Excerpts From The Presidents Speech at the UN. ...Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have established a global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. In three years the contributing countries have funded projects in more than 90 countries, and pledged a total of $5.6 billion to these efforts. America has undertaken a $15 billion effort to provide prevention and treatment and humane care in nations afflicted by AIDS, placing a special focus on 15 countries where the need is most urgent. AIDS is the greatest health crisis of our time, and our unprecedented commitment will bring new hope to those who have walked too long in the shadow of death. Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have joined together to confront the evil of trafficking in human beings. We're supporting organizations that rescue the victims, passing stronger anti-trafficking laws, and warning travelers that they will be held to account for supporting this modern form of slavery. Women and children should never be exploited for pleasure or greed, anywhere on Earth.... Because we believe in human dignity, we should take seriously the protection of life from exploitation under any pretext. In this session, the U.N. will consider a resolution sponsored by Costa Rica calling for a comprehensive ban on human cloning. I support that resolution and urge all governments to affirm a basic ethical principle: No human life should ever be produced or destroyed for the benefit of another. Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have changed the way we fight poverty, curb corruption, and provide aid. In 2002 we created the Monterrey Consensus, a bold approach that links new aid from developed nations to real reform in developing ones. And through the Millennium Challenge Account, my nation is increasing our aid to developing nations that expand economic freedom and invest in the education and health of their own people. Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have acted to lift the crushing burden of debt that limits the growth of developing economies, and holds millions of people in poverty.... Because we believe in human dignity, the world must have more effective means to stabilize regions in turmoil, and to halt religious violence and ethnic cleansing.... Because we believe in human dignity, peaceful nations must stand for the advance of democracy. No other system of government has done more to protect minorities, to secure the rights of labor, to raise the status of women, or to channel human energy to the pursuits of peace. We've witnessed the rise of democratic governments in predominantly Hindu and Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish and Christian cultures. Democratic institutions have taken root in modern societies, and in traditional societies. When it comes to the desire for liberty and justice, there is no clash of civilizations. People everywhere are capable of freedom, and worthy of freedom. Finding the full promise of representative government takes time, as America has found in two centuries of debate and struggle. Nor is there any -- only one form of representative government -- because democracies, by definition, take on the unique character of the peoples that create them. Yet this much we know with certainty: The desire for freedom resides in every human heart. And that desire cannot be contained forever by prison walls, or martial laws, or secret police. Over time, and across the Earth, freedom will find a way. Freedom is finding a way in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and we must continue to show our commitment to democracies in those nations. The liberty that many have won at a cost must be secured. As members of the United Nations, we all have a stake in the success of the world's newest democracies. Not long ago, outlaw regimes in Baghdad and Kabul threatened the peace and sponsored terrorists. These regimes destabilized one of the world's most vital -- and most volatile -- regions. They brutalized their peoples, in defiance of all civilized norms. Today, the Iraqi and Afghan people are on the path to democracy and freedom. The governments that are rising will pose no threat to others. Instead of harboring terrorists, they're fighting terrorist groups. And this progress is good for the long-term security of us all.... May God bless you. (Applause.)
Ole Bush is suddenly the statesman and diplomat a month before the election making an appearance at the U.N., the same institution that he has snubbed throughout his admin (Bush: "Internationl law? What's that? I better ask my lawyer") He should put some pressure on Saudi Arabia, a phony prince govt, and Pakistan, run by a military coup that overthrew a legitimate democracy. They were the countries that were really behind 911. Bush convinced me he was a compassionate conservative after I saw all of those orange mushroom clouds over Baghdad from his shock and awe bombs.
Seems like a question better suited for the religion and philosophy forum. Bush (like all world leaders) is just using the phrase for soundbytes. Actions speak louder than words.
Human dignity, in my mind, is the innate right to medicine, schools, food and shelter, the basics of survival. Bush raised social security premiums. No money has gone to his fight aids in africa program yet. And recently we cut off food, water, and electricity to a rebelling town in Iraq. ...Bush fucking gives me the creeps.
I agree. How, specifically, have his actions contradicted these words? He has consistently opposed human cloning, and he also deserves some credit for supporting the MCA and debt relief for developing countries, though much more still needs to be done: http://www.worldvision.org/worldvision/wvususfo.nsf/stable/globalissues_overseas http://www.worldvision.org/worldvision/wvususfo.nsf/stable/globalissues_debtrelief
Don't you mean Medicare? With the addition of new prescription drug benefits, some level of premium increase seems reasonable. Can you provide more details and/or references?
I personally believe in the innate dignity of all life, human and otherwise. But that comes from my personal spiritual belief that all life is an extension of the creator of that life, and that mindless, unnecessary harm or destruction of life is destruction of the creator and the creation. George Bush is a disgusting hypocrit, and his repulsive speech on "human dignity" - a concept which he clearly has absolutely no familiarity with - would be laughable if the reality weren't so horrifying. This monster believes in "human dignity?" He slaughters tens of thousands for wealth and power. He repeals every pitiful protection for our ecosystems, exposing all humanity to greater dangers from filthy water, contaminated aid, poisoned soil, and toxic food. He outsources more and more decent jobs to third world nations that abuse workers with every "indignity" from overworking children to raping young women to actually MURDERING union organizers. He denies basic health care to MILLIONS of americans while snidely turning over the money that could make such care possible to the most pampered elite wealthy cretins in the country. His administration refuses to be party to the world human rights court, because it is far too obvious that torture and abuse are happy methods for his filthy regime. He eliminated funding for hundreds of health organizations simply because they allowed women to decide whether abortion was a choice they should make - intensifying the horrible problem of substandard health care for women and children all over the third world. It is truly Orwellian that such a creature would actually have the nerve - the gall - the AUDACITY - to even utter the words "human dignity" in any context. He should be tried as a human rights violator and a war criminal and left to rot in the same terrible inhumane conditions he's helped to foster all over the world.
