The Speech of a real leader

[midcan5]

October 2, 2002

"Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/28/7343/

[Yurt]

i wonder if all the typical white people are able to understand it, given their racist views towards seeing a black man

[Sitarro]

October 2, 2002

"Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/28/7343/

Funny, this is what Obamessiah's Democrat partners were saying for years.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

[midcan5]

Funny, this is what Obamessiah's Democrat partners were saying for years.

But you are missing a significant piece of observation, they didn't engage in a half ass attack with no plan on what to do, nor did they sacrifice thousands of Americans and Iraqis, nor did they waste billions of our hard earned money. As you must have heard, actions speak louder than words and stupid actions speak the loudest.

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts04232008.html

[avatar4321]

But you are missing a significant piece of observation, they didn't engage in a half ass attack with no plan on what to do, nor did they sacrifice thousands of Americans and Iraqis, nor did they waste billions of our hard earned money. As you must have heard, actions speak louder than words and stupid actions speak the loudest.

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts04232008.html

who did engage in a half ass attack with no plan on what to do?

You obviously arent paying attention to the things Obama is promising to spend billions of our hard earned money on if you honestly are trying to claim that they arent wasting billions.

[glockmail]

But you are missing a significant piece of observation, they didn't engage in a half ass attack with no plan on what to do, nor did they sacrifice thousands of Americans and Iraqis, nor did they waste billions of our hard earned money. As you must have heard, actions speak louder than words and stupid actions speak the loudest.

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts04232008.html

Democrats suceeded in half-assing attacks in Viet Nam, Rwanda, and Bosnia by pulling out too soon, causing the slaughter of roughly 4.5 million people. Now they want to do the same thing in this "dumb" war. :pee:

[midcan5]

Democrats suceeded in half-assing attacks in Viet Nam, Rwanda, and Bosnia by pulling out too soon, causing the slaughter of roughly 4.5 million people. Now they want to do the same thing in this "dumb" war. :pee:

You know no history if you think all that bombing in Vietnam was half-ass. Iraq is becoming even more like Nam in the fact we are now propping up a corrupt regime. Bosnia? where do get your news, telepathy from crazies is my guess. A simple google search should help you get at least a minor education and for the sake of argument suppose others made mistakes, how does that excuse the current band of fools and the attack on a country that was no threat and had nothing to do with 911?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

[glockmail]

You know no history if you think all that bombing in Vietnam was half-ass. Iraq is becoming even more like Nam in the fact we are now propping up a corrupt regime. Bosnia? where do get your news, telepathy from crazies is my guess. A simple google search should help you get at least a minor education and for the sake of argument suppose others made mistakes, how does that excuse the current band of fools and the attack on a country that was no threat and had nothing to do with 911?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

Your so full of shit that there is nowhere to begin a reasonable response! :lol:

[Hobbit]

Leader my ass. By his own admission, he doesn't have the wherewithal to figure out he's hanging out with extremists, terrorists, and racists. Who will he appoint to his cabinet? Assuming he's even being honest, we'll see some America-hating, anti-white racist extremist sitting in the Oval Office, only to have Obama reveal that he was too stupid to realize this guy wasn't a good person.

Who bases their entire campaign on 'change' anyway? What an empty platform. What kind of change? Change like in Europe, home to the 3 hour work week, double digit unemployment, and a renewed Muslim invasion? Change like Clinton's, where we start a dozen fights and don't show enough balls to finish them? Change like Clinton's that triggered such a quick reaction from voters that he hadn't even been in office for two years when his party got kicked to the curb? Change like Jimmy Carter, who caused 'stagflation' and left our embassy to twist in the wind for over a year? Change like LBJ, who skyrocketed the national debt, got us into a war without even trying to win and actually causing poverty to worsen with his 'war on poverty?' Change like JFK, who pledged our support to anti-Castro revolutionaries, then left them to die on the beach because it wasn't politically expedient to keep his word? Change like FDR, whose failed Keynesian policies dragged the Great Depression out until people nearly lost hope that it would EVER get better, then used underhanded campaigning and exploitation of wartime patriotism to get the American people to agree to income tax withholding, leading to our current mess of a system?

Is that the kind of change this guy means?

Obama's nothing more than a smile and an empty suit. His platform means NOTHING. Also, he causes priapism.

[Hagbard Celine]

Leader my ass. By his own admission, he doesn't have the wherewithal to figure out he's hanging out with extremists, terrorists, and racists. Who will he appoint to his cabinet? Assuming he's even being honest, we'll see some America-hating, anti-white racist extremist sitting in the Oval Office, only to have Obama reveal that he was too stupid to realize this guy wasn't a good person.

