.
Well, there are a few other courses of action, but no need to mention them.
>The commander in charge of coalition operations in Iraq, who is also senior commander at this base, General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said, We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us.
> Our mission in Iraq is clear: We're hunting down the terrorists.
The terrorists mission is also clear, they are hunting down all collaborators.
>We're helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror.
Which according to Rumsfeld's revised estimates should only take 12 years now.
>We're advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren.
I don't know what is so damn hard to understand about invasion and occupation being the foundation of peace, it worked wen Germany did it to Poland, didn't it?
>The work in Iraq is difficult and it is dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying, and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it?
And being as I haven't sacrificed a damn thing, I would have to say yes.
>It is worth it. And it is vital to the future security of our country. And tonight I will explain the reasons why.
It is a short term boost to our economy -- isn't that enough!
>Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom.
And fortunately, that's also how the insurgents and most Iraqis see it: America = peace and freedom.
>Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia and Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and others.
The fact that the insurgency is more and more Iraqi all the time doesn't concern us here.
>They are making common cause with criminal elements
like the pickpockets
>Iraqi insurgents and remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime who want to restore the old order.
We want to restore a new world order, with Halliburton doing the building.
>They fight because they know that the survival of their hateful ideology is at stake.
Our soldiers because we illegaly won't let them end their tours of duty.
>They know that as freedom takes root in Iraq, it will inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their liberty as well.
Other countries will be like "YEAH dude, I hope America invades us too!"
>And when the Middle East grows in democracy and prosperity and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world.
It's coming up real soon you see, it's just around the corner.
>Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate.
We made sure it was.
>Here are the words of Osama bin Laden: This third world war is raging in Iraq. The whole world is watching this war. He says it will end in victory and glory or misery and humiliation.
Which is kinda how I feel too. We have alot in common, us Bushes and the bin Ladens.
>The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened or defeated. So they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take.
You see 25,000 is nowhere near our limit, but at least we have one.
>We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who exploded car bombs along a busy shopping street in Baghdad, including one outside a mosque.
We never killed any civilian outside mosques - did we? Ok, maybe we did.
>We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital in Mosul.
We never bombed any hospitals - did we? Ok, well at least we do it by accident when we are leveling a whole city. That's a valid reason!
>We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who behead civilian hostages and broadcast their atrocities for the world to see.
We never blew anyone's head off - did we? Ok, but at least we didn't use a sword, that is just downright primitive.
>These are savage acts of violence, but they have not brought the terrorists any closer to achieving their strategic objectives.
Yeah, the fact that the war is getting less popular in the US all the time is just a coincidence.
>The terrorists, both foreign and Iraqi, failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty.
It took us to do that. You think we'd let some Iraqis be in charge? Sure, let them vote for figureheads, but actual sovereignty? Ha!
>They failed to break our coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies.
Can I say that despite the countries which had troops in or supported operations in Iraq at one point but have pulled out since: Nicaragua (Feb. 2004); Spain (late-Apr. 2004); Dominican Republic (early-May 2004); Honduras (late-May 2004); Philippines (~Jul. 19, 2004); Thailand (late-Aug. 2004); New Zealand (late Sep. 2004); Tonga (mid-Dec. 2004) Hungary (end Dec. 2004); Portugal (mid-Feb. 2005); Moldova (Feb. 2005)?
>They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war.
We don't like to call this a civil war so how can they have incited one?
>They failed to prevent free elections. They failed to stop the formation of a democratic Iraqi government that represents all of Iraq's diverse population. And they failed to stop Iraqis from signing up in large number with the police forces and the army to defend their new democracy.
In fact, they might even like it, it better lets them know where to go to blow people up.
>The lesson of this experience is clear: The terrorists can kill the innocent, but they cannot stop the advance of freedom.
Just substitute the word "freedom" from "Halliburton" to decipher this speech.
>The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September the 11th, if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like bin Laden.
Which, eventually, without a draft, we will have to do.
>For the sake of our nation's security, this will not happen on my watch.
I think I can stall it a few more years.
