Bush's 9/11 Speech

[AuLukey]

I'm actually surprised this topic hasn't been created as that speech was about twenty minutes ago so I guess I'll bring it up. I believe that Bush went about explaining the course of actions taken place over the last five years in a very diplomatic way. He managed to cover the issue and never point a finger at anybody except Al Qaeda and Saddam. I believe that mainly his purpose tonight was to fortify the coming elections for the Republicans by not creating any negative sentiment, but making sure the public knows that we are in Iraq and the Middle East for as long as it takes and pulling out now would defeat the entire purpose of what we have been doing these past five years. I'm not usually one to sit and even listen to Presidential speeches, especially lately, but I came out of this one with a sound mind that hey, we may as well stop complaining about the situation and try to make it better. What did you all get out of it?

[AlabamaGuy2007]

I'm actually surprised this topic hasn't been created as that speech was about twenty minutes ago so I guess I'll bring it up. I believe that Bush went about explaining the course of actions taken place over the last five years in a very diplomatic way. He managed to cover the issue and never point a finger at anybody except Al Qaeda and Saddam. I believe that mainly his purpose tonight was to fortify the coming elections for the Republicans by not creating any negative sentiment, but making sure the public knows that we are in Iraq and the Middle East for as long as it takes and pulling out now would defeat the entire purpose of what we have been doing these past five years. I'm not usually one to sit and even listen to Presidential speeches, especially lately, but I came out of this one with a sound mind that hey, we may as well stop complaining about the situation and try to make it better. What did you all get out of it?

I got from it exactly what you did. You explained it perfectly I think.

[Pillsbury]

Bush is a good speaker---not enough people give him credit for that. I saw the speech and thought it was okay. To me he really didn't tie the war in Iraq with the war against terrorism well enough and it seemed that was one of the major points of his speech. But I do agree with him: we're there and we need to win, not only for our sake but for the sake of that region. By the way, did anyone watch his interview with Katie Couric? I was watching and it was so weird, it was something like, "you know Katie, one of the hardest things for me to do is to try and connect the war in Iraq with September 11th." That took me back for a second. Anyway, I didn't think much of it until this weekend they were talking on t.v. about it again.

[monsoon]

..... but making sure the public knows that we are in Iraq and the Middle East for as long as it takes and pulling out now would defeat the entire purpose of what we have been doing these past five years. ....

Yeah it was clear what he was doing. He was trying to justify an unjust war by tying it to 9/11. He said that we should attack Iraq because of WMDS. There were none. Now amazingly he has some people convinced that somehow Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Yes Bush is a very good politician.

The fact of the matter the unprovoked war on Iraq by Bush has made terrorism worse because it has diverted resources away from fighting the terrorists. The unprovoked attack on Iraq by Bush had killed more than 100,000 people and more are dying every day. Why do people blindly support this?

I wonder why nobody asks Bush. "What is your definition of Victory". He has never answered that question. People naively supporting Bush honestly must have their head stuck in the sand because nothing he has said has turned out to be true. Oh and the reason that nobody here has started a topic before this on GW Bush is because they already know he is liar. Plain and simple.

I think this photo shows the true regard our President has for America, especially those who have lost their lives fighting for it.

[Gusterfell]

By the way, did anyone watch his interview with Katie Couric? I was watching and it was so weird, it was something like, "you know Katie, one of the hardest things for me to do is to try and connect the war in Iraq with September 11th."

That's not surprising, Mr. Bush, because there is no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

Using the fifth anniversary as yet another excuse to repeat the same tired catchphrases about his motivations for invading Iraq was entirely inappropriate. All he is trying to do is connect the two events in the public mind, hoping to increase public support of the occupation and, by extension, the Republican party.

He should have payed tribute to the heroes and victims of 9/11, and explained where we now stand on the hunt for BIN LADEN. To make Iraq a central point of the speech, as he does in every speech on every occasion, is no more than opportunism. Stop pandering and be a president, for once.

[lammius]

I didn't expect great things of the President's speech, so after Prison Break ended at 9:00 I walked up to Eagle Rock Reservation where the Essex County (NJ) 9-11 Memorial is to hold a candle and look east at the two beams of light shining up into space.

