T Nation

George W. Bush Today


#1

I urge my Republican friends and fair-minded Independents and Democrats to read today's speech.

jewishworldreview.com/1105/bush_vets_day.php3

Key passages:

"Some have also argued that extremists have been strengthened by our actions in Iraq claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001. The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse.

The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more then 150 Russian school children in Beslan. Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence: the Israeli presence on the West Bank, the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, the defeat of the Taliban or the Crusades of a thousand years ago.

In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of killers, and no concession, bribe or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder. On the contrary, they target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence.

Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response -- we will never back down, we will never give in, we will never accept anything less than complete victory! The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century. Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses.

Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, "What is good for them and what is not." What this man, who grew up in wealth and privilege, considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers. He assures them that this road to -- that this is the road to paradise -- though he never offers to go along for the ride.

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision. And this explains their cold-blooded contempt for human life."

"At the same time, the Iraqis are making inspiring progress toward building a democracy. Last month, millions of Iraqis turned out to vote, and they approved a new constitution that guarantees fundamental freedoms and lays the foundation for lasting democracy. Many more Sunnis participated in this vote than in January's historic elections, and the level of violence was lower.

Now Iraqis are gearing up for December 15th elections, when they will go to the polls to choose a government under the new constitution. The new government will serve a four-year term, and it will represent all Iraqis. Even those who voted against the constitution are now organizing and preparing for the December elections.

Multiple Sunni-Arab parties have submitted a list of candidates, and several prominent Sunni politicians are running on other slates. With two successful elections completed and a third coming up next month, the Iraqi people are proving their determination to build a democracy united against extremism and violence."

"The work ahead involves great risk for Iraqis and for American and coalition forces. We've lost some of our nation's finest men and women in this war on terror.

Each of these men and women left grieving families and left loved ones at home. Each of these patriots left a legacy that will allow generations of fellow Americans to enjoy the blessings of liberty. Each loss of life is heartbreaking, and the best way to honor the sacrifice of our fallen troops is to complete the mission and to lay the foundation of peace for generations to come."

When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq, and that is their right, and I respect it. As president and commander in chief, I (accept ?) the responsibilities and the criticisms and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision.

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decisions or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.

Some Democrats and antiwar critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the president of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hand is a threat and a grave threat to our security."

"That's why more then a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send to them to war continue to stand behind them.

Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that when -- whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less then victory."

I hope you take the time to read the rest.

JeffR


#2

Jerffy, why don't you recap where they found the WMD's for us, didn't you start a few threads on that before?


#3

I did indeed listen to it today. Very good speech. It's nice to se Dubya firing back with both pistols.


#4

Would those be the same WMD's that the entire BI-PARTISAN house and senate believed they had due to our intel and foreign intel? I'm sorry I forgot you're from canada, what has your country done lately to combat terrorism?


#5

True indeed BIG it was great to see hear him throw the shit right back into the face of the same people who supported his war effort 3 years ago yet now do nothing but slam him and demoralize our soldiers in harms way.


#6

Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE), ex-Senate Intelligence Committee vice chairman: "The president has much more access to intelligence than members of Congress does. Ask any member of Congress. Ask a Republican member of Congress, do you get the same access to intelligence that the president does?

Look at these aluminum tube stories that came out the president delivered to the Congress - 'We believe these would be used for centrifuges.' - didn't deliver to Congress the full range of objections from the Department of Energy experts, nuclear weapons experts, that said it's unlikely they were for centrifuges, more likely that they were for rockets, which was a pre-existing use. The president has much more access to intelligence than any member of Congress." [10/7/04]

Senate OKs $50 billion more for wars
MSNBC
Oct. 7, 2005
WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Friday to give President Bush $50 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and U.S. military efforts against terrorism, money that would push total spending for the operations beyond $350 billion.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9619538/

Soldiers still waiting for armor reimbursements
Pentagon fails to figure out how to pay back troops' personal expenditures
Soldiers and their parents are still spending hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars for armor they say the military won't provide.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9524109/

"Stay the course, forge ahead - on to the next gigantic fuck up that of course, won't be my fault."
~George W Bush 2005

Poll: Most Americans Doubt Bush's Honesty
November 11, 2005
Almost six in 10 - 57 percent - said they do not think the Bush administration has high ethical standards and the same portion says President Bush is not honest, an AP-Ipsos poll found.
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=051111&cat=news&st=newsd8dq9ptog&src=ap

You can only polish a turd for so long Jeff....


