I caught part of Bush’s speach whilst I was doing dishes this morning. Did he really say that his invasion of Iraq is not resulting in more people joining terrorist ranks?
Although this is a GQ, I’m putting it here because I think it will turn out to be a debate.
Transcript at whitehouse.gov
I don’t see where that exact claim is made. However, he does beat around in the near vicinity of something similar:
Bring back the throwup smiley, please. 
:smack: I got that from an old speech, thining I was looking at the current one, albeit it at cnn.com, not whitehouse.gov .
So, in the simplistic world of GWB, “they’re all the same.” Never mind that the Beslan atrocity was carried out by a specific ethnic group who has a particular 220 year old grievance against the Russians irreespective of events in the Middle East.
It is truly frightening to see such ignorance displayed by a person wielding that much power.
Cite? :dubious:
Thanks for the quote, Squink. If I’m reading it correctly Bush is saying that the rage of radicals is not because of his invasion, because Iraq didn’t attack us before 11 September 2001. 
In fairness I don’t think even he’s that bad. He and his people know that a lot of the people listening are that ignorant however and that’s what counts.
It’s pretty clear from this and previous speeches on the subject that either Mr. Bush has an extremely simplistic view of what it is he is fighting, or for some unstated reason feels it essential to relentlessly dumb down his remarks for his audience, but whatever. After the WH promises of ‘unprecedented detail’, however, there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot new here, except maybe for this:
I for one would be interested to know specifically which plots he is referring to, and particularly whether these were actually being mounted under some centrally-directed plan, organized independently with maybe some financial or logistical assistance from a presumed al-Queda network, or simply claimed to al-Queda ops by the White House. I presume one of the US-targeted plots involved the group arrested in Buffalo a while back. Anyone got a scorecard?
Bush is making a BS argument here, that our involvement is Iraq is all about stopping Al Qaeda from taking it over. (“The militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments.”) If that were truly what we were worried about, we’d never have kicked out Saddam, because he was doing a fine job keeping the radicals at bay, at a much smaller cost to ourselves.
Sometimes I feel that Bush is Al Qaeda’s best propagandist. He certainly doesn’t show much hesitation about building it up.
It’s a result of the Iraq-War on Terror connection, I guess. He seems to have a habit of jumping from one topic to the other.
He’s absolutely correct that AQ and hateful radicals existed before Iraq, of course. But he phrases these comments as if he’s been asked, “has Iraq made that more or less of a problem?” In that case, those words are a non-response. It’s shifting the topic slightly to avoid an uncomfortable answer.
His use of “somehow” is, to me, a little irritating, as if the idea that the invasion angered radicals is mysterious or difficult to explain.
This is probably true, and to which I say huzzah and bully for you. This is the way the WoT should be fought – through international police and intelligence agencies, the occasional judicious use of special ops, and (to quote Aaron Sorkin) a busboy with a Beretta.
What this has to do with Iraq, though, is beyond me, or anybody but GW Bush.
Given the current situation in NYC, was this speech preemptive spin?
According to the latest media information, a subway bomb threat has been uncovered involving 19 terrorists and explosive packed suitcases. And i just heard 15 minutes ago that a terrorist safe house south of Baghdad has been raided, and it has some connection to the NYC bomb threat.
It looks like the Bush administration needs to get two basic points across:
It’s not our fault that the terrorists want to kill us, they wopuld want to kill us no matter what we do. This is the statement the OP has questioned.
Look how badly we need to be in Iraq, there are terrorists over there planning attacks against the American homeland. More troops! More money!
Judging from today’s talk radio, the Republican lap dogs have latched onto this and have been hammering away.
The man is having an ever increasingly distant relationship with reality. It truly appears to me that his faculties are slipping away by the week. This administration is circling the drain. The same old lies, over and over again. One has to wonder if even he believes them.
So much bullshit, so little time!
Steaming load the first: that we fight in Iraq to prevent the likes of Zarkawi and ObL from taking over Iraq. Jesus fuck a shit souffle! Iraq is a predominately Shia nation, Zarqawi and ObL are of an extremist Sunni branch that includes the Wahhabist nutbars, they have no more chance of “taking over” Iraq than Pat Robertson has of being consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury!
And than all this hoo-ha about foiling 10 terrorist plots against America. Dammit, dimwit, if you’re gonna say “10” you better be able to rattle off the 10. Its dumber than a barrel of rocks to say “I saved yer ass 10 times, here’s three of them, can’t tell you about the rest, but you should trust me, because, after all I saved yer ass 15 times…”
[prempted by Comrade rjung. Brevity ensues.]
It’s all been one big steaming load after another, from Day One. We really do need the puke smiley.
The white house gave out the list of ten to reporters a few hours after the speech. I couldn’t find it at whitehouse.gov, but the NY Times details it:
3,4: The White House released no details of the two hijacking plots that it said were disrupted.
5: Shaikh Mohammed envisioned carrying out a new plot on targets in the West Coast in 2002
6: plots to bomb several sites in Britain in 2004
7: attack Heathrow Airport in London using hijacked commercial airliners in 2003
8: attack Westerners at several places in Karachi, Pakistan, in spring 2003
9: attack ships in the Persian Gulf in late 2002 and 2003
10: attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow part of the gulf where it opens into the Arabian Sea, in 2002
11: attack a tourist site outside the United States in 2003
Dagnabit, this list of ten holds eleven incidents. Did the administration get it wrong, or are the reporters messing with us? It’d be nice if someone hosted the original white house press handout.
I didn’t know if I should post this in this thread of the ACLU thread:
Did the invasion of Iraq create more terrorists?
“Oh no! Every Iraqi who just wanted to get on with their lives under Sadam is doing so, now in a democracy where Sunnis and Shia and Kurds will share the oil wealth like contented puppies at their mother’s teats. These snipers and suicide bombers were already in Al Qaeda and just snuck in from Syria and Iran. By invading Iraq, we’ve not only eliminated Sadam, but created a trap to fight AQ in one handy zone!” (which worked so well for the French at Diem Bien Phu)
Should we release the new Abu Gharib photos?
“Oh no! That would create more terrorists and endanger the lives of US servicemen in Iraq. Of course we believe in the freedom of the press, but, as Benjamin Franklin said: ‘liberty is so precious it needs to be rationed.’”
Obviously, somebody wants to have it both ways.