what would the liberals say to this speech?

"We have had a great deal of bad news lately . . . and I think we shall have a great deal more. Wrapped up in all this bad news will be many tales of blunders and shortcomings, both in foresight and action. No one will pretend for a moment that disasters like these occur without there having been faults and shortcomings. I see all this rolling towards us like waves in a storm, and that is another reason why I require a formal, solemn Vote of Confidence . . .

We are beginning to see our way through. It looks as if we were in for a very bad time; but provided we all stand together, and provided we throw in the last spasm of our strength, it also looks more than it ever did before as if we were going to win. . . .

I have never ventured to predict the future. I stand by my original programme, “blood, toil, tears and sweat,” which is all I have ever offered, to which I added, five months later, “many shortcomings, mistakes, and disappointments.” But it is because I see the light gleaming behind the clouds and broadening on our path that I make so bold now as to demand a declaration of confidence from the House…"

shall we cut, run and surrender?


Kind of depends on which liberals you mean be “the” liberals, doesn’t it?

Most people would consider the President of the United States at that time to be a liberal. What did he do?

Sounds like mush and buzz words to me.

“Things are fucked, I pretend to give a shit, vote me in, give me power, and got take a shit.” – Would be more sufficient.

erm, “lately” as in all of the past four years after those first couple weeks of flower parades and STAGED statue topplings?

Um, maybe im failing to understand something here, but i doubt it since that pretty much never happens.

this guy says “blunders and shortcomings… faults and shortcomings” are the cause of a “disaster” under his watch. and even he is able to see the horrible storm waves coming at us.

isnt this the exact time to vote NO confidence?!? when would be that time? if he refused to acknowledge the horrible incoming waves, that would be the time for the no-confidence vote? so the fact that he admits that the entire war from foresight to action, for the past 4 years, was full of a bunch of crap, all under his watch, thats all forgiven and he needs a confidence vote simply because he is finally admitting it? at least 2 years after everyone else started disagreeing with him?

he doesnt see jack fuckin shit! the voters had to teach him. HE IS THE PRESIDENT! and it took a massive campaign of millions of ordinary innocent citizens who have never even been in charge of a world military empire before. THATS WHAT SHOWED HIM THE LIGHT!?! a bunch of ordinary citizens educated him on the massive amount of failures. CONGRATU-FUCKING-LATIONS YOU DISCOVERED IT!! somebody please throw rotten food at him.

my frickin roomate did this same thing. bush gave some enragingly empty, shallowly pleasing emotional rhetoric in the pep-rally of the union and im about to say “holy shit i hate this guy so much” and he says “oh my god he is so good.”

you guys… jeez. what a disaster. conservatives didnt use to have such pretty speeches did they? and massively expensive public relations departments and innovative strategies and corporate funding and religious outreach? this is all since reagan isnt it? this fancy beautiful empty rhetoric that enrages intelligent liberals and enamors the ambituous and less educated lower middle class? im just so horrified by PR.

ITS FAKE!!! HE IS TAKING CREDIT FOR UNDERSTANDING WHAT HE ONLY LEARNED THROUGH VOTES!!! this is god damn damage control. i want corporate executives to go to jail for lying in the name of public relations and damage control. thats the least i want from this administration.

“those who take the sword shall die by the sword” - stfu noob! jesus got fucking crucified who cares what that pussy said. and ban fags!

what will liberals say to this speech?

hey fm, while you waste your daddy’s money in college, take a course about churchill’s speeches…


i bet id be pissed at him too.

FUCK rhetoric. thats not what i ever voted for, its not what i want to hear. i want to hear facts, i want accountability. i want to hear what the mistakes were and why they wont happen again. i want to hear why the situation in iraq is a result of those exact mistakes and what exact changes are being made.

what is happening now that mr fluffy shit sees the cloudy light? what is different now? what decisions have just been made that im gonna fucking vote confidence in? THE FACT THAT HE SEES LIGHTS IN THE CLOUDS?!!?

FUCK RHETORIC! it should absolutely be banned immediately in all situations except poetry books, because then ill never have to read that shit.

and save your ad hominems for the hall of shame.

of course you only want to read the shit that the useful idiots feed you…



When you find a report of bad news that turns out to be inaccurate or fraudulent, and argue from this that the news isn’t really bad, you are engaging in inductive reasoning. :wink:

(Not only that, but you are performing a hasty generalization, a genuine “inductive fallacy” even among those who recognize inductive reasoning as valid.)

All right, Imp, I, being a liberal, am going to answer your question. Here is what I’d say.

"Damn. I prefer a peaceful approach at almost all times, but I’m afraid Churchill is right and this is an exception. It’s hard to argue that the British shouldn’t go to war with the Germans when the Germans are already at war with them.

"I mean, this isn’t some poorly-defined catch-all term used to justify war against anyone the Prime Minister wants to go to war with. It’s not like Churchill is calling for a “war on fascism” or a “war on anti-semitism” or even a “war on armored divisions and bomber planes.” He’s calling for a war on Germany. Germany is an actual nation, and Adolf Hitler is an actual dictator. We know damned well who’s dropping those bombs all over London. We know who’s armies rolled over France.

"Mind you, if he was talking about going to war with something vague like fascism or anti-semitism or armored divisions and bomber planes, I’d have a problem with it. But this enemy is clearly defined and quite real, and his speech is only justifying war on the Germans who are already bombing London, not on, say, Sweden, even though Sweden is also inhabited by a Germanic people. And since he’s not calling for a war on armored divisions and bomber planes in general, only on German ones, he can’t use this to justify an attack on, say, Spain, which also uses armored divisions and bomber planes. (And is fascist to boot.)