> A little over a year ago, I spoke to the nation and described our coalition's goal in Iraq. I said that America's mission in Iraq is to defeat an enemy and give strength to a friend -- a free, representative government that is an ally in the war on terror and a beacon of hope in a part of the world that is desperate for reform.
A little over a year from now I hope to give the same speech about Iran.
>I outlined the steps we would take to achieve this goal. We would hand authority over to a sovereign Iraqi government.
Or pretend that we did.
>We would help Iraqis hold free elections by January 2005. We would continue helping Iraqis rebuild their nation's infrastructure and economy.
Which we promise to get back to someday.
>We would encourage more international support for Iraq's democratic transition.
anyone found any new countries to bribe?
>And we would enable Iraqis to take increasing responsibility for their own security and stability.
because, better them getting blown up than us.
>In the past year, we have made significant progress.
unfortunately, the insurgents have made more
>We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard, and rebuilding while at war is even harder.
and rebuilding it during a insurgency is actually impossible
>Our progress has been uneven, but progress is being made.
this is a lie, but, you know...
>We are improving roads and schools and health clinics. We're working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.
I know "facts" might show otherwise, but I said it anyway.
>In the past year, the international community has stepped forward with vital assistance. Some 30 nations have troops in Iraq, and many others are contributing non-military assistance.
Like the 11 countries who dropped out for example, they contributed by letting us do this alone.
>The United Nations is in Iraq to help Iraqis write a constitution and conduct their next elections. Thus far, some 40 countries and three international organizations have pledged about $34 billion in assistance for Iraqi reconstruction.
Which means that we have spent more than six times the rest of the world combined...
>More than 80 countries and international organizations recently came together in Brussels to coordinate their efforts to help Iraqis provide for their security and rebuild their country. And next month, donor countries will meet in Jordan to support Iraqi reconstruction. Whatever our differences in the past, the world understands that success in Iraq is critical to the security of our nations.
Which would seem to imply that there is more support for the war than there used to be.
>As German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said at the White House yesterday, There can be no question a stable and democratic Iraq is in the vested interest of not just Germany, but also Europe.
unfortunately, we are destabilizing it
>Finally, we have continued our efforts to equip and train Iraqi security forces. We've made gains in both the number and quality of those forces.
for every one that is blown up, we've trained another, it's a net gain.
> Today, Iraq has more than 160,000 security forces trained and equipped for a variety of missions.
Which is almost half of the number of innocent civilians killed, a ratio I am proud of.
> Iraqi forces have fought bravely, helping to capture terrorists and insurgents in Najaf and Samarra, Fallujah and Mosul.
Now the difference between terrorists and insurgents is... I don't know, they're all terrorists, who the heck put "insurgents" in my speech.
>And in the past month, Iraqi forces have led a major anti- terrorist campaign in Baghdad called Operation Lightning, which has led to the capture of hundreds of suspected insurgents.
which means that at least one of them actually is an insurgent
>Like free people everywhere, Iraqis want to be defended by their own countrymen, and we are helping Iraqis assume those duties.
Like free people everywhere, Iraqis might want their own jobs too, but we kinda need those right now.
>The progress in the past year has been significant,
that's why so many of you now oppose the war
>and we have a clear path forward.
which is keep doing the same stuff that has already gotten us in this much of a mess
>To complete the mission,
in 12 years, at best
>we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents.
like Negroponte for example, I'm going hunting for him
>To complete the mission, we will prevent Al Qaida and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban: a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends.
Instead we will turn it into a new thing: a battlefield laboratory for learning how to fight us
>And the best way to complete the mission is to help Iraqis build a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.
Maybe at the end of those 12 years we will need to extend for another 12
>So our strategy going forward has both a military track and a political track. The principal task of our military is to find and defeat the terrorists. And that is why we are on the offense. And as we pursue the terrorists, our military is helping to train Iraqi security forces so that they can defend their people and fight the enemy on their own.
unfortunately, that is taking 12 years after which we will not have any army left, or we need a draft.
>Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.
and as they are blown up, we will breathe down their necks
>We have made progress, but we have a lot more work to do. Today, Iraqi security forces are at different levels of readiness. Some are capable of taking on the terrorists and insurgents by themselves. A large number can plan and execute anti- terrorist operations with coalition support. The rest are forming and not yet ready to participate fully in security operations.
