UN speech by President Bush

[Technosoul]

The weblink below contains the transcript of President Bush's speech at the United Nations, his speech was followed by remarks from skeptics that "any nation that provacates the law must also live by that same law".

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/09/23/sprj.irq....ush.transcript/

And so I wish to look at some of his statements and give my comments.

Bush said "and all nations that fight terror, as if the lives of their own people depended upon it, will earn the favorable judgement of history".

That line stood out to me because it is clear that Bush thinks he will be judged by history book writers as the good guy with his war on Iraq. And this pretty much is why I suggested my "re-evolution" idea about re-writing history so that such kinds of thinking would be less dominatant in the future.

Bush went on to say that Saddam cultivated ties with terrorists groups and built weapons of mass distruction, and then refused to destroy them when confronted by the U.N. And because of that he made a choice which he had to pay for dearly. Iraq is now liberated and is a free country.

What? Did someone pull the plug on his CNN TV set, did someone steal all his newspapers before he could get informed? Why does he still have faith in those lies that we now think was just "poor quality intelligence on the part of the CIA", when it has become clear that none of what he said is true (relative to those last claims he is making in his UN address). This is nuts.

That was part one, I will make more comments later.

Technosoul.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Transcript of Bush U.N. address
Tuesday, September 23, 2003 Posted: 11:58 AM EDT (1558 GMT)

Look at the date.

Why would we want to discuss last years speech when I already started a debate on Bushs speech to the UN this week?
Here: http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?s...?showtopic=3130


Edit for grammar

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, Transcript of Bush U.N. address Tuesday, September 23, 2003 Posted: 11:58 AM EDT (1558 GMT) Look at the date. Why would we want to discuss last years speech when I already started a debate on Bushs speech to the UN this week? Here: http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?s...?showtopic=3130 Edit for grammar

I do not know why their webpage accindently listed the wrong date as being 2003 and not 2004, but if you read the speech displayed it is the one he gave as aired on TV. His very last speech before the UN. I know because I watched it and it is the same speech. The current one.

The post you started was about the speculation of what he was going to say before it said it. So I wanted to do one based on he final speech which was not presented until after your post was already underway.

And I wanted to post the complete transcript for review by those wishing to debate it so that when I pick it apart word by word (more or less) people will know I am not operating just out of memory.

Now if you knew the contents of his current speech you would know that what I posted was the lastest speech, and if you could not tell that by reading it then how can you debate what he said, especally when debating it before he said it?

So I will continue with or without your blessings, sorry if my post conflicted with yours.

Technosoul.

[tusaki]

I read an interesting article on the New York times about the speech, or to be more exact, it was a summary of headlines of newspapers from across Europe. I'll post the article here since it's not so long.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/22/internat...22CND-EURO.html

