Radio Address by the President to the Nation, 10-01-05

WhiteHouse.gov ^ | 10-01-05 | George W. Bush

[Salvation]

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 1, 2005

President's Radio Address

     

     Audio
     

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This week I met with the generals who are overseeing our efforts in Iraq -- Generals Abizaid and Casey -- to discuss our strategy for victory. They updated me on the operations in Baghdad last weekend in which Iraqi and coalition forces tracked down and killed the second most wanted al Qaeda leader in Iraq. This brutal killer was a top lieutenant of the terrorist Zarqawi. He was also one of the terrorists responsible for the recent wave of attacks in the Iraqi capital, which is part of the terrorist campaign to halt political progress in Iraq, by stopping this month's referendum on the Iraqi constitution.

 Radio Address

• 2005
• 2004
• 2003
• 2002
• 2001

 Radio Interviews

• 2005
• 2004

Our strategy in Iraq is clear: We're hunting down deadly terrorist leaders. We're conducting aggressive counterterrorism operations in the areas where the terrorists are concentrated. We are constantly adapting our tactics to the changing tactics of the terrorists, and we're training more Iraqi forces to assume increasing responsibility for their country's security.

The growing size and increasing capability of the Iraqi security forces are helping our coalition address a challenge we have faced since the beginning of the war. It used to be that after we cleared the terrorists out of a city there were not enough qualified Iraqi troops to maintain control, so if we left to conduct missions in other areas of Iraq, the terrorists would try to move back in. Now the increasing number of more capable Iraqi troops has allowed us to keep a better hold on the cities we have taken from the terrorists. The Iraqi troops know their people and their language, and they know who the terrorists are. By leaving Iraqi units in the cities we have cleared out, we can keep those cities safe, while moving on to hunt down the terrorists in other parts of the country.

We used this approach recently in Iraq's northwest region where Iraqi and coalition forces targeted an area that was one of the main routes for foreign terrorists entering Iraq from Syria. During operations in the key town of Tal Afar, Iraqi security forces outnumbered coalition forces for the first time in a major offensive operation. Because of our joint efforts, hundreds of insurgents and terrorists have been killed, or captured, or flushed out, and our continued efforts will make it more difficult for foreign terrorists to enter Iraq.

As part of our strategy, Iraqi forces have stayed behind in Tal Afar to ensure that the terrorists cannot return and regroup. And coalition and Iraqi troops are pursuing the terrorists in western Iraq, working to deny al Qaeda a safe haven there, and to stop terrorists from crossing into the country through Syria.

I'm encouraged by the increasing size and capability of the Iraqi security forces. Today they have more than 100 battalions operating throughout the country, and our commanders report that the Iraqi forces are serving with increasing effectiveness. In fact, this week coalition forces were able to turn over security responsibility for one of Iraq's largest cities, Karbala, to Iraqi soldiers. As Iraqi forces show they're capable of fighting the terrorists, they are earning the trust and confidence of the Iraqi people, which will ensure the success of a free and democratic Iraq.

More difficult and dangerous work still lies ahead. The terrorists have a history of escalating their attacks before Iraq's major political milestones, and two elections are fast approaching. In two weeks, Iraqis will vote on a democratic constitution, and if that constitution is approved, they will return to the polls later this year to elect a fully constitutional government.

As Iraqis take these next steps on the path to freedom and democracy, the terrorists will do everything they can to stop this progress and try to break our will. They will fail. Defeating the terrorists in Iraq will require more time and more sacrifice. Yet all Americans can have confidence in the military commanders who are leading the effort in Iraq, and in the troops under their command. They have made important gains in recent weeks and months; they are adapting our strategy to meet the needs on the ground; and they're helping us to bring victory in the war on terror.

Thank you for listening.

[Salvation]

For your reading pleasure as well as your comments!

[Salvation]

Radio Address Ping!

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Radio Address Ping List.

[inquest]

The terrorists have a history of escalating their attacks before Iraq's major political milestones, and two elections are fast approaching. In two weeks, Iraqis will vote on a democratic constitution, and if that constitution is approved, they will return to the polls later this year to elect a fully constitutional government.

(donning my word-parsing hat)

He notes that whether or not there's a second election depends on the outcome of the first, yet in the first sentence above he seems rather certain that there will be two elections coming up. Apparently then, he seems quite certain that the constitution will be approved. Or is he just making an assumption?

[jla]

I was hoping he would've apologized for including Ronald Reagan along with Carter and Clinton as those in the past whose lack of courage and character emboldened terrorists.

[Salvation]

Good question.

My opinion. I think there will be two elections.

