My upcoming Bush speech for speech class. (VANITY and feedback wanted)

[a_random_joel]

I am giving a speech in about a week for my speech class. It is the final speech, a persuasive speech. Up to this point my speeches have been intentionally lighthearted and humorous - 1. How to DJ and 2. Informative speech on Saturday Night Live

As a result I have built a pretty good rapport with the class, and political conversation has been minimal. Now I'm gonna come with this, the Bush speech. I'd like to know what you guys think. Keep in mind, this is only a 9 minute max speech, and I think I'm already over the limit as it is, otherwise I would have included a whole lot more. I also wanted to keep my sources impeccably credible so there's no tin hat stuff. I think it's still a damning speech nonetheless.

Your constructive feedback appreciated:

I love to go shopping. I love to buy things I cannot afford. This has always been a problem for me - until now. Now, I never leave home without the George W. Bush Credit Card. (Visual Aid – Bush Credit Card) Here’s how it works. I buy whatever I want, whenever I want - regardless of the cost. And I don’t have to pay for it, my grandchildren do. The best part is, I don’t even have grandchildren! Ha ha ha!
I believe that this great nation cannot endure four more years of President George Bush. I will address critical issues including the environment, economy, national security and the War on Iraq. In each of these areas, the Bush Administration has failed this nation.
When it comes to the environment, I am not one of those folks who would sit in a tree for 763 days. I could care less about the plight of the spotted owl. But I do care about the plight of the unspotted ME, and my unspotted loved ones. That is why I find the Bush Administration’s environmental policies so alarming. They pulled America out of the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty ratified by over 100 nations to help reduce global warming (1). They enacted a bill called the Clear Skies Act. Sounds good? Except it actually scaled back regulations of the 1970 Clean Air act. (2) So the only thing being cleared from the skies is oxygen. Mr. Bush has offered a unique method to help counter forest fires - get rid of the forests. This bill is known as; take a guess . . . the Healthy Forests Initiative. (3) The only justification for the deregulations is that it's good for business. But what's more important, the health of our families or the health of business profits?
In economic policy the Bush Administration also puts profits first, with devastating effects on our economy. When Bush took office, he was left with record budget surpluses (4 Visual – Deficit Chart); he has turned these into the biggest budget deficits in history. As a result, our national debt - the George W. Bush Credit Card - is at an all time high. (4 Visual – Deficit Chart) This is dangerous because the debt compounds interest meaning the government is spending revenue on nothing.
This is occurring at the worst possible time - when we face increased national security needs and right before the bulk of the baby boomers retire. For those of you who don’t care about economics, ask yourself: "how do you plan to take care of yourselves once you hit retirement age if Social Security is no longer there for you?" Some of you might think: that’s a long way off. But what will you do if your parents come to you needing help?
Instead of reducing the deficit or investing in other priorities, Bush gave away a huge tax cut to those who need it least, the top earnings bracket – those who earn over $311,000 per year. (A) At the time, he said it was needed to help the economy recover and create jobs. The justification was that if you give people their money back, they would spend it. But of course, the wealthy are the last group of people who will spend money; they already have enough money on hand to spend. They will simply invest it, which does not invigorate the economy the way increased spending does.
When the economic doldrums and job loss continued Bush pushed through another tax cut. That didn't work either. In the past three years we have actually lost almost 3 million jobs and unemployment is at its highest rate in over a decade (4 Visual – Unemployment Chart).
Tax cuts are politically popular. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that if you give people money they will probably consider voting for you. But, we are in the midst of two wars. There has never been a tax cut during a war in American history. They pushed through two tax cuts - maybe one for each war?
While the budget problems are scary, recent revelations uncovered by the 9/11 Commission paint an even darker picture. While the Administration takes credit for showing leadership during this tragedy, testimony from the 9/11 Commission reveals an Administration that was curiously disengaged from the terrorist menace. Even as top intelligence and counterterrorism officials were running around in the summer of 2001 with “their hair on fire.”
The August 6th, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing (5 Visual - PDB) was entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States.” This memo mentions hijackings, and New York and Washington as possible targets. The President received this bulletin while on a month-long vacation at his Crawford, Texas ranch. (6) Apparently the information was not alarming enough for him to call the vacation short. Shortly after his return, the strike that was predicted in the briefing came to pass. On that dreadful morning, Mr. Bush sat in a Florida grade school for nearly 20 minutes after learning of the attack, reading stories about a pet goat, documented by cooperativeresearch.org in their 9/11 timeline. (7) I’m sorry, but this does not strike me as the mark of a decisive leader. (Visual Aid – Bush in school + WTC)
