Sunday, January 14, 2007

Who Said That?


This Speech was given over this past weekend...

"Today we face a situation, which yet again changes the paradigm within which military, politics and public opinion interact with each other. Put simply, September 11 2001 changed everything. Three thousand people died on the streets of New York. They did so as a result of a terrorist, suicide mission. The mission was planned and organised by the Al Qaida group out of a failed state, Afghanistan, thousands of miles away. The state was run by a fanatical, religiously motivated dictatorship, the Taleban. Even now, the bald facts of what happened are utterly extraordinary. But though September 11 did indeed change the way we look at the world, the profound nature of the change for our armed forces was not immediately apparent.
[...]What was unclear then but is very clear now is that what we were and are confronted with, is of a far more fundamental character than we supposed.
September 11 wasn't the incredible action of an isolated group, a one-off strike masterminded by Osama Bin Laden.
It was the product rather of a world-wide movement, with an ideology based on a misreading of Islam, whose roots were deep, which had been growing for years and with the ability to mount a radically different type of warfare requiring a radically different type of response.
What we face is not a criminal conspiracy or even a fanatical but fringe terrorist organisation. We face something more akin to revolutionary Communism in its early and most militant phase.
It is global.
It has a narrative about the world and Islam's place within it that has a reach into most Muslim societies and countries.
Its adherents may be limited. Its sympathisers are not.
It has states or at least parts of the governing apparatus of states that give it succour.
[...]The notion that removing two appalling dictatorships and replacing them with a UN backed process to democracy, with massive investment in reconstruction available if only the terrorism stopped, could in any justifiable sense "inflame" Muslim opinion when it was perfectly obvious that the Muslims in both countries wanted rid of both regimes and stand to gain enormously, if only they were allowed to, from their removal, is ludicrous. Yet a large part, even of non-Muslim opinion, essentially buys into that view. So our enemy will see their strategic advantages as terrorism and time. They are not a conventional army. They can't be defeated by conventional means. This is the enemy our Armed Forces face today.
The enemy knows something else also.
That when they kill our soldiers, it provokes not just understandable grief and anguish, but resulting from that, a questioning of why we are "there"; what it's got to do with "us"; how can the struggle be worth the sacrifice in human terms.

Yet to retreat in the face of this threat would be a catastrophe.
It would strengthen this global terrorism; proliferate it; expand its circle of sympathisers.
Given the nature of it and how its roots developed, long before any of the recent controversies of foreign policy, such retreat would be futile.
It would postpone but not prevent the confrontation."


So, who gave the above speech in the past few days: (pick only one)
A: Nancy Pelosi (44?)
B: Ted Kennedy (44?)
C: Harry Reid (44?)
D: John Kerry (44?) or Algore (44?) or John Edwards (44?) or Howard Dean (yeeeehaaaa 44?) or Jimmy Carter (39) or even Billy (beer) Carter
E: Barack Obama (44?)
F: Bill (42) and/or Hillary Clinton (44?) or anyone else in the Democrat Party
G: Benjamin Netanyahu
H: Tony Blair
I: Kohfi Annan or anyone at the UN (or formerly at the UN)
J: George W Bush (43)
K: Dick Cheney
L: Condoleeza Rice
M: George H Bush (41)
N: Carl Rove
O: Red S Tater
P: Oklahoma Lefty
Q: Professor Rodger A Payne, Professor Elliot Cohen, Professor Stephanie Craft, Professor Ward Churchhill or any other moonbat academic idiot
R: Al Franken, Michael Moore or any Hollywood foreign policy "expert"
S: David Podvin, Jamil Hussein or any fake journalist or other fake reporter/stringer
T: Osama Bin Laden or any Muslim including the so-called peaceful ones
U: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (peaceful Muslim)
V: Hugo Chavez
W: Kim Jung Ill
X: Fidel Castro
Y: Jacques Chirac
Z: Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin or any other dead dictator.

If you guessed Nancy and/or Harry, ... sorry.
And no, it wasn't Joe Liberman (I) (d) either... But we sure are gonna' miss this person when they're gone.
-red
(see comments section below for the answer)

Labels:

4 Comments:

Blogger Red Stater said...

The answer is "H" ...Tony Blair may or may not "like" George Bush personally but he knows one thing for sure...
George Bush is right about Iraq, the middle east and terrorism.

7:55 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

I've always like Tony Blair. Thanks for adding me as an option Red. :o)

11:34 PM  
Blogger Otter said...

Whoah! I was actually right!

Course, I didn't realize that he was a liberal.

11:29 AM  
Blogger Red Stater said...

here is an interesting piece on Tony blair by Christopher Hitchins...
http://www.slate.com/id/2117328/

tony

3:33 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home