GeeDubya's big speech. Be Wrong Now!

[pantom]

Binarydrone:

Since the end of major combat operations, we have conducted raids seizing many caches of enemy weapons and massive amounts of ammunition…

Didn’t believe you, honestly, figuring there had to be limits to the dissembling of the man. But that’s from the transcript. Takes major cojones to try a rhetorical trick like that.

[t-keela]

The speech was the usual bullshit…it actually put me to sleep.

I am a bit impressed with how articulate he is becoming.

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

The rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine… – Goebbels

Reeder: Yeah, I read the City Pages too. So SHRUB studies Goebbels. Please, you’re giving the man too much credit – unless he’s got strings attached. (Oh wait.)

He looked entirely stiff, and he paused unnaturally before he said “cache” (TiVo people, check it out, it’s funny), like he’s unsure why having lots of bad weapons might be catchy. And the WMDs he mentioned in the beginning of the speech “And we acted in Iraq, where the former regime sponsored terror, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction,” is simply stirring the pot. So we invaded because they once had WMDs?

Notoriously absent was the bombing of the UN compound, where a top UN officializer “de Mello” was killed or something. Plus 20 people and 160 injured. This is the best he could do: “They have killed civilian aid workers of the United Nations – who represent the compassion and generosity of the world.” WTF!

[Reeder]

Uhhh…I have never read the City Pages you cite.

I am however a history buff.

[Brutus]

Uh, Mr.B, don’t go loopy on us. You wanted mention of the UN attacks. He mentioned that the UN was attacked. You then criticize him for not mentioning the UN attacks.

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

Not loopy, just pointing out a serious problem: specifically mention the death of a cleric in a bombing but avoid the bombing that killed a key UN diplomat? The agenda stinks.

[mhendo]

Well, the main problem i have with the speech is that it contained nothing that couldn’t have been disseminated in a run-of-the-mill press release. There was no pressing need for a nationally-televised address, no really new developments to report, no startling breakthroughs or sudden setbacks.

It’s pretty sad when the “leader of the free world” is reduced to the role of newscaster.

[Blonde]

Newscasters everywhere are cursing you, mhendo.

[capacitor]

Interesting: he mentioned Powell, but no mention of Rumsfeld.

I think this may be a prelude for more speeches to come.

[Dissonance]

To quote Chad on Bush’s speech:

Wot, no frivolous comparison to Nazi Werewolves in Iraq?

To anyone who got that, hold your breath and hope Powell’s winning out over Rummy.

[Doomtrain]

*Originally posted by capacitor *
**Interesting: he mentioned Powell, but no mention of Rumsfeld. **

If it goes that way, I hope Powell isn’t man enough to refrain from a little victory dance.

[t-keela]

Perhaps we could find a newscaster who would run against him, any suggestions?

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

capacitor
Interesting: he mentioned Powell, but no mention of Rumsfeld.

Downplay the costs already paid by the UN, due in full to our criminal actions in Iraq. A key diplomat, a reasonable heir to the UN, plus 23 others were killed, and 160 injured in a remarkably successful bombing. I mean, how many go down due to Islamic Jihad? 5? 25 if it’s a bus?

Tonight the President bellied back up to the bar at U. Ennigans’ International Tapas Bistro. Doesn’t want to mention the tab, though.

Powell was his message-man, nothing more.

[Doomtrain]

I had an interesting thought. If Iraq continues to go bad, a sacrificial lamb would obviously be required. I don’t think Bush would oust Rumsfeld, but maybe Wolfowitz would fall on his sword for the team. Thoughts?

[Squink]

Wolfowitz would be such a flamingly obvious shill that the very sword itself would would cry out for an honest bloodletting.