Bush's Speech to U.N. Wins Few Plaudits in Europe By PATRICK E. TYLER Published: September 22, 2004 ONDON, Sept. 22 — The editorial cartoon in the Times of London newspaper today was derisive: the first panel has President Bush telling the United Nations General Assembly, "Friends, our policy in Iraq is directed solely towards a successful election." The second panel has him saying which election: "Mine." European newspapers, including some that supported the American military campaign in Iraq, were largely critical of Mr. Bush's address on Tuesday to the United Nations. The Financial Times contended in its lead editorial that the Bush administration "systematically refused to engage with what actually has happened in Iraq" namely, in its view, that American policy "mistakes" have "handed the initiative to jihadi terrorists" who "now have a new base from which to challenge the West and moderate Islam." The paper said that Mr. Bush's Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, "after being evasive, long-winded and sometimes contradictory," was beginning to speak more realistically than Mr. Bush about deterioration in Iraq. And, the newspaper asserted, that Mr. Bush's "disengagement from the reality of a sinking Iraq is alarming." The left-leaning Independent newspaper carried an editorial cartoon of Osama bin Laden putting up a Bush campaign poster saying "4 More Years" on a shell-pocked bit of masonry in Iraq. The cartoon seemed to be inspired by a diplomatic spat over remarks attributed to the British ambassador to Rome, Sir Ivor Roberts. After a private discussion on policy that was deemed to be off the record, Sir Ivor was quoted by an Italian newspaper as saying that Mr. Bush had become "the best recruiting sergeant" for Al Qaeda. In its editorial, the Independent said that Mr. Bush "gave little hint" in his speech of the "catastrophic war" under way in Iraq. "Instead of a measured account of reality in Iraq," the editorial said, "he treated the ranks of national leaders gathered at the U.N. to a portentous and self-justifying speech brimming with clichés about `freedom' and `democracy' that glorified the American way." Applause for Mr. Bush was scarce on the Continent, but in Poland, the Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper ran a commentary by Foreign Minister Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, who noted that Mr. Bush's speech had to be considered in the context of an election campaign. And after hearing the views of Senator Kerry, the foreign minister said that Poland considers itself "closer to the position presented by Bush." The Polish newspaper Nasz Dzinnik, however, argued in an editorial that Mr. Bush, having "attacked Iraq in defiance" of those nations that called for United Nations authorization for invasion, Mr. Bush was now trying to convince the international community that it should pay for the "chaos" caused by "reckless policy." In France, two major newspapers commented on Mr. Bush's remarks in New York. The left-of-center Liberation congratulated Mr. Kerry for belatedly setting forth a comprehensive position on Iraq, and for advocating an approach that would "involve U.S. allies in a broader way." President Bush, the paper said, is "part of the problem rather than the solution" when it comes to working with allies. In his speech to the United Nations, the paper said, Mr. Bush "showed that slightly autistic self-satisfaction remains the dominant tendency of American power." In Le Figaro, which reflects the thinking of France's conservative establishment, the correspondent Philippe Gelie observed that Mr. Bush was "impervious to criticism" in the conduct of American foreign policy. His speech in New York was that of a "campaigning American president" who "lectured the rest of the world." "In his vision of a global war between good and evil, each new crime strengthens his conviction of having been right against those who accuse him of having invaded Iraq under false pretenses," Mr. Gelie wrote. The German daily Tagesspiegel's editorial was blunt in its review of the speech. Its headline said, "US, UN, Iraq: the truth counts for nothing." Italy's largest newspaper, Corriere della Sera, said Mr. Bush had "forgotten that his go-it-alone approach has alienated many sympathizers" with American goals in the Middle East, and admonishing the White House that it would take "more than an isolated appeal during an election campaign" to rebuild the consensus that once existed on Iraq.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Originally posted by Technosoul, Now if you knew the contents of his current speech you would know that what I posted was the lastest speech, and if you could not tell that by reading it then how can you debate what he said, especally when debating it before he said it?

I read down to the part where he talked about a UN building being bombed "last month". Did that happen a month or 13 months ago? I didnt remember that happening a month ago. So, I looked at the date.

Sheesh

I started my topic when Bush started talking about the speech, 2 days prior to the event. And get this, I actually provided a source to support my thread, what a concept.

edit to fix grammar

[tusaki]

Bush didn't really have something new to tell, so I'm not surprised about the mixup -grin-.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Originally posted by GWB in 2003 Twenty-four months ago and yesterday in the memory of America, the center of New York City became a battlefield and a graveyard and the symbol of an unfinished war.

Dude, do the math.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Originally posted by tusaki Bush didn't really have something new to tell,

I know....He prolly just changed a few words like a school boy.

[PatrickHenry]

Here's the real transcript: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/21/bush.un.t...ript/index.html

Sorry Technosoul, unless last year and yesterday are the same in your memory(how old are you?), you boo booed. You sure that was the speech you heard yesterday???

From your article:

"Mr. Secretary-General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen: Twenty-four months ago and yesterday in the memory of America, the center of New York City became a battlefield and a graveyard and the symbol of an unfinished war.

See, September 11, 2001 was 36 months ago, not twenty four...

[Dieval]

Assuming that, even though you have the wrong speech linked, you still believe that everything about Saddam having links to terrorism is a lie, I just thought I'd point out a few things...

Originally posted by Technosoul, Bush went on to say that Saddam cultivated ties with terrorists groups and built weapons of mass distruction, and then refused to destroy them when confronted by the U.N. And because of that he made a choice which he had to pay for dearly. Iraq is now liberated and is a free country. What? Did someone pull the plug on his CNN TV set, did someone steal all his newspapers before he could get informed? Why does he still have faith in those lies that we now think was just "poor quality intelligence on the part of the CIA", when it has become clear that none of what he said is true (relative to those last claims he is making in his UN address). This is nuts.

When did Saddam sever his ties to terrorists? I must have missed that.

Did he sever them when Clinton was around?
Wait, Clinton said he had ties -

"Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq." -- From a Clinton Administration Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998

Did someone on the 9/11 commision say that?
Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic congressman who is the 9/11 commission's vice chairman, says they have ties-

"The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is what the governor (Commission Chairman Thomas Kean) just said, we don't have any evidence of a cooperative, or a corroborative, relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these Al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States." -- Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic congressman who is the 9/11 commission's vice chairman

Someone mention Zarqawi?

"(Abu Musab al) Zarqawi was said to have received medical treatment in Baghdad in May and June of 2002 after being wounded in Afghanistan during the war. His leg was amputated, U.S. officials say, by a surgeon in Iraq. Before the war, Secretary of State Colin Powell pointed to Zarqawi's al Qaeda-affiliated group that he said was operating inside Baghdad, as evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq." -- Today, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who was in Iraq before the war began, is leading terrorist attacks against the Coalition and Iraqi people.