“So, with all appropriate hesitations dealt with – this time the old boy is right. We gotta fight.”

did I claim that the news isn’t really bad? no…

I merely questioned unwarranted faith in the useful idiots…


if youre going to respond “the liberals” or “the democRATS,” dont just insert random irrelevant quotes written by me as if youve given some sort of rebuttal to what i said, which was this:

did i say leave iraq and allow america to be raped by muslims forever? did i say i trust any sort of mainstream media? or did i simply not agree with you in some completely unrelated way?

thats my response to mr fluffy shit’s rhetoric: fuck, and what actually has suddenly changed that causes mr fluffy shit to admit how wrong he is and that he deserves a vote of confidence that directly contradicts the outcome of the midterm elections.

what mr fluffy shit are you talking about? do you think that the speech I quoted was from bush?

even after I told you it was made by churchill?



i guess im an amazing retard or maybe you actually did not tell me it was churchill. you told me to research churchill or some crap, which i thought was a reference to how mr fluffy shit is similar to churchill in his empty rhetorical speeches, which is obviously what you were trying to imply in this thing.

try and read what i wrote and see how much sense it makes if i think bush wrote the thing. it makes a lot, and you look like the crazy one.

the lesson for today: be specific and try not to be a dick.

no, the lesson for today is to read carefully, not to be blinded by political hatred, and notice how history never repeats…


I’ll go with that. It certainly isn’t repeating in this case. Bush being no Churchill. And the closest analogue to Hitler having been sentenced to death, while the war drags on . . .

like i said, try to be specific. are you saying that history doesnt repeat or what? cause i think you meant that it does and youre accidentally saying it in some negative.

you think we are better described as the british? respond to navigators other post with less dick and more specific and you might convince me. i dont hate people with views, just the liars who made them. if it turns out he wasnt lying, ok i apologize.

youre the one repeatedly accusing me of having liberal stances and marxist love i never said anything about. i said i hate rhetoric if its bush saying that first post in response to his recent realization of iraqi failure. i thought he really just said that as damage control. you cant tell me you wouldnt hate that with curse words if it was a democRAT.

a democRAT wouldn’t have the balls to say that. and right now bush doesn’t have the balls either, but that’s exactly what he needs to say.


World War III my hairy ass.

Let’s take a look at the situation of Great Britain in 1940 versus the U.S. today. (Setting aside the respective leaders. I mean, comparing Bush to Churchill is just too cheap and easy a shot.)

Britain in 1940:

Under attack by two powerful, unified, disciplined, technologically advanced enemies, one of whom alone was stronger than she was.

German bombers were visiting London and other British cities nightly.

The Japanese were advancing relentlessly on Singapore, which would eventually fall. India was about to be threatened.

Britain had attempted to make peace at almost any cost, giving Hitler the benefit of every doubt. In the end, Hitler’s untrustworthiness became so glaring and obvious that, over Poland, Britain felt she had no choice but to declare war.

(And incidentally – though you seem to have forgotten this, Imp – it was not Churchill but Chamberlain who declared war on Germany.)

Britain tried not to fight, but she had to, and she fought bravely and doggedly against terrible odds.

A year later, both of Britain’s powerful enemies would foolishly launch attacks against another even more powerful nation, drawing first the Soviet Union and then the United States into the war on Britain’s side. But in 1940 such folly on the part of the foe could not be hoped for.

The U.S. today:

One attack has been perpetrated on the U.S., in 2001, by a single group of terrorists who at that time were based in Afghanistan. No attacks have been made since then on U.S. soil.

Except for our soldiers engaged in occupying foreign countries who did not attack us first, no U.S. military personnel, nor civilians either, have been endangered by what you are preposterously calling “World War III” since 9/11 itself.

The “enemy,” to the extent we have one not of our own making, is that single terrorist group. No other groups have even TRIED to launch attacks against the U.S. since 9/11, and none, including al-Qaeda, have succeeded.

Far from trying to make peace, President Bush has used the opportunity provided by 9/11 to declare a “war on terror,” which provides an umbrella justification for attacking anyone he wants to attack anywhere, any time. In this, he resembles Churchill far less than he does Hitler, who also used the flimsiest of pretexts to justify aggressive actions against his neighbors. Both Poland and the Soviet Union were accused of plotting to invade Germany (both falsely) to justify Germany invading them instead. Exactly as Bush has done in Iraq.

Had Bush responded to 9/11 properly, he would have identified the attacker as al-Qaeda, whom it was, rather than as “terror,” which is purely an abstraction and does not exist as a concrete enemy. He would have invaded Afghanistan, as he did, that being al-Qaeda’s base of operations. And he would have given top priority to destroying this organization by any means necessary. But he would certainly not have launched an invasion of Iraq, which had absolutely nothing to do with the attack on the U.S. or with al-Qaeda, let alone contemplated broadening the war to include other Muslim nations equally innocent of 9/11, and he would not have used the attack as a pretext either to rattle sabers at half the world, or to call for compromising precious American liberties at home.

Unlike Britain in 1940, America has not had to fight, but has done so anyway, aggressively, with no benign or peaceful or even remotely honorable intent whatsoever.

In short if we do end up in World War III, it will be our own damned fault, and we, not the “enemy,” will be the aggressors. We will not be in the position of Great Britain, but in that of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.

But we won’t, because Bush has so discredited his aggressive policies that his successor – regardless of party – would prefer to hang himself than follow that policy any further into this hole.

And you can take that to the bank.


allah allah ackbar means I love you democRAT.


Imp, two situations sharing rhetorical touchpoints do not make the situations themselves the same. Surely you don’t think that because Churchill made a speech that sounded like a more well written Bush speech that the circumstances out of which the speeches arose are the same. That’s the implication, but I want to see it written. And then I want it explained.