Today on Blogcritics
Home » In July 4 Address, Bush Provides West Virginians With Empty Words

In July 4 Address, Bush Provides West Virginians With Empty Words

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

President Bush spent part of his Independence Day trying to gain traction for comments he made a few days earlier in a nationwide address.

Speaking at West Virginia University, Bush once again tried to tie together the terrorists who struck the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001 (aka Al Qaeda) and the “terrorists” that the U.S. fights today in Iraq (aka the Iraqi insurgency), repeating the themes of his June 28 speech as well as his July 2 weekly radio address.

It’s sad how easily Bush can turn misleading statements into applause lines. It’s an easy recipe: mention Sept. 11, throw in some patriotic phrasing — great for television soundbites! — and mix and match facts until you come up with something that’s pleasing to the ear. Sadder still, the “mainstream media” chose yesterday not to fact-check the president, acting like stenographers as they highlighted the main themes of yesterday’s speech. The harshest thing most reporters could come up with was that Bush’s popularity ratings have slipped.

***

Let’s take a look at the core of Bush’s speech — his case for fighting in Iraq.

BUSH: At this hour, our men and women in uniform are defending America against the threats of the 21st century. The war we are fighting came to our shores on September the 11th, 2001. After that day, I made a pledge to the American people, we will not wait to be attacked again. (Applause.) We will bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies. (Applause.)

FACT-CHECK: Bush mixes and matches facts here to get two applause lines. Ask the West Virginians who Bush meant when he talks of troops “defending America,” and undoubtedly they’ll say the troops in Iraq. But then — bait-and-switch — Bush says the war we are fighting “came to our shores on September the 11th.”

Why is it bait-and-switch? Because the Iraqis didn’t attack us on Sept. 11. Al Qaeda did. Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind behind Sept. 11, remains at large. The 9/11 Commission found no “credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States,” so fighting in Iraq isn’t “bringing justice” to those that struck us.

One tenuous tie between post-Saddam Iraq and Al Qaeda are the “foreign fighters” who have joined the Iraqi insurgency. The Bush administration has said that those foreign fighters include Al Qaeda, although they have not brought forth any hard evidence to support that opinion. By most objective accounts, the percentage of foreign fighters in Iraq has been small, although the Bush administration has argued their numbers are growing.

BUSH: Our enemies in this new war are men who celebrate murder, incite suicide and thirst for absolute power. They seek to spread their ideology of tyranny and oppression across the world. They seek to turn the Middle East into a haven for terror. They seek to drive America out of the region. These terrorists will not be stopped by negotiations, or concessions, or appeals to reason. In this war, there is only one option, and that is victory. (Applause.)

FACT-CHECK: Al Qaeda and its allies have, since Sept. 11, attacked Madrid, Istanbul, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh and Bali. Bush, in his June 28 address, quoted (and paraphrased) Bin Laden, saying: “This Third World War is raging” in Iraq. “The whole world is watching this war.” (The placement of the quotation marks is Bush’s, suggesting Bin Laden never said “This Third World War is raging in Iraq.”)

One could argue the insurgents want to drive the U.S. out of Iraq, but it’s a stretch to say they “seek to spread their ideology of tyranny and oppression across the world.” Who is Bush actually talking about to get his applause lines? Al Qaeda.

Bush speaks for another two paragraphs before he finally utters the word “Iraq.” At that point he says:

BUSH: Iraq is the latest battlefield in the war on terror. Our work there is difficult and dangerous because terrorists from across the region are converging on Iraq to fight the rise of democracy.”

FACT-CHECK: Again, by most accounts, the percentage of Iraqi insurgents who are “foreign fighters” remains a minority, and the Bush Administration has not yet provided evidence that the foreign fighters are Al Qaeda, vs. individuals who are either pro-Saddam, anti-U.S., or simply wanting to fight what they see as an occupying nation.

But this two-sentence piece of Bush’s speech is noteworthy for a positive reason: the president finally distinguishes Iraqi insurgents from “terrorists from across the region.” It wasn’t an applause line or a soundbite, but it wasn’t misleading, either.

***

This article first appeared on Journalists Against Bush’s B.S. (JABBS)

Powered by

About David R. Mark

  • Nancy

    Bush never says anything new. He keeps repeating the same crap over and over again, figuring if he says it often enough, the public will swallow it. He gets reinforced in this belief, because he will only talk to hand-picked, carefully selected pro-Smirk audiences to begin with, being afraid of actual representative groups, because he knows that outside his hard-core ‘fans’, he has no credibility. Pretty pitiful, but interesting, in that these are the same tactics used by Smirk’s buddy Saddam in his glory days.

