Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

President Bush's First Plamegate Speech: A Work of Fiction?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
maine_raptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-08-05 11:03 AM
Original message
President Bush's First Plamegate Speech: A Work of Fiction?
First, it's a long post, folks, sorry, but do I think it is worthy of your time. it is the result of a random thought throw up here by another poster in another thread. What I did was to do a slight editing job on Richard Nixon's April 30, 1973 Oval Office speech or what is commonly know as his "Nixon's First Watergate Speech".

When I got done, in about 5 minutes, was something that fit better than the proverbial glove........and very creepy. Judge for yourself, and as always comments and/or recommendations are welcome.


Good evening:

I want to talk to you tonight from my heart on a subject of deep concern to every American.

In recent months, members of my Administration — including some of my closest friends and most trusted aides—have been charged with involvement in what has come to he known as the Plamegate affair. These include charges of illegal activity and charges that responsible officials participated in efforts to cover up that illegal activity.

The inevitable result of these charges has been to raise serious questions about the integrity of the White House itself. Tonight I wish to address those questions.

Back in July 2003, while I was in Texas trying to get a few days rest, I first learned from news reports of the Plamegate crime. I was appalled at this senseless, illegal action, and I was shocked to learn that employees of the White House Staff were apparently among those guilty. I immediately ordered an investigation by appropriate Government authorities. On October 28, as you will recall, indictments were brought against seven defendants in the case.

As the investigations went forward, I repeatedly asked those conducting the investigation whether there was any reason to believe that other members of my Administration were in any way involved. I received repeated assurances that there were not. Because of these continuing reassurances, because I believed the reports I was getting, because I had faith in the persons from whom I was getting them, I discounted the stories in the press that appeared to implicate members of my Administration.

Until March of this year, I remained convinced that the denials were true and that the charges of involvement by members of the White House Staff were false. The comments I made during this period, and the comments made by my Press Secretary in my behalf, were based on the information provided to us at the time we made those comments. However, new information then came to me which persuaded me that there was a real possibility that some of these charges were true, and suggesting further that there had been an effort to conceal the facts both from the public, from you, and from me.

As a result, I personally assumed the responsibility for coordinating intensive new inquiries into the matter, and I personally ordered those conducting the investigations to get all the facts and to report them directly to me, right here in this office.

I again ordered that all persons in the Government should cooperate fully with the FBI, the prosecutors, and the grand jury. I also ordered that anyone who refused to cooperate in telling the truth would be asked to resign from Government service. And, with ground rules adopted that would preserve the basic constitutional separation of powers between the Congress and the Presidency, I directed that members of the White House Staff should appear and testify voluntarily under oath before the Senate committee which was investigating Plamegate.

I was determined that we should get to the bottom of the matter, and that the truth should be fully brought out—no matter who was involved.

At the same time, I was determined not to take precipitate action and to avoid, if at all possible, any action that would appear to reflect on innocent people. I wanted to be fair. But I knew that in the final analysis, the integrity of this office—public faith in the integrity of this office—would have to take priority over all personal considerations.

Today, in one of the most difficult decisions of my Presidency, I accepted the resignations of two of my closest associates in the White House—Karl Rove and Scooter Libby—two of the finest public servants it has been my privilege to know.

I want to stress that in accepting these resignations, I mean to leave no implication whatever of personal wrongdoing on their part, and I leave no implication tonight of implication on the part of others who have been charged in this matter. But in matters as sensitive as guarding the integrity of our democratic process, it is essential not only that rigorous legal and ethical standards be observed but also that the public, you, have total confidence that they are both being observed and enforced by those in authority and particularly by the President of the United States. They agreed with me that this move was necessary in order to restore that confidence.

Because Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales — though a distinguished public servant, my personal friend for 20 years, with no personal involvement whatever in this matter —has been a close personal and professional associate of some of those who are involved in this case, he and I both felt that it was also necessary to name a new Attorney General.

The Counsel to the President, Harriet E. Miers, has also resigned.

As the new Attorney General, I have today named Rudy Giuliani, a man of unimpeachable integrity and rigorously high principle. I have directed him to do everything necessary to ensure that the Department of Justice has the confidence and the trust of every law-abiding person in this country.

I have given him absolute authority to make all decisions bearing upon the prosecution of the Plamegate case and related matters. I have instructed him that if he should consider it appropriate, he has the authority to name a special supervising prosecutor for matters arising out of the case.

