--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Thanks for the warm welcome.



I’m proud to be with the scholars and the friends and the supporters of the American Enterprise Institute. I want to thank you for overlooking my dress code violation. They were about to stop me at the door, but Irving Kristol said, 'I know this guy, let him in.'



Chris, thank you for your very kind introduction and thank you for your leadership. I see many distinguished guests here tonight, members of my Cabinet, members of Congress, Justice (Antonin) Scalia, Justice (Clarence) Thomas and so many respected writers and policy experts.



I’m always happy to see your senior fellow, Dr. Lynne Cheney. Lynne is a wise and thoughtful commentator on history and culture and a dear friend to Laura and me. I’m also familiar with the good work of her husband. You may remember him, the former director of my vice presidential search committee. Thank God Dick Cheney said yes.



Thanks for fitting me into the program tonight. I know I’m not the featured speaker; I’m just a warm-up act for Allan Meltzer. But I want to congratulate Dr. Meltzer for a lifetime of achievements and for tonight’s well-deserved honor. Congratulations.



At the American Enterprise Institute, some of the finest minds in our nation are at work and some of the greatest challenges to our nation. You do such good work that my administration has borrowed 20 such minds. I want to thank them for their service, but I also want to remind people that for 60 years AEI scholars have made vital contributions to our country and to our government and we are grateful for those contributions.



We meet here during a crucial period in the history of our nation and of the civilized world. Part of that history was written by others, the rest will be written by us.

("... the rest will be written by us." ???!!! This is either the most arrogant statement any leader could ever make, or a tacit admission that history will end in a global conflagration ignited by the President and his lunatic buddies. There are certainly parallels to be drawn between Gotterdamerung and the forces this administration is unleashing. The only question seems to be, will the entire world burn when Valhalla is destroyed?)



On a September morning, threats that had gathered for years in secret and far away, led to murder in our country on a massive scale.

(Yes, and there is a legally prescribed way to deal with murder - even mass murder - as with any criminal act. Two paragraphs down the president claims that with a coalition of 90 countries cooperating, many top al Qaida leaders have been captured. Couldn't this have been done then without invading a sovereign country? The events of September 11 did NOT justify invading Afghanistan, but of course we now know that was only a pretext for what had already been planned.)



As a result, we must look at security in a new way because our country is a battlefield in the first war of the 21st century.

(A war against the whole world as well as US citizens by the looks of it so far.)



We learned a lesson: The dangers of our time must be confronted actively and forcefully before we see them again in our skies and in our cities. And we set a goal: We will not allow the triumph of hatred and violence in the affairs of men.

(Of course! And there's no better way to insure your personal safety than to kill everything that comes within a certain radius. Illegal you say? Pffft! And it would seem the president is tone deaf when he pontificates on "hatred and violence.")



Our coalition of more than 90 countries is pursuing the networks of terror with every tool of law enforcement and with military power. We have arrested, or otherwise dealt with, many key commanders of al-Qaida.

You mean like the elderly gentleman they (finally) sent home? And the ones who have been feeding their interrogators what they thought they wanted to hear so they'd be given an extra twinkie for lunch - like the one whose false "information" caused the recent duct tape panic? And how does anyone know WHO the detainees are when they're being held incommunicado without access to attorneys?



Across the world we are hunting down the killers one by one. We are winning and we’re showing them the definition of American justice.

(What he means is Texas lynch mob "justice," the kind where a crowd kills the sheriff to seize an accused prisoner so they can string him up and thereby avoid the unnecessary bother and expense of a trial, not to mention the inconvenience of producing evidence.)



And we’re opposing the greatest danger in the war on terror, outlaw regimes arming with weapons of mass destruction. In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world and we will not allow it.

(Speaking of "outlaw regimes with weapons of mass destruction" ... And the UN inspectors have already determined there is no present day production of WMD; the CIA agrees with them. And it now turns out that the source of most of the Bush administrations "evidence" against Iraq ALSO stated all WMD stocks were destroyed under his personal order - a fact that was conveniently covered up to make the "case for war" believable. And what does he mean by "civilized world" exactly? Are WE supposed to be the "civilized ones?)

This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country, and America will not permit it.

(And every competent intelligence service in the world - including our own - has been unable to establish such ties. And "COULD supply them"?? Please! Anyone "could" do anything.)



The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed.

