Today on Blogcritics
Home » Bush Speech on War on Terror

Bush Speech on War on Terror

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

So Now We’re Back to
“It’s A Global Campaign”

It’s back to “It’s a Global Campaign,” yet President Bush still hasn’t learned how to lead the international community, with his attitude and actions, to understand why it’s important to join forces to find a way to convince all people in the world that the murder of innocents will never be civilly acceptable.

Bush invoked 9/11 to begin his major speech on the “War on Terror.” The names of myriad countries were invoked next. The ideology of the terrorists was discussed next – along with all the monikers to describe them. He tells us that we stand for democracy and peace. I am convinced of neither after seeing the way we’ve conducted ourselves in Iraq. Bush says terrorists had “set their sights on Iraq,” but that’s not tue. Bush brought them there with a rash and ineptly-planned war and a stupid dare to “bring them on.” When Bush says that “evil men and ambition must be taken very seriously,” I look at him and think about his own ambition and I take him very seriously. He tells us that Syria and Iran share the goal of the terrorists – and I can feel the neocons’ influence and I can almost see them typing out their plans for the next unnecessary war and death for our sons and daughters.

Bush condemns Russia for not joining the folly in Iraq, and sends out an “I told ya so” to them after the Beslan tragedy. (What a way to win over the Russkies).

He claims that no act of the US inspired the terrorists’ reaction. Complete victory is the only acceptable answer – that brings applause from the audience – yet no one in that audience knows what “complete victory” is supposed to look like.

Bush condemns the rich who prey upon the poor and turn them into terrorists. I look at the poor in America and wonder what will become of them under the Bush rule. (Has he been to the ‘hood lately?)

I understand that terrorists murder people in schools and mosques and churches and cafes – and any fool can see that it’s murder and that it’s heinous. Bush accuses the enemy of using the pretense of aggrievement, when they are really desiring “imperial domination…” and I can easily see that the “enemy” feels exactly the same way about Bush. When Bush talks about the enemy “despising freedom,” he loses his credibility with me. Bin Ladenists want the U.S. out of their territories, and it has everything to do with their own view of “freedom.”

Bush wants and expects more sacrifice for his failing Iraq venture. He says the love of freedom is the mightiest force. He calls you a “self-defeating pessimist” if you disagree with his failing course. He asks you to blind yourself to reality and pretend we are succeeding. He doesn’t talk about the fact that “spreading democracy” is not necessarily related to the fire-like spread of terror. (A terror, mind you, that he has fueled as the result of his course of action in Iraq.)

Bush says we must deny the future of terror-recruits by spreading hope across the Middle East. People, he says, must choose their own destiny. I look at what Bush did (and failed to do) in the aftermath of Katrina and I think of the faces of the poor who never have had an opportunity to choose their own destiny because they’ve been virtually left behind by Bush’s domestic policy. How can Bush expect us to believe the grandiosity of his plot for the Middle East when he fails his own nation’s poorest citizens?

Bush says he is responsible, while Commander in Chief, for disrupting three or more efforts to stop terrorist attacks in America. That’s news to me. Let’s hope someone will tell us more about that someday.

Bush has many right ideas about the evils of the methods employed by the Bin Ladenists – but his ideas about how to fight them (by attacking states – the old “support and harbor”/”enemy of civilization” warnings) are wrong and will continue to follow Iraq’s failing course. Murder is never justified.
I was hoping to hear something different today.
Bush is only stumping for new partners to join him in his failing war, which follows a course that neocons plotted out long before 9/11/2001.
Yet, he offers nothing new to convince them.

I don’t disagree that terror is murderous, but I am not persuaded, heartened, or convinced about the bleak future by the president whose neocon-soaked administration lied our nation into war in Iraq and was never held accountable – not one person – by the Commander in Chief.

Jude Nagurney Camwell is the blogger known as Iddybud

Powered by

About Jude

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    George Bush’s script writers gave a little summary of our enemy in the “Global War On Terror”:

    “Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it’s called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus — and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics.” from: President Discusses War on Terror at National Endowment for Democracy.