[runawayjim]

I think this photo shows the true regard our President has for America, especially those who have lost their lives fighting for it.

mark frauenfelder from boingboing had this to say: To paraphrase George Orwell: "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a shoe stamping on a symbol of freedom - forever."

[Charlotteman]

I didn't watch the speech, because I knew in advance Bushie didn't write the speech.

I would like to see an UNREHEARSED interview with the president. No notes. No questions given in advance.

Of course Bush is too dumb to function in an intellectual environment.

[Pillsbury]

That's not surprising, Mr. Bush, because there is no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

Using the fifth anniversary as yet another excuse to repeat the same tired catchphrases about his motivations for invading Iraq was entirely inappropriate. All he is trying to do is connect the two events in the public mind, hoping to increase public support of the occupation and, by extension, the Republican party.

He should have payed tribute to the heroes and victims of 9/11, and explained where we now stand on the hunt for BIN LADEN. To make Iraq a central point of the speech, as he does in every speech on every occasion, is no more than opportunism. Stop pandering and be a president, for once.

That's exactly what I thought!! I couldn't believe he just came out and said it. But one thing is certain, we would have not--or at least probably would not have---invaded Iraq had it not been for September 11th. I know a lot of people feel that Bush was gunning for Iraq since January of 2000, but I just don't think he would have the support without that event. So, I guess, to me it seems fitting for him to discuss the war in Iraq on this date. I did not support the war in Iraq. But September 11th was the catalyst to the Iraqi war and he owes us explanations-- a lot of explanations. Because at this point, we cannot simply just pull out. We owe it to those people and to our future generations to win this thing. We can only hope that what we're doing is the right thing even if it was done for the wrong reasons.

[Snowguy716]

That's exactly what I thought!! I couldn't believe he just came out and said it. But one thing is certain, we would have not--or at least probably would not have---invaded Iraq had it not been for September 11th. I know a lot of people feel that Bush was gunning for Iraq since January of 2000, but I just don't think he would have the support without that event. So, I guess, to me it seems fitting for him to discuss the war in Iraq on this date. I did not support the war in Iraq. But September 11th was the catalyst to the Iraqi war and he owes us explanations-- a lot of explanations. Because at this point, we cannot simply just pull out. We owe it to those people and to our future generations to win this thing. We can only hope that what we're doing is the right thing even if it was done for the wrong reasons.

Bush's buddies have been planning the removal of Saddam Hussein since 1992. Anyone heard of the "Project for the New American Century?" Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Jeb Bush got together in 1997 to make a plan that would seriously alter the Middle east. 18 people in this group wrote a letter to President Clinton in 1998 urging unilateral action against Iraq.

Here is some info from a design for "Rebuilding America's defenses" from the project:

"Indeed, the U.S has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

This was written in 2000.. more than a year before the 9/11 attacks.

10 of those 18 people have served in Bush's administration... most of them, obviously, in high positions.

I personally think the democrats most recent ad on national television said it best..

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democ...binLaden_6A.wmv

[Charlotte_native]

I want a definition of "win". If anyone would care to read the history of the Middle East from the time of the Pharoahs to today you would find a region that has always been at war. More specifically, especially in the Persian areas (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Isreal, Lebannon). There have been countless invasions, occupations, re-occupations (various Roman leaders over the years), and civil wars. The folks in the area are not going to wake up one day and "realize" the Americans are right and Democracy is what they need. It simply will not happen. They have fought off the Soviets most recently, colonial Europeans before them, Mongol occupiers, Romans, Crusaders...I'll stop. My issue isn't with conservatives or liberals for the area -- where are the realists?

There is no "cut and run" mentality that says get out. Eventually we will get out. If we have a propped up government we leave behind, like with did with the Shah in Iran or good ol' Saddam himself (put into power partly by the CIA), it will not last.

The problem we as Americans have now is debating about things we have no control over but think that we do. Compound that with every two years debating the same old tired debate so one side can try and edge power over the other makes it worse - we are in this for us, forget the arguements about women voting and new schools in Iraq -- we are not there for them and never were.

It is a losing battle, but I am not un-patriotic for saying so, it is simply the truth ignored by the power hungry we keep electing.

Seriously, read the history of the Middle East and see if the war we think is so new hasn't been going on since before Christ.

As for linking 9-11 to Iraq, that wasn't what his speech was supposed to be about, but it certainly was predictable.

[ironchapman]

A great speech

[monsoon]

Bush has called Iran the axis of evil and supporter of terrorists. Bush lied in the speach by attempting to link Saddam to the terrorists. It was not true.

But look who is shaking hands here just today. Bush's puppet is making deals with the President of the axis of evil. Maybe Hesbollah can come in now and straighten out the place. Bush's speach was great for lining up everyone against us.

[Snowguy716]

i really hope Kuwait, Iran, and other middle eastern countries can come in and help bring in peace.. but they also need to emphasize democracy.

[Charlotteman]

Snowguy, I'm afraid democracy would bring the Middle East an even worse Dark Age. Given the choice, I fear Muslims would vote for hard core theocracy.

[Pillsbury]

I want a definition of "win". If anyone would care to read the history of the Middle East from the time of the Pharoahs to today you would find a region that has always been at war. More specifically, especially in the Persian areas (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Isreal, Lebannon). There have been countless invasions, occupations, re-occupations (various Roman leaders over the years), and civil wars. The folks in the area are not going to wake up one day and "realize" the Americans are right and Democracy is what they need. It simply will not happen. They have fought off the Soviets most recently, colonial Europeans before them, Mongol occupiers, Romans, Crusaders...I'll stop. My issue isn't with conservatives or liberals for the area -- where are the realists?

There is no "cut and run" mentality that says get out. Eventually we will get out. If we have a propped up government we leave behind, like with did with the Shah in Iran or good ol' Saddam himself (put into power partly by the CIA), it will not last.

The problem we as Americans have now is debating about things we have no control over but think that we do. Compound that with every two years debating the same old tired debate so one side can try and edge power over the other makes it worse - we are in this for us, forget the arguements about women voting and new schools in Iraq -- we are not there for them and never were.

It is a losing battle, but I am not un-patriotic for saying so, it is simply the truth ignored by the power hungry we keep electing.

Seriously, read the history of the Middle East and see if the war we think is so new hasn't been going on since before Christ.

As for linking 9-11 to Iraq, that wasn't what his speech was supposed to be about, but it certainly was predictable.

One of the best posts I've read on Urban Planet, but now I'm depressed. I agree with you on everything except Bush's speech: I think Bush tried to relate everything he's done back to 9-11 and it doesn't surprise me. I don't agree with the reasons we went to war. I never agreed with going to war. I've been a critic of this president since he took office. I don't like him; I don't like his administration.

Everyone is saying we should pull out. But okay, what is our solution? What do we do? I'm up for suggestions here. If we can't stay over there because it's a losing cause, then what's America's best move in this whole thing?

Sometimes I just wish we could bring Saddam back.

[monsoon]

Everyone is saying we should pull out. But okay, what is our solution? What do we do? I'm up for suggestions here. If we can't stay over there because it's a losing cause, then what's America's best move in this whole thing?

The US Military has mostly already done this in the Anbar Province of Iraq. A details of a top secret military assessment of this province was revealed by the Washington Post. You can read about it here. Yesterday and today the Bush Administration has gone into full spin control to downplay the report as they do with all assessments of Iraq. It's a lost cause, the military has already given up on it and now Al Queda is filling the vacuum. The longer we stay the worse it gets. BTW, Anbar covers about 1/3 of the entire geography of Iraq.

The American people are just plain stupid and get what they deserve if they continue to support this administration and vote the republicans that support it. These politicians have failed 100 percent and people are dying because of it.

[Charlotte_native]

Everyone is saying we should pull out. But okay, what is our solution? What do we do? I'm up for suggestions here. If we can't stay over there because it's a losing cause, then what's America's best move in this whole thing?

