Fuzzy Thinking and Darned Good Intelligence
OK, politicians lie and break promises all the time. I expect it.
In fact, when they don't
lie and break promises I get nervous; I hate sitting up late into the night waiting for the
other shoe to drop. There's nothing unusual about lies involving little things: dirty tricks
during a campaign, hanky-panky with interns, graft, pork-barrel legislation. As the Prez
said: "We're all sinners."
Somehow, though, going to war ratchets up the significance of lies and broken promises.
In that spirit, I offer the following:
"And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building."
"I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the
lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here-
I mean are we going to have some kind of nation building core from America?
Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what
it's meant to do. "
-- GW Bush, Oct. 11, 2000, during a debate with Democrat Al Gore at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C.
Good evening. I have asked for this time to keep you informed of America's actions in the war on terror.
Nearly two years ago, following deadly attacks on our country, we began a systematic campaign against terrorism. These months have been a time of new responsibilities, and sacrifice, and national resolve, and great progress.
America and a broad coalition acted first in Afghanistan, by destroying the training camps of terror, and removing the regime that harbored al Qaeda. In a series of raids and actions around the world, nearly two-thirds of al Qaeda's known leaders have been captured or killed, and we continue on al Qaeda's trail. We have exposed terrorist front groups, seized terrorist accounts, taken new measures to protect our homeland, and uncovered sleeper cells inside the United States. I hope you paid attention to that; it was some rare truth and candor about this situation. From here through the end of the speech, the truth and candor are largely missing.
And we acted in Iraq, where the former regime sponsored terror,
There has never been proof that Iraq sponsored terror, unless you count sending checks to families of Palestinian suicide
bombers who attacked Israel
possessed and used weapons of mass destruction,
those are both past tense; neither UN inspectors nor the US military have found proof of this since
1998; "used" WMDs refers to 15 years ago. And let's not forget where Saddam got the
chemical/biological weapons that he used: he got them from the good ol' US of A.
and for 12 years defied the clear demands of the United Nations Security Council.
Note: in the months leading up to the war, Iraq DID comply with the "clear demands of the United
Nations Security Council"; inspectors were aggressively scouring the country, looking for evidence of non-compliance.
In spite of this, the US pushed for a pre-emptive war with Iraq. And., of course, we now know that the pushing was based on disinformation (OK, lies).
Our coalition enforced these international demands in one of the swiftest and most humane military
campaigns in history.
Hmmmm. Ever hear of "shock and awe"? Just how humane was that? I'm not saying that the "shock and awe"
air campaign was either bad or unnecessary: I'm saying that "humane" is an inappropriate term to describe it.
For a generation leading up to September 11, 2001, terrorists and their radical allies attacked
innocent people in the Middle East and beyond, without facing a sustained and serious response. The
terrorists became convinced that free nations were decadent and weak. And they grew bolder,
believing that history was on their side. Since America put out the fires of September 11, and
mourned our dead, and went to war, history has taken a different turn. We have carried the fight to
the enemy. We are rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization, not on the fringes of its
influence, but at the heart of its power.
This is only partly true. By attacking Afghanistan and outsting the Taliban, we struck
at one of the heart chambers of terrorism's power. But in Iraq? Iraq wasn't even the Pinky Toe of
terrorism's power. The rest of the heart of terrorism is clearly Saudi Arabia and Iran.
If we're going to go after Al Qaeda's power base, that's where we must
strike. The Iraquagmire is an expensive, unnecessary, and counter-productive
diversion. It is nation-building at its worst: we tear apart a functioning
nation and then "rebuild" it.
This work continues. In Iraq, we are helping the long suffering people of that country to build
a decent and democratic society at the center of the Middle East. Together we are transforming a
place of torture chambers and mass graves into a nation of laws and free institutions.
It's a noble goal, but what if Iraqis choose laws and institutions with which we don't agree?
It's nice to think that "they" want to be like us, but let's face facts:
- Shiites are by far the majority in Iraq;
- the Shiite majority has been oppressed by a Sunni majority for several generations;
- next door is Iran, a successful Islamic "democracy" - or more properly, a Shiite Theocracy.
Which is more likely to serve as an example: Western decadence or a Shiite-based religious state? Frankly,
this is such a no-brainer, I'm stunned that everyone hasn't seen through the assumption that we can ram a
Western democracy down the throats of Iraqis.