    Not a bad summary, kind of ignores other types of terrorism in the world, such as abortion clinic bombers, and Catholic-Protestant fighting in Ireland, BUT, covers a big source of current terrorism.

    I don’t have a big problem with that paragraph.

    BUT IT THIS IS THE ENEMY, WHAT THE HELL DID ATTACKING IRAQ HAVE TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS? If our enemies are Islamic radicalism, militant Jihadism and Islamo-fascism why shouldn’t we be impeaching a President who instead put HIS focus on a secular dictator? If Saddam is supposed to be lumped in with the Islamic fascists, why did women have more rights under his rule than they will under the Shiite’s now?

    Wasn’t the Global War on Terrorism important enough for George Bush to focus on? You would THINK that George didn’t have time for this OTHER war against a secular dictator in Iraq?

  • I’m Bad

    If you ask me the real radicals are Bush’s brain (Karl Rove) & Bush’s heart (Don Rumsfeld). They have long term plans for greater global domination. The U.S. is attempting to become an empire greater than the British Raj. The current administration’s agenda goes well with the powerful white rich christian conservatives, period. The rest are meant to rot. US has 700 bases in 130 countries. It’s only going to grow. Today it’s Iraq for oil. Tomorrow another country for another resource. China is a growing to counter the US one day, the US is encouraging Japan to arm so it can interfere between China and Taiwan.
    The war against Iraq is a war on grounds of both race and religion. It’s about Christian and White supremacy. Those poor people in the middle east only want to live. Terrorism is rampant because they are uneducated, unemployed with no opportunities in life. They want a chance to life and prosperity. The US Army comes in, shoots, bombs, lots of civilians die in the process, teenagers take up weapons to kill, become martyrs and be accepted in heaven. Too much ignorance, anger, hatred on both sides.
    I am sure I am going to see a war of extreme proportions in my lifetime. The world will become sick of the Bushes and Bin Ladens just like they became sick of Hitler.
    War is not the answer, but power corrupts, race and color bring out apparent differences and organized religion is stronger than corporate and politicians. War is the leveller.

  • Les Slater

    Bush delivered a very well thought out and consistent speech. It needs serious rebuttal. Ranting about NEOCONs will lend credence to what he is saying. The NEOCON theory is reactionary and puts you one step closer to being in the same camp as Bush.

  • Maurice

    Amen Slater.

    Ranting is what 2 people getting a divorce do.

    Many of these comment threads seem to ignore that Bush is a lame duck. 3 years goes by quickly.

  • http://bonamassablog.us Joanie

    If there’s any doubt about why we’re in Iraq, one only needs to read Michael Yon’s independent reporting from the front lines.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com alienboy

    Joanie, there’s no doubt, it’s the terrorists, no sorry, it’s the wmd, no sorry it’s the threat to democracy, oh, whatever,

  • Les Slater

    > … it’s the terrorists, no sorry, it’s the wmd, no sorry it’s the threat to democracy, oh, whatever,

    Of course it’s never been any of those. Anybody serious would have known that all along, the New York Times mea culpa not withstanding.

    One of the NY Times editorials today is, “President Bush’s Major Speech: Doing the 9/11 Time Warp Again”. One of the points it made was how bad Homeland Security is and pointed to Katrina.

    U.S. policy views the people in New Orleans no differently than those of Fallujah or Tal Afar. There’s just more opportunity to build a theme park out the ruins of New Orleans than the ruins of Fallujah.

  • MCH

    But according to Eric Olsen the reason we invaded Iraq (at the cost of $199 billion and 16,000 American casulties…and counting) is because the country “needed an enima.”

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Bush delivered a very well thought out and consistent speech. It needs serious rebuttal. Ranting about NEOCONs will lend credence to what he is saying. The NEOCON theory is reactionary and puts you one step closer to being in the same camp as Bush.<<

    Bush, is of course, not a Neocon. So bringing up the Neocon issue when talking about Bush is mostly a distraction. He may have Neocons in his administration, but while they are contributing to policy, that policy is not following their model. Hell, they’re bitching about Bush more than a lot of people if you check some of the statements coming out of the PNAC.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    > Bush, is of course, not a Neocon.

