Bush's radio address for 9/27/03

[Patrick M]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98477,00.html

Good morning.

Earlier this week, I spoke to the United Nations — which has become, like our country, a target of terrorism. In the past month, terrorists have made two bombing attacks on the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, killing Iraqi citizens, U.N. officials, and international aid workers.

On Tuesday, I conveyed the sympathy of our country for the losses of the U.N., and the gratitude of our country for the relief efforts of the U.N. in Iraq. I also expressed America's determination to fight and win the war on terror — for the safety of our own people and for the benefit of all mankind.

The world is safer today because, in Afghanistan, our broad coalition destroyed the training camps of terrorists and removed the brutal regime that sponsored terror. The world is safer today because we continue to hunt down Al Qaeda and its terrorist allies, and have captured or killed nearly two-thirds of Al Qaeda's known leaders and key facilitators.

The world is safer today because, in Iraq, our coalition ended a regime that cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. And for the safety of the people of Iraq and of all free nations, our forces are now conducting a systematic campaign to defeat holdouts of the old regime and other terrorists who have joined them.

In the struggle between terrorist killers and peaceful nations, there is no neutral ground. All nations must join in confronting this threat where it arises — before the terrorists can inflict even greater harm and suffering. And all nations should stand with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq as they build a future based on freedom and democracy.

Our coalition is helping the Iraqi people to build a secure, hopeful, and self-governing nation which will stand as an example of freedom to all the Middle East. We are rebuilding more than a thousand schools, supplying and reopening hospitals, rehabilitating power plants, water and sanitation facilities, bridges and airports.

We are training Iraqi police, border guards, and a new army, so that the Iraqi people can assume full responsibility for their own security. Iraq now has its own Governing Council, has appointed interim government ministries, and is moving toward elections. Iraq's new leaders are showing the openness and tolerance that democracy requires — and also the courage. Yet every young democracy needs the help of friends. America is providing that help to Iraq, and all nations of goodwill should do their part, as well.

Our goal is a free Iraq, where the Iraqi people are responsible for their own affairs. We want Iraq's governmental institutions to be strong, and to stand the test of time. So I called on the United Nations to take up vital responsibilities in this effort. America is now working with friends and allies on a new Security Council resolution which will expand the U.N.'s role in Iraq. As in the aftermath of other conflicts, the United Nations should assist in developing a constitution, training civil servants, and conducting free and fair elections. Many U.N. members — from the Philippines to Poland and now Germany — have expressed their commitment to helping build a democratic and stable Iraq.

The stakes in Iraq are high, for the Middle East and beyond. If freedom and progress falter in the Middle East, that region will continue to export violence that takes lives in America and around the world. If democracy and tolerance and peace advance in that region, it will undermine the bitterness and resentment that feed terrorism. The terrorists understand this — so they have chosen to fight against order and liberty in Iraq. They must, and they will, be defeated. And I am confident that more nations will rally to the side of the Iraqi people and help them to build a free and peaceful nation.

Thank you for listening.

[Patrick M]

Fun with word counts:

terror/terrorism/terrorist: 12
regime: 3
bombing: 1
kill/killer/killing: 3
war: 1
brutal: 1
safe/safer/safety: 5
attack: 1
sympathy: 1
allies: 2
coalition: 3
WMD: 1
peace/peaceful: 3
captured: 1
defeat/defeated: 2
threat: 1
harm: 1
suffering: 1
inflict: 1
army: 1
security/Security: 2
conflict: 1
violence: 1
bitterness: 1
resentment: 1
Iraq/Iraqi: 19
Afghanistan: 2
Al Qaeda: 2

[lukpac]

The world is safer today because, in Iraq, our coalition ended a regime that cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. And for the safety of the people of Iraq and of all free nations, our forces are now conducting a systematic campaign to defeat holdouts of the old regime and other terrorists who have joined them.

Cultivated ties to terror? WMD?

"If I say it over and over enough, it must be true."

[Rspaight]

You dope-smoking, long-haired, maggot-infested malcontent failure.

Ryan

[lukpac]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 319-1.html

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

[lukpac]

Bush Sr. quote:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031006&s=schell

Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.

[Patrick M]

I think Bush's speeches should come with a free Prozac. The rhetoric of fear, indeed.