I was doing a Google search for more crazy Bush remarks from today other than the spotty coverage that he got from the so-called MSM, and other than this gem:
I found a FULL TEXT of his speech today at the link below, I'm almost 100% sure that this qualifies under the "Fair-use" provision for several reasons like:
A) It's a PR/Press Release...
B) "the president" is a public figure and...
C) This was a "news" event and...
So I think that means we can legally quote more than 4 paragraphs, which is good, because you really have to see this unedited to appreciate how insane he is. I'm skipping the bogus propaganda speech and going right to the first question: <
Note: The typos and misspellings are in the original copy from the White House Press Office.
<
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-28-2007/0004617850&EDATE=>
Remarks by President Bush to the Naval War College WASHINGTON, June 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is a
transcript of remarks by President Bush to the Naval War College:
Connelly Hall
Newport, Rhode Island
11:22 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, all. Please be seated. Thanks for the warm
welcome. Thanks, Governor; appreciate you -- go find a nice seat....
(edit)
...Thanks for letting me come today. God bless your work, and God bless
our country. (Applause.)
Thank you all. Be seated. I've enjoyed my stay so much, I thought I
might answer some questions -- (laughter) -- if you've got any,
particularly from the students who might be curious. Yes, sir. You're the
guy. Are you the mic man, or are you the questioner? Well, you're the
questioner. Mic man, okay. Yes, sir.
Q Mr. President, it was my great privilege to be a representative of
the Royal Navy here at the Naval Command College class of 1994. It's a huge
privilege, clearly, to be here today, as well. We support and admire your
country's commitment and sacrifice in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the
world in the war on terror.
But it strikes me that what you described today
is very much a land-orientated campaign. What, if any, impact is that land
campaign focus likely to have on your propensity to invest in a maritime
strategy in the future, please? THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks. Yes. (Laughter.) Now who exactly invited
you here? (Laughter.) Thank you, sir. Never mind, just kidding. (Laughter.)It is a land-based campaign, because that's where the enemy is. They hide
in caves, and they hide in remote regions, and they try to destabilize
countries. They try to create chaos. You've got to understand, chaos is the
friend of these radicals. The more chaos there is, the more likely it is
they'll be able to find a place to roost.
I know some people in our country just have trouble believing that they
want to strike us again, but they do. That's what I live with every day.
That's what Presidents do, they think about the threats, and they deal with
them. And my attitude has been, let's keep the pressure on them. And the
nation is going to have to do that. We're going to have to continually
press. This means good intelligence, good special ops, working with allies
like Great Britain-- who have been a fantastic country to work with, by the
way, just got to pressure them. It's hard to plan and plot when you're on
the move. And it takes a lot of work. It takes a lot of diplomacy, it takes
a lot of military action, it takes a lot of good intel, and it's going to
take a lot of determination by the United States.
In the meantime, we're going through a transformation of our forces.
And one of the most transformative branches has been the Navy. It's amazing
how the Navy has been able to accomplish more with less. Perhaps that's
what you've been able to -- that's less manpower, more mission, better use
of equipment, the capacity to manage manpower better. No question we're
increasing our army and Marines, which some claim is part of the Navy --
(laughter) -- he doesn't claim it, yes. (Laughter.) Well, we're not going
there.
But our Navy is modern, and we'll keep it that way. The main thing for
militaries, as we head into the 21st century, is constantly adjust to meet
threat. And we've got a lot of money in our budget, and I hope that this
new Congress keeps it that way for the Navy, as well as the rest of the
military. It's really important. And it's important we continue to
transform and become more interoperable. And that's really the challenge I
presume you're studying this year at the university. Part of the strategic
thought for our military is interoperability. And we're becoming much
better at it -- at least that's what the commanders tell me. And that's
important.
By the way, named a Navy man today, sent his name up to the Senate for
confirmation as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen; and Vice
Chairman is going to be a Marine named "Hoss" Cartwright. :crazy: They understand
the need to continue to wage this war, and also to transform our military
to meet the threats of the 21st century. And we're doing it.