Since the 9/11 Commission, the President has stated there was not enough information for them to prevent 9/11. I think Maureen Dowd put it best in a New York Times editorial, “If only Osama had faxed an X-marks-the-spot map to the Crawford ranch showing the Pentagon, the Capitol, the twin towers and the word ‘BOOM!’ scrawled in Arabic.” (8)
Various members of the Administration, including the President, have stated they never imagined that planes could be used as weapons. This is in spite of the fact that the President served in the Air National Guard, his father was a WWII Navy pilot who fought the Japanese, and several previous plots had been uncovered by the CIA that document this very attack method. We will never know if 9/11 could have been prevented, but I am offended that they have somehow manipulated this tragic failure into political success.
"By invading Iraq . . . the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism," says Richard Clarke, former head of counterterrorism. (9) The War has cost us 160 billion dollars to date (10) and continues to cost 4.7 billion dollars per month. (11) Over 700 service men and thousands of innocent Iraqis have lost their lives. This at a time when our focus should have been on those that actually attacked us including Osama bin Laden, who remains at large. Despite a fancy aircraft carrier landing by the President under a banner that read “Mission Accomplished”, (Visual – Flight Deck pic) the war is rapidly spinning out of control. Bush, perhaps in one of his more sensitive moments said, “Bring ‘em on." (12) Well, they appear to be doing just that. In fact, the post war occupation was so poorly planned that Republican congressman Chuck Hagel recently announced that we should begin looking at other options such as the draft (13). The Iraq situation has actually increased our risk of terrorist attacks as it has inflamed the Muslim street and alienated many of our closest allies, including Arabic countries whose assistance against terrorism is desperately needed. We are told we have a "coalition" in the war in Iraq. But most Americans cannot pronounce most of these countries let alone find them on a map. Yeah, I can sleep a lot better now knowing that Eritrea and Slovakia have got our back.
Saddam Hussein was described as an imminent threat due to Weapons of Mass Destruction. The WMDs have not been found. Bushes head weapons inspector David Kay recently resigned and claimed, "We were almost all wrong." (14) Additionally, a White House official revealed the identity of an undercover CIA agent because her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson dared to challenge a forged report claiming Saddam sought nuclear components. (15)
Liberal opponents of the war claim this is a war for oil. Silly liberals. It's not about oil. It's about oil money! It’s about no-bid reconstruction contracts for companies like Halliburton, the company Vice President Cheney used to run. (16) In early 2000 Cheney held a series of energy policy meetings and has refused to release the papers of what was discussed. (17) A lower court ordered several documents released including this map of Iraqi oil fields. (18 Visual – Oil Field.pdf) Quite simply this war is unjustified and leaves us more vulnerable. For many innocent Iraqis this war has been their September 11th, repeated over and over again. For those of us who have been against the war since the beginning, we have been called unpatriotic and told we do not support the troops. Well, I do support the troops. In fact, I support them so much I would rather see them at home with their families than being shot up and terrorized in a foreign land under false pretenses.
How do we move forward? John Kerry has the experience, wisdom, and policies to help get this country back on the right track. He is a decorated war hero, highly educated, with 30 years of experience in the U.S. Senate. He has proposed a national health care plan to help insure the 43 million Americans who are uninsured (Source); he advocates a fairer tax plan that shifts the burden of taxes off the middle class and back to the wealthy. He has a plan to get more assistance from the international community to help us in Iraq, so that we do not shoulder the entire burden alone. The choice is clear: we can continue down the road we are on (Visual – Sad America Pic) or we can return to the peace and prosperity we experienced under the last Democratic president. (Visual – Happy America Pic)
This was a time of surplus instead of deficit, 22 million new jobs, the fastest growing economy in American history, as well as relative peace, admiration and cooperation throughout much of the world. Or we can continue down the path of huge deficits, more jobs lost, a shrinking middle class, more war, and quite possibly more terrorism.
The choice is yours but most importantly, make a choice. Even if you disagree with me or think I am some left-wing wacko, exercise your right to vote. There is nothing more vital to the stability of a democratic republic. That said, I implore you to vote for Kerry. It is easy and painless to register. You can go to the DMV or sign up online at www.rockthevote.org. Fill out a voter registration form. I would rather see you fill out one of these, (Visual – Voter Reg) than one of these, an unemployment application. (Visual – Unemployment App) Once you are registered, you may vote in the 2004 election in November. You will receive a sample ballot that will tell you where your polling station is located. I would rather see you punch a ballot (Visual – Ballot) than one of these, a draft card. (Visual – Draft Card) As we saw in the closely contested 2000 election, every vote DOES count.
The destiny of this great nation is in all of our hands. Hopefully, we will do the right thing. I think former congressman Richard Gephardt says it best, “Like father, like son, four years and another Bush is done.” (19)

