Here is the Text of Bush's speech:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/11/AR2006091100775.html
Last night, when Bush had the opportunity to give a speech that would bring Americans closer together as we all mourn the anniversary of the attack, when he had a chance to be a "uniter, not a divider", did he instead use that opportunity to try to shore up support for the ongoing war in Iraq & the political benefits that his party might reap from it?
Just for illustration purposes, here is a count of the amount of times Bush used certain words in his speech:
Al Qaeda: 3
Osama Bin Laden: 3
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: 1
-----
Iraq: 9
Saddam Hussein: 5
Iraqi (adj.): 4
-----
Afghanistan: 2
Taliban: 1
Why couldn't he focus on the 9/11 attack and the nation's mourning, instead of spending so much time on a tangentially-related war? Couldn't he show enough restraint to not be a politician for one night & instead be a president for all Americans?
2006-09-12 06:24:32 · 13 answers · asked by Dave of the Hill People 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
This shows you the limited ability of this man to lead such a great nation. He feels he must pander at every opportunity to the 30% of bigots like himself. The other 70% of us would have been happy if he had just eulogized the dead and their families, not forgetting the 100s of thousands that have died because of his recriminatory actions in Iraq and Lebanon.
2006-09-12 07:04:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yeah...he was campaigning for his war. In his mind, 9/11 is still the reason we went to Iraq. After all, it was his original reason that he gave us (that and WMDs). He may say that he never tried to make a connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda, but we are smarter than that. How many past speeches have we heard where he has said just the opposite from what he claims now? If you ask me, Cheney is worse. Just ask Tim Russert.
2006-09-12 06:35:15 · answer #2 · answered by bluejacket8j 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
you're basically getting your self right into a pissing contest. Time to enable circulate of the gangster mentality. the two events are working as a collection to injury the country. Whom ever comes after BHO, will proceed the ball rolling, basically like Bush continued Clinton's stride. stop being a lemming, and attempt to have an unique concept. there is the place the subject is, no person thinks for themselves any further.
2016-11-07 04:26:56 · answer #3 · answered by garion 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yawn.......................You should have watched the ceremonies he and Laura attended all day long yesterday where he DID concentrate on the nation's mourning.
It wouldn't have mattered what he said last night. You Bush haters would STILL complain. It would not have brought Americans "closer together", because Bush haters don't want to come together with other Americans who do not think the same as they do. If it had been more of a ceremonial speech, you all would be moaning and carrying on about that too.
2006-09-12 06:35:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
He's trying to explain to all of the conspiracy theorists and liberal whiners why we are in this war, but, obviously, they can only see how to spin every word he says to their political advantage.
I saw nothing political in the speech. He could have taken the opportunity to remind people that Clinton dropped the ball numerous times and might have been able to keep 9-11 from ever happening if he had just allowed government agencies to communicate. He could have reminded everyone that WMDs were found.
What was political was the commentary before and after the speech. The comments from supposedly neutral media reporters absolutely wreaked of partisan politics.
2006-09-12 06:29:16 · answer #5 · answered by Robby216 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
It's impossible for the divider to give a spiel that would bring America closer together. Every spiel he gives seems to drive the wedge deeper and deeper.
Wtf could he possibly say to get my support except, "I resign".
2006-09-12 07:15:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, Clinton bombed Iraq to create a diversion from the fact he was receiving sexual acts from an Intern in the oval office.
2006-09-12 06:33:31 · answer #7 · answered by 3rd parties for REAL CHANGE 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Fear is all they have ..its subliminal mind control...its listeners imagine all kinds of tragedy's if they dont vote for the very party that brings these very tragedy's upon them..but they just don't see it ..its a pity
2006-09-12 06:30:02 · answer #8 · answered by dstr 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I hope so! I would hate to see the Dems take power.
2006-09-12 06:30:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Poor wittle wiberal didn't get his way.
Thanks for your OPINION.
2006-09-12 07:08:11 · answer #10 · answered by SVern 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