Whatever may appear to have been the case before, whatever improper activities may yet be discovered in connection with this whole sordid affair, I want the American people, I want you to know beyond the shadow of a doubt that during my term as President, justice will be pursued fairly, fully, and impartially, no matter who is involved. This office is a sacred trust and I am determined to be worthy of that trust.

Looking back at the history of this case, two questions arise:
• How could it have happened?
• Who is to blame?

Political commentators have correctly observed that during my 11 years in politics I have always previously insisted on running my own office.

But 2003 presented a very different situation. In both domestic and foreign policy, 2003 was a year of crucially important decisions, of intense negotiations, of vital new directions, particularly in working toward the goal which has been my overriding concern throughout my political career—the goal of bringing peace to America, peace to the world.

Who, then, is to blame for what happened in this case?
For specific criminal actions by specific individuals, those who committed those actions must, of course, bear the liability and pay the penalty.

For the fact that alleged improper actions took place within the White House, the easiest course would be for me to blame those to whom I delegated the responsibility to run this office. But that would be a cowardly thing to do.

I will not place the blame on subordinates—on people whose zeal exceeded their judgment and who may have done wrong in a cause they deeply believed to be right.

In any organization, the man at the top must bear the responsibility. That responsibility, therefore, belongs here, in this office. I accept it. And I pledge to you tonight, from this office, that I will do everything in my power to ensure that the guilty are brought to justice and that such abuses are purged from our political processes in the years to come, long after I have left this office.

Some people, quite properly appalled at the abuses that occurred, will say that Plamegate demonstrates the bankruptcy of the American political system. I believe precisely the opposite is true. Plamegate represented a series of illegal acts and bad judgments by a number of individuals. It was the system that has brought the facts to light and that will bring those guilty to justice—a system that in this case has included a determined grand jury, honest prosecutors, and a vigorous free press.

It is essential now that we place our faith in that system—and especially in the judicial system. It is essential that we let the judicial process go forward, respecting those safeguards that are established to protect the innocent as well as to convict the guilty. It is essential that in reacting to the excesses of others, we not fall into excesses ourselves.

It is also essential that we not be so distracted by events such as this that we neglect the vital work before us, before this Nation, before America, at a time of critical importance to America and the world.

Since I first learned that the Plamegate affair might in fact be far more serious than I had been led to believe, it has claimed far too much of my time and my attention. Whatever may now transpire in the case, whatever the actions of the grand jury, whatever the outcome of any eventual trials, I must now turn my full attention—and I shall do so—once again to the larger duties of this office. I owe it to this great office that I hold, and I owe it to you—to my country.

I know that as Attorney General, Rudy Giuliani will be both fair and he will be fearless in pursuing this case wherever it leads. I am confident that with him in charge, justice will be done.

There is vital work to be done toward our goal of a lasting structure of peace in the world—work that cannot wait, work that I must do.

It is a year in which we confront the difficult tasks of maintaining peace in Southeast Asia and in the potentially explosive Middle East.

There is also vital work to be done right here in America: to ensure prosperity, and that means a good job for everyone who wants to work; to control inflation, that I know worries every housewife, everyone who tries to balance a family budget in America; to set in motion new and better ways of ensuring progress toward a better life for all Americans.

When I think of this office—of what it means—I think of all the things that I want to accomplish for this Nation, of all the things I want to accomplish for you.

We must maintain the integrity of the White House, and that integrity must be real, not transparent, there can be no whitewash at the White House.

We must reform our political process— ridding it not only of the violations of the law but also of the ugly mob violence and other inexcusable campaign tactics that have been too often practiced and too readily accepted in the past, including those that may have been a response by one side to the excesses or expected excesses of the other side. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I have been in public life for more than a decade. Like any other calling, politics has good people and bad people. And let me tell you, the great majority in politics—in the Congress, in the Federal Government, in the State government—are good people. I know that it can be very 'easy, under the intensive pressures of running a government, for even well-intentioned people m fall into shady tactics—to rationalize this on the grounds that what is at stake is of such importance m the Nation that the end justifies the means. And both of our great parties have been guilty of such tactics in the past.

In recent years, however, the excesses that have occurred on all sides have provided a sobering demonstration of how far this false doctrine can take us. The lesson is clear: America must not again fall into the trap of letting the end, however great that end is, justify the means.

When I was inaugurated for a second time, I gave each member of my Cabinet and each member of my senior White House Staff a special 4-year calendar, with each day marked to show the number of days remaining to the Administration. In the inscription on each calendar, I wrote these words: "The Presidential term which begins today consists of 1,461 days—no more, no less. Each can be a day of strengthening and renewal for America; each can add depth and dimension to the American experience. If we strive together, if we make the most of the challenge and the opportunity that these days offer us, they can stand out as great days for America, and great moments in the history of the world."

