Bush Attacks Iraq Critics
A little "edit" on Bush's speech to congressional critics of the war in Iraq yesterday:
Original: "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," Bush said in his most combative defense yet of his rationale for invading Iraq in March 2003.
Edit: "The stakes in the US war on terror in the Middle East are too high, and the administration's interest is too important, for politicians to throw out opposing views or conflicting charges."
Another interesting fact in the article: Bush's speech was part of a coordinated White House effort to bolster the president's waning credibility and dwindling support for the war, in which more than 2,000 U.S. troops have died. As casualties have climbed, Bush's popularity has dropped. His approval rating now is at 37 percent in the latest AP-Ipsos poll, an all-time low point for his presidency.
However -- and this is a HUGE concession on my part -- he had a great point:
"When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support," Bush said in a Veterans Day speech at Tobyhanna Army Depot. "While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."
More from the article:
In a speech in Philadelphia, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., criticized how the war has been presented to Americans _ both by the media and the White House. Afterward, Santorum said the war has been "less than optimal" and "maybe some blame could be laid" at the White House. "Certainly, mistakes were made," Santorum said.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who is weighing a run for president in 2008, has said he agrees with Democrats who are pressing the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee to move forward with an investigation into whether the administration manipulated intelligence.
Bush [also] said: "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 them to war continue to stand behind them."
Ok... here's where I have a problem. A ruthless enemy? Made up of civilians in a country that whose originally cited crime was "harboring known terrorists." Yes, what the terrorist organizations have done is ruthless and some of the Iraqi insurgency is accurately described thusly as well. But "determined to destroy our way of life"??? How's that?! The bombers of the World Trade Center were TERRORISTS: men that have no country and whose sole mission is to create chaos in a powerful country and its infrastructure. And if we're fighting a war in Iraq against the WTC bombers, we're killing the wrong people.
We are not fighting for the freedom to live our way of life (not anymore, if we ever were), we are fighting to make Iraq live by our standards and "our way of life." We are forcing our hand in the Middle East to create a mimic of our mockery of democracy. We (the United States) have never (going back past the current administration) fought for the FREEDOM of opinion or speech or way of life... it has always been a fight to live a certain way. I.e. the freedom of religion often is a euphemism for the freedom of Christianity. Or Freedom of Speech but only if it's not a dissenting opinion in the time of war. Thank goodness even President Bush (yes, I actually called him that) has recognized the public's and politicians' rights to freedom of dissenting opinion.
Associated Press, 6am Saturday Nov 12, 2005
Original: "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," Bush said in his most combative defense yet of his rationale for invading Iraq in March 2003.
Edit: "The stakes in the US war on terror in the Middle East are too high, and the administration's interest is too important, for politicians to throw out opposing views or conflicting charges."
Another interesting fact in the article: Bush's speech was part of a coordinated White House effort to bolster the president's waning credibility and dwindling support for the war, in which more than 2,000 U.S. troops have died. As casualties have climbed, Bush's popularity has dropped. His approval rating now is at 37 percent in the latest AP-Ipsos poll, an all-time low point for his presidency.
However -- and this is a HUGE concession on my part -- he had a great point:
"When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support," Bush said in a Veterans Day speech at Tobyhanna Army Depot. "While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."
More from the article:
In a speech in Philadelphia, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., criticized how the war has been presented to Americans _ both by the media and the White House. Afterward, Santorum said the war has been "less than optimal" and "maybe some blame could be laid" at the White House. "Certainly, mistakes were made," Santorum said.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who is weighing a run for president in 2008, has said he agrees with Democrats who are pressing the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee to move forward with an investigation into whether the administration manipulated intelligence.
Bush [also] said: "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 them to war continue to stand behind them."
Ok... here's where I have a problem. A ruthless enemy? Made up of civilians in a country that whose originally cited crime was "harboring known terrorists." Yes, what the terrorist organizations have done is ruthless and some of the Iraqi insurgency is accurately described thusly as well. But "determined to destroy our way of life"??? How's that?! The bombers of the World Trade Center were TERRORISTS: men that have no country and whose sole mission is to create chaos in a powerful country and its infrastructure. And if we're fighting a war in Iraq against the WTC bombers, we're killing the wrong people.
