Bush Speaks on Veteran's Day

[Timber Loftis]

Well, I personally don't like the pulpit bit about linking Iraq to US security. While I agree the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan are imminently sensible, as he said, I do not think that many people (except Fox news watchers) buy that there is a direct threat to the US from Iraq -- or ever was.

This reminds me of how many fallacies still exist in the "world" of Bush's perception. On a related note, sadly it's nearly that time of year again -- a time to face a difficult decision once again. I say this time, this year, we support Rummie telling him.... that there is no Santa.
______________________________________________

Bush Links Efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan to U.S. Security
By DAVID STOUT

Published: November 11, 2003

WASHINGTON, Nov. 11 — President Bush said today that the grand experiment of democracy must succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan, not just for the sake of the people in those countries but to protect the national security of the United States.

"Our mission in Afghanistan and Iraq is clear to our service members — and clear to our enemies," Mr. Bush said in a speech before the Heritage Foundation.

Marking Veterans Day by praising the valor of American fighting men and women across the years, Mr. Bush said the people serving in Afghanistan and Iraq today are helping "democracy, peace and justice rise in a violent and troubled region."

But as Mr. Bush spoke, there were new signs of how difficult the campaign in Iraq may ultimately be. The chief civilian administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, returned to Washington on an unscheduled visit for a round of high-level discussions. Details were sketchy this afternoon, but there were reports that Mr. Bremer and top administration officials were discussing the pace of stabilization in Iraq.

In southern Iraq, an explosion killed at least six civilians today. And Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, commander of the coalition ground forces, warned at a news briefing in Baghdad that more attacks on American and British troops were certain. "We're going to take attacks from fundamentalists and other terrorists," the general said.

In his speech to the Heritage Foundation, Mr. Bush said that in fighting thousands of miles from home, American military people are helping to ensure "that we don't face those enemies in the heart of America."

If the grand experiment with democracy should fail, Mr. Bush asserted, "More attacks on America would surely follow."

In declaring that the United States has "an unbreakable commitment" in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr. Bush described America's mission as both altruistic and eminently sensible. If representative government does indeed take root in those two distant countries, he said, it will be good for the United States as well because "terror is not the tool of the free."

The president got a friendly reception before the Heritage Foundation, which describes itself as a research institute "whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."

In the Baghdad news briefing, General Sanchez insisted that, despite the inevitable bloodshed and hardships, great progress was being made. And he vigorously rejected any comparison to an earlier war, telling a questioner, "It's not Vietnam, and there's no way that you can make the comparison to the quagmire of Vietnam."

Mr. Bush's argument that democracy must take root in the two countries not just for the sake of their peoples but for the long-range security of the United States is one he has been advancing repeatedly in recent weeks.

He laid out his companion argument, that the war in Iraq is an integral part of the worldwide campaign against terrorism, at an earlier ceremony in Arlington National Cemetery as well.

"At this hour, many thousands are following their duty, at great risk," Mr. Bush told the cemetery audience on a damp, gray morning. "One young man serving in Iraq recently said this: `We in the military signed up and pledged to protect this great country of ours from enemies foreign and domestic. We are fighting,' he said, `so that the next generation might never have to experience anything like Sept. 11, 2001.' "

Describing the United States as "a nation at war," Mr. Bush said: "Young Americans have died in liberating Iraq and Afghanistan. They've died in securing freedom in those countries. The loss is terrible; it is borne especially by the families left behind. But in their hurt and in their loneliness, I want these families to know your loved ones served in a good and just cause."

At another point, Mr. Bush recalled an earlier generation, their ranks almost gone now. "On Veterans Day 2003, it is still possible to thank in person almost 200 Americans who were in uniform when the guns of World War I went silent 85 years from today," he said. "All the men who served when Woodrow Wilson was the commander in chief are now more than a hundred years old, and they can know that America is still proud of them."

[ 11-11-2003, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[dragon_lord]

That speech seems a little odd to me. He is talking about current day conflicts and trying to justify them, when isnt veterans day suppose to be about those that have fought/fallen in War? And paying respect to them? Just seems to me he is playing a little bit of politics with it, which doesnt sit right with me. Compare Bush's speech with John Howards Memorial Day (marking the end of WW1) speech;
"If I might slightly refashion a well-known phrase of John Kennedy’s, Australians have never asked others to do for us what we have been unwilling to do for ourselves. Most recently, the Australian Government demonstrated that approach in making our decisions on East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq."
Thats all he mentions of Iraq. The rests of the time he payed respect to thosed who fought/fallen in war by talking about thing like:
"And yet it’s Simpson with his donkey who brought wounded from the firing lines at Gallipoli and Sir Edward ‘Weary’ Dunlop, the doctor whose dedication saved countless lives during a long and cruel captivity along the Burma-Thailand railway – both unarmed and unlikely warriors - that stand in bronze as symbols of the Australian military tradition and character." Howards full speech.

Maybe its just me, but I have this thing about people showing respect where its due. And when people like this idiot do things like that it really rubs me the wrong way.

