Bush's speech

[SonomaCat]

I just read through this transcript this morning (I got home too late to watch it). It frustates me how stupid the powers that be consider the American people. They are now beating the 911 drum again to rally support for the Iraqi war instead of giving direct answers to the questions that everyone wants answered.

Apparently the 911 theme still polls well. After all, we were all devastated by it and virtually everyone wanted a strong response. But for the administration to try to make the leap between 911 and Iraq is just shameful. We (most Americans) are smarter than that. If we wanted to attack a country for 911 (outside of Afghanistan, which was the right move), it would be Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

I think we established a new definition for our convenience now: a "terrorist" is anyone who is a Muslim that we kill in Iraq. We don't fight opposition forces -- we only fight terrorists. Therefore, anyone that doesn't like us for invading their home country is a terrorist. Once we call them terrorists, we can then tie them symbolically to 911 for our internal marketing purposes (doesn't work externally as nobody else in the world seems to be buying it). And since we all know that 911 was bad, we must feel shame for even suggesting that one should question any of Bush's decisions relating to the Iraqi operations.

I was hoping for some of that straight talk that was supposed to be Bush's strong suit when he campaigned. Instead, we just got more intentionally confusing talking points and mindless emotional pleas. I am hoping for the day when Americans begin to demand solid answers from our leaders instead of allowing them to skate by on window dressing and fear mongering. Until that day, the politicians will just keep going down that path of least resistance. It's just human nature.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 115D10.DTL

[Ponycat]

Not agreeing or disagreeing, but what answers do you want answered

[Ponycat]

I mean what questions do you want answered

[jagur1]

Give me a break other than total removal of troops the Pres. couldn't say anything last night that would have made you happy about Iraq.

[SonomaCat]

It would have been nice to hear about:

1. a timeline (an exit strategy). I know the "on-message" argument is that we can't do that, or else we will be showing our hand to the opposition. Well, they aren't going anywhere either way (the more we kill, the more that show up per generals quoted on the topic), so at least having a plan in place to transition the country to local security forces would give comfort that there is some current plan in place.

2. a discussion of increasing involvement/participation by other nations. We presumably should be continually trying to involve the international community more and more as we get closer to removing ourselves from the region.

3. a discussion about any mistakes that have been made and changes that are being made to correct those mistakes (credibity issue)

4. a lot less 911 propoganda and a lot more honest assessments about why we are there, who we are fighting against, and what specifically we hope to accomplish (beyond just saying "freedom" a lot). We are to the point where we should be dealing in specifics, not vague generalities.

jagur: Your mind-reading of me isn't working very well. I don't (and never have) suggested the immediate withdrawl of the troops. I think that is the worst possible answer (show up, destroy the stability and then leave a civil war in our wake). And there were countless numbers of things that he could have said that would have given me assurances that they know what they are doing. The fact is, instead of going that route, they trotted out propoganda instead of giving us facts and specific plans. You can't blame me for not being impressed with that.

[BobcatBlood]

Invoking the word freedom must also "play" well - it's a good buzz word - everyone wants freedom so if we go to war for it, it must be good.

In the meantime, freedom in America is not the same as it once was - and that scares the hell out of me. The Patriot Act and the efforts to expand it are a direct attack on freedom, questioning the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance because it includes God is an attack on freedom, the recent court ruling that allows the government to TAKE private property is an attack on freedom, the sick feeling that if I speak an anti-Bush word I might actually feel repercussions is a horribly sad reality that I consider to be an attack on freedom. The fact that "we" have decided that treating some people inhumanely is "necessary" for the fight against "terrorism" is an attack on freedom!!!!!!

We talk about the cost of this administrations policies in terms of dollars and lives, but when is time to start talking about it in terms of freedom in America. People, throughout the lifetime of this country have given their lives for freedom and I believe today's soldiers are doing just that - or at the very least BELIEVE that they are doing that, but when is it time to start a rally HERE in AMERICA to make sure that WE remain free? It isn't a guarantee - and the war in Iraq isn't going to do anything to help us here.

My voting record will tell you clearly that I'm not Republican or Democrat, but I'm pretty worried about where we're heading. Is the day that we can't check out a book about fundamental Islam, at least without being questioned, really that far away? And if we can't learn where some of these "terrorists" are coming from, how do we really expect to hold hands with the Iraqi people and declare "we did it!" We are training them to be the finest soldiers in the world (along with our troops, of course) - are we also helping them to educate themselves about freedom and capitalism and irrigation and psychology, etc.? Are we even giving our own children a REAL education and the FREEDOM to learn everything they need to know to really understand what's going on - and then are we giving them the freedom to discuss what they believe to really be going on without being branded either a conservative Bush lover or an anti-American?? Do you and I have the freedom to learn what we need to know?

