"Being human isn't a matter of choosing either emotion or logic to the exclusion of the other."

No one said it was. But I will note that any [meaningful] choice is dependent upon reason.

"To be human is to integrate the two into a whole that's greater than the sum of its parts."

This might be reasonable. But it could also be nonsense.

But one can say with a fair amount of certainty, that an emotional creature such as a human can not actually choose to not be emotional. Though a person is capable of not displaying emotion and a person can display emotions as an actor does.
By choosing not to display emotions, one can sometimes limit emotions of one's self and others. One can also choose to display emotion which encourage further emotion in one's self and in others.
As example one can "pick" a fight. This can be done many ways but one way is become angry about something and verbal abusing that person- and since no one is perfect this can done with anyone. This could possibly lead to a situation in you and your "target" are insanely angry- as well as emotionally affecting any "bystanders".

"Emotion provides the motive, intellect provides the means. If there is no emotion, there's no impetus to act. If there is only emotion, action is random and ineffectual."

I don't think this is true.
One could as easily reverse what you said: Intellect provides the motive, emotion provides the means. I don't think neither are particularly accurate.
But unless one dealing without someone who is insane, intellect is generally seen as the basis of motive.
And one can say that emotion can "strengthen"/maintain/reinforce one's "resolve" and in this way provide the means. Therefore if you want to sum it up in one sentence, the latter is slighter better.