I predict that when "we" declare victory in Iraq
- Osama Bin Laden will still be directing terrorist attacks around the world
- Iraq will NOT be a Western-style democracy
- Saddam Hussein - or at least some of his cronies - will financially assist with some terrorist organization
- The Iraqi Theocrats will harbor, if not directly aid, some flavor of terrorists
- Blood will flow in the streets of Iraq as old scores are settled
- Iraq will will be much like a West (not "Western") Iran
- Halliburton will have pocketed billions of taxpayer dollars,
yet the Iraqi infrastructure will be worse than under Saddam Hussein
This undertaking is difficult and costly
Hoss, you got that one right - much more so than we Americans are allowed to hear
- yet worthy of our country,
maybe, but I thought we were fighting terror, not ousting dictators and nation-building
and critical to our security.
Not in the least. If anything, the Iraquagmire is distracting
us from real threats - Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, who are still
out there - and we haven't sufficient troop strength to deal with real
rogue nations with real weapons of mass destruction (N. Korea and Iran
come to mind).
The Middle East will either become a place of progress and peace, or it will be an exporter of
violence and terror that takes more lives in America and in other free nations. The triumph of
democracy and tolerance in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and beyond would be a grave setback for
international terrorism. The terrorists thrive on the support of tyrants and on the resentments of
oppressed peoples. When tyrants fall, and resentment gives way to hope, men and women in every
culture reject the ideologies of terror, and turn to the pursuits of peace. Everywhere that freedom
takes hold, terror will retreat.
To topple the Evil Empire of the Soviet Bloc, it required zero military intrusion on our part. The
Soviets and their puppets fell apart on their own. All we had to do was to be a good example,
to be firm, and to be patient. Lest we forget, part of the Soviets' undoing was their QUAGMIRE IN AFGHANISTAN;
that disaster sucked dry precious resources:
- their always fragile economy
- their military power
- the will and patriotism of their people
It CAN happen here.
Our enemies understand this. They know that a free Iraq will be free of them -- free of assassins, and torturers, and secret police. They know that as democracy rises in Iraq, all of their hateful ambitions will fall like the statues of the former dictator. And that is why, five months after we liberated Iraq, a collection of killers is desperately trying to undermine Iraq's progress and throw the country into chaos.
Some of the attackers are former members of the old Saddam regime, who fled the battlefield and
now fight in the shadows. Some of the attackers are foreign terrorists, who have come to Iraq to
pursue their war on America and other free nations.
Note the admission here: the
foreign terrorists did not turn up in Iraq
until the US, Britain, and a few thousand paid-for mercenaries - the so-called Coalition
of the Willing - destabilized the country. Again, I'm not saying that what we did was bad -
I'm saying that we have to be honest about what has really happened.
We cannot be certain to what extent these groups work together. We do know they have a common
goal -- reclaiming Iraq for tyranny.
Note the subtle admission here: "cannot be certain to what extent these groups work together".
Yet, before our pre-emptive war, supposedly "the former regime sponsored terror".
Most, but not all, of these killers operate in one area of the country. The attacks you have
heard and read about in the last few weeks have occurred predominantly in the central region of
Iraq, between Baghdad and Tikrit -- Saddam Hussein's former stronghold. The North of Iraq is
generally stable
Not counting oil pipelines and refineries destroyed by terrorists.
and is moving forward with reconstruction and self-government. The same trends are evident in
the South, despite recent attacks by terrorist groups.
So Iraq is stable, except for the North, South, and Central portions
of the country. The main roads to Jordan and Syria are at best, insecure
in the daytime and deadly at night. All of the borders are porous - and
fact mentioned frequently by the Administration when confronted with
t heir failures.
Though their attacks are localized, the terrorists and Saddam loyalists have done great harm.
They have ambushed American and British service members -- who stand for freedom and order. They
have killed civilian aid workers of the United Nations -- who represent the compassion and
generosity of the world. They have bombed the Jordanian embassy -- the symbol of a peaceful Arab
country. And last week they murdered a respected cleric and over a hundred Muslims at prayer --
bombing a holy shrine and a symbol of Islam's peaceful teachings.
It's nice to hear the head guy mention "Islam's peaceful teachings". Did they make Rummy
listen?
This violence is directed, not only against our coalition, but against anyone in Iraq who stands for decency, and freedom, and progress.
There is more at work in these attacks than blind rage. The terrorists have a strategic goal.