(What's Saddam's incentive for cooperating? Everyone in the Bush administration has stated that the real objective is regime change, and every gesture made thus far by Iraq has been dismissed as "too little, too late", or otherwise ridiculed. Wouldn't it be more honest just to say that there is NOTHING Iraq could do to avoid a war, short of unconditional surrender?)



The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East.

(Sez you.)



A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform this vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America’s interest in security and America’s belief in liberty both lead in the same direction, to a free and peaceful Iraq.



The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war and misery and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein, but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us.

(No, the first to benefit would be the undertakers and gravediggers, unless the US kills those jobs by digging vast pits to conceal the true number of Iraqi casualties. Twelve years of inhumane sanctions woudn't have anything to do with that scarcity, would they? And if Iraqi lives mean so much to us, why did we concentrate on destroying Iraq's water purification systems the last time, and why are we now planning to annihilate Iraq's major population centers in what has been called by military experts one of the biggest and most intensive bombing campaigns in the history of warfare?)



Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy, yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime’s torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them.

(That's probably true, but you'd better keep those torture chambers, just in case.)



If we must use force, the United States and our coalition stand ready to help the citizens of a liberated Iraq. We will deliver medicine to the sick, and we are now moving in to place nearly 3 million emergency rations to feed the hungry. We’ll make sure that Iraq’s 55,000 food distribution sites operating under the Oil for Food program are stocked and open as soon as possible.

("If we must"? I don't know how he keeps it straight, jumping from "ifs" to foregone conclusions as he does - maybe it's the teleprompter. Let's see, the 55,000 food distribution sites are open and functioning now, but after we destroy them we'll make sure they're restocked and running again as soon as possible? Gee, we're all heart. And would those 3 million emergency rations be the same kind as the ones we dropped in Afghanistan, where countless people were killed because they couldn't distinguish them from cluster bomblets, or because they were dropped in minefields? Or this time around are we just going to use them as bait to provide handy targets for all our brave young brain-washed testosterone-crazed gung-hos who are just itching to "Kill some Eye-rackees?")



The United States and Great Britain are providing tens of millions of dollars to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and to such groups as the World Food Program and UNICEF to provide emergency aid to the Iraqi people. We’ll also lead in carrying out the urgent and dangerous work of destroying chemical and biological weapons. We will provide security against those who try to spread chaos or settle scores or threaten the territorial integrity of Iraq. We will seek to protect Iraq’s natural resources from sabotage by a dying regime and ensure those resources are used for the benefit of the owners, the Iraqi people.

(That's mighty generous, considering for example the $26 BILLION we're using to bribe Turkey, and the fact that we haven't paid a nickel on our UN dues for years. Oh, and the Kurds have declared that there'll be trouble if Turkey follows through on its promise to send their troops into Northern Iraq. Since we're Turkey's ally, doesn't this mean that the US may soon be in the business of killing Kurds too, just like we condemn Saddam for doing? And how are we going to deal with the fundamentalist Shi'ites - the same bunch that caused all the trouble in Iran and Afghanistan? And how does this commitment to preserve Iraq's oil resources for the benefit of the Iraqi people comport with recent public statements by high officials in this administration that those who oppose US war plans in the UN will be denied a share of Iraqi oil? Doesn't this statement reveal America's real intention is to administer the oil resources as a key element in a massive spoils system - sharing them with our political friends and denying them to our political foes? How do the "Iraqi people" factor into or benefit from such a scheme?)



The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq’s new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.

(Yeah right.)



Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own. We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before, and the peace that followed a world war.

(By "necessary" I assume he means an occupying force of "several hundred thousand soldiers", according to recent testimony in Congress by General Shinenski, over a period of about ten years, as widely estimated by other experts.)



After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies. We left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home.

(You mean like all those countries where we installed puppet dictators, or rigged elections, or assassinated democratically elected heads of government because they weren't toeing the Washington ideological line, or because they mistakenly thought their resources were actually THEIRS?)



There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken.

(Yeah, I guess the democracy practiced in all those other repressive Arab states proves that.)



The nation of Iraq with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom. The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life, and there are hopeful signs of the desire for freedom in the Middle East.

(Flattery will get you nowhere. And since "stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder" I guess we know where the US stands.)



Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the freedom gap so their people can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater political participation, economic openness and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps to political reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.

(And this is something in which America can play a positive role. But by un-hypocritical example - not by force of arms or Mafia tactics. And not just so we can open up more McDonalds.)



