[Peace-discuss] Bush gives important speech

[C. G. Estabrook]

Consisting primarily of two words: "al Qaida." 95 times in fact. 
Speaking to his usual audience today (a captive and presumably 
supportive crowd on an Air Force Base), Bush launched a major offensive 
aimed at supporting the contention that Iraq really is the "central 
front in the war on terror" and that the people the U.S. is fighting in 
Iraq really are "the same people who attacked us on 9/11" (and no, even 
I don't think Bush thinks they're really the exact same people, but he 
does think and claim that they're part of the same organization).

This paragraph, from the end, pretty much sums up the speech:

     "I've explained the connection between al Qaida and its Iraqi 
affiliate. I presented intelligence that clearly establishes this 
connection. The facts are that al Qaida terrorists killed Americans on 
9/11, they're fighting us in Iraq and across the world, and they are 
plotting to kill Americans here at home again. Those who justify 
withdrawing our troops from Iraq by denying the threat of al Qaida in 
Iraq and its ties to Osama bin Laden ignore the clear consequences of 
such a retreat. If we were to follow their advice, it would be dangerous 
for the world -- and disastrous for America. We will defeat al Qaida in 
Iraq."

There were, as you might imagine, more than a few holes in the speech, 
starting with the fact that quite a few paragraphs in which the 
justification (that al Qaida in Iraq and al Qaida "central" are really 
the same thing) was supported began with these words: "According to our 
intelligence community." Of course this is the same intelligence 
community which was not just convinced, but, at least as far as their 
opinions were conveyed to the American public by the Bush 
administration, were convinced with absolute certainty that Iraq had 
weapons of mass destruction (and I remind readers that not only didn't 
they have WMD, they didn't even have any weapons of mass destruction 
programs, which was the fallback position), and were convinced with 
absolute certainty that Iraq had a close relationship with al Qaida. So 
any sentence beginning with the words "according to our intelligence 
community," has to be treated with an entire salt pond full of salt. 
Bush's claim that he "presented intelligence that clearly establishes 
this connection" would better be stated as that he "asserted that 
intelligence clearly establishes this connection."

But, as much as I could poke holes in the speech, that's not the 
fundamental problem with it. The fundamental problem is precisely the 
"we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over 
here" mentality. Imagine if two thugs from rival mobs came into your 
house and started a knock-down, drag-out fight, destroying your 
furniture, knocking holes in the walls, killing your children ("by 
accident"), and when you went to the one who claimed he was on "your 
side" and asked him what he was doing, he said, "I'm fighting this guy 
here so I don't have to fight him in my house." Well, thanks an effing 
lot, pal! Chances are rather than being grateful for that, you'd wait 
until he wasn't looking and pop him one.

Iraqis have as much right to life as Americans do! And day after day 
after day, forgetting entirely (although how could you) about the Iraqis 
(not to mention Afghans) being killed by American bombs, another hundred 
or so Iraqis are being killed by suicide (and remote control) bombers, 
which are the direct consequence of the great "flypaper" theory that 
Bush was praising in his speech. "The homeland" may have been spared any 
terrorist attacks since 2003, but two other "homelands" are taking it on 
the chin instead. And to Bush, and to far too many others, this is a 
perfectly moral alternative. And even of the others who object, it's not 
because they object to the Iraqis being killed instead of "us," but 
because they don't believe (with good reason) that the members of "al 
Qaida in Iraq" would be headed for our shores were American troops to 
leave Iraq.

There is one nice strawman paragraph I'd like to quote:

     "Some note that al Qaida in Iraq did not exist until the U.S. 
invasion -- and argue that it is a problem of our own making. The 
argument follows the flawed logic that terrorism is caused by American 
actions. Iraq is not the reason that the terrorists are at war with us. 
We were not in Iraq when the terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 
1993. We were not in Iraq when they attacked our embassies in Kenya and 
Tanzania. We were not in Iraq when they attacked the USS Cole in 2000. 
And we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001." [No, the US was 
just killing more than a million Iraqis -- a half million of them 
children -- with the sanctions imposed by Clinton-Blair, which UN 
officials labeled "genocide."]

No George, Iraq is not the reason that "the terrorists" are at war with 
us. Have you forgotten that what Osama bin Laden claims to object to is 
the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia (and the Middle East in 
general), and the Israeli occupation of, and the American support for 
the occupation of, Palestine? No, I doubt he has, but he certainly 
wasn't going to mention it either.

Two other things he didn't mention, which is interesting because this 
was a long speech - 3631 words. But of those, the words "Iran" and 
"Pakistan" do not appear at all. Iran, because this speech was all al 
Qaida all the time, and the American people can't handle two bogeymen at 
the same time, at least not in the same speech. But Pakistan is an even 
more curious omission, especially considering the nexus for the entire 
policy which is contained in this statement:

     "If we were to allow this to happen [by leaving Iraq], sectarian 
violence in Iraq could increase dramatically, raising the prospect of 
mass casualties. Fighting could engulf the entire region in chaos, and 
we would soon face a Middle East dominated by Islamic extremists who 
would pursue nuclear weapons, and use their control of oil for economic 
blackmail or to fund new attacks on our nation."

I'll skip the part where Bush predicts the future; his success at that 
in the past has been non-existent. But the part about nuclear weapons is 
the interesting bit. Because the prospect of "Islamic extremists" 
getting their hands on nuclear weapons is at least an order of magnitude 
higher, and probably more, due to the fall of the Pakistani government 
than to some other government (an al Qaida led Iraq) developing them. 
Look at how the U.S. and Israel are threatening to bomb Iran because 
they claim Iran is developing nuclear weapons. But they're holding off, 
not just because they're tied down in Iraq, but because Iran is a major 
power, with a large army and plenty of armaments. Now contrast that to 
some mythical al Qaida government, which will not own a single plane, a 
single attack helicopter, a single tank, etc., and if they ever so much 
as spell the word "nuclear" on a blackboard, the U.S. and its allies 
would bomb them to kingdom-come (indeed, if al Qaida were to come to 
power in Iraq, that would happen anyway, nuclear weapons being developed 
or no). I'll leave it to readers to judge if this is all just a cover 
story, and if that "control of oil" is what this is really all about.

But back to Pakistan. Lots of people have been (rightfully) worried 
about a U.S. attack on Iran, but in the last few days we've heard 
increasing talk of the U.S. sending troops to Pakistan, and I think 
that's far more likely. Remember that sending troops into another 
country to attack al Qaida (and topple the host government in the 
process) was a "no-brainer" for the U.S.; and now we're told (and it 
might actually be true) that al Qaida is in Pakistan, and we know the 
central government of that country can't do anything about it, so surely 
the case for sending troops there is just as high, especially because 
they'll be "invited" there by our ally (the one with his arm twisted 
behind his back). And Bush would probably perceive it as immensely 
helpful to the Republican cause in the next election as well.

--<http://lefti.blogspot.com/>