#7

People are losing confidence in him and he's having to fire back! For the diehard GOP on this board do you really think that you can do anything and not reap the consequences? Jeff i've read about this speach on a few other sites , most say this is his most combative one so far. Evidently the lack of confidence is rattling him at least a little.


#8

Its good in a way to finally hear him adress some of this stuff, but I just think its a little late,and obviously politically motivated. I think the thing now is to figure out how to end the Iraq mess without it being a breeding ground for something worse. Everyone keeps using the argument of WMD,saying how clinton knew and so forth, but im just asking an honest question because i really don't know: Did they ever prove Iraq having anything to do with 9/11?


#9

I found this quote interestin:"They target nations who they believe they can change through violence".Hmmmm.... seems as if maybe they did acoomplish that.


#10

"thabigdon24 wrote:
People are losing confidence in him and he's having to fire back! For the diehard GOP on this board do you really think that you can do anything and not reap the consequences? Jeff i've read about this speach on a few other sites , most say this is his most combative one so far. Evidently the lack of confidence is rattling him at least a little."

don, I've tried to put myself in W's shoes.

First of all, one of my core criticisms is not using the White House's spotlight more effectively. I'd have "W. Hour" every Monday night.

That being said, imagine combatting a bunch of politicians who are on record supporting the effort. Imagine the same politicians turning on the war effort in the middle of the war. Not only that, but trying to weasel their way out of their public statments?

Imagine what W. thinks when he reads clinton White House information that corroborates his assertions.

Presidents historically do poorly over the course of a conflict (Lincoln, Truman, Johnson).

I hope W. goes on the offensive and seizes the initiative. The truth is on his side.

Oh, please note the sentence discussing how the 200+ intelligence analysts interviewed stated that there was no political pressure applied to "manipulate the evidence."

In summary, I hope the George learns from this. He cannot allow the democrats' to spew their bile without instant and overwhelming refutation.

JeffR


#11

"mmg_4 wrote:
I found this quote interestin:"They target nations who they believe they can change through violence".Hmmmm.... seems as if maybe they did acoomplish that."

Did you miss the elections?

Seriously, if their aim was to stop Democracy, they have failed miserably.

Please read W's discussion about the Iraqi involvement in their security.

JeffR


#12

Ummmm, I think u misunderstood. I was referring to Bush's statement about terrosists targeting nations they believed they could change through violence. And how its changed the USA, not Iraq.


#13

Keep in mind the president doesn't write his own speeches.


#14

It also played a part in switching the Spanish government with the Madrid attacks.

Same thing goes for one of the US's South East Asian supporter with the hostage taking.

A proper response would have been to double the number of soldiers dedicated to the war effort. But in a democracy, pressuring the people is easy when you can show them that you can kill them and that their government cannot protect them.

If this had been a game of Risk or Civilization, I think the US would have laid waste to the whole Middle East by now.

AlexH.


#15

-I love this. Is he saying his war can't be won? Plus, he doesn't even stay on his own topic. What does 9/11 have to do with the fact that our presence in Iraq HAS strengthened the fundementalist movement, at least in Iraq?

-I think it might be look in the mirror time.

Does anybody agree that the Russian bombing had ANYTHING to do with Iraqi Freedom? So, ask yourself, why is it in here? It does segue nicely into the next topic though. The "C" word.

-Islam is like..um..the new Communism. For sure. Totally.

-That description has nothing to do with communism(and NO I'm not one)maybe facsism, not communism. It does energize the crowd though.