"There's Mr. Yasin, who was a World Trade Center bomber in '93 (an attack attributed to Al-Qaeda) who fled to Iraq after that. And we've found since, when we got into Baghdad, documents showing that he was put on the payroll and given housing by Saddam Hussein after the '93 attack-in other words, provided safe harbor and sanctuary." -- Dick Cheney

"Credible reporting states that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 7, 2002

He was also financing attacks against Israel...paying money to families of terrorists who committed homicide against innocent Israelis...

I guess those aren't ties, are they?

[Scribbler1]

It seems that we are being exposed to spin and deception on both sides to the point that BOTH sides are telling the truth as they know it, supplied on both sides by credible sources.

This, of course, is impossible.

[Technosoul]

Well I would be shocked to find that was not the right speech made a few days ago, because it is nearly word for word what he said on TV as I remember it.

Did any of you hear the speech and pay attention to it? Did any of you find a weblink on CNN or elsewhere with a current date for his last speech? Go find it, post the complete transcript as is, and let's see if it is any different then the one I posted.

If in fact he did not change his speech from the last one then it mades no difference which speech I used. The debate would be about the same things.

I think I might have goofed and just posted the first UN speech I saw (did not look at date) because it seemed to cover what he talked about on TV, the war on terror, AIDS, etc. Even the photo looked the same as the one on TV a few days ago, at least he could wear something different looking if he is going to repeat the same speeches, or get a new speech writer.

I forgot, he always keeps repeating the same line over and over.

However I just did another search and cannot find the new speech transcript on-line anyplace. Only reporter opinions and spin off news reports.

Will the right speech please stand up! (was it shredded already, so soon?)

I did find a another old one from 2001 and guess what, more or less the same line being taken.

Anyway unless someone can find the current transcript to post I guess we cannot debate it. I just could not find the right key words to put into a search - I used "UN speech, Bush, transcript" but can find nothing dated for 2004.

I thank those of you who noted the mix-up, nonetheless, it still LOOKS like the same speech in content.

I am not much into dates, I do not even wear a watch. And using my new 10 month calendar is not helping much.

Technosoul.

[PatrickHenry]

Try using the key number 2004, too. Even easier, try reading my post above and clicking on the URL I listed...

Do you only read what you yourself write? Man, ya gotta read the thread for us to get anywhere. Sheesh.

[giuliano]

Originally posted by Dieval, "(Abu Musab al) Zarqawi was said to have received medical treatment in Baghdad in May and June of 2002 after being wounded in Afghanistan during the war. His leg was amputated, U.S. officials say, by a surgeon in Iraq. Before the war, Secretary of State Colin Powell pointed to Zarqawi's al Qaeda-affiliated group that he said was operating inside Baghdad, as evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq." -- Today, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who was in Iraq before the war began, is leading terrorist attacks against the Coalition and Iraqi people.

that is such weak evidence of saddam's links to terrorism.

a. there is no tie between his hospital treatment in baghdad and his current activities, other than they occurred in the same country.

b. despite attempts by the bush administration to claim so, there is no evidence zarqawi was an al qaeda member. there is evidence he asked osama for help, and this was denied to him.

[Compugasm]

This thread is funny. Ya wanna debate the speech, but can't seem to get the correct one to talk about. It's like a Keystone Conversation.

[gr8fuldaniel]

This is from Bushs 2003 speech:

Events during the past two years have set before us the clearest of divides: Between those who seek order and those who spread chaos;

Which one are we?

[Dieval]

Originally posted by giuliano, that is such weak evidence of saddam's links to terrorism. a. there is no tie between his hospital treatment in baghdad and his current activities, other than they occurred in the same country. b. despite attempts by the bush administration to claim so, there is no evidence zarqawi was an al qaeda member. there is evidence he asked osama for help, and this was denied to him.

Even if you don't believe the al qaeda link, you have to admit that Saddam aided a known terrorist. (If you're not with us, you're against us....how much more against us can you get?)

Edit to add more information -

Abu Musab Zarqawi Abu Musab Zarqawi has been named as the link between Iraq and al Qaeda. He has been involved with terrorist activites for many years and is thought to be one of Osama bin Laden's chief supporters.

