President's Address to the Nation
George Bush rehashed a variety of statements in tonight's 9/11 address. There's a lot more to criticize about this administration but I'll stick only to its strengths: the points that Bush brought up tonight:
On September the 11th, we resolved that we would go on the offense against our enemies, and we would not distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor or support them.
You mean "we would not distinguish between the terrorists, those who harbor or support them, and terrorists' enemies who denied them safe harbor." The only rationale that's survived the test of time is that We had to attack an arab - whether or not they had anything to do with it - to show that we could kick some ass. And we couldn't even do that correctly.
we helped drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan
Of all the weeks to say this... last week Pakistan signed a truce with their own Taliban and will be withdrawing their troops from Waziristan which is probably where Osama is.
Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. They will not leave us alone.
He's rehashing the flypaper theory. Remember the Madrid bombings? The London air plot? They're already not leaving us alone. Withdrawing emboldens terrorists, and so does does everything else.
I'm often asked why we're in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat.
HOW? What kind of threat? If he didn't have any WMDs, and he didn't have any ties to Al Qaeda, and he wouldn't have given them weapons if he did how could this "threat" be less clear? Or are you just making this statement as vague as possible, hoping that something surfaces to support your statement?
My administration, the Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat -- and after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take.
No, you pressured the CIA and distorted intelligence and fabricated evidence to convince Congress that a threat existed. Congress - and I - eventually took your word for it but the UN did not. You lied to close the deal and you've never played it straight unless you had no other choice.
But the war is not over -- and it will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious. If we do not defeat these enemies now, we will leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons.
I'm confused: which nuclear-armed dictators are we fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan? How exactly will defeating the Wahabbi fighters from Saudi Arabia in Iraq or the Sunni insurgents who are fighting against the Shia elements of the Iraqi stop the "radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons" which I assume means Iran's Shia government?
In the first days after the 9/11 attacks I promised to use every element of national power to fight the terrorists, wherever we find them. One of the strongest weapons in our arsenal is the power of freedom.
This administration has argued for its ability to hold prisoners indefinitely without charge and torture them without access to the Red Cross in violation of the Geneva Conventions. To illegally monitor communication and invade the privacy of Americans who are not even under suspicion of committing a crime. Every time someone casually jokes that they could be sent away to "Gitmo" a shiver runs down my spine that the thought is so much an accepted part of American life that it can be laughed about. If our freedom is such a potent weapon this White House has done far, far more to damage it than Osama ever did.
If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened; they will gain a new safe haven; they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement.
Which Iraqi resources will Bin Laden use? What actual scenario is being imagined here? That Bin Laden will somehow overthrow Iraq's government and the foreign Wahabbi Jihadi 1% - the only group that the Sunni majority and the Shia minority can agree on hating more than each other - will somehow end up ruling the remaining 99% of the population?
We can be confident that our coalition will succeed because the Iraqi people have been steadfast in the face of unspeakable violence.
No they haven't. The Iraqi people have turned against each other and *caused* unspeakable violence. Nobody - including the religious leaders - can be "steadfast" in the face of violence at this point.
on a bright September morning, it became clear that the calm we saw in the Middle East was only a mirage. Years of pursuing stability to promote peace had left us with neither. So we changed our policies
Before 9/11 you saw calm in the middle east? If you'd listened to Clinton's warnings or taken your own advisors seriously you have seen the first World Trade Bombing (1993), the Nairobi Embassy Bombing (1998), the foiled New Years Eve LAX bomb plot, the USS Cole Bombing (October 2000). But you didn't take any of that seriously. You concentrated on missile shields, the war against porn, and Saddam Hussein until Osama rewrote your priorities for you.
Do we have the confidence to do in the Middle East what our fathers and grandfathers accomplished in Europe and Asia? By standing with democratic leaders and reformers...
Which reformers are we supposed to stand with? Iraq's leaders who denounce us? Their supporters in Iran? Saddam's Sunni generals who are fighting them - as insurgent terrorists? Name any "good guys" in this conflict and I'll be happy to start rooting for them.
On this solemn anniversary, we rededicate ourselves to this cause.
On this solemn anniversary we re-evaluate our cause and still find it lacking. Bush still hasn't defined an objective measure of progress, outlined the steps to achieve this progress, and offered a contingency plan for if those steps fail. Progress will not begin until the bullshit stops.