One of the major transformative events we have done is we have begun to
reposition our troops in Europe. The Cold War is over, it ended. And
therefore the troop posture doesn't need to be the way it has been
throughout the '50s, '60s and '70s. That's transformative. That also frees
up money for capital investment, as well as different places where -- let
me just say, the capacity to base out of home is going to save us a lot of
money and save you a lot of wear and tear.
The volunteer army only works well if we take care of the wives and
husbands; the spouses. (Applause.) And one way to do that is to reposition
our forces to meet the threats of the 21st century. Well, it turns out, in
many times -- it means they have to be based here, and be then in a
capacity to move quickly to deal with the threats.
Anyway, thanks, good question. Great Britain has been a great ally. I
said goodbye to my friend, Tony Blair, yesterday. I said hello to the new
Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. And there's no doubt in my mind we'll
continue to have a good, close working relationship for the sake of peace;
for doing the hard work necessary to make this world a peaceful place.
Surely there's more questions than that. (Laughter.)
Yes, ma'am.
Q Mr. President, I just returned from a week at the United States Army
War College in Pennsylvania on national security. I walked away with so
much more pride in our military. I would follow them anywhere.
My question
is: At the beginning of your speech -- that you said that you consult with
the military. With all due respect, sir, how much do you really listen and
follow them?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, a lot. I don't see how you can be the
Commander-in-Chief of a well motivated military without listening carefully to the
advice of your commanders. I talk to General Petraeus all the time. I say
"all the time" -- weekly; that's all the time -- (laughter) -- on secure
video from Baghdad. There's a lot of discussions about troop positioning;
what will our footprint look like.
My answer is, it depends on what David Petraeus says :grr:. David Petraeus is
the commander on the ground and he'll have the full support. And that's the
way I do business. It's the way it's been throughout the -- you know, I
told you that, and rightly so, that -- look, I had a decision to make: more
troops to secure Baghdad and Anbar, or pull back and hope for the best? I
made a decision to put more troops in. That was in close consultation with
the Pentagon and in particular with the -- you know, the folks who have
been charged with operations in Baghdad. And that's what you expect from
the Commander in Chief.
We do have a chain of command. It goes from me to Gates to "Fox" Fallon
to Petraeus. But a lot of times -- and we're all on the SVTS together --
the secure video together to talk about matters and -- so that's the way we
do it, yes. Thanks for the question.
Yes, sir.
Q Thank you very much. Our family was touched by 9/11, and I want to
thank you very much for the support of the 9/11 families. Peter Dutton is
my name. I'm from the Naval War College faculty. I wanted to ask you about
your thoughts concerning strategic culmination. Are we --
THE PRESIDENT: Strategic --
Q Strategic culmination. In other words, are we getting to the point
where we're unable to continue to affect world events in other areas other
than the Middle East because of our huge commitment there to the Middle
East?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I appreciate that. Obviously, we're constantly
balancing -- the first mission is, succeed in Iraq; let me just put it to
you that way. And -- yes, I think we are. I think we're capable of dealing
with more than one event at a time; witness the fact that we've got a lot
of troops in Afghanistan. Fortunately, we've got a lot of NATO allies with
us in Afghanistan. One of the things that I don't think a lot of people
have really figured out is how successful we've been about putting -- about
our ability to put coalitions together. There are a lot of troops in Iraq
other than our own, and there's a lot of troops in Afghanistan other than
our own.
The other hot spots, of course, would be the Far East. We've got a
significant military presence there. We hope and pray that diplomacy works
-- I think it will -- in dealing with the North Korean issue. But we got --
we're amply suited to deal with a lot of different theaters. But we're
constantly watching; that's the job of the Joint Chiefs. Their job is to
constantly monitor threats, positioning of troops, capabilities; and they
bring them to my attention.
And I think people recognize that obviously -- you know, our military
is undergoing through a lot of hard work and pressure. But according to
them, they feel pretty good about it. And if they feel good about it, so do
I.
Yes, sir....
(It keeps going like that for a few more questions, but I think you get the general idea.)
(more at this link) <
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-28-2007/0004617850&EDATE=>