Important bits of today's presidential speech

[Chairboy]

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=24815

The author took a transcript of his speech and replaced anything that wasn't one of the following with dashes:

Al Qaeda
September 11, 2001
Osama bin Laden
Iraq

It's astonishing how much of his speech in Carolina was devoted to the above.

Here's the original:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070724-3.html

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Amazing. In a speech to soldiers about the Iraq war, terrorism, and the great job they're doing, he repeatedly mentioned Iraq (where the most publicized part of the fight is), Al Queada (the most well known terrorist group), Osama Bin Laden (figurehead of the most well known terrorist group), and 11 September 2001 (the date the most well known terrorist attack so far). Well, Hell, I guess it's just excessive, ain't it? For the life of me, I just can't understand why a person giving a speech would repeatedly mention things pertaining to the subject of the speech. That's just absurd.

[Eagler]

CB, what did you want him to talk about ... the weather?

[Chairboy]

Well, for one, it seems like he's still linking Al Qaeda and Iraq.  I'm not convinced that a link existed before our invasion, but reading his speech, he says explicitly that our invasion didn't bring them there, and that they were there already.

I'm no raving leftist, but I also don't like it when someone pees on me and tells me it's raining.  Reading that speech and the implicit message, I think that's what's happening.  I don't understand his motivation.  The guy has to be pretty damn smart to be elected president, so obviously he Has A Plan, I just wish he'd be explicit about exactly what The Plan is.

Also, it'd make a good drinking game.  

1 drink for terrorist
2 drinks for September 11
3 drinks for Osama bin Laden
etc

It's almost getting to a point where OBL is Emmanuel Goldstein, and these speeches are our 'Two Minute Hate' sessions.  We get it, OBL is bad and a raging ass, but if he's still alive, how effective could he possibly be now?

I'm starting to suspect the following:
1. Osama bin Laden is dead dead dead.
2. Al Qaeda is currently a loose association, maybe 5-10 actual hard core members left who selectively fund existing insurgents (who, btw, have their own GTFO agendas and think they're using AQ)
3. We may be inadvertently keeping the Al Qaeda balloon inflated through our actions.

Again, I'm no raging "BUSH IS TEH EVUL!" or whatnot, I'm just a citizen who, based on the information available, has some concerns.  I hope I don't get shouted down here just because I'm not toeing the line.  I'm not a Nash clone, I'm just zis guy, you know.

The speech seems to be, as far as I can tell, more evidence supporting the above, hence my post.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

I doubt bin Laden is dead. On the run, on his heels, and off balance, but most likely alive, and dangerous in many ways. Probably on the frontier between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and being protected by warlords loyal to him and opposed to Mushariff (sp?).

Al Queada is in fact large and well organized, although it is hurt. Never underestimate your enemy. Especially after what they did on the date you seem to have a problem with the mention of. Not to mention the fact that it is possible for them to get something large and nasty and use it on you.

Al Queada is self inflating. Fighting them doesn't inflate them, it keeps them off balance.

Al Queada, and groups like it, are everywhere in the Middle East. Maybe not everywhere in force and en masse, but everywhere. Hate and fanaticism are an infestation, and the Middle East is a prime breeding ground. There are undoubtedly elements of most all of the terrorist groups of Al Queada's ilk (Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah etc) in most every country in the Middle East.

I don't think Bush denies that the invasion caused Al Queada to grow and become active in Iraq. I think he's just not very eloquent or very clear, and I don't think his speech writers or aides do a good job of helping him get his point across. Bush is only a decent speaker when he speaks from the heart, in very short speeches. Were he a better speaker, and if he went directly to the people on a regular basis, I think he'd be a lot more powerful, more successful, and more popular. It is amazing that he's gotten as far as he has considering he just isn't a great public speaker.

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by Eagler
CB, what did you want him to talk about ... the weather?

Seems to me those actually terrorizing US citizens are the real terrorists... he could talk about that. It might be just another .gov failure, but at least it's relevant to our daily lives.

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html

But I get it, when his string is pulled he can only say 5 things:

1- "Iraq"
2- "al Qaeda"
3- "9/11"
4- Osama bin Laden, and every now and then he gets real tricky replacing #3 with 5- "September 11th, 2001"

If he tried to say anything else, he'd march in a circle like a robot until an aid could replace the battery in his back.