Some are sitting ducks.
> Our task is to make the Iraqi units fully capable and independent. We are building up Iraqi security forces as quickly as possible so they can assume the lead in defeating the terrorists and insurgents. Our coalition is devoting considerable resources and manpower to this critical task.
We might even make them into terrorists themselves, that is one of ironies.
>Thousands of coalition troops are involved in the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. NATO is establishing a military academy near Baghdad to train the next generation of Iraqi military leaders, and 17 nations are contributing troops to the NATO training mission.
Human rights will be an elective.
>Iraqi army and police are being trained by personnel from Italy, Germany, Ukraine, Turkey, Poland, Romania, Australia and the United Kingdom. Today, dozens of nations are working toward a common objective: an Iraq that can defend itself, defeat its enemies and secure its freedom.
The other side actually says the exact same thing of course.
> To further prepare Iraqi forces to fight the enemy on their own, we are taking three new steps.
Haha, made you think I was actually gonna say something new in this speech
>First, we are partnering coalition units with Iraqi units. These coalition Iraqi teams are conducting operations together in the field. These combined operations are giving Iraqis a chance to experience how the most professional armed forces in the world operate in combat.
In other words, we let them go first and last in case anyone attacks, they end up dying instead of our boys.
>Second, we are embedding coalition transition teams inside Iraqi units. These teams are made up of coalition officers and non- commissioned officers who live, work and fight together with their Iraqi comrades.
embedding them right there in the middle
>Under U.S. command, they are providing battlefield advice and assistance to Iraqi forces during combat operations. Between battles, they are assisting the Iraqis with important skills such as urban combat and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance techniques.
When we get done with them, they'll all make great terrorists, and they'll have guns too.
>Third, we are working with the Iraqi ministries of interior and defense to improve their capabilities to coordinate anti-terrorist operations.
We don't actually work with them too closely, they kinda trust us on this.
>We're helping them develop command and control structures.
They learn important stuff like: We are in command, they are under control.
>We're also providing them with civilian and military leadership training, so Iraq's new leaders can effectively manage their forces in the fight against terror.
If we're lucky, soon they'll be over here telling our people what to do.
>The new Iraqi security forces are proving their courage every day. More than 2,000 members of Iraqi security forces have given their lives in the line of duty. Thousands more have stepped forward and are now training to serve their nation.
It's not for money or anything, it is like, because they think we are right.
>With each engagement, Iraqi soldiers grow more battle-hardened and their officers grow more experienced.
not to mention having their heads blown off
>We've learned that Iraqis are courageous and that they need additional skills. And that is why a major part of our mission is to train them so they can do the fighting, and then our troops can come home.
Like take the insurgents for example, they needed training in how to blow us up, and we've given them that. And look at how much better they're doing already.
>I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I.
But tough, they can't come home unless badly injured or in a coffin.
>Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done.
Which means never. I mean to say, uh... 12 years. Hey that's sooner than the social security crisis, isn't it?
>It would send the wrong signal to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve.
They'd rather have that comfort than come home, I asked one or two of them already.
> And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out.
Which of course is true whether we set a date or not.
>We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed and not a day longer.
We have a 23 hour evac plan, even faster and messier than Nam.
>Some Americans ask me, If completing the mission is so important, why don't you send more troops?
mostly because we have none.
>If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job.
People like Lieutenant Colonel Frederick P Wellman, General Eric Shinseki and General George W Casey weren't asked apparently.
>Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight.
But we don't want to give Iraqis to be encouraged that they could do any job for themselves other than fighting, that's why we do all the building.
>And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave.
Whatever that means.
>As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders.
who I ignore and listen to Cheney instead
>The other critical element of our strategy is to help ensure that the hopes Iraqis expressed at the polls in January are translated into a secure democracy. The Iraqi people are emerging from decades of tyranny and oppression.
which we helped set up
>Under the regime of Saddam Hussein, the Shia and Kurds were brutally oppressed and the vast majority of Sunni Arabs were also denied their basic rights while senior regime officials enjoyed the privileges of unchecked power.
with our weapons
> The challenge facing Iraqis today is to put this past behind them and come together to build a new Iraq that includes all of its people.
or whoever's left
>They are doing that by building the institutions of a free society -- a society based on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and equal justice under law. The Iraqis have held free elections and established a transitional national assembly. The next step is to write a good constitution that enshrines these freedoms in permanent law.
