Let's forget Bush for a moment. George W. Bush is a very odd vessel for what is the most important message of our time: that there are implacable forces in the world that hate us, our way of life, our vibrant culture, our personal freedom, and those forces will do all they can to kill us. This is a real war. There are various sources of this ideology, but they are quite willing to set aside their differences to act against us, "the enemy of my enemy" and all.
These forces share - or in the case of Saddam, at least paid/pay lip-sevice to - a constricted, debased form of exceptionalist Islam, a demand for absolute theocracy, the predominance of the theocratic state over the individual, and a messianic requirement to convert or kill every human being on earth who does not bend to their will. The United States, representing the apex of all they hate most, including the force to hold back their aspirations to world domination - and this isn't the slightest exaggeration - is their primary target, but proxy targets are perfectly legitimate, as the president stated last night:
- Now is the time, and Iraq is the place, in which the enemies of the civilized world are testing the will of the civilized world. We must not waver.
The violence we are seeing in Iraq is familiar. The terrorists who take hostages or plants a roadside bomb near Baghdad is serving the same ideology of murder that kills innocent people on trains in Madrid, and murders children on buses in Jerusalem, and blows up a nightclub in Bali and cuts the throat of a young reporter for being a Jew.
We've seen the same ideology of murder in the killing of 241 Marines in Beirut, the first attack on the World Trade Center, in the destruction of two embassies in Africa, in the attack on the USS Cole, and in the merciless horror inflicted upon thousands of innocent men and women and children on September the 11th, 2001.
None of these acts is the work of a religion. All are the work of a fanatical political ideology. The servants of this ideology seek tyranny in the Middle East and beyond. They seek to oppress and persecute women.
They seek the death of Jews and Christians and every Muslim who desires peace over theocratic terror. They seek to intimidate America into panic and retreat, and to set free nations against each other. And they seek weapons of mass destruction, to blackmail and murder on a massive scale.
Over the last several decades, we've seen that any concession or retreat on our part will only embolden this enemy and invite more bloodshed. And the enemy has seen, over the last 31 months, that we will no longer live in denial or seek to appease them.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Doc
Uh oh...someone drank the Kool Aid.
>EVERYONE believed had weapons of mass >destruction.
If by EVERYONE, you mean everyone BUT the UN Inspectors who had actually been there and our own CIA then I guess you might have a point...a hyperbolic one though.
2 - Eric Olsen
While his entire case would be much more securely supported and his veracity would certainly be less questioned if we had found WMD, my point is that the WMD ARE NOT the central point in any of this. Their existence remains an open question, by the way.
3 - NC
Once again, we're treated to the comic spectacle of Eric patiently trying to reason with the BC inmates. Good luck, big guy!
4 - Eric Olsen
I do it for my own benefit and for the benefit of those not bound by ideology - I know you're out there. this speech was to the wavering middle and I think it was very effective in that regard.
5 - Hal Pawluk
"Let's forget Bush for a moment."
Would that one could.
6 - mike
Don't forget about those civilian casualties we're committing in Iraq. When you're blinded by prowar ideology, atrocity in the name of democracy is no vice.
7 - Joe
How'd that trip to Israel work out for you, mike?
8 - mike
this summer, baby.
9 - NC
Good point. I've often wondered why our guys don't strap a few American women and children to the sides of their vehicles when they roll into battle. It might make Iraqis less likely to fire at them; and if they did fire, hey, it'd be the Iraqis' fault for targeting civilians. Right? The atrocity thing works both ways, right?
10 - Shark
Eric, you know I hate the singer, but I also don't agree with the lyrics of the song; in particular:
"Now is the time, and Iraq is the place.."
Now is the time; Afghanistan was the place.
BTW: many recent reports, including a few articles in recent New Yorker, report that almost all experts, authorities, and soldiers warn that Afghanistan is about one click away from being LOST.
Taliban ~ They're baaaaaaaaack.
11 - Kathy K
"...a messianic requirement to convert or kill every human being on earth who does not bend to their will."
You forgot 'enslave'.
