Your Comments About Bush's Speech On 6th March

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Jessie, Mar 8, 2003.

  1. Jessie Registered Senior Member

    George W. Bush statement on March 6th, 2003

    Good evening. I'm pleased to take your questions tonight and to
    discuss with the American people the serious matters facing our
    country and the world.

    This has been an important week on two fronts on our war against terror. First, thanks to the hard work of American and Pakistani officials, we captured the mastermind of the Sept. 11th attacks against our nation. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed conceived and planned the hijackings and directed the actions of the hijackers. We believe his capture will further disrupt the terror network and their planning for additional attacks.

    Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting
    the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror. In New York tomorrow, the United Nations Security Council will receive an update from the chief weapons inspector. The world needs him to answer a single question:
    Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed as required by Resolution 1441 or has it not?

    Iraq's dictator has made a public show of producing and destroying a few missiles, missiles that violate the restrictions set out more than 10 years ago.

    Yet our intelligence shows that even as he is destroying these
    few missiles, he has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles.

    Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents
    to avoid detection by inspectors. In some cases, these materials
    have been moved to different locations every 12 to 24 hours or
    placed in vehicles that are in residential neighbourhoods.

    We know from multiple intelligence sources that Iraqi weapons
    scientists continue to be threatened with harm should they co-operate with UN inspectors.

    Scientists are required by Iraqi intelligence to wear concealed
    recording devices during interviews, and hotels where interviews
    take place are bugged by the regime.

    These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming.
    These are the actions of a regime engaged in a wilful charade.
    These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world.

    If the Iraqi regime were disarming, we would know it because we would see it. Iraq's weapons would be presented to inspectors and the world would witness their destruction. Instead, with the world demanding disarmament, and more than 200,000 troops positioned near his country,
    Saddam Hussein's response is to produce a few weapons for show,while he hides the rest and builds even more.

    Inspection teams do not need more time or more personnel.
    All they need is what they have never received --
    the full co-operation of the Iraqi regime.

    Token gestures are not acceptable. The only acceptable outcome is the one already defined by a unanimous vote of the Security Council:
    total disarmament.

    Great Britain, Spain and the United States have introduced a
    new resolution stating that Iraq has failed to meet the requirements of Resolution 1441. Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied.

    Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists, terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries.

    Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country,to our people and to all free people.

    If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime,
    refusing to use force even as a last resort, free nations would assume the myths and unacceptable risks.

    The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, show what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or
    terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.

    We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. I will not eave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons. In the event of conflict, America also accepts our esponsibility to protect innocent lives in every way possible.

    We will bring food and medicine to the Iraqi people. We will help
    that nation to build a just government after decades of brutal
    dictatorship. The form and leadership of that government is for
    the Iraqi people to choose. Anything they choose will be better
    than the misery and torture and murder they have known under Saddam Hussein.

    Across the world and in every part of America people of good will are hoping and praying for peace. Our goal is peace for our nation,
    for our friends and allies, for the people of the Middle East.
    People of good will must also recognize that allowing a dangerous dictator to defy the world and harbour weapons of mass murder and terror is not peace at all; it is pretence.

    The cause of peace will be advanced only when the terrorists lose a wealthy patron and protector, and when the dictator is fully and finally disarmed.

    Tonight I thank the men and women of our armed services and their families. I know their deployment so far from home is causing hardship for many military families. Our nation is deeply grateful to all who serve in uniform.

    We appreciate your commitment, your idealism and your sacrifice.
    We support you. And we know that if peace must be defended,
    you are ready.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    This part was good:
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Reid Registered Senior Member

    Well it's not really Bush's speech, hes just the one reading it
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Re: Re: Your Comments About Bush's Speech On 6th March

    But they obviously didn't go over the QA section with him.
  8. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Handlers did use a scripted calling order of reporters, in an attempt to maintain some control in such an encounter. They also had Ari Fleisher seated in the center-right aisle seat, where he could keep eye contact and signal the President, which I saw for only an instant in the edge of the frame twice, during brief camera pans of the audience. ...At least that's what I thought I saw with a bit of a start. Handlers know that the President is not competent to handle these situations, and probably wish that President Bush could maintain appearances without any press conferences at all.