Sources

A* http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P65057.asp
1* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
2* http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/qbushplan.asp
3*http://www.sierraclub.org/forests/fires/healthyforests_initiative.asp
4* http://www.buzzflash.com/AreYouBetterOff/default.htm
5* http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
6* http://slate.msn.com/id/2098861/
7*http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=700
8* Maureen Dowd. Head Spook Stutters. New York Times. A33. April 15th, 2004.
9* http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20071-2004Mar24.html
10* http://in.news.yahoo.com/040421/137/2coqq.html
11* http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/4735911.html
12*http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/02/sprj.nitop.bush/
13*http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&u=/afp/20040420/pl_afp/us_iraq_military_draft&printer=1
14* http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56311-2004Jan28?language=printer
15*http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,581456,00.html
16*http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/16/news/companies/halliburton/
17*http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040401/us_nm/energy_cheney_dc_1
18* http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf
19*http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Nov/11162003/nation_w/111511.asp

[BunnyThief]

1. Just a few points...

First, on the Kyoto treaty: according to the Constitution, Congress has sole power to ratify treaties. President Clinton never bothered to formally submit it to Congress for ratification; he signed on to it, proudly announced his support for it, and then dropped it behind the couch. Bush just got honest; there's NO WAY IN HELL Congress would approve it, so he decided to dump the fiction that it would actually be effective.

Second, on the tax cuts: you got it right once when you used the phrase "give people their money back," but later used the term "give people money." That would be be a better definition of entitlement programs, not tax cuts.

On terrorism: I'm not quite certain how to work this in, but in Tom Clancy's "Debt Of Honor," published in 1994, an airliner is deliberately flown into the Capitol Building. Clancy was Ronald Reagan's favorite author, and Reagan is George W. Bush's hero/role model/political godfather.

On the oil money angle: you might want to be careful there. With the rapidly-unfolding Oil For Food scandal (or, as someone else suggested and I liked, "crude pro quo"), it's looking more and more like the nations that most strongly opposed the war in Iraq -- France, Germany, and Russia, to name a few -- were on the receiving end of literally billions of dollars from Hussein's government, along with healthy promises of more once sanctions were lifted.

On the weapons of mass destruction, there are some big developments in that area, too. In Rotterdam, highly radioactive materials (including yellowcake) have been found that came from Iraq. Large amounts of poison gas has turned up in Jordan, and Sudan has ordered Syria to get it's Scud missiles and chemical warheads out of it's country. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to speculate that the items might trace ultimately back to Iraq.

All else being said, while I disagree with a lot of your sentiments, I'm glad to offer these suggestions. Good luck.

J.

[a_random_joel]

2. Thanks for the feedback

Actually,

I am not sure if the Kyoto PROTOCOL counts as a treaty in this regard. Your argument is thus one of semantics. That aside, I have my doubts about your statement on Congress not approving it. Things in Washington can get done by Presidents who WANT to get them done. Your point is moot, because Bush, not Congress, initiated a pullout.

As for give people money back vs. give people money. Wrong again, friend. The phrase I used was the phrase the Bush Admin used. One I happen to disagree with. We pay taxes in this country. If you earn more, you pay more. End of story. As for entitlement programs, there are no bigger entitlements in this Administration than the one subsidizing corporations. Please be more specific about which entitlement programs you are referring to.

I agree on the Clancy novel. Interesting that in that same year a single pilot crashed onto White House grounds as well.

Actually, friend, we continued to do oil business with Iraq during this period as well. As did Halliburton, through French subsidiaries WHEN CHENEY WAS RUNNING IT. But aside from this, your point is irrelevant. This war was based in large part on oil profits. The actions of other nations during oil for food have nothing to do with that.

As for your last point... I'll believe it when I see it. And the argument has been manipulated by the administration. The real question was never whether Saddam had Weapons. It was whether he posed an imminent threat. It is the Bush Admin who ultimately pushed the WMD scenario out there. That we have not found the weaons is just icing on the cake, and egg on their face.

I wonder upon what basis you disagree with my sentiments? I have laid forth arguments supported by facts. Do you consider yourself a Bush supporter? Or a conservative? If so, then I understand. Because it has become apparent to me that for most Bush supporters, logic means less than cheering for your team. Being proven wrong time and again is also not easy to own up to.

Cheers.

[BunnyThief]

3. Joel....

I call myself a "militant moderate." That means I'm a Lieberman voter who finds myself agreeing with conservatives more than liberals, but socially liking the liberals more than the conservatives.

