Excerpt from Bush's speech

The Coffee Shop
1

“The terrorists who attacked us - and the terrorists we face - murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression, by toppling governments, driving us out of the region and exporting terror.”

I read this, and thought “how would this sound coming from the insurgents, referring to us”?

"a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom , rejects tolerance , despises all dissent . Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and obsession , by toppling governments , driving us out of the region and exporting terror ".

A bit too close for comfort.

2

Hardly.

We have what is called freedom of speech and religion. This very right allows you to post that message on this board without repurcussion. It allows free thinking individuals the right to teach their children differing idealogies like creationism, evolution, etc.

Your very post solidifies the underpinnings and foundations of our own country and other new democracies around the world.

Be grateful that you live in a country that allows such expression. Others aren’t so lucky.

3

I like how he constantly tries to tie Iraq to 9/11, and how his weak-minded constituency lets him do it.

4

How did he link 9/11 to Iraq?

5

Did you hear the same speach I did? I know…we should say that we are giving our 6 months notice, then packing our bags…then the “bad guys” will just take a vacation for 6 months…and wait us out…get a clue man. Read some history books - I think that the biggest issue with our country is that no one seems to know, or understand history. What got us where we are, and what tyrany can do to the entire world from one small start.

6

the intellectual underpinning to this argument is whether or not we can go into a country and force them to adopt our version of freedom. are they really free to choose when we send over 200,000 troops?

why did I post this? you’re just going to say ‘they’re were not free under saddam, we’re giving them freedom,’ thereby entirely missing the point. then other people will try in vain to make the point, leading to the inevitable ‘brian, you’re an idiot’ ‘no you’re an idiot’ discussion.

7

The beauty of it is they have the choice on what freedom means to them. They’re electing their own leaders to draw up their constitution…we’re not forcing “our” version of freedom on them. We’re giving them the foundation by which to set up their own democracy.

8

Shorter George Bush:

“Global war on terror, September the 11th, 2001, terrorists, terrorists , totalitarian ideology , freedom, tyranny, oppression, terror, kill, terrorists, September the 11th, freedom, enemy , war, terrorists, kill, murderous ideology , terrorism, terrorists, free nation, war on terror, freedom, violence and instability, dangerous, violence, bloodshed, violence, sacrifice , war on terror, violence, killers, freedom, criminal elements, hateful ideology, freedom, liberty, democracy, terrorists, war on terror, terrorists, Osama Bin Laden, murder and destruction, enemy, terrorists, car bombs, enemy, terrorists, suicide bomber, enemy, terrorists, violence, terrorists, terrorists, terrorists , freedom, enemies, September the 11th, Bin Laden, enemy , free, tyranny, terrorists, anti-terrorist, free, al Qaeda, free nation, terrorists, terrorists, enemy, terrorists, anti-terrorist terrorists, terror, enemy, tyranny, enemies, freedom, freedom, ideologies of murder, atrocity, September the 11th 2001, car bombers and assassins, freedom, freedom, flying the flag, freedom, freedom, September the 11th 2001, enemies”.

No wonder it’s all 9/11, all the time:

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/pollkatzmainGRAPHICS_8911_image001.gif

The “Look the boogeyman!” strategy is just used to distract people from the “You motivate rich people by giving them more money, but you motivate poor people by giving them less money” chicanery. Plus, if the reverse robin hood act actually creates a few real monsters, then so much the better.

It’s like having Montgomery Burns for President.

H.L. Mencken, 1920:

"The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

“The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

9

The beauty of it is they have the choice on what freedom means to them. They’re electing their own leaders to draw up their constitution…we’re not forcing “our” version of freedom on them. We’re giving them the foundation by which to set up their own democracy.
Do they have the choice to set up a theocracy?

10

I’m not certain.

