All you need to know about President Bush's address to the nation yesterday is that its goal was to reassure his fellow conservatives that the U.S. will continue to fight "terrorists" — a.k.a. "they" and "them."
Bush's speech made one reference to Al Qaeda, and two to Osama Bin Laden. But any Bush supporter listening to the speech would have probably thought that much of the speech was regarding one or the other. To make sure, Bush frequently mixed and matched which terrorists he was talking about, blending them as "they" or "them," discussing "their objectives," as if Al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency thought as one.
By my count, the president used the mysterious "they" or "them" 39 times to describe the blended "terrorists." Did he mean Al Qaeda? Did he mean the insurgency? It probably didn't matter to conservative listeners, to whom this pep rally speech was red meat for continued unequivocal support of the Bush agenda.
The president was long on platitudes, but short on specifics, which is a key to Bushspeak. Details are for wimps, or worse, liberals.
Let's review:
BUSH: "The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us — and the terrorists we face -- murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent."
But wait — those are two groups of terrorists. The terrorists who attacked us are Al Qaeda, predominantly of Saudi descent, possibly financed by Iran and led by a Saudi hiding out in either Afghanistan or Pakistan or possbily Iran — we have a "pretty good idea" of where he is, we're told.
"The terrorists who we face?" That's the insurgency. Could that group include Al Qaeda? Yes, although the conservatives have been long on talk and short on evidence in proving that point. Given this administration's track record, if it could prove the insurgents included Al Qaeda, it would have trumpeted that point again and again. In his speech yesterday, Bush mentions that "we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia and Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and others." I don't doubt that's true — but again, if it could be proven that these "foreign fighters" were Al Qaeda, the administration would have trumpeted that upon each killing or capture.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - wahoo
Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
Yes, indeed!
2 - Dave Nalle
So, basically, when Bush tries to be absolutely clear in his statements you take that as some sort of misdirection?
Maybe you should just actually read the quotes you post from his speech. They make absolute and perfect sense - much more so before you disect them than they do after you try to twist their meanings into self-serving nonsense.
Dave
3 - david r. mark
I stand by what I say. I didn't take any Bush comments out of context.
The problem is, Bush wants the average American to believe that the Iraqi insurgency is somehow tied to the events of 9/11. That's a misleading and dishonest implication.
4 - valery dawe
C'mon, Dave, Bush and his sycophants thrive on twisted meanings, self-serving nonsense and down and dirty lies. WMD your buttocks!
5 - valery dawe
"Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of"......innocent men, women and children, when the US invaded Vietnam and went on a killing spree.
6 - SFC SKI
Abu Musab al Zarqawi is an agent odf Al-Qaeda, has stated his affiliation with al Qaeda in press releases, and continues to operate in Iraq. Pretty clear cut.
7 - LegendaryMonkey
C'mon, Dave. Who are "they?" "They" are aparently the first people to ever commit a terrorist attack on America (not true), "they" are centered in Iraq, the world hotbed of terrorism (which is about as real as Iraq's WMDs), and "they" are probably going to kill your puppy.
Until next week, when it's back to Bin Laden. Fighting in "liberated" Afghanistan is picking back up again, you know.
Please point out to me the straightforward statements in the speech. Please point out the new information. Please point out what justifies Iraq -- REALLY justifies it, not just the reason of the month.
Because I'd like to feel better about it all, considering my tax dollars are disappearing like crazy and I have family and friends who might get shipped off -- something I DO NOT want to see.
8 - marc
Chew on this, not that any of you leftist appeasement monkeys will accept it.
Ahmed Hikmat Shakir " the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?
Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?
Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which " notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) " the Czechs have not retracted?
The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?
Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?
Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?
Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?
Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?
The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?
Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)
Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?
Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?
Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted: Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.
We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.
Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.
9 - Reader
They, Them, and who can forget Clinton's IS speech?
You liberals have trouble with small words huh?
10 - Nancy
Bush I should'a followed thru, nuked the whole damned region, & turned it into one molten sheet of glass; we wouldn't have had any of these problems if he hadn't run a half-assed war to begin with. I did always like that Reagan had no problem w/blasting Gaddafi to kingdom come at a moment's notice; sure got his attention & sobered him up a bit.
11 - valery dawe
Marc, you've been sucking that nasty nigerian yellowcake through an very dangerous aluminum straw again. People die from that crap.
12 - Nancy
Yeah, but it's awfully tasty w/a little butter & real maple syrup.
13 - david r. mark
According to the 9/11 commission, Mohammed Atta never had the Prague meeting conservatives continue to bandy about.
But hey, why let little facts get in the way of a good story.
14 - Tristan
Though I hate Bush's handling of pretty much everything he's touched, I can't say that this post holds much merit.
Basically, your argument comes down to this: Bush used the word they without distinguishing its antecedent. You're trying to say that he is linking Al Qaeda to the Iraqi insurgency by doing so.
This is just silly. When he says "they" he does in fact lump them together. However, he's lumping them together based on their actions, not on their agenda or ties. The insurgency has been attacking civilian structures like shopping malls, barber shops, and mosques in order to create a sense of fear. Thus, they are terrorists. Al Qaeda uses similar methods and I'm sure that nobody will say that they are not terrorists.
The "they" of which you speak refers to terrorists and as Bush has said, "they" are our enemies. Whether you believe the war in Iraq was justified or not (I don't) is irrelevant to your argument. You seem to be stretching really far to point the finger at Bush when there are much better things you could criticize. I fail to see how it's important that he doesn't specify between Al Qaeda and the insurgency as being different terrorist orginizations. They are still terrorists.