Yet you support the "right" to kill unborn humans? If you're talking about Afghanistan, then you have a screw loose. If you're talking about Iraq, I'm curious how you think Bush has personally benefitted from the war. Politically, it's been a disaster for him. Do you honestly think he enjoys killing Iraqi civilians? Do the Islamic terrorist bear any responsibility for the carnage in Iraq? Government should protect ecosystems but not unborn babies? How is he different from Clinton, Gore, or Kerry in this regard? This funding was not eliminated. It was redirected to organizations that don't practice or promote the killing of the unborn. As bad as things might still be in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is "Orwellian" to even imply that they were somehow better under the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.
Most pro-choice people support the right to choose. And not to leave it up to politicians that wouldn't know what reality was if it bit them in the ass. It is obvious that Bush had no idea what he was getting into with this war. (And when most people say Bush, I would think we mean the entire Bush administration.) And its intersting to see where these contracts are going. And Islamic terrorists wern't this out of control before we went into Iraq. Basically we just fuled their fire. If we destroy our ecosystem, unborn babies will be the least of our problems. We will be struggling to keep our already born populations alive. (But you don't really care about that anyway, do you, huck) And that's a shame. Women have earned and deserve better treatment here in the US. How can you care so much about unborn babies, and so little about the women? I would definitely consider being occupied by a foreign nation and afraid to walk the streets much better...
Once again might I remind people not to fall prey to the paradigms which are so repeatedly entrenched in any public debate by our corporate media (and those for whom they act as unquestioning mouthpieces). Iraqis fighting on THEIR home soil against a foreign invading and occupying power are NOT terrorists. By our own standard of nationalistic sentiment (seen in every chest-beating post by lovers of war across the blogsphere) they are just as much PATRIOTS of their native land as any American would be of our own soil were it similary bombed into perdition, occupied and dictated to by a pack of long conniving exiles in cahoots with the invading power. Time this constant use of the term terrorist be nipped in the bud here. If you want to believe the rhetoric of repeatedly exposed liars then feel free to shout terrorist in unison with Fox News or CNN or any of the major corporate serving misinformation panderers, but please do so elsewhere. The Iraqis have every right to defend their homes and fight for their self determination against any illicit foreign invader, as they have done throughout their turbulent history. Simply because some would rather buy into the myth that we Americans are somehow unique and pure of intent whilst real Iraqis (and Afghanis) have watched their loved ones blown to bits, shot or dragged out by our soldiers in the night because some coalition commander claimed they were terrorists does not mean that it is true. I wouldnt imagine too many US citizens standing by praising the soldiers of any occupying power on OUR soil or bowing to the idea of leaders being chosen for us, even for a supposed interim (and certainly not if those chosen leaders were well known to have acted for years as informants for the intelligence services of the occupyers).
I agree that Bush has seriously screwed up in many ways, and the contracting boondoggle is a major problem. However, I still think it's absurd to claim that Bush invaded Iraq to increase his own personal wealth and power. If so, then he's even dumber than people accuse him of being! Was the iron fist of Saddam Hussein preferable? What makes you presume that I don't care about ecosystems? I agree that Bush's environmental policies are atrocious. My point is that his hostility to environmental regulation is similar the "pro-choice" mentality. As I said, this aid has not been eliminated. It's simply going to more ethical organizations that help both women and babies. See chapter 2 of http://www.oxfam.org/eng/pdfs/doc031122_afgh_speakingout.pdf. I see. Sabotoging basic infrastructure and beheading people trying to rebuild it are the acts of "patriots." Profound.
SO if another country came here to the US, destroyed our cities you think we would be okay with it as long as they rebuilt? Even though it's been well over a year? and this: "See chapter 2 of http://www.oxfam.org/eng/pdfs/doc03...speakingout.pdf." This link is about Afganistan, I was talking about Iraq.
The "insurgents" are responsible for much of this destruction and for thwarting reconstruction efforts. Don't forget the widespread celebrations in the streets after the fall of Saddam's regime. If not for these wonderful "patriot guerillas," Iraq would probably be back on its feet by now.
Actually if we were being viciously controlled by a wicked despot, and some other nation came to help us rid our society of him and his sons --- Well they wouldn't even have to help us rebuild. I'd set up statues and monuments to them. Hey wait! That's what happened in 1776!
No it didn't. A foriegn country invaded, destroyed our cities and killed our families and then set up a puppet regime? What history classes did you take?
The nation that removed Saddam was the same one that supported him all through the 80s, knowing full well the type of person he was and what he was doing.