They want us to leave Iraq before our work is done. They want to shake the will of the civilized
world. In the past, the terrorists have cited the examples of Beirut and Somalia, claiming that if
you inflict harm on Americans, we will run from a challenge. In this, they are mistaken.
I was shocked to hear a reference to Beirut. Dubya considers himself to be Reagan's political heir;
Reagan was Prez when the US bailed out of Beirut after a terrorist attack.
Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy
war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front.
But it only became a haven for terrorists after we destabilized it; Mr. bush himself acknowledged
that a few paragraphs back.
Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there -- and there they must be defeated. This
will take time, and require sacrifice. Yet we will do what is necessary, we will spend what is
necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom, and to make
our own nation more secure.
These sacrifices - will the sacrifices come from lower-income and middle-income families - the
primary source of tax revenues and soldiers? Or will the rich have to sacrifice, too?
America has done this kind of work before. Following World War II, we lifted up the defeated nations of Japan and Germany, and stood with them as they built representative governments. We committed years and resources to this cause. And that effort has been repaid many times over in three generations of friendship and peace. America today accepts the challenge of helping the Iraqi people in the same spirit -- for their sake, and our own.
Our strategy in Iraq has three objectives -- destroying the terrorists -- enlisting the support of other nations for a free Iraq -- and helping Iraqis assume responsibility for their own defense and their own future.
First, we are taking direct action against the terrorists in the Iraqi theater, which is the
surest way to prevent future attacks on coalition forces and the Iraqi people. We are staying on
the offensive, with a series of precise strikes against enemy targets increasingly guided by
intelligence given to us by Iraqi citizens.
This is interesting: the last time that Rummy mouthed off (a few days before this speech), he
admonished Iraqis to start snitching on the bad guys. Last time Iraqis cooperated with the US
- after the 1990 Gulf War - thousands were butchered by Saddam. Considering that Saddam is still lurking,
and considering that we are clearly not in control (Duh! That's why he gave the speech and that's why the
US is begging for help), I can hardly blame anyone for being reluctant to rat out a bad guy.
Since the end of major combat operations, we have conducted raids seizing many caches of enemy
weapons and massive amounts of ammunition, and we have captured or killed hundreds of Saddam
loyalists and terrorists. So far, of the 55 most wanted former Iraqi leaders, 42 are dead or in
custody.
But not Saddam, not Osama Bin Laden, not Mullah Omar.
We are sending a clear message: Anyone who seeks to harm our soldiers can know that our soldiers are hunting for them.
Second, we are committed to expanding international cooperation in the reconstruction and
security of Iraq, just as we are in Afghanistan. Our military commanders in Iraq advise me that the
current number of American troops -- nearly 130,000 -- is appropriate to their mission. They are
joined by over 20,000 service members from 29 other countries.
13000 from Britain, 7000 from 28 other countries (approximately 250 per...)
Two multinational divisions, led by the British and the Poles, are serving alongside our forces -- and in order to share the burden more broadly, our commanders have requested a third multinational division to serve in Iraq.
Some countries have requested an explicit authorization of the United Nations Security Council
before committing troops to Iraq. I have directed Secretary of State Colin Powell to introduce a
new Security Council resolution, which would authorize the creation of a multinational force in
Iraq, led by America.
What if the rest of the UN says that someone else should lead, considering what a mess we've made
of things?
I recognize that not all of our friends agreed with our decision to enforce the Security Council
resolutions and remove Saddam Hussein from power. Yet we cannot let past differences interfere with
present duties.
So WE created "past differences", but our friends should forgive and forget, and take risk for the
mess that we created against their advice? Is that "Old Europe" who suddenly has a "present duty"?
The ones who our leaders called "irrelevant"?
Terrorists in Iraq have attacked representatives of the civilized world, and opposing them must
be the cause of the civilized world. Members of the United Nations now have an opportunity, and the
responsibility, to assume a broader role in assuring that Iraq becomes a free and democratic
nation.
Since when is it the UN's duty to assure that any nation becomes democratic?
Third, we are encouraging the orderly transfer of sovereignty and authority to the Iraqi people. Our coalition came to Iraq as liberators and we will depart as liberators. Right now Iraq has its own Governing Council, comprised of 25 leaders representing Iraq's diverse people. The Governing Council recently appointed cabinet ministers to run government departments. Already more than 90 percent of towns and cities have functioning local governments, which are restoring basic services. We are helping to train civil defense forces to keep order -- and an Iraqi police service to enforce the law -- and a facilities protection service -- and Iraqi border guards to help secure the borders -- and a new Iraqi army. In all these roles, there are now some 60,000 Iraqi citizens under arms, defending the security of their own country -- and we are accelerating the training of more.
