Let Me Paraphrase President Bush's speech tonight:

[PoBoy321]

I didn't get a chance to watch the speech, but how many times did he say "We're working hard and making progress"?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
How are these strategies (political and military intervention) going to combine to stop terrorists?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not going to stop terrorist completely. All you're going to do is keep the terrorist in check. Iraq has free and fair elections. It has a vibrant economy. It has a free press. Most of the people of Iraq feel good about the future and most feel secure.

The military prong is working. To say its not just because we are suffering causalties is to have no understanding of what it means to be involved in an on going military engagement.

[ QUOTE ]
If I am a terrorist, is the fact that the US sets up puppet (anti-terrorist, at least) governments in Iraq and Afghanistan going to stop me from killing Americans if I want to? I mean, after all, my government doesn't consent to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Terrorist killed more Americans in America than they have in Iraq or Afghanistan. The goal is to change the region from one that produces terrorist to one that does not. Its hoped that a democratic middle east will foster this change.

[ QUOTE ]
Face it. It isn't that difficult to get into the US. It isn't that difficult to kill a lot of people once you are here. If individuals want to do it, then they will, and there is nothing the US government can do about it. Bush needs to admit that he is wasting money and lives with this boogieman known as "The War on Terror."

[/ QUOTE ]

Is he? Knock on wood but we haven't had another 911, USS Cole, or embassy bombing. We went from fighting terrorist on our terf to fighting terrorist on their terf. Which is preferable?

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't get a chance to watch the speech, but how many times did he say "We're working hard and making progress"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I searched the transcripts. He didn't say it(I was surprised too). FWIW he did mention 911 once.

Stu

[sweetjazz]

I am a pretty big critic of Bush's timing of the Iraq war and his handling of the situation there after the invasion. And I think many of his domestic policies are seriously flawed.

In spite of that, I think it is a shame that your summary is all you took out of Bush's speech, or at least that is the attitude you chose to convey. While I think there are legitimate criticisms of Bush's speech, it also had some valid points and was a move toward improving the quality of the debate about Iraq and trying to build a consensus. This is something Bush has been pretty poor at in the past and something he still struggles with -- but this speech was something that his critics can work with if they choose to.

It is unfortunate that you, just as Bush has done many times, have chosen to hear and see only what you want to.

[ QUOTE ]
Which is preferable?

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually fighting the terrorists and not invading countries that had nothing to do with attacking us.

[ QUOTE ]
"Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq + Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq + I'm listening to you're phone calls +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + I'm in way over my head + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Reformer with results + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq + Daddy, what's Vietnam? +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq."


[/ QUOTE ]

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
You're not going to stop terrorist completely. All you're going to do is keep the terrorist in check.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a reason that Canadians arent blowing themselves up in AMerican buses, its because the social forces which create terrorists do not exist in Canada (not to a large enough extent anyways) Terroism is 100% stopable as long as the forces which create terrorists cease to be. American puppet governments and long drawn out military campaigns only increase hatred and the number of terrorists.

[ QUOTE ]
Terrorist killed more Americans in America than they have in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is very true. A large part of this war is to keep these forgien fighters abroad and not in the US. Unfortunatly in the process we have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people (not only amreicans count as people btw). This is a terrible tragedy which most Americans turn a blind eye to, cus hey they aren't REAL people. Real people a blindly patrotic to America!

[sweetjazz]

"There is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right."

I consider myself in the former category, and really want to increase debate about what is going on in Iraq and what will and will not work.

I get so frustrated by the many people who are in the latter category -- and I think your post and that of the OP post are suggestive of that attitude. The approach of angrily denouncing Bush and using cheap arguments that are no better than many of his weak arguments is undermining the legitimate criticism of how Bush has handled the situation in Iraq.

I suspect you probably just hate Bush so much that you don't care or don't believe me. I personally don't hate Bush, but I am very disappointed with many of his policy decisions and I'd like to convince others why there are better alternatives.

I really fear that the rise of a leftwing outlets like moveon.org have encouraged the same lazy and sloppy thinking that the Rush Limbaughs brought to rightwing zealots in the 90s (and continue to supply).

This is a very simplistic formulation of public debate, but if you simplify arguments to petty namecalling and accusations, the right will always dominate. The right has mastered appealing to our emotions -- especially fear -- and will sway the moderate middle if that is where the debate stalls.