It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life. Human cultures can be vastly different, yet the human heart desires the same good things everywhere on Earth.



(As for the "presumptuous and insulting" part, I guess the President would know. But best sources indicate Muslims comprise 1,509,819,727 - 25% - of a total world population of 6,068,708,934. These figures are several years old and the percentage of Muslims has increased since that time. Does the President's gross underestimate indicate he does not consider a large percentage of the Muslim population to be "part of humanity," or is his "one fifth" figure merely a projection of how many Muslims might be left after the bombing? If the US appreciates that "human cultures can be vastly different", why are we using economic blackmail and military might to ram American "culture" down everyone else's throats? And perhaps it escapes our fearless leader that peaceful alternatives to rampant destruction and mass slaughter are among "the good things the human heart desires everywhere on earth.")



In our desire to be safe from brutal and bullying oppression, human beings are the same. In our desire to care for our children and give them a better life, we are the same. For these fundamental reasons, freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror.

(Speaking of "brutal and bullying oppression" ... and "the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror" ... Aren't these the things we're practicing at this very moment? And haven't our own actions for the last twelve years been responsible for the deaths of more than 500,000 Iraqi children? Is "better life" one of those fundamentalist Christian euphemisms - they're now in a "better life"?)



Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state.



The passing of Saddam Hussein’s regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated.



But without this outside support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders, true leaders who strive for peace, true leaders who faithfully serve the people. A Palestinian state must be a reformed and peaceful state that abandons forever the use of terror.

(Uh huh. Is that what Sharon said?)



For its part, the new government of Israel, as the terror threat is removed and security improves, will be expected to support the creation of a viable Palestinian state and to work as quickly as possible toward a final status agreement. As progress is made toward peace, settlement activity in the occupied territories must end.

(Sharon is already SAYING he's agreeable, but unfortunately his hands are tied by all the right-wing anti-Palestinian hardliners in his new coalition government. Too bad. Sorry.)



And the Arab states will be expected to meet their responsibilities to oppose terrorism, to support the emergence of a peaceful and democratic Palestine, and state clearly they will live in peace with Israel.

(they've been doing that for years.)



The United States and other nations are working on a road map for peace. We are setting out the necessary conditions for progress toward the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. It is the commitment of our government and my personal commitment to implement the road map and to reach that goal.

Yeah, we've seen those road maps. Drafted by Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, weren't they?)



Old patterns of conflict in the Middle East can be broken if all concerned will let go of bitterness and hatred and violence and get on with the serious work of economic development and political reform and reconciliation. America will seize every opportunity in pursuit of peace. And the end of the present regime in Iraq would create such an opportunity.

(Just like we "seized every opportunity for peace" while Sharon was creating the equivalent of the Warsaw Ghetto in the West Bank and Gaza? And destroying civilian infrastructure, farms, water supplies and homes, and killing indiscriminately? How do you intend to cause everyone to "let go of bitterness and hatred" - give them all lobotomies?)



In confronting Iraq, the United States is also showing our commitment to effective international institutions. We are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. We helped to create the Security Council. We believe in the Security Council so much that we want its words to have meaning.

(If we believe in the UN Security Council "so much," why are we going into contortions trying to subvert the UN charter by using that body to facilitate war, rather than preserve peace, and why are we threatening and bullying other member countries whose only transgression is that they take seriously the UN's underlying purpose of finding peaceful alternatives to armed conflict? Don't the words of the UN charter have "meaning?")



The global threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction cannot be confronted by one nation alone. The world needs today and will need tomorrow international bodies with the authority and the will to stop the spread of terror and chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. A threat to all must be answered by all.

(And I suppose rejecting every meaningful international arms-control or non-proliferation treaty and abrogating most of the few we HAVE signed will help make the world a safer place.)



High-minded pronouncements against proliferation mean little unless the strongest nations are willing to stand behind them and use force if necessary. After all, the United Nations was created, as Winston Churchill said, to "make sure that the force of right will, in the ultimate issue, be protected by the right of force."