    Neocon is reactionary figment of right-wing imagination, which much of the left buys into.

    > So bringing up the Neocon issue when talking about Bush is mostly a distraction.

    Not mostly, totally a distraction.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Not totally, I mean Wolfowitz IS a real Neocon, and he has a major role in setting policy, but he gets filtered through old, pragmatic political hands like Cheney and Rumsfeld – but the Neocon voice is at least one of those being considered in the decision making process because he’s there.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    > Not totally, I mean Wolfowitz IS a real Neocon,

    Wolfowitz is identified as a neocon.

    > and he has a major role in setting policy, but he gets filtered through old, pragmatic political hands like Cheney and Rumsfeld …

    Maybe, but that’s far less than what is ascribed to the neocon.

    ANY talk of neocon is an allusion to the theory that they are THE reason for U.S. Middle East policy. It is alleged that the Likud has taken over the Pentegon. At its heart it is fundamentally anti-Semitic in motivation.

    Most of the neocon crap in circulation is traceable to Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, retired USAF intelligence officer. She published an article in Lyndon LaRouche’s “Executive Intelligence Review” and several internet essays which she alleges a “neocon” conspiracy in the Bush administration seeking to leverage the full might of the “United States to build a greater Zion”.

    Seymour Hersh in his New Yorker article last year as well as Edaward Kennedy’s speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, also last year, used Kwiatkowski as a source.

    The right wing, including Patrick Buchanan, as well as most of the left see her as their darling.

    Another variant of this is put forward by the right, including LaRouche’s antiwar.com, alleges that followers of Jewish Leon Trotsky have taken over the Bush White House.

    The right has been the standard bearer of anti-Semitism. It has now sunk deep roots into the left as well.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Is THAT where that insane ‘greater zion’ crap originated? Ever been to infowars.com – they’re totally sold on that idea.

    The Trotskyite thing is at least closer to believable, but Jewish though many Neocons may be and Trotskyite by background, they’re atheists and statist/capitalists in practice.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    > The Trotskyite thing is at least closer to believable, but Jewish though many Neocons may be and Trotskyite by background, they’re atheists and statist/capitalists in practice.

    I actually thought it was rather bizarre. When researching this for a response to you I came across “The Purest Neocon” in the online “The American Conservative” http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_10/article3.html about “Christopher Hitchens, an unreconstructed Bolshevik, finds his natural home on the pro-war Right.”

    They kept talking about Trotsky but I saw nothing convincing in this rather long article that would actually connect him. The article was a hack job on that question.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Well, Trotsky wasn’t a bolshevik – he was a menshevik – and Hitchens doesn’t appear to hold much of anything resembling Bolshevik beliefs. Menshevik/Trotskyite beliefs are closer to modern conservatives. They were the small-government, bottom-up anarcho/communists who didn’t last long once Stalin and the big-government, command and control communists got in power.

    From what I can tell the connection to Trotsky for Neocons is through their parents and their professors/teachers who were genuine Trotskyites in many cases.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    > Well, Trotsky wasn’t a bolshevik – he was a Menshevik

    Before 1917 Trotsky was neither. He was very critical of the Mensheviks and the SRs, he was also critical of Lenin. Between Lenin and Trotsky, they were both right and they were both wrong. By 1917 they were very close. Trotsky wholeheartedly joined with Lenin and between the two of them THEY were the central leadership of the Bolshevik party leading the soviets to take power. After 1917 Trotsky always identified with the Bolsheviks and as far as I can see there is no reason to think that he was anything but a Bolshevik.

  • Les Slater

    Also, by 1917 the Mensheviks were totally apposed to the working class taking political power. Actually, they were opposed to the working class taking power in 1905. They never changed in between. They opposed the Soviet the government when it took power. There is no way that Trotsky could be associated with that.