Who bases their entire campaign on 'change' anyway? What an empty platform. What kind of change? Change like in Europe, home to the 3 hour work week, double digit unemployment, and a renewed Muslim invasion? Change like Clinton's, where we start a dozen fights and don't show enough balls to finish them? Change like Clinton's that triggered such a quick reaction from voters that he hadn't even been in office for two years when his party got kicked to the curb? Change like Jimmy Carter, who caused 'stagflation' and left our embassy to twist in the wind for over a year? Change like LBJ, who skyrocketed the national debt, got us into a war without even trying to win and actually causing poverty to worsen with his 'war on poverty?' Change like JFK, who pledged our support to anti-Castro revolutionaries, then left them to die on the beach because it wasn't politically expedient to keep his word? Change like FDR, whose failed Keynesian policies dragged the Great Depression out until people nearly lost hope that it would EVER get better, then used underhanded campaigning and exploitation of wartime patriotism to get the American people to agree to income tax withholding, leading to our current mess of a system?

Is that the kind of change this guy means?

Obama's nothing more than a smile and an empty suit. His platform means NOTHING. Also, he causes priapism.

Translation: "Whaaaa! Whaaa! Obama's going to be the next president! Whaaaa!":dance:

[manu1959]

Leader my ass. By his own admission, he doesn't have the wherewithal to figure out he's hanging out with extremists, terrorists, and racists.

kinda says it all......

[Gaffer]

The only thing about iraq that is similar to Vietnam is the media reporting and the dems determination to lose.

[midcan5]

Your so full of shit that there is nowhere to begin a reasonable response! :lol:

I note nothing of substance in that reply. Are you old enough to remember Vietnam? If not I suggest you check into it. Go here and at least check out the timeline. Note when it started.

http://www.vietnampix.com/intro.htm

[midcan5]

The only thing about iraq that is similar to Vietnam is the media reporting and the dems determination to lose.

Then challenge yourself and learn something.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0129-06.htm

http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/07/06/vietnam-and-iraq-a-comparison/

http://www.sonomacyd.org/warpower.pdf

Bush Accepts Iraq-Vietnam Comparison

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2583579


"I consider Bush's decision to call for a war against terrorism a serious mistake. He is elevating these criminals to the status of war enemies, and one cannot lead a war against a network if the term war is to retain any definite meaning." Jurgen Habermas

[Gaffer]

Then challenge yourself and learn something.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0129-06.htm

http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/07/06/vietnam-and-iraq-a-comparison/

http://www.sonomacyd.org/warpower.pdf

Bush Accepts Iraq-Vietnam Comparison

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2583579


"I consider Bush's decision to call for a war against terrorism a serious mistake. He is elevating these criminals to the status of war enemies, and one cannot lead a war against a network if the term war is to retain any definite meaning." Jurgen Habermas

Not much there I'm not already aware of. Those are all old accounts. Two to three years ago. And they all fail to take in the effect of the media on both wars.

The media jumped all over tet 68 as a major American loss. To this day they still try to portray it that way. It was nothing of the kind. With the exception of Hue there was no positions lost to the vc or nva. Hue was defended by SVN troops. The vc lost 90% of their fighting force in that offensive and the north was ready to throw in the towel when they heard the news reports in the US. They knew if they just hung on long enough they could win. The same applies today. The only news that comes out of iraq is the bad news. And the dems keep spouting how the war is all wrong and we need to pull out now.

Nixon forced NV to the negotiating table by bombing hanoi. Without that NV would have continued fighting. Once a truce was established our troops were pulled out. SVN was perfectly capable of defending itself as long as they had supplies. The russians and chinese continued to supply hanoi, but our wonderful dem controled congress decided SVN didn't deserve to be supplied and cut off all aid. SVN fell in weeks. The dems want to do that again.

Let's talk about the causes of the war. We already had troops in SVN when the Gulf of Tonkin episode occurred. A totally made up attack on a US destroyer. The nation was more than happy to get behind the president and go after those little yellow commies. The media harped about the innocent people caught in the cross fire and the atrocities perptrated by the soldiers who were called baby killers. They never once mentioned the 2000 innocents executed by the nva at Hue. For every innocent person wounded or killed by US fire there were ten brutally murdered by the vc. I can personally attest to that. The same tactics are still being used in iraq.

The first part of the iraq war was search and destroy. It was the same in Vietnam. The surge now does search and destroy along with stay there and secure it with local troops. That is another tactic from Vietnam which started in 1968. Make friends with the locals till they are able to defend themselves then move on. Marine CAPS became very good at this.