[ 11-11-2003, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: dragon_lord ]

[Timber Loftis]

Thanks, Dragon Lord -- now that's what should be done to protestors. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

i agree that veteran's day speech by any administration should be about veterans, not hijacked for other causes. but in this case, i want to defend the big W.

http://www.freepress.org/columns.php...03&strAuthor=7 Bush to veterans: Drop Dead November 12, 2003 As another Veteran's Day passes by, George W. Bush has sent a clear and present message to the men and women of America's armed forces: Drop Dead. In an astonishing series of cynical attacks on veterans rights, benefits and sanctity, the administration has shortchanged our military personnel on their medical care, pensions, compensation for having been tortured, access to vital information about health dangers suffered in service, and even their body armor. After promising that the Iraqi people would be "dancing in the streets" upon their arrival, US troops are being attacked up to three dozen times a day. In response, Bush has imposed an unprecedented media blackout on coverage of their corpses coming home. Bush himself has yet to attend the funeral of any soldier slain in Iraq. But he has attacked those within the military who would express a democratic opinion against his policies. Bush has also violated a crucial national tradition---dating to George Washington---against a Chief Executive appearing in military garb while in civilian office. Bush himself went AWOL from his Alabama National Guard unit during the Vietnam War. His lengthy absence may have made him technically a deserter, and thus subject to prosecution, which has never happened. Earlier this year Bush was flown by military jet onto the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. Strutting on the flight deck in a photo op jump flight suit, he spoke before a "Mission Accomplished" banner which he now denies was rigged by his handlers. Bush has publicly cited his alleged "combat" experience, but never served in any battle. He showed his tactical genius by daring the Iraqi resistance to "bring it on," followed by the deaths of scores of soldiers and civilians. Three supreme US generals who did serve in wartime---Washington, Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight Eisenhower---have also served as US president. To emphasize the crucial separation of the military from American civilian government, all made a point of avoiding public appearances in military uniform while in office. So have other veteran presidents such as John F. Kennedy and Bush's father, George H.W. Bush. But George W. Bush soiled that tradition with a Tom Cruise routine that cost taxpayers at least $800,000, and may have deprived the crew of the U.S.S. Lincoln of a day's leave. This Veteran's Day, Bush signed the Fallen Patriots Tax Relief Act, which doubles the tax-free death gratuity payment given to the families of fallen soldiers from $6,000 to $12,000. He also approved the National Cemetery Expansion Act to help establish new military burial grounds. But he has now frozen $1 billion in financial settlements won by 17 U.S. combat veterans who were whipped, beaten, burned, electrically shocked and starved by Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The vets and their families filed for compensation under a 1996 law, citing the Geneva Convention. On July 7, U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts ordered Iraq to pay the 17 ex-POWs and their families $653 million in compensatory damages, plus another $306 million in punitive damages. But Bush has cited "weighty foreign policy interests" and has sued to withhold the money. Meanwhile Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has blatantly violated a 1990s law requiring the military to keep baseline medical data so the health of the US soldiers now serving in Iraq can be properly monitored. The demand derives from Gulf War Syndrome, which may have caused disabling diseases among as many as 220,000 vets. But Rumsfeld has ignored the law. The Administration is also denying service women access to reproductive care, including abortions. And it has failed to provide body armor to some forty percent of the soldiers serving in Iraq. Meanwhile Bush has fought to slash long-standing benefits due surviving veterans of the World Wars, Korea and Vietnam. The GOP has opposed repealing the Disabled Veterans Tax, which mandated that money due some 600,000 surviving vets in disability pay be deducted, dollar-for-dollar. At one point Rumsfeld told the White House to veto the Defense Appropriations Bill if it gave the vets that money. A firestorm of outrage has forced the administration into a compromise phased in over ten years. But it will still deny thousands of veterans their benefits as they die off. With the relentless militarization of the mainstream media, Bush clearly believes he can ignore the soldiers he will condemn to death, disease and abject poverty. Especially now that he has announced his courageous support for more cemeteries in which to bury their unphotographed corpses.

With a recent track record such as this, it would have been hypocritcal for Bush to spend any more time on veterans issues and any less on his own agenda.

[dragon_lord]

Originally posted by sultan: With a recent track record such as this, it would have been hypocritcal for Bush

We couldnt have a politician being hypocritical now could we? [img]tongue.gif[/img] .

If that article is true: What a bloody disgrace!

Bush himself went AWOL from his Alabama National Guard unit during the Vietnam War.

You would think if was in the army he would have some compassion for vets.

His lengthy absence may have made him technically a deserter, and thus subject to prosecution, which has never happened..... Bush has publicly cited his alleged "combat" experience, but never served in any battle

That takes the cake; he talks about "an unbreakable commitment" to Iraq and he was a deserter? He hasnt seen combat and yet he says that he has? Isnt that insulting to peope have actually been in war?

But he has attacked those within the military who would express a democratic opinion against his policies.....

Isnt this the same man who said "I love free speech"?

And it has failed to provide body armor to some forty percent of the soldiers serving in Iraq.

Now im worried for dizzy (check GD)

Meanwhile Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has blatantly violated a 1990s law requiring the military to keep baseline medical data so the health of the US soldiers now serving in Iraq can be properly monitored. The demand derives from Gulf War Syndrome, which may have caused disabling diseases among as many as 220,000 vets. But Rumsfeld has ignored the law.

I dont get it. Why wouldnt you want to keep checks on your soldiers health? When they get back from war dont they want them to be productive citizens?

Meanwhile Bush has fought to slash long-standing benefits due surviving veterans of the World Wars, Korea and Vietnam.

How low can you get? Taking benefits from people who have suffered through war.


On an amusing side note Wordweb (a little dictionary program) has this as one of its definitions for politician: A schemer who tries to gain advantage in an organization in sly or underhanded ways. Nice one wordweb [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Sultan, with you taking up for the big W, he doesn't need enemies.

Thanks for the very informative article.