As a response to Bush’s speech, this sums things up nicely (as well as Durbin’s response). Yesterday, though, I heard a little snippet of Bush’s speech to a group of troops. There, he said that Americans had forgotten that we are in a critical battle (or something to that effect) and insinuated that Americans had forgotten 9/11. That is the main piece I feel a need to respond to.
Particularly annoying to me was the allusion that our annoyance with Bush’s performance in Iraq is the result of ignoring the threat of terrorism. This is such an amazing piece of rubbish that sinks Bush to a new low. He seems hell-bent on ensuring that he doesn’t have a shred of credibility or respect left when he leaves office. Sorry about the digression…
It’s been clear for anyone who has any connection to reality that Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism; at least not initially. Even now, Al Queda and other terrorist organizations are rather small operators (with increasing political clout).
As this FactCheck piece points out, corruption is perhaps the most critical driver in this madness. Ironically, it’s also helps drive people into the arms of the extremists (it was what made the Taliban initially popular in Afghanistan, and what drives those still supporting them). It’s easy to dive into a diatribe about Bush’s links to Halliburton, etc, with this thread, but I’ll resist.
One other point that I would like someone to consider is our insistence on “going it alone” (sure, with the Brits, Australians and other forces of the willing, but really…). To me, the most obvious “escalation” would have been to bring in other nations. That would have been a key way to provide legitimacy to the occupation forces.
The way through and out of this mess is convoluted and complex, just the sort of notion that someone like Bush would pooh-pooh. I find this particularly troublesome. At some point we need to ask for help. Sadly, I’m becoming convinced that the Iraq conflict won’t be resolved until Bush is out of office.