-This is fucking rich. Now he's using the corpses of dead soldiers to reinforce his position.
Yes, each loss is heartbreaking.
Yes, the soldiers are patriots. I have the highest respect for the men and women over there. I feel they are victims of this war as well.
-No, future generation's liberty was not at stake if we didn't "liberate" Iraq.
Anybody with a connection to someone in uniform should be offended by the blatant manipulation. I know I am.

-I can't blame W. for this speech though. After all, he didn't even write it. Presidents have people that do that for them you know.

-If we do manage to turn Iraq into a democracy, great for everybody, I guess. It's still imperialism, and it will have NO, I repeat, NO positive impact on global terrorisism.
"Iraqi Freedom" is not about terror!!!


#16

[quote]AZMojo wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Key passages:

"Some have also argued that extremists have been strengthened by our actions in Iraq claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001. The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse.

  • What conclusion are we to draw from this? Terrorism will never be extinguished, but it is possible to decrease the number of terrorists. The CIA issued a report stating that the war in Iraq has done the opposite.

"The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more then 150 Russian school children in Beslan."

  • The Russians were Chechnyan separatists. They had as much to do with Iraq or 9/11 as Iraq had to do with 9/11.

"The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century."

  • What? The godless communists are just like the fundamentalist theocrats? That sounds like a typical in-depth, well-researched statement.

"Each of these men and women left grieving families and left loved ones at home. Each of these patriots left a legacy that will allow generations of fellow Americans to enjoy the blessings of liberty. Each loss of life is heartbreaking, and the best way to honor the sacrifice of our fallen troops is to complete the mission and to lay the foundation of peace for generations to come."

  • The best way to support the troops is to have them continue to die and have their limbs blown off? Complete the mission? What exactly is the goal of the mission? Let us know when it is complete, what exactly the goal was, and how it is related to any of the stated reasons that we went to war.

-If we do manage to turn Iraq into a democracy, great for everybody, I guess.

Iran is technically a democracy. They have a parliament, and an elected president. However, the have a governing council of religious mullahs that render the rest of the government largely impotent. This seems to be the path that Iraq is taking...a nominal democracy, with more in common with a theocracy.


#17

Hell, I've been told by every republican here that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11....now it does?


#18

A decent speech. The fact that he throws 9-11 in there is not surprising, is it? Lest we forget:

(Jeez I must have posted this stuff a gazillion times by now)

We never stopped the war with Iraq from 1991. Saddam violated the sanctions over and over and over, with the help of the FRENCH. He ordered his troops to fire at our planes in the no fly zone, he... just... dammit, are you guys even listening? Why do folks like Jeffy and I have to keep doing this again and again? It's not like there's that many new people in the poli forums all of a sudden.

How does Iraq tie in with 9/11? It was the kick in the butt we got as a nation, a wake-up call to stop our complacency and take responsibility for the rest of our obligations in the rest of the world. We had been ignoring this Saddam asshole and his crap for WAYYY too long, and now our people understood the danger posed by Islamic Extremists and their terrorism AND PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THEM LIKE HUSSEIN. Money for suicide bombers is plenty of proof for this.

But it's not like I'm not going to have to repeat myself about this twenty more times or anything.


#19

Jeff: newspapers have long said, even before going into iraq - while the retoric against them was flying all around - that the CIA beleives it didnt. This is obviously a bunch of manufactured propaganda , and if not?? Then GWB should have, for everybody's sake, gotten the CIA to look into things further. When you choose between right and wrong you have to choose correctly brother

Oh well , we've been in other stupid wasteful and problem creating conflicts ; at least in vietnam it was a democrat that got us in and a republican that got us out so stupidity really knows no party i just call it as i see it


#20

Seriously - read the passage.

The point is that Islamic radicalism and its dangers existed before the war in Iraq. Despite the whinging that Iraq somehow created terrorism where there was none, Bush is saying that whether we were in Iraq or not, Islamism has thrown down its gauntlet against us.

As for Iraq 'strengthening the fundamentalist movement' - so did the war in Afghanistan, by a large amount. Think we should not have gone into Afghanistan, for fear that we will just make the bad guys madder?