I looked at my own calendar this morning up at Camp David as I was working on this speech. It showed exactly how many days remained in my term. I want these to be the best days in America's history, because I love America. I deeply believe that America is the hope of the world. And I know that in the quality and wisdom of the leadership America gives lays the only hope for millions of people all over the world that they can live their lives in peace and freedom. We must be worthy of that hope, in every sense of the word. Tonight, I ask for your prayers to help me in everything that I do throughout the days of my Presidency to be worthy of their hopes and of yours.

God bless America and God bless each and every one of you.




Nixon's actual speech can be found here:

http://watergate.info/nixon/73-04-30watergate-speech.shtml

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-08-05 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
1. Hard to imagine * forming coherent, intelligent sentences, like that.
Even if Nixon was, indeed, a crook and a liar. That's probably the biggest similarity.

Your point is well made!:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lectrobyte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-08-05 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. It would be fun, though, to see * try to give a speech like that...
if previous experience is any indication, he'd have to explain the "big words" to us. For example, "my subordinates..." "uh, that's people that under me, like a submarine is under water, and are my orderlies"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-08-05 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. people that under me, like a submarine is underwater, and are my orderlies
Gawd, that is so funny. How did Shrub get through Fifth Grade, much less Yale and Harvard?

Was Poppy bribing and threatening teachers and administrators to pass him, even back then?

Or, was W once a dull-normal, capable of C grades, who thoroughly and completely detroyed his brain with booze and drugs later on? How in the world did he make it through flight school? :think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lectrobyte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-08-05 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I honestly don't know. I was thinking about the speech where the
reporter asked him about a question about Native American sovereignty, and instead of answering the question, he spent about 5 minutes trying to explain the definition of sovereignty, finally saying that it means people are sovereign. It's hard to come up with a parody, since he is so off the wall anyway. I used to have a link to the video of a skit where his writer creates his speeches by sleeping with a bunch of yellow stickies attached, and what doesn't fall off overnight gets madlibbed into a speech.

I can't imagine him behind the controls of a jet, especially since he seemed to skip all the stuff in between from what I've read of his ANG training.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-08-05 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I've seen that sort of response among Learning Disabled (LD) kids
My wife is a school teacher, and they mainstream these kids as much as possible. The reversion to definition is a common default response when LD students can't think of an answer.

I wonder whether Dubya was diagnosed as special needs in grade school. He attended Sam Houston Elementary School in Midland, Texas. Somehow, he got into Andover, his father's Prep School (the Dean told him he might not get admitted to an Ivy League college, but Yale admitted him - his father and grandfather were alumns). UT law school rejected him, so he went to Harvard Business School, instead.

It's amazing how much pull the Bush family has had to drag Shrub as far as he's come - clear case of someone rising to his own level of incompetence, and then far exceeding those limits.

Perhaps W had reasonably good hand-eye coordination and was trainable by drill to fly. I have a few hours in single-engine and it's not that hard to take off and fly using a compass, the altimeter, and the artificial horizon. The most challenging part, aside from aerobatics, is landing. I have read, though, that pure Delta-wing aircraft, like the F-102, are fairly pitch-sensitive and can be tricky to land, particularly in cross-winds.

It's quite possible the experience terrified W, and he froze up, and it took three tries to get back down his last time up. That would explain why they grounded him suddenly. Frightened and humiliated, W never went back to TANG drill.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maine_raptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-08-05 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. See this link for more on Bush's fear
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-08-05 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Thanks. Yes, I may have seen reference to Baker's article.
The Bush family was incredibly arrogant to push their runt first-born of the litter onto the American people.

They should have known a long time ago that W doesn't have what it takes to be an effective President of the United States. But, Poppy and Babs wanted so badly to be aristocrats. Pity, they played this dynastic thing about the first son taking over title to the Lordship and all his lands, so they groomed little Junior for Dad's job.

That showed truly bad judgement on Poppy's part. All this is his fault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaysunb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-08-05 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
2. You got it just about right.
I just hope there are more than Rove & Libby in the dock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-08-05 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
4. Nixon was corrupt, but he was a lot more intelligent, articulate, &
coherent than his understudy. There's only one area where * surpasses Nixon: He is more dangerous to the country/world. Pure evil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maine_raptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-08-05 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
10. Kick for the night crowd, and I was hoping
to get a bit more discussion on the Watergate vs Plamegate aspect of it.:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 03:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC