Posted on 06/30/2005 4:56:16 AM PDT by Molly Pitcher
In its instant analysis of Bush’s speech Tuesday night, the Washington Post wrote that the “address continued a shift” in the administration’s justifications of the war in Iraq to “now suggesting a more seamless link between Iraq and the [September 11] attacks.”
What reporters Dana Milbank and Peter Barker didn’t seem to understand, however, is that the President neither tried to “justify” the rationale for the war nor was there any “shift” in his position. While the speech contained little news of any sort, it did achieve a very important goal—one that is crucial in the face of the moveon.org crowd’s white noise campaign: it laid out in clear fashion the entire framework of what we’ve done in Iraq, what we’re doing now, where we’re headed, and most significantly, why it’s important that we prevail.
As we have been reminded ad nauseum, the President’s numbers have dropped significantly in recent months, none more precipitously than for how Americans believe he is handling the war in Iraq. It’s not that the situation in Iraq has not gotten worse—it hasn’t—but the left has maintained its massive campaign machinery, while Bush has been relatively quiet on Iraq this year.
Tuesday night, in fact, represented the most visible leadership Bush has provided on Iraq since November. While it made sense for the White House to allow the spotlight to shine on the new Iraqi government after the country’s first-ever elections in January, each passing month has seen the left dominate the discussion on Iraq. In that time, they’ve spent most of their efforts undermining the legitimacy of the war—no WMDs, Saddam wasn’t a threat, Bush “lied,” etc.—thinking that that would convince Americans to demand that we pull out of Iraq.
While enough Americans have been persuaded—temporarily, at least—such that a majority now believes that the war was not justified, the left’s ultimate objective of turning Americans against continued participation has not succeeded. Despite millions of dollars every week dedicated to undermining what young American men and women are trying to accomplish in Iraq, the American people have not been fooled by the left’s ceaseless campaign.
Without sugarcoating the realities in Iraq, Bush laid out an effective rationale for why we must not acquiesce to the enemy as moveon.org and many Congressional Democrats would have us do. In the clearest and most concise reasoning articulated thus far, Bush explained the perils in announcing a date certain for leaving Iraq:
“Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis — who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops — who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy — who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out.”
What really has made the left loopy, though, is Bush’s repeated referencing of 9/11. To the left—from the Daily Kos blog to pundits on CNN and MSNBC—this was a continuation of the “myth” that Iraq was behind the September 11 attacks. But what they missed in the past and again Tuesday night is that the war in Iraq—or the war on terror, for that matter—has never been about revenge; it is about preventing another 9/11.
President Bush cited no less an authority than Osama bin Laden to substantiate his correct claim that torpedoing freedom in Iraq is of foremost importance to al Qaeda and other jihadists. Iraq’s budding democracy has not created new Islamic terrorists as the left claims, but it has undoubtedly served as a magnet for attracting them from all over. (Notice that President Bush named names in listing neighbors whose residents have become jihadists in Iraq, and not coincidentally or insignificantly, Saudi Arabia topped the list.)
Though Tuesday night’s speech was important and long overdue, President Bush needs to reiterate its clear messages throughout this and coming weeks. Just as the left has not stopped the campaign efforts it began last year, neither should Bush. Americans can and will continue to support our men and women in Iraq—but Bush needs to be there providing leadership every step of the way.
Tuesday night was a good start.
I'll say it again. Bush needs to follow this up with a PR campaign to equal the propaganda coming out of the left every day, instead of sitting on his rear like he has since the Iraqi election.
The CIA believes the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, officials said yesterday.A classified report from the agency says Iraqi and foreign fighters are developing a broad range of skills, from car bombings and assassinations to coordinated conventional attacks on police and military targets, officials said.
Once the insurgency ends, Islamic militants are likely to disperse as highly organized battle-hardened combatants capable of operating throughout the Arab-speaking world and in other regions including Europe.
The May report, which has been widely circulated in the intelligence community, also cites a potential threat to the United States.
Since May 24, 2005
---------------------
Just thought I would save everyone the trouble.
Thanks, yes I'm relatively new. I thought Bush speech was great with all the veterans there but even though I voted for him I disagree with some policies - like we should of had twice as many troops in Iraq from the beginning and should not have disbanded the Iraq army allowing them sneak off with all the munitions being used to by the suicide bombers against us now! I'm seriously concerned this is going to turn around and bite us in the ass in ten or twenty years time and you should be too. Just though I'd highlight that Bosten news article seeing as I hadn't seen it discussed here.
So, newbie, we shouldn't fight .. because by fighting we make our enemies better combatants?
Only the ones still sucking in air, the dead ones have been removed from the playing field.
What the idiots on the left either can't or don't want to comprehend is that the Islamonazis will NOT quit coming. They are committed to destroying the west ... irrespective of whether we stand and fight or curl up into the fetal postion.
So ... put on a dry, clean pair of pants and get back to work.
I agree. The Left will undoubtedly continue their massive propaganda efforts and label any truths the President gives us as propaganda, but at least the truth will be getting its chance in the public eye.
Then, we can point out the duplicity of the Commie Left and MSM by highlighting all their propaganda in regards to their claims against the President. Once again, they have begun another trend that says that when the President, or others that they find disagreeable, speak out, it is an evil attempt at brainwashing the People; whereas, when they actually campaign to brainwash the People, it's "to save us from being brainwashed".
IRAQ THE MODEL
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/06/talk-less-think-more-and-do-more.html
Talk less, think more and do more.
It's visible to everyone that debates over the war in Iraq, war on terror, invasion or occupation or whatever you may name it are at peak levels right now.
The process is being questioned, criticized and discussed more profoundly than at any time in the last two years but you know what?
That's not happening in Iraq; you can find such discussions and accusations in America but you can't find them in Iraq.
As a matter of fact there are some similar debates here in Iraq but at very limited levels; in the National Assembly there are 83 members who signed a declaration where they accused the government of treason because it asked the multinational troops to remain for another year in Iraq and they said that the government ought to demand a timetable for withdrawal and they're also planning to organize protests and rallies to put more pressure on the government.
However, on the streets, such demands are not popular among everyday Iraqis who are more concerned about finding solutions for their daily life problems whether the solutions came form the government, the Americans or from Martians.
As for the other 192 members of the Assembly, they find such demands irrational and inconvenient at least for the time being.
Those 83 Sadrists and Fadhela party members as well as some other Islamists want to embarrass the government and use slogans that sound great and patriotac to undermine the public support the current government enjoys.
This reminds me of the communists and the pan-nationalists back in the 1st half of the 20th century when they demanded the ousting of British troops and the result was a disaster; all they wanted was power and the deterioration didn't end since then.
The truth is that with very few exceptions, most people and politicians here have thrown this argument behind their backs long time ago; whether they're supportive of the war/liberation or against it and whether they want the coalition to stay forever or they want the troops to leave now, they are now living and discussing the present and planning for the future trying to get the best results possible out of the current situation, each party from it's own perspective.
We're living through probably the most critical phase of this conflict; a phase where firm decisions and clear stands are needed more than ever, while sterile arguments can do nothing but weaken our position against our common enemy; the global terrorism.
I wasn't in touch with media and blogs when the September attacks happened but I heard a lot about the great sense of patriotism and the beautiful unity that grew among different political trends in America at that time and this is a time where such unity must be revived.
This is not the right time to argue about "why we went to this war".
It is time to think together for a way to win this war which none of us can afford to lose.
It doesn't really matter if Saddam had connections with Al-Qaeda prior to 2003 or not and it does not matter if he had the ability to attack the west with WMDs or not.
What really matters here is how to protect the world from terrorism.
Al-Qaeda is present and active in Iraq today; we all know this and this terror group's lethal power cannot and must not be underestimated.
Yesterday for example, interior ministry in Saudi Arabia uncovered a new list of wanted Al-Qaeda members with 36 names on it, 21 of who are believed to be residing in Iraq right now.
Can anyone tell me how can these terrorists be stopped from moving their zone of action to other countries if they weren't intercepted right here and right now?
There's no doubt that once Iraq falls in their hands they will start looking for other battle grounds and they will search for the "greatest Satan" in other places.
It is the American existence in Iraq that attracted them to a great extent and when there are no Americans in Iraq Al-Qaeda will not simply drop their weapons and start a normal life, they will seek other places where they can find, and kill Americans.