Johnson was told a lie to get him to commit troops to SV. He believed it and did so. So does that make Johnson a liar? Bush was given faulty intelligence. Does that make Bush a liar? He had other reasons for going to war in iraq but the only thing the dems and media harp about is the wmd's.

Congress has been playing the pass the buck game since korea. It's not a matter of the president usurping power. It's a matter of congress not having the balls to declare a war when its necessary. If we were outright attacked tomorrow by a country congress would vote to give the president the money to fight that country, but would not declare war. As for iraq. The majority of the congress voted in favor of Bush taking military action agains iraq to remove saddam hussien. 100 democrats were part of that vote. Now they are all lying or trying to play dumb.

Vietnam and iraq are two different wars being fought differently. The only thing that remains the same is the media reports and the dems wishy washy attitude.

[Hobbit]

Translation: "Whaaaa! Whaaa! Obama's going to be the next president! Whaaaa!":dance:

I'm trying to imagine a way for you to be less mature and...it's not coming.

[Sitarro]

Senators are not leaders. This clown, that could sit in a "church" for 20 years and not get up and punch that ass "preacher' in the mouth is no leader, he's a punk and a coward. He may even be a faggot, his "wife" certainly wears the pants in the family. It seems to be a trend in Democrat families.

[avatar4321]

Having a perfect awareness of how unqualified I am to lead the country at this point in time., I have to state with all modesty, that I am far more qualified to lead this country than Obama ever will be. Leadership involves experience and the moral authority to take an unpopular position with the people and convince them that it's a good one. Obama doesnt have this.

[midcan5]

Having a perfect awareness of how unqualified I am to lead the country at this point in time., I have to state with all modesty, that I am far more qualified to lead this country than Obama ever will be. Leadership involves experience and the moral authority to take an unpopular position with the people and convince them that it's a good one. Obama doesnt have this.

Interesting that you know you are unqualified in one area but assume qualification in another and if this is still a democracy a leader follows the wishes of the people or acts in the interest of the people.

[glockmail]

... a leader follows the wishes of the people or acts in the interest of the people. You are describing Omama perfectly- a populist, hence no moral compass or experience necessary.

[midcan5]

You are describing Omama perfectly- a populist, hence no moral compass or experience necessary.

That does not follow nor does it make any sense. What is a moral compass anyway? An excuse to attack a sovereign nation?


Vietnam and iraq are two different wars being fought differently. The only thing that remains the same is the media reports and the dems wishy washy attitude.

You sure have a odd view of reality, media was conservative then and it is more conservative today. We hardly see the horror of this unlawful occupation. And I would call neither Wars as in both cases we are fighting the very people whose country it is. WWII was a war, we had foes, terrorism is a bunch of crazies. In the sense we do not have the right to enforce our view on the other, they are too alike and will end sadly after much loss that had no reason.

[glockmail]

If you don't know what a moral compass is then there's not much I can do to help. Sorry, man.

[avatar4321]

Interesting that you know you are unqualified in one area but assume qualification in another and if this is still a democracy a leader follows the wishes of the people or acts in the interest of the people.

1)if you have multiple thoughts break them up into multiple sentences. it makes things clearer. Your first phrase just doesn't make any sense.
2)Your biggest problem is we aren't a democracy and never have been.
3)Leaders don't follow the crowd. They lead the crowd.

[midcan5]

1)if you have multiple thoughts break them up into multiple sentences. it makes things clearer. Your first phrase just doesn't make any sense.
2)Your biggest problem is we aren't a democracy and never have been.
3)Leaders don't follow the crowd. They lead the crowd.

You stated you were unqualified to be president.

But then you stated you knew Obama was unqualified compared to you. How do you know that? (different levels of unqualified?)

Did you consider Bush qualified, and if you did by voting for him, then I'm not sure I would accept your evaluation this time. :laugh:

[Gaffer]

That does not follow nor does it make any sense. What is a moral compass anyway? An excuse to attack a sovereign nation?



You sure have a odd view of reality, media was conservative then and it is more conservative today. We hardly see the horror of this unlawful occupation. And I would call neither Wars as in both cases we are fighting the very people whose country it is. WWII was a war, we had foes, terrorism is a bunch of crazies. In the sense we do not have the right to enforce our view on the other, they are too alike and will end sadly after much loss that had no reason.

If you consider the media conservative today you need to make an immediate right turn and realign yourself. The msm went way left in 68 and they have been moving farther left with each passing year. The proof is in the reporting.

If you want a view of reality you have to live in reality. Viewing it from moonbat land will not give you a proper perspective.