The Master Strategerist does it again
In every way, the President's address Wednesday night before the American Enterprise Institute in Washington was Vintage Bush.
It was a stirring speech no hack consultant, trapped in polls and focus group banalities, could write. Its message -- rousing, vivid, galvanizing -- was, as all his big speeches, a compelling personal extension of Bush, a daring big picture statement of vision reflecting, with glaring clarity, the moral purpose of that vision. It's why his speeches are, to pundit chagrin, so manifestly effective: Each bears that personal stamp, that distinctive, Bush trademark, laying out his unique perspective on things as only he can.
The speech, in this sense, was more than merely the sum of its parts -- more than just about 'road maps,' 'three-year timetables' or jump-starting 'stalled' Middle East "peace" negotiations. Bush sought to paint a mosaic, a portrait, an overarching theme simplifying the complex, unraveling a tangled web that, till now, defied solution.
Bush sees Saddam's Iraq as a blight, a growing scourge, an implacable roadblock to lasting peace and stability in the region, as well as a growing menace to Western security. Iraq isn't just 'our' problem, Saddam is a global ticking time bomb. Peace in the Mideast can not take root without fertile soil, without fundamentally transforming the landscape. Removing Saddam begins this transformation, this change of dynamic. The basic framework must be altered. Only then will breakthroughs result. It's why, too Bush, ignoring Saddam is not an option.
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in August wrote that "The road to Jerusalem [peace] will lead through Baghdad."
Bush, in plain language, explains why that's the case -- why Iraq is the nexus:
"Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state. The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training, and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated."
The President, in that one paragraph, explicitly connects the dots, showing why, definitively, peace in the region is impossible so long as Saddam -- "a dictator...building...weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world" -- remains in power.
"Without this outside support for terrorism," the President added, " Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders. True leaders who strive for peace; true leaders who faithfully serve the people."
Conventional wisdom says the speech, delivered at the Washington Hilton before a black-tie dinner audience, sought to allay Arab and European 'concern' of an imperial America hellbent on world conquest and domination.
The "New York Times" says Bush did it only "under pressure from European and Arab nations" who want more progress on the Mideast "peace" front. The U.S., poised to launch military action, needed to reaffirm its 'commitment' to creation of a "Palestinian state," they claim.
What utter nonsense. 'Conventional wisdom' appears to be missing the point: Most of the fussing and whining and nitpicking and fretting and grumbling and squawking is coming from Paris and Berlin -- the so-called Axis-of-Weasels -- not from Arab capitals.
As months of U.N. buffoonery unfolded, Bush -- the master strategerist -- was busy lining up support where it really mattered: Among Saddam's Arab neighbors. Result? Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E. and (non-Arab) Turkey are on board.
No, my friends, Bush's speech was not to appease, but to challenge; it was not to mollify, but to lay out a vision and dare the world to follow us.
It's called leadership -- it's what Bush is made of.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