So they can ignore it like I ignore ours.
>The assembly plans to expand its constitutional drafting committee to include more Sunni Arabs. Many Sunnis who opposed the January elections are now taking part in the democratic process, and that is essential to Iraq's future. After a constitution is written, the Iraqi people will have a chance to vote on it. If approved, Iraqis will go to the polls again, to elect a new government under their new, permanent constitution. By taking these critical steps and meeting their deadlines, Iraqis will bind their multiethnic society together in a democracy that respects the will of the majority and protects minority rights.
I can see it all now....
>As Iraqis grow confident that the democratic progress they are making is real and permanent, more will join the political process.
as soon as they stop getting blown up
>And as Iraqis see that their military can protect them, more will step forward with vital intelligence to help defeat the enemies of a free Iraq.
Maybe the military should start by figuring out how to protect itself.
>The combination of political and military reform will lay a solid foundation for a free and stable Iraq.
And by military reform I mean.. What do I mean?
>As Iraqis make progress toward a free society, the effects are being felt beyond Iraq's borders.
Iran, for example, is shifting towards religious leaders
> Before our coalition liberated Iraq, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons. Today the leader of Libya has given up his chemical and nuclear weapons programs.
That Libyan boy knows how to play ball with me.
>Across the broader Middle East, people are claiming their freedom. In the last few months, we have witnessed elections in the Palestinian Territories and Lebanon. These elections are inspiring democratic reformers in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Did I fail to mention Iran again?
>Our strategy to defend ourselves and spread freedom is working.
at least, that's what I'm being told
>The rise of freedom in this vital region will eliminate the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder and make our nation safer.
I'm anti-radical too
>We have more work to do, and there will be tough moments that test America's resolve.
Like if y'all start really opposing this war again, we'll let another terrorist attack kinda happen.
>We are fighting against men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons who are capable of any atrocity. They wear no uniform; they respect no laws of warfare or morality. They take innocent lives to create chaos for the cameras.
Americans are capable of any atrocity without hatred, that is the difference.
>They are trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001. They will fail.
Or, if you think that all this is exactly what Osama wanted, they will succeed.
>The terrorists do not understand America.
But I understand Iraq real well, I saw a powerpoint presentation on it once.
>The American people do not falter under threat, and we will not allow our future to be determined by car bombers and assassins.
Except why are so many of you turning against the war, YA WIMPS!
>America and our friends are in a conflict that demands much of us. It demands the courage of our fighting men and women. It demands the steadfastness of our allies. And it demands the perseverance of our citizens. We accept these burdens because we know what is at stake.
When I say we, I mean mostly those of us who don't bear them.
>We fight today because Iraq now carries the hope of freedom in a vital region of the world, and the rise of democracy will be the ultimate triumph over radicalism and terror.
it will be the greatest thing, just you wait
>And we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand.
In my attempt to wipe out terrorism in Iraq, I created it, hmmmm.
>So we'll fight them there, we'll fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.
or we run out of troops, whichever comes first.
>America has done difficult work before. From our desperate fight for independence to the darkest days of a civil war to the hard-fought battles against tyranny in the 20th century, there were many chances to lose our heart, our nerve or our way.
And though more than 50% have lost heart, I'll keep pretending they haven't.
>But Americans have always held firm, because we have always believed in certain truths.
Not to be confused with: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness
>We know that if evil is not confronted, it gains in strength and audacity and returns to strike us again.
Some Americans might think you create more evil by killing people, but they are dumber than me.
>We know that when the work is hard, the proper response is not retreat, it is courage. And we know that this great ideal of human freedom entrusted to us in a special way
I didn't want to say "God" because I might get yelled at, but basically "special" means "God-given"
>and that the ideal of liberty is worth defending.
whatever it is anyway, I am not too clear on it
Report this post as: