First off, here’s the transcript and here’s the link to America Supports You.
I thought it was passing strange to mention Osama Bin Laden since it’s a tacit reminder that after almost four years we haven’t captured or killed the most wanted man on the planet. Still, Bush must have thought it was critical to remind Americans that even the top terrorist believes that Iraq is the new battleground.
Best line: “chaos for the cameras” makes the point that the enemy wants to break the resolve of the allies with a hundred mini-Tets. The Madrid bombing may have shaken the Spaniards, but Bush made it clear that we won’t be so easily scared off.
The political Left will complain about the 9/11 references but they can’t deny that terrorists are bringing the fight to Iraq, and not Dubuque.
Update – Hugh Hewitt thought that Osama’s words were key: “That is the key point in the speech, the key point in the debate, and the president's clarity in making it made it a very successful speech. Over and over again he and his Administration, his supporters and the military must make that point again and again: It is all one war.”
More - Lorie Byrd, Mort Kondracke, and John Hindraker thought it was an excellent speech.
Finally, what media bias? – Here’s a roundup of statements from both Congressional Democrats and Republicans via the Washington Post. In a typical representation of opinion by the MSM, there are quotes from seven Democrats and three Republicans. What a surprise.
6 comments:
George Bush: "The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened or defeated. So they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take. "
Right. No limit. There was a quote from the American Civil War by a captured Confederate soldier when asked by his increduluous Union captors why he was willing to fight so fiercely when he owned no property, no slaves, and was not part of the Southern power structure. His response was simple but telling: "Because you're down here."
The very fact that jihadists are leaving the relative safety and comfort of places like Saudi Arabia to go fight in Iraq is evidence that our occupation of Iraq is creating terrorism/extremism, not ending it. The 1,000+ Saudis operating in Iraq right now were not terrorists until we occupied that country and gave them a motivation to fight. There is no organized army for them to join so they become terrorists.
The President provided a rather extensive list of sources for those who are willing to kill without limit:
"Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia and Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and others."
Multiplying such a large resource pool by a willingness to kill without limit is a chilling calculus. How many American soldiers will die so that we can improve roads and build better schools for Iraqis? The only clear and present danger was created by us.
The President admonishes us not to leave Iraq in the hands of those like Zaqarwi. But the only reason we need to worry about Iraq falling into the hands of terrorists is because we invaded it and removed Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was a vile, wretched, murderous SOB, but he was the devil we knew. The Bush administration is on record as saying that there were no established ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. His iron-fisted rule suppressed any destabilizing elements within his country. Bush the Elder was not willing to pursue him after the liberation of Kuwait ( http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm ) because he foresaw exactly the situation we are in now.
9/11 was run by Al Qaeda, using mostly Saudi nationals. There wasn't an Iraqi in the bunch. In point of fact, it was the goal of Al Qaeda to bring down Saddam Hussein's regime (along with all of the other regimes in the Muslim world) so that they could re-establish the Caliphate.
Yet somehow invading Iraq prevents another 9/11. Let's be careful about drawing conclusions about cause and effect. Terrorists made a failed attempt at the WTC in 1996; three years later we nabbed the Millennium Bomber in 1999; two years after that was the devastation of 9/11. The point being that historically there have been significant stretches of time between attacks or attempted attacks on US soil. Is it reasonable not to count the dead soldiers coming back from Iraq as victims of terrorism? These are still American deaths, even if they happen far away.
In September of 2001 Al Qaeda, the perpetrators of the WTC attacks, were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. We sent a token force to where they were, and a huge force to where they weren't. The real progress against Al Qaeda has occurred outside of Iraq. But OBL is still out there in Afghanistan or Pakistan. And he's the POS behind what happened on 9/11.
The terrorists are "bringing the fight to Iraq and not Dubuque" because their ability to bring holy terror to Dubuque was always exaggerated/slash/invented by the White House spokesmen/slash/liars. We've also kept al-Qaeda off the moon; NASA, take a bow!
"Even the top terrorist believes that Iraq is the new battleground," and yet he was powerless to make it that desired battleground when his ostensible political ally Saddam Hussein was in power. Only Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld could pull that trick off.
"The Madrid bombing may have shaken the Spaniards" because it occurred (ahem) inside Spain. It's easy for the U.S. to win the comparison of guts 'n determination when the bodies are way over on another continent, and generally not filmable. Speaking of which, someone who bars the press from filming flag-draped coffins and who confiscates the boy rape photos from Abu Ghraib isn't a man who can credibly speak on what is or is not being arranged "for the cameras."
Oh, and booooo to that devillish MSM, printing antagonistic quotes meant to create additional perspective, rather than going for an illusory evenhandedness by padding its column inches with "go team go" cheerleading. In case you hadn't noticed, a leading Republican is quoted at massive length: it's George W. Bush. Also, that awful 7-3 ratio comes from the Associated Press, and newspapers such as the Post can run as many or as few of the quotes as they like.
A few obvious points:
1) If you followed the news, you would have noted that the native Sunni insurgents are making overtures to the legitimate Iraqi government, with the ultimate intent of laying down arms and participating in the democratic process in Iraq, and that there is a not-insignificant and growing rift between those Sunnis and "foreign fighters",
2) Syrian, Saudi, Jordanian, etc. terrorists cannot plausibly say they're fighting "Because you're down here" while fighting in freakin' IRAQ,
3) Should I concede your "down here" theory (which I clearly do not), I would point out to you that American confederates were not blowing up their own women and children as a part of their "fight"
4) Even unpropertied, non-slaveholding American confederates who were "not a part of the Southern power structure" were threatening the security of the Union, and were ultimately fighting in the service of an abomination - the oppression of fellow human beings - often, not-so-ironically, under a false gloss of religious justification - and they needed to be defeated totally, preferably on their own turf. Seems like we're following the same strategy, and fighting for the same principles, NOW.
You got bent on the Civil War analogy and missed its point, as well as the overarching point of the post. The point of the analogy was that people are motivated to fight because of an outside presence. That's it. The overall point of the post is that the current strategy is not working to secure America from terrorist threats.
To your points, such as they are:
1: This has nothing to do with whether we are effectively removing terrorists and preventing another 9/11, which was the question being posed. Of course some people are going to try to work with the nascent government. So what? A few years ago they shut down the first free elections in Algeria because Islamic fundamentalists, who were taking part in the process, were going to win and turn the country into another Afghanistan. The result was a civil war of unspeakable savagery. I remember reading about that in the news.
2: Most of borders in the Arab world are artificial, created by European powers rather than by ehtnic or geographic forces. You'll note that the borders in that region tend to follow survey lines rather than rivers or mountain ranges. Iraq/Saudi/Yemen/ etc. are viewed by jihadists as part of one Muslim/Arab community. The analogy is valid and the counterpoint is sophistry.
3: The point of the analogy was about being motivated to fight due the presence of an outside force. To borrow your phrase, 'if you read the news' you'd know that all the jihadists aren't suicide bombers. If they were, there would be thousands of suicide bombings.
4: We are supposed to be fighting terrorism and removing a clear and present danger (remember WMD?), not "fighting for principles." According to your analogy, we would need to secure the unconditional surrender of the Arab world in order to end this conflict. Onward to Mecca!
As to your "rebuttals", such as they are:
1) The fact that some terrorists are working with the nascent government to come "out of the cold" means that they think terror is not working. When terror is not working, terror is losing. When terror is losing, DUH - we are winning.
As for the "other terrorists", well, they are busy over there. Kind of makes it hard to work on another 9/11, 'mkay?
2) ME DID NOT NOE THAT. Thanks for a reiteration of the obvious, nimrod. The fact the Iraqi insurgents are shooting at foreign fighters now (God, I love red-on-red fighting), however, undercuts your entire premise and turns your analogy around on the Saudi/Yemen/ etc. jihadists. The fact is, I would say your analogy itself was sophistry, but it was so inartful and lacking in subtlety it falls short of the definition.
3) See above. The "folks down here" are the foreign fighters in the eyes of *gasp* IRAQIS -ven, for goodness sake, in the eyes of the Sunnis. And while I'm sure that the Iraqis, who are again, increasingly pissed off at the suicide bombers, very much care, I don't much personally care if a jihadist blows himself up, or takes a 7.62mm or .50 cal through the head. It's all the same to me.
4) Silly me - I thought we could do both, but then, I'm a nuanced thinker. Those of us who support the war happen to think we can walk and chew gum at the same time. While it may be a struggle for a deep thinker such as yourself to envision that fighting for principles and removing a growing and gathering danger (clumsily played on the "clear and present" part, chum - remember what Bush actually said back in the day?) are not mutually exclusive, it's not hard for most of us non-reactionaries who still retain the capacity to respond to reason.
Familiar sounds from a voice that should be near and dear to conservatives (but evidently not Republicans):
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45108
Post a Comment