(In other words "might makes right," and "don't do as I do, do as I say." Winston Churchill may have rallied Britain during the war, but he is hardly a worthy role model for humanitarian values: In 1942 he commissioned British scientists to conduct a crash study on the feasibility of unleashing anthrax on Nazi-occupied Europe. He did this without any reservation that such use would indiscriminately kill the occupied as well as the occupiers; fortunately for Europe the plan was never implemented - not because of humanitarian concerns, but only because technical difficulties rendered it unworkable at the time. In 1927, Churchill personally ordered the gassing of Kurdish populations [just like Saddam is accused of doing] because they were "uncivilized." Many thousands of Kurds were killed in these gas attacks. The Churchill quote "to make sure that the force of right will, in the ultimate issue, be protected by the right of force" is cute. Sort of like Rumsfeld's "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This administration is fond of this sort of cleverness - if you can't baffle them with bullshit, divert them with clever jingles or language imagery. Language imagery? Did I say that?)



Another resolution is now before the Security Council. If the council responds to Iraq’s defiance with more excuses and delays, if all its authority proves to be empty, the United Nations will be severely weakened as a source of stability and order. If the members rise to this moment, then the council will fulfill its founding purpose.

(If the Council capitulates to America's bullying and authorizes aggressive war, the United Nations will not only be complicit in completely trashing the solemn principles forged at Nuremberg, but will have betrayed its own founding purpose: preserving peace in the world.)



I’ve listened carefully as people and leaders around the world have made known their desire for peace. All of us want peace. The threat to peace does not come from those who seek to enforce the just demands of the civilized world. The threat to peace comes from those who flout those demands.

(The President may have "listened very carefully," but he has peremptorily dismissed the wishes of "people and leaders around the world," and he hasn't even sought to conceal the contempt he feels for these dissenting voices. The real threat to peace comes from an administration that makes clear it is neither amenable nor accountable to its own people, or to the people of the world. "Peace" never resulted from ignoring world sensibilities, and it categorically never came from the barrel of a gun.)



If we have to act, we will act to restrain the violent and defend the cause of peace, and by acting, we will signal to outlaw regimes that, in this new century, the boundaries of civilized behavior will be respected.

(Who will act to restrain OUR nation's violence and defend the cause of peace, and how can the US even talk about "civilized behavior" against the backdrop of unjustified aggressive it is pushing so hard for? How can one outlaw nation, however powerful, pretend to dictate to other outlaw nations? Or does the term "outlaw nation" mean only what the Bush administration wants it to mean?)



Protecting those boundaries carries a cost. If war is forced upon us by Iraq’s refusal to disarm, we’ll meet an enemy who hides his military forces behind civilians, who has terrible weapons, who is capable of any crime. The dangers are real, as our soldiers and sailors, airmen and Marines fully understand. Yet no military has ever been better prepared to meet these challenges.

(Seems to me there's only one small bunch of warmongers "forcing" this war on us, and they're not in Iraq. As for the demonization, I sometimes have difficulty deciding whether Bush is talking about Saddam Hussein or himself.)



Members of our armed forces also understand why they may be called to fight. They know that retreat before a dictator guarantees even greater sacrifices in the future. They know that America’s cause is right and just: The liberty for an oppressed people and security for the American people.

(blah blah blah. The mind ossifies.)



And I know something about these men and women who wear a uniform. They will complete every mission they are given with skill and honor and courage.

(It may require skill, but it isn't very honorable and it certainly doesn't take much courage to sit in relative safety and push buttons to unleash horrific weapons that result in indiscriminate slaughter at great distances.)



Much is asked of America in this year 2003. The work ahead is demanding. It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in the country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions and war. It will be difficult to cultivate liberty and peace in the Middle East after so many generations of strife.

(Dictatorship, secret police? Can't decide whether he's talking about the last three decades in Iraq or the next three decades in America.)



Yet the security of our nation and the hope of millions depend on us. And Americans do not turn away from duties because they are hard. We have met great tests in other times and we will meet the tests of our time.

(He's got THAT right, and those duties will include dismantling the apparatus that has made the United States a rogue nation, as well as insuring that all who planned, promoted, prosecuted or participated in this illegal war will be held to account for crimes against peace and humanity.)



We go forward with confidence because we trust in the power of human freedom to change lives and nations. By the resolve and purpose of America, and of our friends and allies, we will make this an age of progress and liberty. Free people will set the course of history and free people will keep the peace of the world.

("Free people?" And who would they be, now that civil liberties and Constitutional freedoms have been taken away?)



Thank you all very much.

(Thank you, and to sum up, who the hell does he think he's kidding?)