Abu Musab Zarqawi

Zarqawi's Links to Other Terrorists The relationship between Zarqawi and al-Qaeda is the subject of much debate. Although Zarqawi's active role in organizing terrorist operations suggests that he himself is a major terrorist leader, it is useful to clarify his links to other groups so as to better understand how international terrorism works. The principal terrorist threat today stems from the web of shadowy relationships between loosely affiliated groups. The sponsors of such groups further complicate the web, be they states or sub-state actors. Indeed, there is no precise organizational or command structure to the assemblage of groups that fall under al-Qaeda's umbrella or that cooperate with the organization. Hence, whether Zarqawi swore allegiance (bayyat) to bin Laden makes little difference in whether the two would work together at promoting a common agenda.

Zarqawi's Links to Other Terrorists

[giuliano]

there are lots of terrorists living comfortably in florida, from what i understand.

saddam always distanced himself from acts of terror. sure he mixed with terrorists, he had ties. so do lots of other leaders. gaddafi was a terrorist. ariel sharon was (and is) a terrorist.

they all share one thing in common: none directly attacked the US (except gaddafi).

the taliban: there's a much stronger argument there.

the saddam/terror link was just obviously an excuse to justify ulterior motivations for invading iraq.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by giuliano,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (giuliano,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> saddam always distanced himself from acts of terror. sure he mixed with terrorists, he had ties. [/b]

So obviously Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism...

<!--QuoteBegin-giulian,
the saddam/terror link was just obviously an excuse to justify ulterior motivations for invading iraq.[/quote]
I know the rhetoric - it was a war for oil...blah blah blah...

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Dieval,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dieval,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-giuliano, that is such weak evidence of saddam's links to terrorism. a. there is no tie between his hospital treatment in baghdad and his current activities, other than they occurred in the same country. b. despite attempts by the bush administration to claim so, there is no evidence zarqawi was an al qaeda member. there is evidence he asked osama for help, and this was denied to him.

Even if you don't believe the al qaeda link, you have to admit that Saddam aided a known terrorist. (If you're not with us, you're against us....how much more against us can you get?)

Edit to add more information -

Abu Musab Zarqawi Abu Musab Zarqawi has been named as the link between Iraq and al Qaeda. He has been involved with terrorist activites for many years and is thought to be one of Osama bin Laden's chief supporters.

Abu Musab Zarqawi

Zarqawi's Links to Other Terrorists The relationship between Zarqawi and al-Qaeda is the subject of much debate. Although Zarqawi's active role in organizing terrorist operations suggests that he himself is a major terrorist leader, it is useful to clarify his links to other groups so as to better understand how international terrorism works. The principal terrorist threat today stems from the web of shadowy relationships between loosely affiliated groups. The sponsors of such groups further complicate the web, be they states or sub-state actors. Indeed, there is no precise organizational or command structure to the assemblage of groups that fall under al-Qaeda's umbrella or that cooperate with the organization. Hence, whether Zarqawi swore allegiance (bayyat) to bin Laden makes little difference in whether the two would work together at promoting a common agenda.

Zarqawi's Links to Other Terrorists[/b][/quote]

Debate or no debate the thing is we were only fighting the terrorists that we can prove are directly responsible for the 9-11 attack on USA property. The Bush idea that we should make premptive strikes on any country that "might someday in the far future" attack us is totally beyond the goals of "bringing to justice" those who were involved in the planning or the activities of those men who hi-jacked airplanes and crashed them into our buildings, and also some limited war with those who might prevent us from that goal in some real way.
Prevention should be limited to being aware via intelligence gathering and then protectng the boarders or with a defense system.

It was not our duty to take control over the UN and thier methodology for keeping Saddam's army from attacking a neighboring country. It is not our busness to protect the people of Iraq from their own leader if we think he was terrorizing them. It is not our duty to protect the fishing industry of Japan from aggressive actions taken by Green Peace to save the Dolphins, it is not our duty to protect local oil companies from those who protest them. It is not our duty to pick whom we want to classify as a terrorist nation globally or internally as an organization. Especally with a lot of educated guessing that is often the product of manipulated data.

What act of Congress gave President Bush the right to eliminate all non-democratic forms of government world wide?

We have the help of most all international banking to stop any funding that someone or nation might offer Ben Laden, we do not have to blow them off the face of the earth to prevent that.

We must concentrate on Bin Laden and A-Q and not try to fight every terrorist that might be creeping around with some objective or revolution directed at places in Russia, Isreal, Africa, South America, or whatever. If the UN asks for help then let us help, but let us not think the UN is there just to back up President Bush and his crusade to liberate people from their politcal systems of government.

We must re-learn how to coordinate non-violent methods for resolving some of those global problems with peace keeping agendas. We might be at a rare historical moment when we can rise up as the bully boss of the globe, but that certainly should not be our national forien policy.

If you do not like someone in Iran, pray for them but don't just shoot them, give faith a working chance, give peace a chance, for when bucks and bullets fly, anyone can die.

Technosoul.