Re: Actually, He Didn’t Say That

vitalspeeches — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:33:00 -0000

I Stand Corrected
Thomas Daly, Editor, Vital Speeches of the Day

Mr. Walsh is correct and I reread the entire speech. He did not say, “Mission accomplished,” he did say, “major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” That was careless considering I published the speech.

However, there should be no question what he meant. I will grant you that he did not say “mission accomplished” I will even concede the fact that President Bush did not have any idea the banner would be hung. I still however feel at this time he was telling the American people the war was over or at least implying it. We know at the time public support of the war was dropping.

To check the validity of the President’s statement we must examine the phrase “major combat operations.” Wouldn’t deploying another 20,000 troops in January 2007, which is almost one sixth of the original combat size be considered continuing “major combat operations”? Why would they send that many if they did indeed have control of the country. Proving it was not over and the statement in his speech was false. Also in the speech the president said, “America is grateful for a job well done.” I don’t know how this could mean anything but that the job is over. He did not say “America is grateful for this part of the job being well done.”

Look, if he didn’t mean the war was over, why use an ambiguous word like “transition”, why did he not just say, “We have freed Iraq, but the war in Iraq is not over.” He talks about defeating, Nazi Germany and all the rest of the rhetoric implied a finality. He talks about rebuilding, how can you rebuild if you are still destroying.

This speech was one of the defining moments in his presidency. So the banner tagline was not in the actual speech and again I stand corrected. My original point still holds true. His administration would have been better remembered if they told the truth and said “The battle between Saddam Hussein’s forces and the coalition military for control of the country – had concluded successfully but the war is not over.” This would not leave anything to doubt. But he didn’t. So we have to let history tell the tale. At times there is more power in truth than rhetoric and over time rhetoric fades.

Re: A Leader For Us All

vitalspeeches — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:55:02 -0000

Is He a Leader for Us All?

Mr. Judge,

It is so funny how two people look at something and see two different things.
From a structural standpoint the speech was everything an inauguration speech should be. It flowed, with cadence and transitions as well as any of the great speeches from past inaugurations.
However, where you see unity, I see divisiveness, where you see inclusion I see exclusion.

For example, “On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.”

He was implying his opponent was a fear monger and liar otherwise he would have never paired these sentences together. He is too good a politician for this not to be his purpose. I researched past inauguration speeches and never in any other instance has a current President attacked a past President. How does that contribute to unity and bi-partisanship. You included half of the quote. Yes there are two separate lines but there can be no question they are meant to be joined. Again, from a style point a very classic and strong paired phrasing.

You commented that, “This curse-on-both-your-houses indictment reflects what political scientists have been saying for several years: The nation as a whole is not deeply divided, only the political class is - and the country is thoroughly fed up with bickering within the political class.”

Your right, the second sentence was indictment, but the first was an accusation toward his predecessor and past opposition.

You further commented, “Of government he said, “The question . . . is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works” - which actually tracks the sum of Ronald Reagan’s discussions in his first inaugural of government and his intent to reform it. Where federal programs don’t work, Obama pledged to shut them down (a policy his predecessor had unsuccessfully advocated).

Mr. Judge this isn’t exactly true. President Reagan said, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
He never implied reform or in his entire speech use the word, he wanted to shrink government, literally do away with parts, not change.

President Obama even went one step further by saying, “dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America” This line is a little offensive to people, who feel that America needs to be changed and maybe reformed, but does it need to be remade, and if so in whose vision. Ours or his?

Now understand this does not express my political beliefs in any ways. I’m just pointing out the facts.

There were parts that I agree with your comments. When you said,
“Finally, he expressed resolve in prosecuting the war “against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred” - saying (in words that conservatives will applaud), “We will defeat you,” even as he decried (in words liberals wanted to hear) the “false choice between our safety and our ideals.”
Absolutely, one of the best parts and lines of the speech.

It was an inauguration speech. Was it a good one? Yes, there were some great lines and on style and structure it was better than most. Was it a great one? No! He showed me he was a leader for those who believed in his image of what America should be, which is a far different than what America could be.

Disqus - Latest Comments for vitalspeeches

Re: Actually, He Didn’t Say That

Re: A Leader For Us All