12 - Syl
Wonderful post, Eric. But, as you can tell from some of the comments, some folks are still in denial.
Bush has the gift of clear vision and purpose that we need in a leader. Any nits I may have to pick with him pale by comparison.
13 - Mark Saleski
i don't think pres. bush has the 'vision' of anything. it seems like most of his thoughts come from the handlers.
this doesn't change the importance and danger of the current situation...though why people are comforted by having this kind of man in change is fricken beyond me.
i guess i'm still in denial.
14 - Hal Pawluk
"Bush has the gift of clear vision and purpose that we need in a leader."
ROFL. Thanks, I needed that.
15 - V from VJ
"Resolve" is not a plan.
16 - Mark Edward Manning
I think Bush was wrong to say blame it on a "fanatical political ideology." Of course it's religious-based terror. Always has been, always will be. When even Bush gives in to the politically correct, "Islam is a religion of peace" malarkey, you know the fight against terror has gone awry.
17 - Eric Olsen
MEM, As I see it, the problem is a fanatical element within the religion that seeks to turn their version of the religion into a political movement.
18 - Mark Edward Manning
I spoke too harshly, Eric. I only need to think of the Afghans' reaction to the smashing of the Taliban to know that not all of Islam is bad. There are, of course, moderates who tie their individuality up with their religion, thus being able to keep it in perspective. What I meant to say, really, is that it is still a religious fight. It is not politically driven. This is a clash of fundamental religious beliefs. Arguing the merits of liberal vs. conservative -- that's political. Fighting this terror goes way above and beyond that.
19 - Dawn
Excellent post. I think what you said about this speaking to the "wavering middle" America is on the mark.
I was listening to NPR yesterday as they were discussing the 9/11 commission. They had an expert on there discussing the soon to be completed missile defense program.
Imagine if you will, if the terrorists who used our planes against us on 9/11 had ICBM's instead. It's plausible, it's conceivable, and above all it's deeply disturbing. I decided then and there that Bush was getting my vote in 2004.
As much as I disagree with Bush on many of his domestic policies, they are ALL secondary to the West's security and my family's personal safety.
9/11 changed everything, and it may be some time before I (and many Americans) will ever feel truly safe.
Without Bush and his mindset of destroying the infrastucture of terrorism, that day might NEVER come.
We must stay on target, and as you said, not waver. The entire freedom of the world is at stake.
20 - Eric Olsen
Dawn, you and your firm resolve rock.
21 - mike
"9/11 changed everything"
Including, apparently, your ability to think for yourself.
22 - Eric Olsen
What's really pretty funny and quite ironic about the whole "party line" "administration mouthpiece" "think for yourself" line of reasoning, is that Dawn, I and a very large number of other people were mor or less liberal and certainly not Republican prior to 9/11. I have still never voted for a Republican presidential candidate - so the path we have followed since 9/11 is about as close a definition of "thinking for oneself" as one could ask for.
23 - Tim
Unbelievable. Some people hate Bush so much, they'll elect a president who'll give the terrorists a pass. Hopefully they're in the minority. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
24 - Shark
As if the Dems aren't concerned about National Security... oy.
What's really ironic is Dawn's children and grandchildren will be paying for Bush's actions well into the future: re. air, water, environment, deficits, etc etc.
Think for youself, but don't forget the kids.
The future... y'know...
fer kids.
25 - P6
Seperating the message from the messenger. Why not? It worked for Louis Farrakhan...
Now the question, the one with bearing on the election, is why is it a part of the war on terror? Was it necessary that Iraq be part of the war on terror? And if not do you want to keep those who made it so in the driver's seat.Yo know Eric, I totally agree that we need to deal with terrorism effectively. and I agree with this precise phrasing:
The reasons you give for staying the course have nothing to do with the reasons given for starting out on the course. We all know we're not leaving Iraq for quite a while, no matter who wins the election so we should just stop pussyfooting around with that. Just accept it and decide how to handle it. To me, the first step is to get someone in there running things whose judgement I trust. That's not Bush.