[anewthought]

Excerpts of the speech are quoted and put together into something that IMHO all add up to something interesting. Bold areas are most important:

Since America put out the fires of September 11, and mourned our dead, and went to war, history has taken a different turn. We have carried the fight to the enemy. In Iraq, we are helping the long suffering people of that country to build a decent and democratic society at the center of the Middle East. Together we are transforming a place of torture chambers and mass graves into a nation of laws and free institutions. The triumph of democracy and tolerance in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and beyond would be a grave setback for international terrorism. Iraq is now the central front. Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there – and there they must be defeated. First, we are taking direct action against the terrorists in the Iraqi theater, which is the surest way to prevent future attacks on coalition forces and the Iraqi people. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength – they are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today, so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.

IMHO this entire paragraph, taken from the Bush speech, spells out his administrations plan on terrorism exactly. The idea is that by putting US troops in the Middle East, and attacking Middle East countries, terrorism will not reach the shores of the USA. But is that really true? Does that really make any logical sense?

Most recently, we can take a lesson from Israel/Palestine. When Israel rolled the tanks and troops into Gaza Strip and the West Bank, the number of actual terrorist attacks into Israel itself escalated. In fact they continued to grow worse and worse until Israel withdrew it’s forces and agreed to talk about peace. When that happened suddenly there were no more terrorist attacks and everything settled down. In this entire situation with the Israeli’s it is easy to see that generations of Palestinians are now being raised and taught by their parents and educators to hate Israel, to fight Israel, to kill Israeli’s. It stems from hatred of the Israeli’s due to the occupation of what they see as their land. On the other side, a majority of Israeli’s now hate and loathe all Palestinians due to the suicide bombings. There is a very real cycle of violence established that will never be broken unless an outside party steps in and takes over.

History does teach us that the occupation of foreign land actually increases terrorism, not lessens it. Wouldn’t (or hasn’t) our attack on Iraq instilled hatred and fear in the minds of Arabs living in the Middle East towards the USA, to the extent that we will face suicide bombers and escalating levels of terrorism against us for generations to follow? Is the USA only emulating the same tactics against terrorism as used by Sharon in Israel? Just bring in all your troops and show them a real good lesson by killing them, even if innocent people happen to be killed in the crossfire? Israel is considered to be using terrorist tactics by many nations of the world because of how they deal with their problems. Sending missiles to kill a single guy in the middle of a crowded market packed with innocent people and children. Now what about the USA? Can we honestly say we are any different from Israel now if we send cruise missiles into the heart of Baghdad, killing innocent Iraqi’s? Clearly the situation in Israel is a huge problem with no solution and their method of dealing with terrorism is a dismal failure. How is the US method of dealing with terrorism any different from that of Israel, and why would it be anything but a failure as well?

There were some very educational SDMB discussions on the issue of how to confront terrorism. Very good stuff! But unfortunately, not one of them addressed the issue of Democracy in the Middle East (That I could find):

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=207224

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=170068

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=125857

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=102264

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=89363

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=87459

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86709

Some interesting quotes:

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I feel one reason that misguided US citizens sent money to the IRA to plant bombs was the wrong approach by successive British Governments. To tackle terrorism, you need to go to the root cause of the problem, not rely on military might. I don’t consider that this is giving in, or turning tail, to the terrorists. It also doesn’t matter that the US is the most powerful nation on Earth. Every government plagued by terrorists has far more resources and firepower. In fact, I wonder if that isn’t part of the problem - does the US feel it has to use its full military might every time, no matter what others suggest?

So what other countries have done to combat terrorism sucessfully or not for decades is simply irrelevant because it never happened to the US ? No wonder people accuse Americans of being historically and geographically ignorant.

Because that’s what it would take. You kill one terrorist or suspected terrorist, and four more are there to take his or her place. You kill a 13 year old a week, regardless of whether or not he was “throwing rocks”, and you get a lot of angry parents, justified in their anger, because you killed their baby boy. Ain’t nothing taking that hurt away from them.

Of course I acknowledge that individual attacks are continually prevented worldwide. It seems to me (and maybe this should be in IMHO) that terrorism, while it can’t be defeated utterly, can be diminished, but I’ve only ever observed this to happen following negotiations, rather than military intervention. As for ‘wiping them out’, it appears to me to be a bit like flatworms. You cut one in half and it turns into two; the more you kill, the more you make.

