Agree or Disagree Part Two: Don't Frighten Us with Facts!

Last Saturday, I asked if readers agreed, or disagreed with the following statement:

"The best immediate defense of the United States is the success of Iraq in defending itself; and that, therefore, quite aside from our historic and current interest in the survival of democracy, in the world as a whole, it is equally important from a selfish point of view of American defense, that we should do everything to help Iraq to defend itself."

The response was a resounding agreement.

Several readers speculated on the source of the text. At Mike's America, Jay from the American Israeli Patriot guessed it immediately. He's volunteered to remain quiet and see if other readers catch on.

With that in mind, another statement from this same individual delivered a few days after the first. Please register your agreement or disagreement with the following:

If Iraq goes down, it is no exaggeration to say that all of us in America would be living at the point of a gun -- a gun loaded with explosive bullets, economic as well as military.

The Islamists secret emissaries are active in our own and in neighboring countries. They seek to stir up suspicion and dissension to cause internal strife. ... They try to reawaken long slumbering racist and religious enmities which should have no place in this country. They are active in every group that promotes intolerance. They exploit for their own ends our own natural abhorrence of war. These trouble-breeders have but one purpose. It is to divide our people, to divide them into hostile groups and to destroy our unity and shatter our will to defend ourselves.

There are also American citizens, many of them in high places, who, unwittingly in most cases, are aiding and abetting the work of these agents. I do not charge these American citizens with being foreign agents. But I do charge them with doing exactly the kind of work that the Islamists want done in the United States.

These people not only believe that we can save our own skins by shutting our eyes to the fate of other nations. Some of them go much further than that. They say that we can and should become the friends and even the partners of the Islamists. ... But Americans never can and never will do that.

No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it. There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb. We know now that a nation can have peace with the Islamists only at the price of total surrender.
...
They call it a "negotiated peace." Nonsense! Is it a negotiated peace if a gang of outlaws surrounds your community and on threat of extermination makes you pay tribute to save your own skins?
...
Thinking in terms of today and tomorrow, I make the direct statement to the American people that there is far less chance of the United States getting into war if we do all we can now to support the nations defending themselves against attack by the Islamists than if we acquiesce in their defeat, submit tamely to an Islamist victory, and wait our turn to be the object of attack in another war later on.
...
Our national policy is not directed toward war. Its sole purpose is to keep war away from our country and away from our people.
...

We have no excuse for defeatism. We have every good reason for hope -- hope for peace, yes, and hope for the defense of our civilization and for the building of a better civilization in the future.

O.K. Agree or disagree?

Have you guessed who spoke these words? Here's a hint: I took some liberties with both texts and made minor alterations. It should be clear that the individual who spoke the original is or was one of our leaders. In fact, he is or was a President of the United States.

In the same longer speech above, The President remarked that he received a number of messages from citizens all asking "Please, Mr. President, don't frighten us by telling us the facts." Sound familiar?