The Speech of a real leader

midcan5

Member
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/
 
A a potentially great leader is greatly feared by man different elements in America for several different reasons.

Many think staying the course with run of the mill politicos is the way to go.
Well the current course is not looking too good to me.
 
The speech is OK but, for me at least, there's not enough terrorism, fear and blowing people up.
 
You sell insurance or burgler alarms or something like that ?

Nothing like that, US.

I just don't understand the mindset of the pussyfooting liberal who would rather see a leader adopting a calm collected position, refusing to issue broad threats of violence and "talking" to other countries who, while we don't actually know where they are, know that they want to destroy our civilization.

What America needs is a leader capable of matching the Iranian hyperbole word for word, conveying in imaginative language how the US of A is going to kick some ass, preferably whilst wearing a cowboy hat and smoking a big cigar.
 
Nothing like that, US.

I just don't understand the mindset of the pussyfooting liberal who would rather see a leader adopting a calm collected position, refusing to issue broad threats of violence and "talking" to other countries who, while we don't actually know where they are, know that they want to destroy our civilization.

What America needs is a leader capable of matching the Iranian hyperbole word for word, conveying in imaginative language how the US of A is going to kick some ass, preferably whilst wearing a cowboy hat and smoking a big cigar.

:D NOW I understand. It is still early here.
 
Nothing like that, US.

I just don't understand the mindset of the pussyfooting liberal who would rather see a leader adopting a calm collected position, refusing to issue broad threats of violence and "talking" to other countries who, while we don't actually know where they are, know that they want to destroy our civilization.

What America needs is a leader capable of matching the Iranian hyperbole word for word, conveying in imaginative language how the US of A is going to kick some ass, preferably whilst wearing a cowboy hat and smoking a big cigar.
Not necessarily a big cigar but a GOOD cigar
 
Damn President O wasnt messin arround here.

He really needs to double his security force though.
 
Curious that threats real or imagined count more than humanitarian efforts. Goering was right.

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Goering
 
Back
Top