What I want to say here is that it is our fate to fight terrorism on our own land and we (the majority) have accepted to challenge this fate the day we abandoned Saddam and welcomed our freedom but that's not the case for you in America.
Actually we've got no other choice but to fight and keep fighting until we win over the terrorists because otherwise we'll have to submit to their will and the damage would be irreversible.
Fighting terrorism for us in Iraq is a matter of life or death so we have no choice but to keep fighting until we kill or lock in jail every one of them and we're doing this whether the world supported us or not but in case we failed, the consequences will not be confined by Iraq's borders.
You (the west) can step back and wait for the terrorists to knock on your doors at any minute or you can put your s*** together and fight them while they're thousands of miles away.
This is war, it's not a picnic and don't think that we're enjoying it and we're not expecting you to enjoy it either.
By quitting now some might think that needless losses are going to be avoided but that's-in my opinion-is a very shortsighted way of thinking because quitting now will only expose America and the rest of the world to a much greater threat.
I was talking about this to one of my friends and he described this war in an interesting way, he said "this war is much like a fierce boxing match; you punch and you get punched but even if you're stronger than your opponent you should not allow him to catch his breath at any round because he might then give you a surprising punch when the next round begins and knocks you down".
So my advice to the American politicians on both sides but especially those on the left side is: grow up, this is not the time to seek political wins and it's not the time to use other's mistakes to get some publicity.
We're facing very tough times so use your skills to find solutions.
Bottom line is, talk less, think more and do more.
- posted by Omar @ 19:57
IMHO part of W's stradergy is NOT responding to the left's propaganda. Have you noticed how much more frantic the left is getting as time goes by?
"I'll say it again. Bush needs to follow this up with a PR campaign to equal the propaganda coming out of the left every day, instead of sitting on his rear like he has since the Iraqi election."
If I was Rove, I would work with our 527's to show the RATS for what they are; pantywaste antiamerican elitist marxists on a power trip.
Do you generally like to read second-hand renditions of "classified reports" from "unnamed sources" as reported by Reuters? If this report is true, then we need to stay in Iraq forever so that none of these highly-skilled terrorists is free to attack the US. Even assuming this recounting of an illegally leaked government memo (can you say, "Valerie Plame, CRIME OF THE CENTURY") is accurate, you have to remember that CIA is famous for creating "worst case scenarios" so that they won't be faulted for incorrectly reporting the "most likely scenario" (they should change their name to CYA).
You know, speaking as a amateur associate member of the Vast-Right Wing Conspiracy, I did not take President Bush's references to September 11, 2001 in his most recent address to the Nation as meaning that Saddam was involved in that atrocity, nor did I believe he was attempting to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam. At no point during that speech did I remember saying to myself, "Georgie's really boxed those Democrats into a corner by refuting the Left-Wing orthodoxy that there was absolutely no contact between Al Qaeda and Saddam" (whatever the evidence gathered since Saddam's downfall may suggest). Rather, I took the President to mean that there is definitely a similarity in method and world-view between the homicidal madmen who perpetrated the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, and the homicidal car-bombing jihadis who are operating in Iraq. I would think that this would be self-evident truth that even the Left could embrace. Was the President using the memory of the September 11 tragedy to remind us of the nature of the enemy we face in the war on terror (to include the terrorists operating in Iraq), I certainly hope so, no matter how many Democrat politicians it offends.
I agree with you on the disbanding of the army issue, but not the troop level issue. Bush has made it clear in the past and did so again Tuesday night: "If the commanders in the field request more troops, I will send them." And hes right - a decision like that needs to come from those in the trenches, not partisan democrats who will say and do anything to futher thier own agendas. Funny you mention a Boston article, by the way. I live in Taxachusetts, and sometimes I think my family are the only conservatives here!
In other articles, military leaders have said that a main factor in determining the number of troops needed to prosecute Operation Iraqi Freedom was the size of the logistical/support "tail" that would be required to support the force. When you consider that most of our casualties have come during the insurgency phase, and that support troops in their convoys have been the hardest hit by the insurgents, you have to wonder who was right, the "brilliant" (former Army Chief of Staff and media darling) Eric Shenseki, who thought that 300,000 ground troops would be required, or the the guys who actually planned and executed the operation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.