Pull out the thorn, i.e. Bush, that inflames the Arab world. This will be a hard hard hard thing to fix, and it is funny because the people that didn't cause the problem are the ones being asked how to fix it and and are ridiculed if they can't come up with a solution. How do you fix something that politically, realistically, historically, and theorectically can't be fixed? I honestly think there is no solution. It is like tic-tac-toe when everyone knows the game, you can't win.

A change is the best way to START getting something done, staying the course will do literally that, keep us in the circle we are in now, fight more, ignite more, fight more, ignite more, spend more money, kill more people.

Our government uses the strategy of splitting the American people against each other to stay in power and stay in this war. In the least they should have attempted, at some point, to rally everyone at home -- like we have done in all previous wars other than Vietnam (see how it turned out?). Polarizing the population is something they are doing ON PURPOSE -- that is the last way to win a war. How about the old theory of reaching out and compromising? Show some level of ability to negotiate, isn't that what politicians are supposed to do? Fire Rumsfeld, I doubt anyone honestly thinks he has accomplished anything good -- the military even hates him.

[AuLukey]

This may be too dense of a question to ask, but I've always wondered it to myself. But since you brought it up CN, I figured I'd ask. Why is it, that in the thousands of years of wars all over the world, the only region that can't make peace is the Middle East? Why only there? Is it because that was the epicenter of three different religions' founding

[monsoon]

Well, I don't know if you could compare pre-WWII history to what is going on in the Middle East now. However its clear that religion did spark a huge number of wars there in history including the numerous bloody crusades the Catholic church launched against the Muslems in after the fall of the Roman Empire and up to the Reformation of the 1600s.

The present middle east is mostly a creation of post WWII politics where the main controversy was the creation of Israel by the winning parties of the War, namely the USA, France, Britian and the USSR and the setting up of various dictators that were either friendly to the USA or the USSR. A proxy war between the USSR and the USA was fought there during the Cold War and is this was responsible for much of the conflict there in the last 1/2 of the 20th century. Both superpowers armed the middle east with weapons.

It's obvious now that most of the interest in the region remains the protection of Israel and of course control over the vast oil wealth there. Through out this entire history it really boils down to the governments of Europe and the USA being involved in every major war that has taken place in the middle east. The only exception to this was the Iran/Iraq war but even this war was made possible by the USA and USSR selling arms to these countries so they could fight it.

It should be noted the only serious peace treaty to have been signed in modern times, was the peace treaty brokered by the former USA President Jimmy Carter where Egypt and Israel laied down arms and established diplomatic relations. He later won the noble peace prize for this and that peace lasts even today. IMO, Jimmy Carter was the last great president of the USA who actually cared for the the plight of the common person. He will be interviewed on Larry King Live tonight and I recommend that all of you watch it if you want to see a president that you can be proud of.

[Charlotte_native]

This may be too dense of a question to ask, but I've always wondered it to myself. But since you brought it up CN, I figured I'd ask. Why is it, that in the thousands of years of wars all over the world, the only region that can't make peace is the Middle East? Why only there? Is it because that was the epicenter of three different religions' founding

[Gusterfell]

This may be too dense of a question to ask, but I've always wondered it to myself. But since you brought it up CN, I figured I'd ask. Why is it, that in the thousands of years of wars all over the world, the only region that can't make peace is the Middle East? Why only there? Is it because that was the epicenter of three different religions' founding’s. If so religious, you would think they would have found a way from the start to maintain peace. It has always purely amazed me that over the millions of things we can fight over, the most prominent has always been that patch of sand.

You are partially correct in saying that the Middle East is so violent because all three major religions want control of Jerusalem. Hard-line fundamentalists of all three faiths believe theirs alone is correct, and that they must drive "unbelievers" from their holy land. Add to that religious powder keg the fact that the modern political divisions in the Middle East were drawn by colonial powers from Europe, with no regard for social, religious, and ethnic divisions in those territories, and you have a recipe for a turbulent region. Then give some countries in that region a large percentage of the world's oil deposits, and peace becomes nearly impossible to acheive.