[Salvation]

Guess I missed that. Was it a mis-statement?

[blackie]

Good Stuff ~ Bump!

[jla]

September 22, 2005 President Discusses War on Terror and Hurricane Preparation The Pentagon

"The terrorists saw our response to the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings in the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. The terrorists concluded that we lacked the courage and character to defend ourselves, and so they attacked us."

---

Bush deliberately included Reagan in his comments. Before doing so someone might have suggested he ask Muammar Qaddafi if Reagan lacked courage or ask the millions now free from Soviet bondage (USSR was indeed one of mankind's greatest fomenters of terrorism) if Reagan lacked character.

[AFPhys]

Wondering what your thoughts about the President's address are. Is he right about our now being able to use Iraqis to maintain security of towns our guys liberate from the terrorists?

[inquest]

Before doing so someone might have suggested he ask Muammar Qaddafi if Reagan lacked courage or ask the millions now free from Soviet bondage (USSR was indeed one of mankind's greatest fomenters of terrorism) if Reagan lacked character.

I think you're overreacting to the President's statement. He didn't say that Reagan lacked courage and character. He didn't even say that we as a nation did. He said that the terrorists concluded that we did, because we hadn't convinced them otherwise. Yes, we had our hands full during Reagan's watch, but that doesn't alter the fact that the terrorists were going to come to the most obvious conclusions that presented themselves to them. And the fact is, it's easy enough to see how our response to the Beirut barracks bombing would have been encouraging to them.

I'm not saying that to denigrate Reagan's presidency, because I don't know how many people could have done better under the circumstances, but historical facts do need to be acknowledged all the same.

[jla]

In all due respect you're doing what so many others here do, and that is run interference for your guy, W.
I am amazed that so-called conservatives won't hesitate for a second to censure Ronald Reagan yet if one dares brush up against W with so much as the slightest critique on their sleeve then that person is subject to derision.

Listen, Bush meant exactly what he said. He meant that the actions, or reactions, of Carter, Reagan and Clinton lacked courage or character and it emboldened terrorists' commitment to strike at us.
I voted for Bush twice. I donated a few hundred of my hard-earned dollars to his reelection. I praised him to anyone within ear shot. But I will not abide his utter disrespect and defamation of this nation's greatest President.

[inquest]

In all due respect you're doing what so many others here do, and that is run interference for your guy, W.

You don't know me very well. You can be forgiven for saying this, because it gave me quite a chuckle.

I am amazed that so-called conservatives won't hesitate for a second to censure Ronald Reagan yet if one dares brush up against W with so much as the slightest critique on their sleeve then that person is subject to derision.

Did you consider my post to you at all derisive? All I did was disagree with you, and I did so in rather civil terms.

Listen, Bush meant exactly what he said.

And what he said was that the terrorists concluded that we had lacked the courage to stand up to them. He didn't say they were right. He said we gave them the wrong impression, and we did.

I don't think he was necessarily even exempting his own presidency from his historical assessment, because he was in office for eight months prior to 9/11 and during that time gave the terrorists no overt sign that there would be any comeuppance for the bombing of the WTC in '93 or the Cole in 2000, among other things that happened in between. It took 9/11 to put Washington onto a different path.

[snugs]

Well said

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

"The terrorists saw our response to the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings in the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. The terrorists concluded that we lacked the courage and character to defend ourselves, and so they attacked us."

I notice that Bush doesn't mention the administrations in question, so I see nothing invidious about it. In point of fact Reagan did withdraw after the bombing of the Marine barraks in Lebanon - not because he wanted to, but because of the Democratic Congress.

But Bush's point, surely, is that that is a fine point to terrorists who have been conditioned to expect that their perseverence is greater than our own. We simply don't have the option of rewarding that perseverence; we must punish it.

[inquest]

not because he wanted to, but because of the Democratic Congress.

Good catch. I should have mentioned that.

[jla]

Believe that if you wish. But peddle your snake oil elsewhere because I'm not buying it.

[inquest]

I'm not peddling anything. I'm just reading plain English, without injecting my own prejudices about Bush. If you were familiar with my posting history, you'd know that I'm not injecting them.

[aShepard]

Kill the enemy, ask questions later.
There's never been a PC war that's ever been won in all of history.

If you're harboring terrorists, you are a terrorist!!

Ack, ACk, Ack; BOOM!!

[aShepard]

Kill the enemy, ask questions later.
There's never been a PC war that's ever been won in all of history.

If you're harboring terrorists, you are a terrorist!!

Ack, ACk, Ack; BOOM!!

[inquest]

Ack, ACk, Ack; BOOM!!

Everything OK at your end there, dude?