The President ended his remarks today by saying “All civilized nations are bound together in this struggle between moderation and extremism.”
Could be. But I fear most of the moderate world thinks the U.S. is playing in the “extremist” league.
I gave the transcript and the New York Times synopsis a skim. A couple of paragraphs from the latter that leaped out at me —
Mr. Bush said Al Qaeda terrorists now consider Iraq “the central front†of a war that they hope will end in a “caliphate†governed by the dictates of “violent Islamic radicalism†across the entire Middle East. Destroying the new democratic Iraq is essential to their evil aspirations, he said.
That depends on which violent Islamic radicals we’re talking about. If we’re talking about Shi’ite violent Islamic radicals, they don’t need to destroy the Iraqi government. They can control the Iraqi government.
If we’re talking about Sunni violent Islamic radicals, on the other hand, I ‘spect they think Iraq is just fine the way it is — violent and occupied by Americans. The billions we’re dumping into Iraq fits in nicely with bin Laden’s “bleed until bankruptcy” plan, which Bush mentioned in his speech without noting how well White House policies fit bin Laden’s agenda.
“It is foolish to think you can negotiate with them,†Mr. Bush said. No one in either major party has suggested negotiating with terrorists, although many Democrats and some Republicans have criticized the conduct of the war in Iraq. Some critics have called for a phased withdrawal of American troops from the country.
I believe that in Bush World, disagreeing with Bush is the same thing as negotiating with terrorists, even though no negotiating with terrorists actually takes place. See previous post on the rightie definition of “appeasement.”
Here’s some more from the New York Times:
In the case of Iran, which the report singles out as “the most active state sponsor of terrorism,’’ Mr. Bush is also currently seeking to win agreement at the United Nations Security Council for sanctions to punish Iran for refusing the council’s request that it halt nuclear enrichment.
“Most troubling is the potential WMD-terrorism nexus that emanates from Tehran,’’ the report said.
The possibility that Saddam Hussein might develop “weapons of mass destruction†and pass them to terrorists was the prime reason Mr. Bush gave in 2003 for ordering the invasion of Iraq.
Are the neocons fixin’ to attack Iran? Is the Pope German?
I’m all out of blogging time, so in conclusion — what Dam Froomkin says. Feel free to discuss among yourselves.
Sunni and Shiite extremism is the story of the current civil war in Iraq. It bears repeating that the extremists in the Shiite and Sunni strains work against any realization of a grand caliphate some so desire and others so fear..
It is foolish to negotiate with them? Bush pulls out another strawman from his broom closet again. On another note, when has Bush negotiated with anyone with any lasting effect?
It is difficult to classify the U.S. position as anything but extremist.
1) We are using disproportionate (and mismatched) force. Terrorism is a non-state action, and should be fought as such, with intelligence (both human and signal) and precision counterterrorism forces. Instead, we have sent divisions, fighting the state of Iraq. The response is irrational, therefore extreme.
2) A moderate position would be able to assess the relative weights of risks and rewards. Instead we know very little. We are told that al-Queda represents a great threat, but aren’t told exactly how, which is curirous considering they are a small disorganized group and we are the mightiest military force in the history of the world. The American people cannot make the judgement – we have to take it all on faith. That’s not very American; our founding fathers were not real crazy about “trusting”, which is why our very successful system is loaded with checks and balances. Un-American position, therefore extreme.
3) Key to American greatness is respect for liberty and rule of law; yet we hold combatants for years without charge. Hey, if these are truly bad guys that deserve such treatment, it shouldn’t be that hard to prove in court. Why hasn’t that been done? I don’t want some Middle Eastern kid to be waterboarded just for flipping off an MP. Disregard for American values we are obstensibly defending is pretty extreme.
I kinda liked the “Weapons of Mass Murder” touch. I assume America’s nuclear arsenal would be considered “Weapons of Mass Defense.”
While the President may be correct in his analysis that the war on terrorism is expanding to other regions, he fails to see that his approach to the issue…particularly his decision to invade Iraq and the fact that progress in the troubled country seems elusive…may well be creating the new threats. Further, as he heightens his rhetoric in order to win votes by inferring that the origin of these extremists is Islam, he foments more animosity in more countries and the terrorism equation keeps growing.
If we concede that the President is sincerely motivated…and I might be inclined to concede as much…it nonetheless doesn’t make him right. Additionally, if his approach is wrong and it is actually inciting more terrorists, then his convictions simply amplify the problem and diminish the potential for him to chart a new course. In the end, his rhetoric may well be more dangerous if it is sincere…but one cannot argue that his recent remarks aren’t political. The fact that his politics stem from his ideology is no comfort to the many Americans that simply reject his conclusions. In fact, that merely makes it all the more important to counter his politics.
Read more here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com/2006/09/bush_selling_terrorism_voters.php
John McCain’s chopper was almost hit by a missile while flying around the Republic of Georgia recently. There is big trouble brewing throughout the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus region BECAUSE of Bush’s war on terror and the scamble to secure oil and gas in the Caspian Basin and Iraq, which are “linked”.
Today’s pig is tomorrow’s bacon.
I think the righties and the Bushies cannot make the Shia/Sunni distinction, nor the other important religious & ethnic differences that are so central to figuring out what’s going on in the Middle East. If you consider that organized supporters of al-Sadr comprise a small, but notable, percentage of the “Unity Government†in Iraq, then it appears as if we’ve already “negotiated with terrorists†– quite extensively. At this point, should I point out that Maliki was involved in the Dawa party, which was an early precursor of Hezzbollah?
I don’t know about anyone else, but Sy Hersh’s article last April convinced me that Bush was gunning to attack Iran. Nothing in the last several months has convinced me otherwise.
There is a report emerging that Pakistan is letting Bin Laden and all live in peace in Pakistan. they are not going to go after him. As long as he lives peacefully the Pakistan gov. announced that he is free to live his life.
Gee, ask me if I’m surprised.
I am about this coming out before November.
I saw this bumper sticker on I-95 on Labor Day : “Is It 2008 Yet?”.
I agree with temperance (and the ever insightful Sy Hersch) that Bush and his cronies are gunning for Iran. In fact I’m sure it was part of the initial master plan. But I’d love to be a fly on the wall in Bush’s, I mean Cheney’s, office. I have this visual of them kicking each other in the ass about how they blew it in Iraq and if they had just been a little more patient and not blown their wad on Iraq, they could have gone after Iran and left office as heroes. In fact, I’m sure they had their appointments in the next administration all picked out (which would of course be Republican because these neocon hawks are so brilliant). And Georgie’s reward for going along with all of this would be the best appointment of all – baseball commissioner!
If only hindsight were 20/20…………
Geez, gunning for Iran?! Using the same hyped fear-rhetoric as when gunning for Iraq?!
Bush is like a phony guy on the make, hoping for a ‘score’ again, but he’s too full of himself to remember that he used the same lines on the same American audience about three years ago…..now at least two thirds of this same audience registers the shame of getting screwed the first time they believed his hype.