I disagree, though, that it is "only the Middle East" that cannot acheive peace. There are currently dozens of conflicts in southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Thay simply don't get covered in American media because those regions aren't as politically important to us as the Middle East.

[Charlotte_native]

I disagree, though, that it is "only the Middle East" that cannot acheive peace. There are currently dozens of conflicts in southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Thay simply don't get covered in American media because those regions aren't as politically important to us as the Middle East.

Actually I thought about this after my last post. There are plenty of areas where peace is hard to find. But it seems other areas will have longer periods of peace than there ever is in the Middle East. It seems the Middle East is, and always has been, on the verge of war. Vast parts of Europe, North America, Russia, and parts of Asia are less of a powder keg.

The problem today is it seems our administration didn't look very far back at this history and holds ideals that are at best naive. To keep preaching about bringing democracy and eliminating terrorists and bringing peace to the region makes it all sound so simple when it is really too complex for any of us to figure out. There is absolutely no simple solution -- but we do know brute force and bombs won't make it happen. That is what every conquerer in the past tried. All failed eventually.

If the Middle East didn't have oil no one would care, that is the only reason they are politically important to us - wall the place off and let'em fight it out. Unfortunately they have what we want and that also brings them lots and lots of money to buy bombs, to plant terror cells with cash to survive for years before striking. No one would have ever thought Saddam had WMD's if we didn't think he could afford them.

Cut off their supply of money you would do a world of good in truly fighting terrorists, but we'll never sacrifice like that -- the American Way is to drive big and fast -- all the while that cash is pouring over to our "enemies".

[AuLukey]

Actually I thought about this after my last post. There are plenty of areas where peace is hard to find. But it seems other areas will have longer periods of peace than there ever is in the Middle East. It seems the Middle East is, and always has been, on the verge of war. Vast parts of Europe, North America, Russia, and parts of Asia are less of a powder keg.

Exactly, I'm not saying there isn't war in other parts of the world. It's just that through the ages, it's hard to really even point out an entirely peaceful decade, much less a year of peace in the Middle East.

It's not as if Iraq wasn't a bigger, more powerful version of Afghanistan and we can just say "ok you're a democracy, be happy." I honestly don't think they will ever just bend over and take it like that. It would take the entirety of the U.N. to do the same to Iran if they someday push their leverage a little too far.

And on a sort of pro-Iraqi war twist here, I've had several friends that have come back from Iraq that have reported that most of the stuff on TV that you see is the out of scale, blown up version of the real situation the people there are going through. They said that people would line the streets and cheer for them in some cities when they'd come through. I guess that doesn't make as good of a news story as suffering though. Maybe the media should come back to our country and video suffering in America and make it seem like the whole country is that way too. Yes a lot of people have died "in result" of the war (included in media figures are heart attacks,) but a lot of people die in America on a daily basis due to physical conflict and yet those figures aren't making headlines. This may be crude, but if a father receives news that his son died in Iraq and he then has a heart attack, is that a casualty of war?

[Gusterfell]

And on a sort of pro-Iraqi war twist here, I've had several friends that have come back from Iraq that have reported that most of the stuff on TV that you see is the out of scale, blown up version of the real situation the people there are going through. They said that people would line the streets and cheer for them in some cities when they'd come through. I guess that doesn't make as good of a news story as suffering though. Maybe the media should come back to our country and video suffering in America and make it seem like the whole country is that way too.

Sure, our troops have been greeted warmly by minority groups that were repressed by Saddam's regime. These people are just that: a minority. Poll after poll, from source after source, indicates that most Iraqis felt better off under Saddam.

I'd take reports from returning soldiers with a grain of salt. An individual soldier's personal experience is necessarily limited to the few areas to which he was personally assigned. Reports he receives from other parts of the country are suspect because the military only tells the troops what it wants them to know about the big picture. Finally, if he is himself enthusiastic about the mission (as military personnel are groomed to be), he may well downplay the negative aspects he sees and exaggerate the positives.

When a wide variety of media outlets, from around the globe and with a range of perspectives, say the same thing, I tend to give that more credence than a few foot soldiers and their commander in chief saying the opposite. Who has more to lose if the other side is telling the truth?