Just Heard Bush's Major Policy Speech

[Annie]

It was very good, though should have been delivered after they secured Falluja, before UK and Bali were hit.

 

[speederdoc]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush, in a high-profile address on Thursday, said the war in Iraq did not cause hatred of the United States among radical Muslims, but is an "excuse" to further the goal of creating an Islamic state across the Mideast.

"The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue," Bush said. "And it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/06/bush.iraq/index.html

The truth in those words seems so obvious....those who would disagree must conveniently ignore history in order to try to further their political agenda or simply are blinded by their hatred of our president and of war itself.

Ignoring terrorism does not make it go away.

 

[Abbey Normal]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush, in a high-profile address on Thursday, said the war in Iraq did not cause hatred of the United States among radical Muslims, but is an "excuse" to further the goal of creating an Islamic state across the Mideast.

"The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue," Bush said. "And it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/06/bush.iraq/index.html

The truth in those words seems so obvious....those who would disagree must conveniently ignore history in order to try to further their political agenda or simply are blinded by their hatred of our president and of war itself.

Ignoring terrorism does not make it go away.

As obvious as it should be to anyone with a brain stem, I am so GLAD he finally said it. He should say it every week.

 

[Nuc]

As obvious as it should be to anyone with a brain stem, I am so GLAD he finally said it. He should say it every week.

Nevertheless, I didn't think it was a major speech as touted. He repeated his previous positions. The pundits were saying he would outline some new strategies. I didn't hear that. Spoke articulately though, which was nice.

 

[archangel]

IMO...President Bush hinted to the Islamic world domination of 1000 years ago...
however the Ottoman Empire ended openly in 1924 and has continued covertly up to today...and what pray tell is a "radical Islamist" is that those who openly proclaim world domination or those who cheer from the sidelines too? Did anyone notice the two signs in the background...'The endowment for democratic...' this is a think tank much attached to the Tri-lateral...was this a hidden message? Other than these two things I noticed...GW just rehashed what he has been saying since 911! :huh:

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I watched the response right after the speech on CNN. The first thing the gal, Darin somebody, did in her comment was mispronouce democracy as "demography" as if she was unfamiliar with the word and then proceeded to say something to the effect that "we don't know how many facts" there were in Bush's speech. Then she turns to the next guy who she calls the "fact checker". Just a total blatant anti-Bush repsonse and of course this American anti-Americanism is being broadcast around the globe.

The "fact checker" guy mentions that Bush said there were 10 interrupted attacks around the globe, with three in the U.S. (but of course he wants to get more information and "facts" about them)

Then the CNN gal puts on two people from "totally opposite" ends of the spectrum: Paul Begala and Bay Buchanan. Begala belabors Bush's comment about how "no act of ours invited the rage of the killers...". He saw a shift in tone and thought he saw Karen Hughes' hand in this speech. Bay Buchanan said the speech finally gave a face to the enemy as Bush described their methods, goals, recruiting, and acitons in Iraq. Plus he also made a good comparison of islamofascism to communism.

I also thought that the comparison to communism was excellent. Domination is domination and we Americans are getting attacked from both groups which have many similarities.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

With Bush pushing the focus onto commitment to the war and the mission this way, it will be EVEN HARDER for serious minded dems to convince their wacky left base that they're against this "war of american aggression and racism". It was a master stroke for dems. I think even the clintons will sit down with the wacksters and say "look terrorism is real we gotta do this."

 

[dilloduck]

With Bush pushing the focus onto commitment to the war and the mission this way, it will be EVEN HARDER for serious minded dems to convince their wacky left base that they're against this "war of american aggression and racism". It was a master stroke for dems. I think even the clintons will sit down with the wacksters and say "look terrorism is real we gotta do this."

I thought Hillary already was pro-war and I'm not sure she wants to give her democratic oppostion any ammo.

 

[archangel]

I thought Hillary already was pro-war and I'm not sure she wants to give her democratic oppostion any ammo.

Hillary is pro anything that will get her elected...then anti everything decent when she gets there! :2guns:

 

[dilloduck]

Hillary is pro anything that will get her elected...then anti everything decent when she gets there! :2guns:

true--I must confess that I'm interested in your Tri-lateral conspiracy theory tho. I think there's some reason to give pause and consider it.

 

[archangel]

true--I must confess that I'm interested in your Tri-lateral conspiracy theory tho. I think there's some reason to give pause and consider it.

it's a fact...tri-lateral... New World Order...came directly from Bush 41's mouth...they all belong to this organization...known by many other names...
the 'Skull and Bones' frat was the starting point for acceptance in the US!

 

[dilloduck]

it's a fact...tri-lateral... New World Order...came directly from Bush 41's mouth...they all belong to this organization...known by many other names...
the 'Skull and Bones' frat was the starting point for acceptance in the US!

I'm more curious as to what they are doing but I can deal with that on a different thread. This one was started to talk about the Bush speech.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I agree that Hillary is for whatever will get her elected, even down to the most mundane issues. During the election of 1992, Hillary was "pro" being called Mrs. Clinton. Just as soon as hubby was sworn in, she demanded to be addresssed as Hillary Rodham Clinton. I remember the change seemed to happen overnight.

 

[Nuc]

I agree that Hillary is for whatever will get her elected, even down to the most mundane issues. During the election of 1992, Hillary was "pro" being called Mrs. Clinton. Just as soon as hubby was sworn in, she demanded to be addresssed as Hillary Rodham Clinton. I remember the change seemed to happen overnight.