If you want to say that Bush is falsely linking Al Qaeda to Iraq, you don't need to rely on the word "they" to do it. He said they were linked in the lead-up to the war. You might make the argument that he is now ignoring those statements by rarely talking about Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda, but you gloss over this point and instead focus on an inane point.
The main thrust of my reply is that you could do much better in revealing your argument than pointing out his use of the word "they" in describing terrorists. His argument is that "they" are both our enemies and since "they" are both killing U.S. souls, I'd agree with him. You are right that they are different, but "they" are both terrorists and it would be silly (and not to mention boring) to make that distinction every time he talks about one or the other when they are both enemies.
15 - Matt
Marc--you've got it all figured out---why weren't you on the 9/11 commission?
16 - valery dawe
Nancy, tell that to the dead and maimed GI's who went on a wild goose WMD chase. Drop a line to their parents, wives and children while you're at it.
17 - david r. mark
Let me throw one more thing out: Even if everything you say is true, Marc, then that's what Bush should be talking about to make his case for our presence in Iraq.
Regardless of your opinion on the Iraq War, you have to understand that by continuing to make these vague links between the Iraqi insurgency and 9/11, he just weakens the credibility of his argument in the minds of about 50% of the country (maybe more).
Bush himself in 2002 admitted -- while correcting Cheney -- that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. The 9/11 Commission has dismissed many of the conservative media's proposed ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Now, the conservatives keep trotting out the information, most notably in a published book, The Connection, by National Review writer Stephen Hayes. But Hayes' book is primarily based on an early draft of a CIA report that was later discredited as jumping to conclusions that couldn't be proven. The conservative noise machine keeps trotting out these "facts" to "prove" their case -- things like the Prague meeting -- even though our own government no longer stands behind the information.
18 - LegendaryMonkey
I don't see how this is inane at all. "The terrorists" are actually diverse groups all over the world with few PROVEN links to Al Qaeda. Nowhere in Bush's speech does he actually prove (or convince, at least me) that the war in Iraq will stop terrorist acts on American soil.
Brown peoples is bad, yo. Etc.
What I love MOST is how anyone who disagrees with yon President is automatically some leftist prat, and rather than opening a dialogue, comments and discussion always disentegrates into inflammatory language.
My beef with Bush's speech is that it insinuates things that may or may not be true or accurate, changes our reasons for being in Iraq AGAIN, and does not present clear strategy, anything resembling a quantitative benchmark for when we might consider removing our troops, and does not justify the war.
Instead, it is more of the same empty, insulting rhetoric.
But I'm an appeasement monkey, so what does my opinion matter?
19 - LegendaryMonkey
Double post to state my wish that I could be as eloquent as David Mark. But I'm just a rude and silly monkey!
20 - Tristan
I think you missed my point. You were referring to two specific groups of terrorists. The insurgents in Iraq and the members of Al Qaeda. You weren't talking about the "diverse groups all over the world". My point is that both of these groups are enemies of the United States and are killing United States soldiers. This is why it is possible to lump them into a "they" category. In a relatively short speech, distinguishing between the two groups is an overall waste of time because he was speaking in regard to our enemies. These days, that includes plenty of people and can be referred to as "they".
This is a non-issue. It's partisan and makes for poor discussion. Why harp on this when there's so many real issues to harp on? It's like condemning a serial killer for littering. Unimportant.
21 - Tristan
Well that was dumb... That should read there are so many real issues, not there's. Ugh. Is it really time for bed already?
22 - LegendaryMonkey
No, I am agreeing with you in a sense, but I don't feel that the original post is a waste of time. It's got a dialogue going, and that's what it was for, right?
No, of course Bush's use of language isn't the key issue here. It's certainly not what I focused on in my breakdown of his speech. But I do think it is an interesting PoV (the original post) because it illustrates how Bush focuses on a faceless "evil" rather than actually saying, or doing, anything at all.
23 - Nancy
He isn't doing nothing; even I'll give him that. The problem is, he (or more accurately, Rumsfield) doesn't seem to be doing anything constructive. It looks like we've gotten into a rut, we're pouring money (and more important and worse, lives) down a rathole, and he isn't leveling with his own people about it. Instead, he & his admin are all singing 'don't worry be happy'. Well, it isn't THEIR kids that are over there, I've noticed.
24 - david r. mark
When Bush simplifies things to good vs. evil and us vs. them, he furthers a stereotype that conservatives falsely accuse liberals of making. That stereotype? "Red state Americans" are rubes, unable to handle the complexities of the world like liberals. Bush wanted to give the faithful red meat, and rather than break things down and explain, he treated the faithful like rubes, and made things overly simplistic.
Put simply, Bush mushes all the bad stuff under one "they" because it makes his case stronger. Even in a "short speech" -- and he set the time limit -- it weakens his argument to say that Al Qaeda attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001, and now we are trying to contain the Iraqi insurgency, which is trying to kill our soliders and innocent Iraqis, and includes some foreign fighters, some of whom may have ties to Al Qaeda or its affiliates. The proceeding sentence may be accurate, but it doesn't make for very convincing speechwriting.
The easier path -- the path that Bush took -- is to lump everyone togehter, regardless of the accuracy. This is not an accident. It's easier to sell good vs. evil -- with every evil combined into one great evil.
25 - david r. mark
Thanks for the compliment, legendarymonkey!!!