By understanding and doing something about the root causes, in sympathy with and to the benefit of the bodies of ordinary people from which terrorists come, you deprive terrorists of their recruiting grounds, you deprive them of the angry young men that can be moulded into suicide bombers, and in short deprive them of the power to pursue their extremist cause

The answer lies, I think, in a long term plan of stunning audacity that is overall equally stunning in it’s simplicity. I would be willing to bet that he was counting on a massive, indiscriminate American retaliation. He would then be able to defend his atrocities with ours, point to the West attacking Islam as a whole, and issue a justified call for Jihad against the West. Bin Laden is an ex-patriated Saudi. He hates the Saudi Royal Family. He could ride this tide of Islamic fervor straight into Riyadh, disposing the Royal family, discrediting moderate Islamic factions, and install himself as the de-facto head of the Arab world in totality. Is this a scenario that you want to see played out? I think the U.S. response has been exactly right up to this point. By making it clear that we are only going after Bin Laden and those who harbor him, we have removed from him the moral high ground ( from a Middle Eastern point of view ). Without that, all he can do is run, hide, and wait for the 101 Airborne to come knocking on his door. It is likely that he may try to launch other attacks at innocent targets in the U.S. and abroad as he becomes more and more desperate. We must not allow our anguish and rage over these attacks to push into blindly reacting, thus helping Bin Laden achieve what he wants.

Who said anything about appeasement? Appeasement connotes giving in to demands. I certainly do not advocate changing our policies one whit to please the terrorists. Nor is it helpful to trot out the Nazis in this debate. We’re talking about terrorist thugs here, not dictators with designs on world domination.

I forsee a cycle of violence begetting retribution, begetting more violence, begetting more retribution…etc. Do we really want to wind up like Northern Ireland or Israel? A measured response is a better response in my view.

OK so let’s say there is one thing going for Bush in his plans that Israel didn’t have. Something more than just killing people and calling it a day, it’s the idea of taking Iraq and turning it into a Democracy. Is this what will strike at the root cause of the problem? Is the root cause of terrorism REALLY the fact that people live under harsh Islamic rule, as Bush tells us? Obviously Israel never came out and said they would do the same for the Palestinians, giving them their land and saying “do with this as you wish, live in peace.” The question is, will it work? Let’s assume for a moment that yes, Iraq finally is formed with a Democracy and all of it’s people are suddenly happy voting and running their own nation.

Bush’s message to us is that terrorists are attacking the USA because they live in an oppressed society. And that somehow, magically, if we give them all Democracy they will grow up to love us all and send us flowers and candy gifts. How true do you think this is? That terrorism against the USA will stop if we manage to convert the Middle East into a series of free nations?

Keep in mind the reason given by Al-Qaeda for declaring war against the USA: From the Koran itself, it states they must attack & kill anyone who occupies their ‘holy lands’. Al-Qaeda first declared war on the USA ‘infidels’ after US troops landed in Saudi Arabia and attacked Iraq the first time. They view Democracy and the West as the greatest thing standing in their way of an entire world ruled by Islam and the teachings of Allah. Allah and the Koran do NOT agree with freedom of speech, religion, voting, etc. In fact, most of these people “At War” with the USA indeed hate us for the very things we are attempting to establish in Iraq itself. I just wonder how putting Democracy on those lands is going to prevent parents from teaching Fundamentalist Islam to their children? Children who later grow up to hate the fact that their ‘Democratic’ government and freedoms and McDonalds completely go against every single thing that is stated in their holy book. And thus continue a cycle of violence where they view America & it’s values to be a ‘great Satan’ that is invading their homeland and must be attacked with violence.

Someone please explain to me how Democracy in Iraq will stop terrorism. I am genuinely curious to know.

