Our noble leader was making a speech near home yesterday and this was what it was mostly about: Bush ties Al Qaeda in Iraq to Sept. 11. I just wonder, does he really believe the things that he has been saying about 9/11, Iraq, Al Qaeda, and all the rest or does he believe that if he repeats the same lies frequently and loudly enough that they will become the truth?
I think he does. I think this is a guy who’s been cushioned from the consequences of being wrong for his entire life, surrounded himself with yes men and isolated himself from anyone or anything that might tell him something he doesn’t want to hear. He’s the Emperor with delusional clothing, except there’s no little kid to tell him he has no clothes. He’s essentially insane, in my opinion. Rather like Michael Jackson ( without the talent ); he never was very stable, and being isolated in a bubble has driven him over the edge.
Despite the misleading header, Bush did not claim that Al Qaeda in Iraq (as in Iraq specifically) was responsible for the Sept 11 massacre.
As I read it, he claimed that Al Qaeda (as an umbrella group) is essentially the same organisation that was responsible for the massacre.
From the article, his actual claim:
It’s clear to me he is referring to the overall Al Qaeda multi national organisation as having been responsible for the massacre. In his speech to the troops in Iraq he placed his emphasis on the Al Qaeda branch currently active in Iraq, but so what?
Hmm… on this particular issue I’m not sure if he’s lying, per se. But what he ignores (or neglects to mention) is that Al Qaeda In Iraq is responsible for only a tiny percentage of the overall violence in Iraq. They are dwarfed by other groups.
And correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t they short of more than the flimsiest toehold in Iraq before the US invaded? IOW, we kind of set the stage for their proliferation there?
Yes. Saddam hated them.
To me, it’s not so frightening that George W. Bush believes in these fantasies – it’s really frightening that around 30% of the American people still believe in them, and that the media do very little to disabuse them of the fantasies.
One wonders if he has the intellect to assemble the facts and process them logically. I think his thought process goes that since some al Qaeda forces have entered Iraq and some of the violence is by them, that means that the continued US presence in Iraq is perfectly justified as a response to 9/11.
He’s like the comic that only gets applause for one line and uses it over and over again. 9/11 and al Qaeda are his stock phrases to sprinkle liberally into each and every speech because historically those phrases have worked for him.
Claiming the al Qaida in Iraq was the same overall group as the group who launched the WTC/Pentagon attacks did not actually bother me that much as I suspect that that is true. Once we destroyed Hussein’s ability to keep them out and then failed to provide sufficient forces to keep them out, ourselves, I suspect that bin Laden’s al Qaida did begin entering Iraq.
More problematic, of course, is that, as Blalron noted, they make up a rather small percent of the people raising hell in that country.
However, what really intrigued me was his persistent claims that “other people” were denying that al Qaida was al Qaida. Who are these people who claim that the al Qaida fighters in Iraq are not associated with bin Laden? I have never encountered anyone who has made that claim. Now, there might be some persons who have said such a thing and I have just missed it, (I read more pro-Bush opinions than anti-Bush opinions, forming my own anti-Bush opinions by reading the news), but that part of his speech seemed to be little more than a giant straw man.
Yes. He glosses over that fact and wants us, instead, to focus only on how things are now. al Qaeda is in Iraq, therefore we must stay and fight them. Frankly, none of the top 3 Democratic candidates for presidents disputes that. They only disagree on the troop levels necessary to do so.
People will say anything to support their untenable positions.
I don’t see how he could reasonably believe what he says. He may not be reasonable.
I think he probably realizes his Iraq blunder and repeats the “resolve” mantra not because he really believes it, but to avoid admitting he was wrong.
He’s going to ride the mantra until next inaguration then disappear for a while. Maybe 20 years from now, we’ll get an inside scoop from him.
From the cited article:
Sure, I think he believes this is true. I believe its true too…does that make me delusional? Oh, he’s playing fast and loose with how big a role AQ is currently playing in Iraq, as others have pointed out. And he’s not mentioning that AQ is pretty much in Iraq atm BECAUSE of our invasion. But its not a huge stretch to say that AQ currently in Iraq have ties (at a minimum) to the AQ group that launched the attack on 9/11. Which part of this is fantasy? Which part do you think is BS?
Did you READ the article?
Other people ARE apparently denying…something. Again, from the article:
My guess is that these ‘terrorism experts’ are skeptical about the same things that have come out in this thread so far (i.e. exactly how big a role AQ REALLY has in Iraq today, coupled with the irony that AQ is IN Iraq essentially because we invaded), but its pretty obvious that he’s responding to these folks (and probably spinning things so his own position looks better than it is, at a guess).
Yeah, I wish I had the text of the actual objections.
And all I have to say to that is: George W. Bush, here’s your sign.
I wouldn’t bet on that. The only way we’ll see him in 20 years is if there’s another large terrorist attack on the country (and the Dems are in control), when the GOP will trot him out at carefully scripted functions to say, “I told you so!” before rushing him back to the same containment vault where they kept Reagan after he left office. Bush is simply not the kind of statesman that most of our former Presidents have been. If he does anything after he gets out of office, you can bet it’ll have none of the significance of what folks like Bush 1.0, Clinton, or Carter have done. Heck, he won’t even be able to write books about politics like Nixon did.
It just occurred to me, perhaps he realizes that this is it, as far as his moment in the sun goes. He’ll never be able to capture the global spotlight once he leaves office, and being a man of few ideas, he’s making the most of it in the only way he knows how. Once he’s gone, America and the world will breathe a collective sigh of relief and hope that the next person to hold the office isn’t nearly as damaging to the world as he has been.
I think GWB believes what his inner circle tell him, and he does his best to report their information to the American public. I doubt, however, that he has the intellectual curiosity to question his inner circle on their opinions and assumptions, so it never occurs to him that they may be shading the truth, spinning reality, or just flat out wrong.
I recall reading a book written by Bush’s first treasury secretary, Paul O’Neill, after he left the White House. O’Neill (who had previously worked with past administrations) described one-on-one meetings with Bush in which Bush didn’t ask any questions. Unless you brought up a subject, it was not discussed. The extent of Bush’s inquiry was simply “what do you have for me.”
The Bush bind in Iraq is that there isn’t an enemy so Al Qaeda in Iraq has to be it. No, he doesn’t directly say that Iraqi Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. However by continually speaking of Al Qaeda and 9/11 together he ties the Iraq group to the WTC/Pentagon attacks. And it seems to be effective with about 1/3 of the people.
I don’t really gave a damn whether or not he believes his line. Whether he does or is arguing to stay-the-course[sup]TM[/sup] to rescue his place in history or make money for his friends the effect is the same. We are getting our people and many Iraqis killed and spending billions, throwing good money after bad.
If we just keep putting quarters in the slot we are sure to hit the jackpot. We’ll know by September, or Novermber, or next spring, or maybe in 2009 sometime.
At least with Reagan they had a reason to keep him out of the spotlight.
I think what you are saying here is incorrect…and I suspect its not what you meant either. What I THINK you mean is that by Bush constantly referring to 9/11 and Iraq he is attempting to show a relationship between SH/Iraq and what happened at 9/11…and that some non-zero percentage of the population believes/believed this connection to be true. This is debatable (the part that it was/is a directed effort by Bush et al to convince the American people its so) but I certainly concede that it could very well be so. To a certain degree I believe it IS so.
This is, however, different than saying that AQ CURRENTLY in Iraq could have ties too the same AQ infrastructure/command structure as, well, AQ…who in fact did attack the US on 9/11. To me, though definitive proofs haven’t been given (that I’m aware of), this is at least plausible.