We are all so busy in our every day lives that it is easy to just passively watch all this happen. That's what i've done. I work full-time, have two young kids and volunteer a lot. I wonder what its going to take to get people like me fired up....

[Cat Pride]

The Bush administration has given a "timeline" as to when we will vacate Iraq... when Iraq can defend itself against the terrorists buried inside its borders and those ready to pounce on Iraq once we do leave. Once Iraq can defend themselves against this, we will leave.

How about we ask the current Iraqi government if they'd like it if we'd leave the country today. Who cares what other people around the world think, I care about what Iraqis are thinking in this regard.

[Ponycat]

In the meantime, freedom in America is not the same as it once was - and that scares the hell out of me. The Patriot Act and the efforts to expand it are a direct attack on freedom, questioning the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance because it includes God is an attack on freedom, the recent court ruling that allows the government to TAKE private property is an attack on freedom, the sick feeling that if I speak an anti-Bush word I might actually feel repercussions is a horribly sad reality that I consider to be an attack on freedom. The fact that "we" have decided that treating some people inhumanely is "necessary" for the fight against "terrorism" is an attack on freedom!!!!!!

I agree with what you said here except for the treating people inhumanly. This isn't happening as R and D congress people reported after visiting Gitmo. Abu Grabe was the exeption not the rule and we have addressed that. Again I agree with the rest of what you mentioned in this paragraph.

[grizbeer]

BAC is it your belief that there is not and never has been a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq? I am not speaking of directly Iraq providing planning, people, or equipment for the 911 attacks, but in general support, logistics, money and support to al Qaeda?

I know this is now the position of MoveOn.Org and other liberal and anti-war groups, but I thought more rational people who weren't motivated by hate for Bush could see through this. Certainly it hasn't always been the case that the democrats and liberal establishment thought there was no link between Iraq and al Qaeda:

In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and Al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an Al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands.
The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.
The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040 ... -3401r.htm

I also find this article about the 1st World trade Center Bombing particularly interesting, mostly because it was written in late 1995 and notes the link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and Iraqi threats to use human missiles and WMD.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

To me this article appears to be the blueprint for President's Bush's war on terror and Iraq, including the Patriot Act. This statement in particular is shockingly accurate, despite being written almost 6 years before the 911 attacks:

Indeed, one State Department official described the FBI'S unwillingness to share information as "the train wreck coming"--meaning that given the FBI's lack of expertise in international politics, there may well come a time when the Bureau will be sitting on information that, in the hands of others, could have been used to avert a disaster.

But even if you discount the evidence and previous administration claims of a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, surely you cannot deny that a link now exists, with Zarqawi running the insurgency? Surely the war on terror is now being fought in Iraq - can this be disputed? And if we are now fighting with the group responsible for 911 in Iraq, certainly this is a continuation of that war, isn't it?

Don't know if you saw this from China, but it does appear as though the non-Al Qaeda part of the insurgency is nearing it's end in Iraq, and this has Al Qaeda worried:

BEIJING, June 27 -- Al-Qaeda Group of Jihad made an announcement via the Internet Sunday, warning other anti-America militant groups against talks with the US troops in Iraq.

The announcement said that the negotiation was only a "trick" played by the US, and believed that the "Jihad pursuers" would not be deceived by the "lie of the US".

The announcement is signed by the group's spokesman, Abu Maysarah al-Iraqi.

But the authenticity of the announcement hasn't been identified so far.

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged Sunday that U.S. officials met with insurgents in Iraq. A British newspaper had reported two such meetings took place recently in Baghdad.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005- ... 141241.htm

President Bush has my full support in the War on Terror. Maybe I'm one of the stupid people BAC refers to, or maybe I just look past the MoveOn and Democratic Party rhetoric.

[SonomaCat]

There is no connection between 911 and Iraq. That's not a moveon.org thing -- that's just the facts of the matter. Are there terrorist connections to Saddam? Sure, probably. More than there are to any other Arab or Islamic nation? No, and generally less, because Saddam ran a secular government, and most of the terrorists didn't like him -- they prefer a more theocratic approach to government. If we were going to attack countries based on affiliaton with Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, two allies of ours, would be at the top of the list.