Iraq is ready to take the next steps toward self-government. The Security Council resolution we introduce will encourage Iraq's Governing Council to submit a plan and a timetable for the drafting of a constitution, and for free elections. From the outset, I have expressed confidence in the ability of the Iraqi people to govern themselves. Now they must rise to the responsibilities of a free people and secure the blessings of their own liberty.
Our strategy in Iraq will require new resources. We have conducted a thorough assessment of our
military and reconstruction needs in Iraq, and also in Afghanistan. I will soon submit to Congress
a request for $87 billion. The request will cover ongoing military and intelligence operations in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, which we expect will cost 66 billion dollars over the next year.
This budget request will support our commitment to helping the Iraqi and Afghan people rebuild
their own nations, after decades of oppression and mismanagement.
Some critics have mentioned that it's $65 billion for Iraq and $1 billion for Afghanistan.
Shouldn't the Prez mention the accurate breakdown of that figure?
We will provide funds to help them improve security. And we will help them to restore basic
services, such as electricity and water, and to build new schools, roads, and medical clinics. This
effort is essential to the stability of those nations, and therefore to our own security.
$66 billion is more that we are spending in the US for either schools or roads - two parts of our
own failing infrastructure. It's clear that our power grid and other elements of electricity
production are in grave danger. Our highways are being patched instead of fixed. Our schools are underfunded
and struggling (ever heard of "No Child Left Behind"?). How about if we keep some of that money here, and let Bush's
faith-based charities take care of Iraq?
Now and in the future, we will support our troops and we will keep our word to the more than 50 million people of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Later this month, Secretary Powell will meet with representatives of many nations to discuss
their financial contributions to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Next month, he will hold a
similar funding conference for the reconstruction of Iraq. Europe, Japan, and states in the Middle
East all will benefit from the success of freedom in these two countries, and they should
contribute to that success.
Or not. There are major corporations in the USA who benefit from the success of freedom in the USA,
yet they get to avoid paying corporate income taxes entirely AND they get to do business with the
US government via large contracts. Taking that a step farther, if those who benefit from the
success of freedom should contribute to that success, why should our rich complain so bitterly over
contributing - and why should the Republican Congress and Republican Administration bow to that
whining by granting tax cuts to the wealthy?
The people of Iraq are emerging from a long trial. For them, there will be no going back to the
days of the dictator -- to the miseries and humiliation he inflicted on that good country. For the
Middle East and the world, there will be no going back to the days of fear -- when a brutal and
aggressive tyrant possessed terrible weapons. And for America, there will be no going back to the
era before September 11th, 2001 -- to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that
terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength -- they are invited by the perception of
weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he
lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today, so that we do not meet
him again on our own streets, in our own cities.
Once again, that enemy was NOT in Iraq until we created an environment where
terrorism could enter the country and thrive.
The heaviest burdens in our war on terror fall, as always, on the men and women of our armed
forces and our intelligence services. They have removed gathering threats to America and our
friends, and this nation takes great pride in their incredible achievements. We are grateful for
their skill and courage, and for their acts of decency, which have shown America's character to the
world. We honor the sacrifice of their families. And we mourn every American who has died so
bravely, and so far from home.
And we cut their combat pay because the combat is over.
The Americans who assume great risks overseas understand the great cause they are in. Not long ago I received a letter from a captain in the 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad. He wrote about his pride in serving a just cause, and about the deep desire of Iraqis for liberty. "I see it," he said, "in the eyes of a hungry people every day here. They are starved for freedom and opportunity." And he concluded, "I just thought you'd like a note from the 'front lines of freedom.'" That Army captain, and all of our men and women serving in the war on terror, are on the front lines of freedom. And I want each of them to know: Your country thanks you, and your country supports you.
Fellow citizens: We have been tested these past 24 months, and the dangers have not passed. Yet Americans are responding with courage and confidence. We accept the duties of our generation. We are active and resolute in our own defense. We are serving in freedom's cause -- and that is the cause of all mankind.
Thank you, and good night. And may God continue to bless America.
Isn't it unpatriotic to challenge the President's speech? Am I some sort of demagogue or (gasp) liberal for publishing this?