11

Here’s the weird thing with history, though. Its all about perceptions. America may be in the right, but the insurgents see themselves as rebels fighting a tyranical Empire, just like the Americans did in the Revolutionary war, the Rebels did in the Civil War, the French underground in WW2, the VC in Vietnam, Skywaker v. the Empire, the list goes on … Sometimes the rebels win, sometimes they lose … Some insurgents are cynics who seek power, some are terrorists who want to destroy the West and some believe they are ‘defending’ their country … Its more complicated than Bush & co. care to articulate. Everyone is fighting for different reasons and they have different goals in mind. That’s why it’s so difficult. The U.S. has enemies coming at us from all directions. It’s like the difference between fighting a great white shark (Hitler) and a swarm of pirhanas.

12

Some call me a genius, others refer to me as clairvoyant. In reality, I’m just a small man sitting at a computer watching the world go by.

You obviously don’t see things from my point of view. I can give you a way to find a more fulfilling life, and open your world so you can truely enjoy your life. I’m going to come over to your house and kick your ass for a while, until you agree with me and have shed your previous life philosophy and ideals. Maybe you have it better now, but was it my right to come over to your house and kick your ass?

13

“If you’re suggesting, how would we feel about an Iranian-type government with a few clerics running everything in the country, the answer is: That isn’t going to happen.”

Donald Rumsfield
Interview with Associated Press
April 24, 2003

(I don’t know th e context here. It may be Rumsfailed stating what appears to him as the dynamics of how it will play out, or a statement regarding US intent and ability to control outcome. Given the way the US forestalled local elections in 2003 and the way Bremer imposed an interim gov’t based on the neocon’s wet-dream of pure plutocracy - very much to the detriment to ordinary Iraqi’s - I think it’s safe to assume the latter.)

14

isn’t there a difference between setting a date for withdrawal and simply asking for some type of milestones by which we can adequately gauge progress towards disengagement?

here’s the problem with the training of iraqis to take over: the longer the insurgency goes on, the more iraqi troops are going to be needed to become self-sufficient, and the longer soldiers have to sit their with bulls-eyes on their back. this problem is compounded by the fact that training is going very poorly at the moment.

there would be nothing wrong with a plan to engage the terrorists “over there” rather than here IF there was a fixed number of terrorists to draw into iraq. that’s not the case. to analogize, the “pie” of terrorists in increasing, largely as a result to our presence in iraq(there is no doubt in my mind that there are no terrorists in the region that, prior to invading, lacked the means and motivation to strap bombs to themselves or pick up a gun). this again compounds the training issue and leaves us in iraq a lot longer.

the problem is that the admin doesn’t particularly seem to understand the history of the middle east. there is no tradition of democratic ideas in the thousands and thousands of years that people have inhabited that area. it’s been dominated by religious and tribal divisions, and that is still being seen today. so simply because our historical context led the way to a revolt against monarchy here, doesn’t mean the historical conditions exist in the middle east for a similar transition.

15

Hence the reason for patience and the reluctance for the administration to set a definite timetable. However, key milestones as you suggest are important and have been set by the administration. The handover to the interim government took place before the deadline, elections happened on the date set (without postponing as so many wanted), and a new assembly is being formed.

So what other progress reports and milestones would you like updates?

16

This whole “fight them there or fight them here” argument presupposes that the set of terrorists who wish to strike the US is the same as the set of terrorists who want to strike us in Iraq. They are not. To think that all the terrorists in the world who are after us are changing their travel plans to get into Iraq to fight our military there is naive at best, and disingenuous at worst.

17

well, by that measure, we can get out of dodge once the constitution is ratified right? of course, we both know that won’t happen. additionally, the rationale has no changed and we are there engaging the terrorists. so how about some benchmarks for when the iraqis are self-sufficient to undertake that job?

18

very, very true and it highlights another problem with the “plan”. as i said, our presence in iraq has given people the means/access to become a terrorist that otherwise wouldn’t be. meanwhile, many of the same security issues that existed prior to invading iraq are still around.

19

Klehner & mclamb: Yep & yep.

20

It sets a precedence. As we all know we can no longer sit back and be reactive towards terrorism. A proactive approach is certainly a tough way to fight this war but we don’t want a repeat of 9/11. To think otherwise is naive.