I think of myself as a (to the extent I can label my complex views in two words) classical liberal. (Which leads in practice to the fact that I tend to lean left but do sometimes think Republican ideas are better than Democratic ideas on some issues. And am not very happy with the ideas, or more specifically the lack of good ones, coming from either party.) If the public debate stalls at petty name-calling and attempts at fear-mongering, I think a lot of the policies I support will not be enacted.

If you choose to give up on improving the quality of debate and reduce yourself to petty Bush insults, then you are no better than Bush at his worst. If you are okay with that and want to blindly go on assuming that you have all the answers to everything (as a certain chief executive has done in the past), feel free. Ironically, while your policy preferences will be different, you will be methodologically similar to the very individual you so ardently (and counterproductively) ridicule.

[ QUOTE ]
I am a pretty big critic of Bush's timing of the Iraq war and his handling of the situation there after the invasion. And I think many of his domestic policies are seriously flawed.

In spite of that, I think it is a shame that your summary is all you took out of Bush's speech, or at least that is the attitude you chose to convey. While I think there are legitimate criticisms of Bush's speech, it also had some valid points and was a move toward improving the quality of the debate about Iraq and trying to build a consensus. This is something Bush has been pretty poor at in the past and something he still struggles with -- but this speech was something that his critics can work with if they choose to.

It is unfortunate that you, just as Bush has done many times, have chosen to hear and see only what you want to.

[/ QUOTE ]
Improving the quality of debate about Iraq? Seems to me there wasn't any room for debate according to Bush(You're either with us or against us). But now that his ratings have fallen off a cliff he wants to build a consensus. Give me a break.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
Is he? Knock on wood but we haven't had another 911, USS Cole, or embassy bombing. We went from fighting terrorist on our terf to fighting terrorist on their terf. Which is preferable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stu, I appreciate your thoughtful posts on the matter. While I disagree with your position on Iraq, I think your approach to the dialogue is productive for good debate and gives people the opportunity to be convinced by your points. (Even though it is unlikely that someone will be completely swayed, but they may accept some of your claims and arguments that they would not have otherwise.)

Let me explain what I believe that the flaw is with your reasoning. I agree that we want to prevent future terrorist attacks on our soil. (I agree less that it is okay to induce terrorist attacks elsewhere to accomplish this goal, and I am not sure that is exactly what you are saying. I suspect you want to stop the terrorist attacks elsewhere in the world, and it's just a matter of degree over how we should balance our desire to prevent terrorism everywhere and our naturally stronger desire to prevent terrorism here.)

However, I believe that the evidence clearly indicates that the motivation of the terrorist organizations for their attacks has been the increased military presence of American troops in Arab land -- particularly our presence in Saudi Arabia during and after the first Persian Gulf War. Of course, I do not believe that this motivation in any way morally legitimizes the atrocities that were committed, but I believe that understanding this motivation is essential to our strategy to prevent terrorism in the long run.

While we are indeed fortunate not to have suffered any terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001, I think our involvement in Iraq has increased the motivation for fundamentalist Muslims to terrorize us. Simultaneously, we have crippled the organization to a certain extent (how much I don't really know) through our campaign in Afghanistan, have improved our homeland defense (to a certain extent) and it is certainly true that terrorists are (for the time being) distracted by our involvement in Iraq. Unfortunately, our military and Iraqi military and Iraqi civilians are losing their lives, and this is undesirable. If their sacrifices will significantly decrease the likelihood of future attacks (beyond the time we are in Iraq -- as I assume you agree that we cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely to deflect terrorists), then it might be a regrettable but necessary (or at least justified) loss. However, I believe that the fundamental flaw with this reasoning is the assumption that the campaign in Iraq has truly lessened significantly (and not perhaps even increased) the risk of future terrorist attacks, especially after we eventually leave Iraq but inevitably get blamed for any future problems that they have.

I recognize that you may disagree with my assessment and I admit that the situation is so complex that it is hard for me to make a good judgment, and my opinion is just the best judgment I can form. I also, despite my skepticism, want us to make the best decisions in Iraq from this point forward that will protect us from terrorism, protect the Iraqi people from terrorism, and provide them with the necessary resources for them to sustain their current drive toward democracy (while at the same time not flaming the fuel of the insurgency anymore than we have to). Hopefully, a consensus can be reached on this latter point and more debate will take place on how we should prioritize our goals in Iraq and how best to accomplish them.

Respectfully,
Mike