Bayou Calvinist

A Somewhat Eclectic Discussion by a Law Student Concerning All of Today's Major Topics, as well as, a Few Not So Major Topics

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Bush Spells it Out for the Hard of Learning

Bush said what needed to be said last night...Iraq is connected to September 11. As much as it pains those in the oposition to consider...Iraq is the central theater for the war on terror. If one believes that there should be a war on Islamo-fascism, then they must either find themselves thinking Iraq was a needed prerequisite to victory or a sad sideshow which has drawn away from the War on Terror. I think Bush stated his case very well last night. His oposition should either attempt to support their assertion that victory in Iraq is not necessary for victory against terror or they should be honest in admitting that either: they don't feel Islamo facism is a threat serious enough for the imposition of war or that they believe Bush is evil incarnate and Iraq was all for money, oil, revenge, etc... There can really be no other reason for disagreement (it's either based on strategic disagreement, disagreement on the objectives to be sought or pure unmitigated hatred of Bush). If Bush's speech wasn't up your alley which of these three reasons explains why?

For all right thnking people who wish a moments respite from today's insanity please re-read the President's speach: .

My point is perhaps better stated over at New Sisyphus. Here is an excerpt: thing one absolutely cannot do is deny the President the right to make his argument with reference to 9.11. Because it is in 9.11 that the President forged his central judgment: that a phenomenon previously thought to be a regrettable but constant in life—Islamic terrorism—has now shown itself ready, willing and able to represent an existential threat to the United States and that, therefore, it must be fought aggressively, while on the offensive, in a wide-ranging campaign to deny it sanctuary, succor and room for growth.Thus, for the NY Times and liberals at large to say that Iraq had “nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks,” is to miss the larger point the President is making, made last night and will continue to make for the rest of his term. Iraq is central to the President’s war aims in that he seeks to inject a radical new order in the heart of the Middle East, one that will present an alternative and democratic space that will deflate the appeal of the fascism that gave rise to 9.11 and similar attacks.For liberals to pretend not to understand all this—for them to lose their vaunted sense of nuance and understanding—reveals a profound and distasteful dishonesty on their part, as well as a whiff of desperation. Beyond indicting Bin Laden in District Court for the Southern District of New York, liberals have been without a strategic plan on how to win the War on Terror. In fact, they would deny such a war even exists.Such is their right. But their standard-bearer, Senator Kerry, took that argument to the American people a mere 7 months ago and they soundly rejected it in favor of the strategic vision advanced by President Bush and his team. Disagree with him, argue with him, advance a competing vision: that is the American way and we welcome it. But you cannot fence off 9.11 and declare it out-of-bounds in the President’s reasoning as to why we are in Iraq today.What is ironic in all this is that the President has been consistent on this point. Despite all the heavy-breathing, the liberal-left has been unable to come up with evidence to support its contention that the President has ever linked Iraq to the attacks on 9.11 in any way except in the sense we described above. Nor did he mention 9.11 a more than usual amount last night.Clearly, it’s Bush who has a problem with complex arguments and nuance and not, say, the editorial board of the New York Times.

Read the entire post here: .


Post a Comment

<< Home