[Dreaming_of_Maria_Callas]

Few presidents have bent over backwards to ensure separation of powers remains as efficient as possible, but this particular bit makes me wonder if Bush thinks of Congress as a sort of rubber stamp:

… we will spend whatever is necessary – to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom

Congress decides the budget, that’s one of its main roles. Having the president decide how much should be spent seriously erodes the independence of the legislature.

UnuMondo

[RedFury]

Well, after watching The pResident’s performance last night I almost feel qualified for employment as one of his Master Ventriloquists. At the very least, Carnak The Magnificent would be proud.

Must say, that Shifting Goals policy is sheer genious – wonder if Rove took out a patent on it? 'cause he should. No WMDs, no problem, no ties to Bin Laden, no worries, Liberation not quite making it, well, dang, here’s another one: Iraq is now officially the “central battleground of the terrorism war”. Damn the evidence, give me tons of money, man the torpedos, full speed ahead. Trust me, you’ll be glad you did.

Of course, I am sure that has nothing to do with the article I mentioned earlier, one that was widely reproduced in any number of papers. Yep, that’s right, a full 70% of Americans still believe Saddam was somehow involved with 9/11. A notion the Neocon cabal has done nothing to dispel and much to foster. Never mind those pesky facts, the ones that point the opposite way and the number of regional experts who’ve said as much – must be part of that lib’ral coalition putting forth their wicked anti-American agenda. Then again, they could simply point at the new facts of their creation. Like turning Iraq into the Mecca of Anti-American sentiment. Bin Laden must be raking in recruits by the truckful – an explosive “thank you” card can’t be far behind

As for going hat in hand to the “irrelevant” UN, no irony there, no sirreee, none at all. After all, necessity is the mother of invention, so recrossing a burnt bridge should pose no problem for these geniuses. Gotta love how it is now the UN’s “duty” to aid the US. Yep, I am sure that’ll do the trick. Hey! if it doesn’t, they could always come up with some additional choice appellatives for France, Germany, Russia, et al. No doubt that’ll persuade them to give tons of money and send their kids to slaughter.

Along the money lines, gotta wonder how large a chunck of pie the Halliburtons of this world will be getting to rebuild the infrastructure largely destroyed by sanctions and Shock and Awe. 'cause as some of the more perceptive viewers may have noticed, there was absolutely no mention of fund allocation in Misleader’s speech. Gimme gimme gimme…and trust me some more.

Tell you, were I an Iraqi right about now, I just might be given to reminiscing about the “good old days of Saddam.”

In closing, as predictable as predictable gets. About the only thing missing was the Flight Suit.

Mustta been at the cleaners…

[elf6c]

Today’s mystery word is “terrorist”. It is used as a excuse for every domestic and foreign screw-up of the Bush administration. Been caught lying about the WMD’s and Al Queda ties-- terrorists. Lied about how much its going to cost- terrorists. UN and the rest of the world not willing to bail you out of your foolhardy mistakes (gee maybe repeatedly insulting them wasn’t such a good move their Curious George)-- terrorists. Major combat not really over after all-- terrorists. Afganistan promises failed-- terrorists. Massive defecits from your stupid tax cuts and your stupid “screw the UN will do this alone” war about to cost you reeleection-- terrorists. Democrats finally starting to call you out on Iraq-- terrorists. Poll numbers keep dropping-- Terrorists. Al Frankens books on your lies and the lies of your supports on the bestseller lists-- terrorists. Unemployment still really bad-- terrorists. Dropped your dog in front of the cameras-- terrorists. Tony Blair about to get his ass handed to him for the same lies you used-- terrorists. Arnold’ porno mag interviews coming up-- terrorists. Rush Limbaugh ruining a football pre-game show-- terrorists. Oh wait- the last one might be right.

:rolleyes:

[Binarydrone]

*Originally posted by pantom *
**Binarydrone:

Didn’t believe you, honestly, figuring there had to be limits to the dissembling of the man. But that’s from the transcript. Takes major cojones to try a rhetorical trick like that. **

Yup. Big brass ones.