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

    Bush: “They seek to spread their ideology of tyranny and oppression across the world.”

    You: “FACT-CHECK: Al Qaeda and its allies have, since Sept. 11, attacked Madrid, Istanbul, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh and Bali.”

    So you confirm that Bush’s statement here is substantially correct then.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    Dave, serious question for your thoughts: fighting in Iraq is not working. Foreign fighters are just streaming in from all over, since Iraq is about as porous as a sieve, what w/borders w/Iran, Afghanistan, & Syria, a good deal of it desert or mountains.

    In addition, muslim populations are rapidly pouring out into Europe – even up into the scandinavian climes – as well as Canada, Mexico & the US. Aside from simply wiping out anyone who is arab/muslim/etc., how is anyone supposed to tell the good people from the bad? Now these terrorists are targeting the rank & file Iraqi people, to “teach them a lesson” of what will happen if they support an Iraqi democracy. Yet the Iraqi population isn’t helping to put these guys down, they aren’t turning them in, they aren’t doing jack shit. Basically the Iraqi persons-in-the-street are biting off their own noses to spite our face, from what I can understand.

    Bush is getting nowhere, as his own generals have reported to congress. We are NOT winning. So where do we go from here, and how would you suggest we start weeding out ‘bad’ muslims from the ‘good’? Or is that even possible?

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

    >>Dave, serious question for your thoughts: fighting in Iraq is not working. < <

    This is by no means entirely clear.

    >>Foreign fighters are just streaming in from all over, since Iraq is about as porous as a sieve, what w/borders w/Iran, Afghanistan, & Syria, a good deal of it desert or mountains.< <

    You can't have it both ways. Some of you anti-bush folks are saying they're streaming in and others are saying they're just a tiny minority. Which is it? It certainly can't be both. If they're streaming in in vast numbers, then the war is working as a way to attract and neutralize potential terrorists. If they're not streaming in then we're winning the war and with our massive captures of insurgents they ought to be on the ropes. Which is it?

    >>In addition, muslim populations are rapidly pouring out into Europe – even up into the scandinavian climes – as well as Canada, Mexico & the US. Aside from simply wiping out anyone who is arab/muslim/etc.,< <

    This is a result of conditions in the ME, not anything we've done. These are the smart muslims who realize it's no fun to live in chaos or under dictators or theocrats.

    >> how is anyone supposed to tell the good people from the bad? < <

    By their actions. The ones who kill civilians and soldiers are the bad guys. The ones who don't are the good guys.

    >>Now these terrorists are targeting the rank & file Iraqi people, to “teach them a lesson” of what will happen if they support an Iraqi democracy. < <

    They've been doing that all along, and what could send a clearer message that they're bad guys?

    >>Yet the Iraqi population isn’t helping to put these guys down, they aren’t turning them in, they aren’t doing jack shit. Basically the Iraqi persons-in-the-street are biting off their own noses to spite our face, from what I can understand.< <

    Then you're ill-informed. In a recent hunt for terrorists in Baghdad no less than 55 separate calls came in to Iraqi Police telling them where the terrorists were. Similar incidents are taking place all over the country. Details on this particular event can be found at iraqthemodel.com

    >>Bush is getting nowhere, as his own generals have reported to congress. We are NOT winning.< <

    It's a situation where we don't need to 'win', we just need to stabilize the situation to the point where Iraqis can take over, and we are making progress towards that goal. We may leave them in an Israel-like situation with ongoing terrorism, but people have learned to live with that in Israel and Ireland and built workable societies nonetheless.

    >> So where do we go from here, and how would you suggest we start weeding out ‘bad’ muslims from the ‘good’? Or is that even possible?<<

    Our mere presence weeds them out. The ones who attack us and their own people are the bad ones. It’s pretty simple, really.

    Dave

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Dave Nalle — The point is that he wants his audience to support fighting the Iraqi insurgency by making references to Al Qaeda.

    He can’t sell Iraq for the reasons we went there, and he doesn’t trust the public to care enough about Iraqi democracy. So he take a third route — using Al Qaeda references for things that have little or nothing to do with Al Qaeda.