Bush Goes a Bridge Too FarTHE PRESIDENT'S LATEST DUMB SPEECH. Catchy huh very ehhh enlightened thought provoking.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, Aug. 31, 2006, at 6:23 PM ET
In his speech this morning before the American Legion's national convention, President George W. Bush may have gone a bridge too far. It was the first of several speeches he plans to deliver in the coming days to rally support for the war in Iraq It never ceases to amaze me that a nation at war would even be debating to or not to support a war that it is already engaged in. (and, not incidentally, for Republicans in November). But one passage in particular reveals that the campaign is getting desperate:
The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror, and that depends on victory in Iraq. Is this desperate or just someone who sees the writing on the wall trying to tell his fellow countrymen of what REALITY is.
Here's the question: Does anybody believe this? If you do, then you must ask the president why he hasn't reactivated the draft, printed war bonds, doubled the military budget, and strenuously rallied allies to the cause. Short doubling the military budget (which would really just be to avoid the special assessments the Whitehouse has favored up until now to pay for the war) But I would like to add RE-ENACT THE SEDITION/ESPIONAGE ACTS & DELCARE WAR
If, as he said in this speech, the war in Iraq really is the front line in "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century"; if our foes there are the "successors to Fascists, to Nazis, to Communists"; if victory is "as important" as it was in Omaha Beach and Guadalcanal—then those are just some of the steps that a committed president would feel justified in demanding. The LLL’s have gone ballistic over wiretapping foreign phone calls into the US and the patriot act can you imagine the screaming over the above?
If, as he also said, terrorism takes hold in hotbeds of stagnation and despair, then you must also ask the president why he hasn't requested tens or hundreds of billions of dollars for aid and investment in the Middle East to promote hope and livelihoods. These nations are freekin oil rich nations that because they live under Totalitarian Dictators that donÂ’t pass none down to the people so I donÂ’t think its our responsibility to be the world wide welfare delivery. Teaching the ME democracy capitalism freedom will fix this problem giving money wont do nothing put make permanent dependency.
Yet the president hasn't done any of those things, nor has anyone in his entourage encouraged him to do so. And that's because, while the war on terror is important and keeping Iraq from disintegrating is important, they're not that important. MONEY QUOTE, and now we reach the BOTTOM LINE to the LLLÂ’s opposition.Osama Bin Laden is not Hitler or Stalin. Baghdad is not Berlin. Al-Qaida and its imitators don't have the economic resources, the military power, or the vast nationalist base that Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union had. This point here is the only reason I have confidence we will win. If AQ had the juice the NaziÂ’s or Soviets had I would packing my SHTF bag getting ready because there is no way in hell with the massive LLL sway over the west that we could win ore even hold the line. If WW2 were fought today we would have surrendered by 43Â’
So, the speech sends the head buzzing with cognitive dissonances. There's the massively exaggerated historical analogy (which should have been obvious, if not insulting, to the World War II veterans in the audience) Ohh yeah and that baby killers, murderers, Nazi’s, posters these guys waive at their rallies don’t insult anyone hmmm . And there's the glaring mismatch between the president's gargantuan depiction of the threat and the relatively paltry resources he's mustered to fight it. Those “paltry” resources have invaded, conquered, and occupied two foreign nations with a combined population of over 50million for around 4yrs now. Oh did I mention they did this with fewer casualties to date than we lost on 9-11. Paltry my ass. Could we ramp it up increase the military to say the Clinton days levels yeah and I would support it and we have to in the end anyway but up to date we have been succeful in divide and conquer one at a time tactics that don’t require the massive WW2 everywhere at once attacks.
Such dissonances could further diminish, not revive, his support.
President Bush is right about one thing: It would be a mistake to withdraw all our troops from Iraq—though, even here, he's right for the wrong reason. The danger is not, as he warns, that al-Qaida would take over Iraq. What you mean a sectarian war would not result in both groups becoming controlled by their most extreme elements?That's an exceedingly improbable scenario. First, al-Qaida's numbers in Iraq are small. Another root problem the LLL’s have comes out here. They are so fixated on Bin Laden they don’t realize we are at war with RADICAL ISLAMIST Bin Laden is just one leader of that movement that was dum enough to jump on the Big Satan before the others were ready. By this logic in WW2 this a*shat would be beside himself why we were wasting our effort on Germany/Italy who didn’t attack US at Pearl it was Japan so we should only fight Japan. I defer back to why today we couldn’t fight WW2 in our best dreams.Second, other well-armed militias, both Sunni and Shiite, would ferociously resist any such attempt to take power. Shite Militia = Mehdi / Badgr Armies = Iran = Radical Shia Islamist, Sunni Milita = Bathist / Whabiest / AQ = Sunni Radical Islamist, either way both will be enemies and will harbor terrorist and both will at first opportunity attack or strike our interest if they can get away with it.