That turned me against her as well. What a hypocrite!

 

[Annie]

I really believe today's speech should have been delivered 10 months ago, since I think the administration has been too quiet about what has been accomplished. This post does remind me that GW did deliver others:

http://cayankee.blogs.com/cayankee/2005/10/never_back_down_1.html

Never Back Down, Never Give In

President Bush has given another superb speech before the National Endowment for Democracy about the War On Terror.

Like the Advance of Freedom speech President Bush gave to the National Endowment for Democracy last nearly two years ago, today's speech is another in the series of thought provoking speeches in which the President has set forth an ambitious vision of the post 9-11 world.

In his November 2003 speech, President Bush laid out his vision of a “forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East.” In the President’s vision, the “advance of freedom leads to peace:”

The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country. We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history. We believe that human fulfillment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty. And we believe that freedom -- the freedom we prize -- is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind.

Over time, free nations grow stronger and dictatorships grow weaker.

Because we and our allies were steadfast, Germany and Japan are democratic nations that no longer threaten the world. A global nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union ended peacefully -- as did the Soviet Union.

A week after that speech the President gave Three Pillars speech at Whitehall Palace. There he explained that “the peace and security of free nations" now rest on "three pillars:" their encouragement of strong and effective "international institutions," their willingness in the last resort "to restrain aggression and evil by force," and their "commitment to the global expansion of democracy."

Today, President Bush reminded us of that evil four years ago:

We still remember a proud city covered in smoke and ashes, a fire across the Potomac, and passengers who spent their final moments on Earth fighting the enemy. We still remember the men who rejoice in every death, and Americans in uniform rising to duty. And we remember the calling that came to us on that day and continues to this hour.

We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire or rest until the war on terror is won.

The President succinctly summarized the goal and vision of the enemy; "the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom:"

* First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace and stand in the way of their ambitions.
* Second, 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.
* Third, the militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. With greater economic and military and political power, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people and to blackmail our government into isolation.

The President addressed those who say the War on Terror has strengthened the enemy:

I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001, and Al Qaida attacked us anyway.

The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse.

The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet militants killed more than 180 Russian school children in Beslan. Over the years, these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence: Israeli presence on the West Bank or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia or the defeat of the Taliban or the crusades of a thousand years ago.

In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with unalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers, and no concession, bribe or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.

On the contrary, they target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence.

Against such an enemy there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory.

President Bush then laid out five elements of our strategy on the War On Terror:

* First, we're determined to prevent the attacks of terrorist network before they occur. We're reorganizing our government to give this nation a broad and coordinated homeland defense. We're reforming our intelligence agency for the incredibly difficult task of tracking enemy activity, based on information that often comes in small fragments from widely scattered sources here and abroad.

* Second, we're determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation.

* Third, we're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes. State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they deserve no patience from the victims of terror.

* Fourth, we're determined to deny the militant's control of any nation which they would use as a home base and a launching pad for terror.

* The fifth element of our strategy in the war on terror is to deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East.

As he did two years ago at the National Endowment for Democracy and Whitehall Palace, President Bush has once again eloquently explained the great struggle in which we are now engaged. President Bush does not get anything like the credit he deserves for his long-term vision for winning the war on terror. You should read the entire speech.

Reading summaries, excerpts and critiques lets others do the thinking for you. Snippets can't help you grasp the import, which you should have especially if you want to disagree in a knowledgeable manner. This speech deserves to be read in its entirety. Please invest the 30 minutes required to read, listen or watch the whole thing.

The speech is available at Whitehouse.gov, where there is also a link to a video of the speech, and the New York Times.
UPDATE: Other Bloggers' reaction: At GOPbloggers, Jonathan R call the speech one it really is one of the President's finest speeches about terrorism. At Instapundit, Glen Reynolds posts that thre speech was first rate. At One Hand Clapping, Donald Sensing, posts that it was one of the President's best efforts. At Outside the Beltway, James Joyner isn't sure the speech lived up to its billing as a major speech. At PoliPundit, Lorie Byrd calls it a "kickass speech." At Rantingprofs, Cori Dauber posts that the President's speeches on the War on Terror will never be reviewed positively by the usual talking heads. The Political Teen posts "It was great."

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

The President addressed those who say the War on Terror has strengthened the enemy:

I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001, and Al Qaida attacked us anyway.

The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse.

The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet militants killed more than 180 Russian school children in Beslan. Over the years, these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence: Israeli presence on the West Bank or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia or the defeat of the Taliban or the crusades of a thousand years ago.

Ugh.

Mr. President, we were not in Iraq, that is true. We were, however, in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim holy land, surrounding and blockading Iraq. In fact, Clinton's secretary of state Madeline Albright said in an interview that "it was worth it" when asked if the blockade was worth the thousands upon thousands of children's lives. Not surprisingly, all 19 of the 9/11 assholes were--you guessed it--Saudis.

Your statement that radicals hated us before Iraq is also true--but only if you limit yourself to the last 60 years or so. That's because of our government's history of meddling in the middle east, post WWII that is. Go before WWII, and the average Muslim probably couldn't find america on a map if his life depended on it.

And you mention the bit about Russia, but you do not mention Russia's many decade-long hold on Chechnya, or their failure to let them secede peacefully.