The exit strategy is clear: keep digging until 2008 and then start criticizing the Democrats for the spoils they've won. Or win in 2008 and keep digging.
On September the 11th, we resolved that we would go on the offense against our enemies, and we would not distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor or support them.
You mean "we would not distinguish between the terrorists, those who harbor or support them, and terrorists' enemies who denied them safe harbor." The only rationale that's survived the test of time is that We had to attack an arab - whether or not they had anything to do with it - to show that we could kick some ass. And we couldn't even do that correctly.
we helped drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan
Of all the weeks to say this... last week Pakistan signed a truce with their own Taliban and will be withdrawing their troops from Waziristan which is probably where Osama is.
Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. They will not leave us alone.
He's rehashing the flypaper theory. Remember the Madrid bombings? The London air plot? They're already not leaving us alone. Withdrawing emboldens terrorists, and so does does everything else.
I'm often asked why we're in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat.
HOW? What kind of threat? If he didn't have any WMDs, and he didn't have any ties to Al Qaeda, and he wouldn't have given them weapons if he did how could this "threat" be less clear? Or are you just making this statement as vague as possible, hoping that something surfaces to support your statement?
My administration, the Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat -- and after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take.
No, you pressured the CIA and distorted intelligence and fabricated evidence to convince Congress that a threat existed. Congress - and I - eventually took your word for it but the UN did not. You lied to close the deal and you've never played it straight unless you had no other choice.
But the war is not over -- and it will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious. If we do not defeat these enemies now, we will leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons.
I'm confused: which nuclear-armed dictators are we fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan? How exactly will defeating the Wahabbi fighters from Saudi Arabia in Iraq or the Sunni insurgents who are fighting against the Shia elements of the Iraqi stop the "radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons" which I assume means Iran's Shia government?
In the first days after the 9/11 attacks I promised to use every element of national power to fight the terrorists, wherever we find them. One of the strongest weapons in our arsenal is the power of freedom.
This administration has argued for its ability to hold prisoners indefinitely without charge and torture them without access to the Red Cross in violation of the Geneva Conventions. To illegally monitor communication and invade the privacy of Americans who are not even under suspicion of committing a crime. Every time someone casually jokes that they could be sent away to "Gitmo" a shiver runs down my spine that the thought is so much an accepted part of American life that it can be laughed about. If our freedom is such a potent weapon this White House has done far, far more to damage it than Osama ever did.
If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened; they will gain a new safe haven; they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement.
Which Iraqi resources will Bin Laden use? What actual scenario is being imagined here? That Bin Laden will somehow overthrow Iraq's government and the foreign Wahabbi Jihadi 1% - the only group that the Sunni majority and the Shia minority can agree on hating more than each other - will somehow end up ruling the remaining 99% of the population?
We can be confident that our coalition will succeed because the Iraqi people have been steadfast in the face of unspeakable violence.
No they haven't. The Iraqi people have turned against each other and *caused* unspeakable violence. Nobody - including the religious leaders - can be "steadfast" in the face of violence at this point.
on a bright September morning, it became clear that the calm we saw in the Middle East was only a mirage. Years of pursuing stability to promote peace had left us with neither. So we changed our policies
Before 9/11 you saw calm in the middle east? If you'd listened to Clinton's warnings or taken your own advisors seriously you have seen the first World Trade Bombing (1993), the Nairobi Embassy Bombing (1998), the foiled New Years Eve LAX bomb plot, the USS Cole Bombing (October 2000). But you didn't take any of that seriously. You concentrated on missile shields, the war against porn, and Saddam Hussein until Osama rewrote your priorities for you.
Do we have the confidence to do in the Middle East what our fathers and grandfathers accomplished in Europe and Asia? By standing with democratic leaders and reformers...
Which reformers are we supposed to stand with? Iraq's leaders who denounce us? Their supporters in Iran? Saddam's Sunni generals who are fighting them - as insurgent terrorists? Name any "good guys" in this conflict and I'll be happy to start rooting for them.
On this solemn anniversary, we rededicate ourselves to this cause.
On this solemn anniversary we re-evaluate our cause and still find it lacking. Bush still hasn't defined an objective measure of progress, outlined the steps to achieve this progress, and offered a contingency plan for if those steps fail. Progress will not begin until the bullshit stops.
The exit strategy is clear: keep digging until 2008 and then start criticizing the Democrats for the spoils they've won. Or win in 2008 and keep digging.