Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Bush 'makes his case'

Bush continues attempts to make America's case

President Bush spoke to a group of military officers yesterday, outlining yet again America's strategy in Iraq and the consequences at stake. During his speech, he quoted bin Laden multiple times. Including:

One document Bush cited was what he called "a grisly al-Qaida manual" found in 2000 by British police during an anti-terrorist raid in London, which included a chapter called "Guidelines for Beating and Killing Hostages." He also cited what he said was a captured al-Qaida document found during a recent raid in Iraq. He said it described plans to take over Iraq's western Anbar province and set up a governing structure including an education department, a social services department, a justice department and an execution unit.
The White House also unveiled a letter from bin Laden to Taliban leader Mullah Omar in which he wrote about plans for a "media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government" so the people will pressure leaders to retreat in the fight.
Bush also quoted bin Laden saying:
- "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."
- Al-Qaida can cause the U.S. economy to collapse by implementing a "bleed-until-bankruptcy plan."
- The defeat of American forces in Beirut in 1983 is proof America does not have the stomach to stay in a fight. "In Somalia, the United States pulled out, trailing disappointment, defeat and failure behind it," Bush said bin Laden wrote.
- "The most serious issue today for the whole world is this third world war that is raging in Iraq. ... The whole world is watching this war and that it will end in victory and glory or misery and humiliation."

And yet we still struggle to find support for the war at home. I say this again. Iraq is the Gettysburg, the Saratoga and the Normandy landing when it comes to the global war on terror. This is an absolutely crucial campaign. Lose...and we lose the war on terror, running with our tails tucked between our legs and showing our enemies that we are the paper tiger they see us as. But if we will be crippling to Islamo-fascism and will help bring an end to the Iranian dictatorship that also threatens the world.

And yet, Bush must make 'make his case' for this.


Dan Trabue said...

You are correct that Bush is trying to make his case for this war. That should not be confused for "america's case," as increasingly, the citizenry of the US are opposed to the leaders. He is speaking for himself, not the American people - who reject his case as being the OPPOSITE of what we need to do to oppose terrorism.

I think we'll soon see the results of Bush's case in the coming elections.

Or at least I pray that the corruption of our voting system will not prevent the will of the people from being enacted.

Anonymous said...


I often enjoy the tit for tat that is shared between you and John. In most cases, I find your responses predictable but funny.
However, this time I must respond to what you have said.

When is the left going to realize that maybe they don't speak for the entire nation? For to long the ignorant masses in our country rely on what is being expressed to them only through media outlets and without further investigation. It doesn't take long to realize that most media outlets cater to those on the left.

Let's take Katrina for instance. To watch most media outlets, the storm only hit New Orleans. I don't say that to belittle the suffering that occurred there, but showing those that can't and won't help themselves suffer draws more ratings that those that simply take care of themselves.

Take a look on a map and find Raymond, Mississippi. It is a small town southwest of Jackson in the central part of the state. It is over 200 miles inland, and yet we had 100's of trees and power lines down and were without power for 8 days. Find Starkville in the northeast part of the state, Katrina was a category 1 hurricane when it passed through this area. Yet, very little has been said regarding how Mississippi is taking care of itself and working to get better with the help of aid from the feds and numerous charities. But then again, showing someone helping themselves is boring and only makes for a feel good story.

The left has realized that yelling louder and louder about their cause will keep their cause in the headlines. The uglier they are the more likely they are to get further headlines. Some ask why doesn't the right get their message out better? I would reply that someone has to "row the boat" while the left simply rocks it.

When the left can offer up a feasible solution to the problems we face in stead of just blaming Bush, they will become more credible in my mind.

When the people vote, their will should stand, whether good for the right or left or middle. We live in a country where the people's voice can be heard. If it is the will to go back to the left,then so be it and God help us. If it is the will to stay the course, then so be it and Gold help us as well. However, if the will of the people doesn't go the way of the Democrats, they should suck it up and figure out what works better for '08 instead of wining corruption all the time. They might as well run down the road yelling wolf!


Dan Trabue said...

"When the left can offer up a feasible solution to the problems we face in stead of just blaming Bush, they will become more credible in my mind."

This is a fair comment. The problem is that we, the "left" (although I make the argument that I'm much more conservative than the neo-cons, according to classic conservative thinking...), ARE a minority - sizable, but a minority.

[Further, the electoral system is not set up to allow minority voices to HAVE a voice (think the Greens, the Libertarians...we have no representation, no one in office speaking for us).

And that is as it should be to a degree. I don't want to rule the country as a minority. In a better Republic, we'd have ways of giving minorities more of a voice, but that is not what we currently have.]

And so, being a minority, we have limited power to make changes so we do what good democracy-lovers have always done: We take our case to the people. We argue our points. There's not anyone in office doing so (the Dems are centrists - witness how many of them gave Bush tacit (but conditional) authority to wage what we consider an illegal invasion.

We don't "whine corruption" all the time. We do so when we think the evidence says there is corruption. As we should. Surely you agree with this? You're not one of those people who believe "my country, right or wrong?" At any rate, I'm not.

But, while we make our case, we DO offer solutions. It's just that we don't have anyone representing us to present them and the MSM doesn't carry our message (so much for the notion of a "liberal" media). So we DO holler and yell and make a fuss to get our case out there. What else would you have us do?

The Bush-types ARE INDEED rowing the boat, but they are also getting their message out there. Because they've made such a mess of things and their power is threatened this fall, Team Bush is on overtime trying to make a case (valid or not) for their positions.

As to answers, assuming you're talking about "What to do about terrorism", you can check here for some indepth alternative strategies that make more sense to an awful lot of people:

As you can see, we have proposed solutions and we make noise to make our case for them. I think/hope you'll agree it's exactly what we ought to be doing.

Anonymous said...


Your response is a very thoughtful one that I found myself agreeing with on many points.

Unfortunately, neither of the parties have a position for the center anymore. Both parties are being driven by the extreme points of view thus leaving the middle without much a voice. As a result of this, I feel it will be interesting to see who else gets Liebermanned. For instance, both Shwarzenneger (Sp?, I apologize) and Guilliani could have trouble from the neo-cons in the Rep. party because of their more liberal leanings when it comes to social issues.

The tragedy in Washington right now is that neither side is willing to compromise for the good of the whole. Because of this, we the electorate are forced to choose which issues are more important to us and pick the candidate who is strongest regarding such issues. i.e. Bush and national security in '04.

I have no problem with thoughtful, insightful political discourse and debate. This only moves are country forward. What I don't care for is the we're right you're wrong arguments that are so prevalent in our current political spectrum.