Is Al Qaeda in Iraq now? Well sure. Why? Because we destabilized the country and gave them a place to try to kill us. Or course they are there now. We have failed to secure the borders and practically begged them to pour in and do what they do to us and the locals. Does that somehow justify any of our previous errors? Does the fact that we have created a fertile area for terrorist activities against U.S. military personnel retroactively trying to justify the entire operation by linking it to an unrelated 911 attack? Of course not.

Do I hope that we kill every single Al Qaeda member in the world? Yes. I'm just not convinced that our current leadership has a plan that will make that happen, and is instead just trying to scare us into accepting their continued failures in judgment by evoking our most recent national disaster.

Bush was connecting 911 to our war in Iraq. I think that is misleading on his part and not the kind of leadership I want to see from our country.

[SonomaCat]

A good article addressing the whole thing from a traditional conservative perspective:

http://slate.com/id/2121731/

It speaks specifically to Cat Pride's post as well.

[Cat Pride]

Good article BAC. Interesting points of view given there, and very interesting comparison to the welfare system - a bit of a stretch in my mind, but still an interesting comparison.

Teaching someone whose lived under an oppressive hand that they can run their own government and to instill free will is vastly different than trying to coax someone to get out of the welfare line. Especially when free will is being jeapordized by car bombings.

I caught the writers drift and found it very interesting, but thought it was a bit of a stretch.

[SonomaCat]

Yeah, I certainly don't buy into it 100% either, but I like articles that pull us out of our preset point of view and force us to look at things from a completely different perspective. That article certainly does that well.

[Cat Pride]

That it does. I stand, pretty steadfast, by my conservative ways, but honestly do appreciate the other point of view - even if it might take a green moon made of cheese to get me to change my stance - I do at least appreciate the other side.

[iaafan]

What do we need a timeline for? Didn't Maverick, I mean Tom Cruise, I mean George W. Bush already say "Mission Accomplished." Or, no wait, things were pretty much all wrapped after that election back in January. We've already met all our goals. All is well, all is well.

[mquast53000]

Do people really think that the Iraq War hasn’t significantly weakened terrorist organizations? I might buy that there are more people joining these organizations, and that maybe there are more people giving money to these organizations (maybe). Yet the REAL people that funded these organizations are scared to give them anymore money because they don’t want to be discovered and have all their assets frozen! Attacking Iraq has made Syria, Saudi Arabia, and other countries (and their citizens) realize that they are accountable for their actions. This is a war on terrorism. We won’t stop all the bad guys, but we sure the hell have slowed them down. The amount of money that these organizations have access too is drastically dwindling, and as each day ends they have that much less money to spend on resources.

['93HonoluluCat]

What do we need a timeline for? Didn't Maverick, I mean Tom Cruise, I mean George W. Bush already say "Mission Accomplished." Or, no wait, things were pretty much all wrapped after that election back in January. We've already met all our goals. All is well, all is well.

Nice.

The mission of removing the organized fighting force (Phase 2 for those keeping score at home) had been accomplished. The President did not claim, "We're completely done, not another American or Iraqi life will be lost, peace out." It was merely a declaration of the ending of one phase, and the beginning of the next.

Let it go already.

[iaafan]

Attacking Iraq hasn't weakened terrorism, unless you believe Iraq was a big player in sustaining terrorist. The point is that we need to seeking out terrorists. We've weakened terrorism most effectively by pursuing terrorists.

[SonomaCat]

What do we need a timeline for? Didn't Maverick, I mean Tom Cruise, I mean George W. Bush already say "Mission Accomplished." Or, no wait, things were pretty much all wrapped after that election back in January. We've already met all our goals. All is well, all is well.

Nice.

The mission of removing the organized fighting force (Phase 2 for those keeping score at home) had been accomplished. The President did not claim, "We're completely done, not another American or Iraqi life will be lost, peace out." It was merely a declaration of the ending of one phase, and the beginning of the next.

Let it go already.

More importantly, it was a "Bush as hero" photo op. I think that's what upset a lot of people. If it would have been a subtle memo congratulating those going home, I don't think anybody would have said anything. But when Bush arrives via fighter and they have a big made-for-television ceremony announcing "Mission Accomplished," it is worthy of debate as to what message the PR people were trying to send to the American people.

In retrospect (which is always the easiest way to look at things), it now does certainly appear a bit on the naive and arrogant side of things. It does give one reason to believe that the administration really was underestimating what was left to do.

At the time, I thought people were making too big of a deal over it. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, I think those making the noise at the time might have been a little more in tune with reality than I was at the time.

[iaafan]

Yes, BAC. And if I remember right I think you got a little peeved when someone said the election was a sham. Of course that's not a slam dunk like "Mission Accomplished" but it's certainly moving that way.