[JBA]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Well, for one, it seems like he's still linking Al Qaeda and Iraq.  I'm not convinced that a link existed before our invasion, .......
 

Well according to one Presidential hopeful.. al Qaeda was there...

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ...It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

[Chairboy]

Ms. Clinton seems to twist as needed to prosper in whatever the current political winds are.  When checking her opinion, you can save time by just looking at what's the popular sentiment right now.  Polling is her rudder, you can extrapolate her course just by tracking community consensus.

I'm still leaning heavily towards R. Paul, myself.

[Elfie]

Well, for one, it seems like he's still linking Al Qaeda and Iraq. I'm not convinced that a link existed before our invasion, but reading his speech, he says explicitly that our invasion didn't bring them there, and that they were there already.

I'm not sure which speech you read. I read this one:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070724-3.html

In it he says:

A good place to start is with some basic facts: Al Qaeda in Iraq was founded by a Jordanian terrorist, not an Iraqi. His name was Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Before 9/11, he ran a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. He was not yet a member of al Qaida, but our intelligence community reports that he had longstanding relations with senior al Qaida leaders, that he had met with Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Zawahiri.

In 2001, coalition forces destroyed Zarqawi's Afghan training camp, and he fled the country and he went to Iraq, where he set up operations with terrorist associates long before the arrival of coalition forces. In the violence and instability following Saddam's fall, Zarqawi was able to expand dramatically the size, scope, and lethality of his operation. In 2004, Zarqawi and his terrorist group formally joined al Qaida, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and he promised to "follow his orders in jihad."

Soon after, bin Laden publicly declared that Zarqawi was the "Prince of Al Qaida in Iraq" -- and instructed terrorists in Iraq to "listen to him and obey him." It's hard to argue that al Qaida in Iraq is separate from bin Laden's al Qaida, when the leader of al Qaida in Iraq took an oath of allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

According to our intelligence community, the Zarqawi-bin Laden merger gave al Qaida in Iraq -- quote -- "prestige among potential recruits and financiers." The merger also gave al Qaida's senior leadership -- quote -- "a foothold in Iraq to extend its geographic presence ... to plot external operations ... and to tout the centrality of the jihad in Iraq to solicit direct monetary support elsewhere." The merger between al Qaida and its Iraqi affiliate is an alliance of killers -- and that is why the finest military in the world is on their trail.

Note the dates in this part of his speech. Zarqawi didn't merge with Al-Qaida until 2004 when his organization became known as Al-Qaida in Iraq. I don't see anywhere in Bush's speech where he is trying to link Al-Qaida to Iraq before the invasion. He did say Zarqawi was operating in Iraq already.

We have been told about two terrorist training camps that were in Iraq before the war started, one in the north and one just south of Baghdad. The one south of Baghdad even had an airliner for terrorists to practice hijacking.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Chairboy
http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=24815

The author took a transcript of his speech and replaced anything that wasn't one of the following with dashes:

Al Qaeda
September 11, 2001
Osama bin Laden
Iraq

It's astonishing how much of his speech in Carolina was devoted to the above.

Here's the original:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070724-3.html

This person has taken Boosh Bashing to an entire new level.
I suppose life has nothing better to offer him then to sit around and edit out 90 % of a speach?

Pretty sad really

[Eagler]

Elfie
Don't confuse them with the facts ...
Guess it doesn't matter that 99% of the dems were for the war before they were against it
has anyone seen the aluminum foil? I think xmarines hat has a tear in it ...

[rpm]

Originally posted by Eagler
Elfie
Don't confuse them with the facts ...
Guess it doesn't matter that 99% of the dems were for the war before they learned of the misinformation, greed and outright lies told by this administration and decided that their decision to support the war was wrong and it was their moral obligation to be against it

Fixed

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by rpm
Fixed

Which lies would those be that the administration before didnt also tell?

[rpm]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Which lies would those be that the administration before didnt also tell?

The ones that they didn't tell? That would be a short list.

[Maverick]

Please provide the information that show a deliberate misinformation campaign. The term "lie" indicates a deliberate falsehood so if you have the information that a deliberate falsehood was used it would be nice.