We are not fighting for the freedom to live our way of life (not anymore, if we ever were), we are fighting to make Iraq live by our standards and "our way of life." We are forcing our hand in the Middle East to create a mimic of our mockery of democracy. We (the United States) have never (going back past the current administration) fought for the FREEDOM of opinion or speech or way of life... it has always been a fight to live a certain way. I.e. the freedom of religion often is a euphemism for the freedom of Christianity. Or Freedom of Speech but only if it's not a dissenting opinion in the time of war. Thank goodness even President Bush (yes, I actually called him that) has recognized the public's and politicians' rights to freedom of dissenting opinion.
Associated Press, 6am Saturday Nov 12, 2005
posted by Jess at 9:47 AM
7 Comments:
I don't have a problem with democracy or our form of government, which is more or less a democracy. However, who's to say that it's the only thing that works? And first of all, who's to say that we have the right to change another country's governmental foundation? Fighting for Human Rights in other countries is noble, but I wish that were the only reason we were interested in a new form of government there. I'm not saying I don't want democracy for them, I'm just saying we can stop acting like we're workin a miracle and "saving the heathens."
I, in no way, meant to imply that Hussein is anything less than heinous and malignant. I'm not sorry to see him go. But again, why are we the ones acting (alone, i.e. without the help of UN) to relinquish his power? And why, for crying out loud, are we bombing a country whose ex-dictator we have in custody? I don't understand how we can psych ourselves out to believe that we're eliminating terrorism by attacking a country... when terrorists, as I mentioned, are often defined outside of their nationality. They have only loyalty to their cause.
Thank you for the information about soldier who have come back from Iraq. Up until now I had only heard negative reactions to our presence there (including first hand tales from returned soldiers). I am at least relieved to know that the Middle Eastern people no longer hate us even more than the dictators we're trying to save them from.
I do see your point: we combine the forces of size, money, resources and world leaders to be likely the most powerful nation in the world. And yes, that does come with some responsibility. I just wish that these specific responsibilities could stay a UN one instead of us taking them over because the UN has no teeth. I don't want another Holocaust just because the UN can't do much more than sanction.
The one thing I will say is that it takes GUNS not guts to start a fight. If Bush were to fight on the front line like the kings and generals of the Greek and Roman times, that might be considered gutsy. But we only got into this situation because we assumed we could win it... and quickly with few American casualties. And it is now a machismo pride that keeps him behind the war he single-handedly declared (i.e. Senate did not, though I concede their "approval rating" before the war begun).
How about if we can be the biggest, smartest, richest, arguably most advanced nation in the world, why is our tactic still a military one? Can't we come up with something with a little more pizazz than blowing up nonspecific citizens in a country whose leader we have in custody? Call it me being bitter...
Any thoughts on the push for an exit strategy?
Yeah, I have an opinion on an exit stragety. We shouldn't leave until the job is done. Period.
There is a reason that we still use the military. For those, terrorists and ruthless dictators, who's only leverage is fear, you must use force. You must show them that you are not scared. You cannot back down or they win. What is more powerfull and more awe inspiring than the US Military. Answer...Nothing. We are fighting for our way of life. We are fighting for the Iraq's way of life. We are fighting against terror of all forms. Living in fear threatens our way of life.
Whether you believe it on not, we are there for human rights. Democracy, in whatever form, encourages it.
And let me set you straight. We don't sit down down at a war table and decide to kill nonspecific citizens or citizens in general. Terrorists sit down it a cave or shack or something and look for a way to kill the maximum amount.
You can hate the war, you can hate Bush, you can hate the current state of this country and so can the dems in congress. But at least support the people who are over there, and let them get the satifaction seeing it to a succesful end.
First of all, I will state/re-state that I show nothing but respect for the individual men and women that have voluntarily gone to Iraq to fight. I have always made a distinction between hating the reason they're there and hating them for being there.
Secondly, I would like to point out that you are quoting the Administration's propaganda all over my blog and I'll ask you to stop. We are not fighting for our way of life. We got into a war as revenge for a terrible attack on our country. I have already spoken my mind on this issue. We are not fighting for Iraqi way of life: we are fighting to push OUR way of life onto the Iraqis (see above).
And as I have mentioned above as well, I am not against an improvement in the quality of life in Iraq (nor have I ever implied it) and I am certainly not sad to see Saddam go. I have a problem with the US as judge, jury and prosecutioner of human rights in a country other than our own. Purely my way of thinking.
I can "push" the liberal perspective without reciting government-fed propaganda...
Yeah, simply because they don't control anything. The left is not in a position of power in the government so it's ok? Is that what you are saying?
No, I'm saying I can have liberal opinions but form my own sentences and thoughts like a big girl...
Post a Comment
<< Home