The comment I made about the "giving money/giving money back" was purely a semantic one. You were discussing tax cuts, and that means "giving money back" from people whom it was taken from first. When you used the phrase "give money," that implies money that was not the recipient's originally. I used the phrase "entitlement programs," such as welfare, social security, or the like, to describe that situation. You seemed to be discussing tax cuts in both contexts; I was just suggesting you remain consistent in your terminology.

As far as the Kyoto protocols -- you can call it a man-powered excavation tool or a shovel, a spade's a spade. An agreement that binds a nation to one or more other nations in obligations is a treaty, and needs Congressional approval. As you said, Congress had already expressed it's disapproval before, and there were no indications that that state was going to change.

As far as oil for food being irrelevant... that was incredibly relevant. As long as the status quo was preserved (sanctions in place, Hussein in power, oil for food running), a lot of people were getting rich. People in the UN, people in France, people in Russia... once the Hussein government was overthrown and the sanctions formally lifted, that goose stops laying the golden eggs.

I'm not saying WMDs have conclusively been found -- one web site I frequent imposes what it calls the "72-hour rule" on ANY big news out of the Middle East. Essentially, it's best to withhold any comment or discussion on any such events for the first 72 hours to weed out the wheat from the chaff, the substance from the BS. I'm just giving you a heads-up -- these are three major indications in recent times. Tread lightly -- egg on the face might be good for the complexion, but rather embarassing socially and academically.

J.

[a_random_joel]

4. Thanks for the civilized response.

Since it seems we both like to paddle with one oar:

Treaty.. accord... protocol. I may be mistaken but I believe the Constitutional grounds you are referring to in regards to treaties refer to military or diplomatic matters. I am not sure environmental agreements are treated the same way. I'll have to research that. Nonetheless, Presidents, including this one, have twisted Congressional arms before (need I mention the Medicare bill?). If the President wanted Kyoto, he could have at least made the effort. But we already know he didn't want it.

Give people money back as a MEANS to spark the economy. When weighted toward the top... doesn't work. And this was the justification given by the Admin.

Whether people DESERVE tax cuts or entitlements is another issue entirely. I see far too many conservatives get caught up in the idea of deserving tax cuts or not deserving entitlements. This is the wrong argument. The basis for the tax cut made by the admin was primirily one of economic invigoration. If you want a class warfare argument,I'll be glad to go there in another thread.

Again, you missed my main point on oil. The oil for food scandal - bad as it may have been, was not WAR. It did not cost LIVES. If there is a criminal case to be made in the oil for food scandal, then there is an even bigger criminal case to be made against this administration for an oil war for profit scandal.

Finally... the case for war is NOT, NOT one on Saddam's posession or non posession of WMDs. It is whether or not his regime POSED AN IMMINENT THREAT. Many countries have WMD. Not all countries pose an imminent threat. And even some of those that might (N. Korea comes to mind) are not being invaded. Inconsistency is more embarassing than egg on the face.

Peace to you.

[BunnyThief]

5. Time to pull out the big guns...

The whole "Bush called Hussein an imminent threat" thing is bogus -- a fiction that has become "fact." I went searching for a transcript of Bush's 2003 State Of The Union address, and found one at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushtext_012803.html . I'm quoting the germane portion below:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

The oil for food program WAS costing lives -- they left Saddam unchallenged and in power while he continued to persecute, torture, and slaughter his own people. Hell, even the sanctions were allegedly killing people -- don't you recall all those stories about all the Iraqi babies the sanctions were killing?

Bush put as much effort into getting Kyoto approved as Clinton did -- Clinton just was more into glory-grabbing. And as far as the legal nuances are concerned, I have an aphorism I've discovered and like a great deal: "a difference that makes no difference is no difference." If it ever did end up in a court, I am fully confident that, for Constitutional purposes, it IS a treaty.

Finally -- and this is the LAST time I'm discussing the point -- the "giving money/giving money back" argument I'm having with you is purely semantic, not of substance or politics. I am suggesting you use consistent terminology -- in one point, you link "tax cuts" with "giving money," in another with "giving money back." Use whichever you like; I just think your piece would be stronger if you were consistent. Repetition and parallelism are powerful rhetorical tools; use them, and use them well.

J.

[a_random_joel]

7. morning vanity kick...

[leftyandproud]

6. also

you may want to get rid of the tax reductions to people "who don't need it." Take that phrase out...I'm not sure that the format is, but if students can ask questions or rebut your statements, the "they don't need it" comment opens you up to accusations of being a marxist. "From each according to ability...to each according to need." Yes, Marx said that, and I've had people ask me if I agreed with a communist...kinda puts me in a tough spot (since I DO!:) so you may want to take that part out.