    I am trying to find a clip of Ari leaning out in the aisle, nodding at the president in a way that seemed very curious. Did anyone else see this? Unfortunately, I was surfing between channels to catch audience views after I saw it the first time, I think on ABC but I'm not sure- the first glimpse I didn't believe what I saw, the second I was sure I recognized Ari. I don't think this scandalous, but definitely interesting.

    Also, I have not found a transcript of the whole thing, that is not cleaned up like the one the on Does anyone have a link for an uncensored transcript? I think the ummms and hesitations are an important part of verbal communication, if one is trying to understand more the frame of mind of one's leader.

    (edit) Here is a clip of the Press Conference (scroll down until you see President Bush News Conference). No Ari in sight. I now suspect I was "seeing things" that weren't there. Still, very interesting watching this man respond to (and clumsily evade) questions.
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2003
  9. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member

    God do i miss Reagan, at least HE was an actor that could present his text with flair!
  10. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Reagan had great skill, and made me proud, made most Americans proud, by his stature and intelligence.
  11. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member


    Reagan was the second dumbest president the U.S. ever had (right after Bush Jr.). The only thing that Reagan was good at was increasing the national debt.
  12. immane1 Registered Senior Member

    Reagan not only was the main contributor to ending the Cold War, but advanced his agenda with a Democrat led Congress.

    Oh yea, the speech was sound, but with the usual poor delivery. I doubt I could do much better though. In the end, it is what one says not how that I find important. *yawn*
  13. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member


    The main contributer to ending the Cold War was Mikhail Gorbachev, and not Reagan. I would of liked to see if Reagan could have "ended" the Cold War if Joseph Stalin was in power in the Soviet Union instead off Gorbachev.
  14. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Reagan and his cabal would certainly have been too sophisticated to obsess on Stalin's affinity for torturing opponents, and to shamelessly bandy unsubstantiated insinuations about unrelated terrorist attacks on America, all in order to hoodwink the American public into pre-emptively attacking the Soviet Union. Reagan well understood how to put a tyrant in his place if he chose to do so, with finesse, and without recklessly risking the future standing of America in the world. The Busheviks are betting the whole ranch. That's just not conservative.
  15. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    does that make any sence?

    i mean on one hand hes saying that they should disarm honestly in responce to 1441 and on the other hes using what they ARE doing against them
  16. Reid Registered Senior Member

    Re: Re: Re: Your Comments About Bush's Speech On 6th March

    I think they go over the obious questions that might show up
  17. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Yes it was sort of fun in a sad way when he would *ding* remember a coached phrase and smirk to himself. I liked the very end, when he lost the callscript, looked franticly around for an easy mark, and a reporter ("Jean?"- I did not recognize her) challenged him with a question about the wisdom of placing a deadline in the new resolution. He refused to answer, and when she tried to rephrase her short question he silenced her under nevous snickers over a little "funny" ("I'm not gonna tip my hand") he made- then talked over her followup with "thank you, thank you" as she tried to speak, and went to his unrelated coached material, as he had during most of the Q&A. To me it was if at the end, the President was nearing the limits of composure. If this man is mentally wobbly in a press conference, how well is he going to react to surprises and crisis during war?
  18. Psycho-Cannon Home grown and Psycho Registered Senior Member

    HE is not going to react at all his keepers are.
    He will be tucked up nice and safe in bed with his fluffy bunnies and Powel reading him a bed time story cosisting of short words of no more than 3 sylables with pretty pictures.
  19. shadows technocrat:Teach me Registered Senior Member

    he looked pretty nervous to me.

Share This Page