The real danger is that Iraq might devolve into anarchy and total civil war, the likes of which would make the present turmoil seems placid by comparison. Killings could soar into the hundreds of thousands, even millions. Neighboring countries, whether for aggrandizement or security, would feel compelled to intervene—Iran siding with the Shiites, Saudi Arabia bolstering the Sunnis, Turkey suppressing the Kurds—and, from there, one good spark could set off a horrendous war across the whole region.
Bush doesn't see this danger—he chooses not to see it—because it plays against his ideology. This is exactly what Bush and everyone paying attention has been trying to tell the Retreat ehhh Redeploy crowd would happen if their plan is enacted. He views the world as locked in a titanic struggle between, as he put it in today's speech, the forces of "freedom and moderation" and the forces of "tyranny and extremism." This is, in his mind, "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century."
He acknowledges that some of these dark forces are driven by "different sources of inspiration"—some are Sunni, some Shiite, some homegrown terrorists. But he claims that they nonetheless "form the outlines of a single movement, a worldwide network of radicals that use terror to kill those who stand in the way of their totalitarian ideology." Yeah kind of like the Axis alliance consisted of Germany, Japan, Italy & Soviet Union (well at least until Germany secured their western flank France and turned back on their east Soviets) yes just like that all hated the West all were shooting for world domination and willing to cooperate to defeat their enemies the West until victory and then well see Soviets one time member. As for the sectarian violence between the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq—a phenomenon that would seem to cast doubt on this Manichean vision—Bush explains it away as having been "inspired by Zarqawi." Certainly Abu Musab al-Zarqawi encouraged sectarian violence, but to say he contrived it is ludicrous. Even more amazing to me is how our enemy can kill their own people in markets and the streets innocents dead for what 15seconds on our Western Media and the insane part to me is some elements here see this as not desperate but proof the terrorist are winning WTF
It's not simply ludicrous; it leads to bad policy. It reflects a gross misunderstanding of Iraqi society (which is far more complex than a checkerboard of freedom fighters versus extremists)—and of the real enemies we face (which are far less monolithic or unified than the president seems to believe).
Not all of our enemies are fascists, and not all of our friends are democrats. The danger—really, the crisis—looming in the Middle East is not the threat to freedom and democracy but rather the threat to stability. Ahhh here we go another core LLL problem stability at all cost see Neverlene Chamberlain. To achieve change there is needed some chaos and instability.
This is the bugaboo Bush does not want to face. He has said, over and over, that his predecessors' infatuation with stability is what caused the festering stagnation and resentment that bred the terrorists who mounted the attacks of Sept. 11. Yeah those totalitarian dictators their used the boogy man Joo’s & Big Statan crap to be the steam valve to release that hate on and it has been happening since the 80’s. The lack of freedom and capitalist economy is not our fault it’s the Muslims for letting Dictators run their nations into the dirt while they live in palaces like king tut."Years of pursuing stability to promote peace had left us with neither," Bush said this morning. That's a matter of debate. What? Hmmm 93’ world trade, Nairobi embassy, Kenya embassy, Cole, multiple CIA agents, and then 9-11, Madrid and on and on working great oh yeah I guess those victims were uhhh acceptable loses huh and a little growth of the death count with inflation big deal right who cares. In any event, the new danger is that Bush's neglect of stability to promote freedom will leave us with neither of those things—to the still-deeper detriment of peace: a trifecta of world misery. Yes WAR is unstably and yes we will have nether security or stability until the war is over. But this leans to yet another LLL problem they can’t see past the end of their nose. War today will be bad but will save tomorrow stability today will be palatable for sometime to come at acceptable loses but at some point it will be war and it will be worse than war today.There are dangers. Bush is not mustering the resources to deal with them, mainly because we do not have the resources. He needs—we need—assistance from international players who have an even greater interest in preventing Iraq from collapsing or a regional war from erupting. However, Bush will not be able to rally this assistance as long as he makes statements like, "We will take the side of democrats and reformers throughout the Middle East." that’s just it we are not looking for another palatable dictator for a new band aid fix for stabilities sake. We are looking for a long term fix making the ME democratic capitalist will be like what we did to Europe it worked their it can work in the ME. To the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and others, that sounds as if Bush would take the side of people who want to overthrow their regimes And we will if they don’t continue on their path the British model of democracy with their figure head Monarchs.. He couldn't be serious; he is, after all, friendly with those regimes. But what is he up to? What are his real intentions? Why bail him out on Iraq if he sees freedom's triumph in Iraq as the harbinger for the rise of "reformers" throughout the region?
To pursue a sound policy in the Middle East, to impede civil war and worse, would require Bush to shift gears—to drop his rhetoric on spreading some abstract concept of freedom (at least as a centerpiece) and to resume the long-standing pursuit of stability. Such a shift may be too humbling for Bush to endure. And so, as long as he keeps giving speeches on the war in Iraq and the war on terror, the cognitive dissonances will buzz ever louder.
BACK TO TOP