The President's Speech
The legion of the predictably, perpetually concerned have their undies in a knot over the 9/11 references in the President's speech last night.
Andrew McCarthy eats them for breakfast in this bruising NRO piece.
Key bit:
If the president is guilty of anything, it's not that he's dwelling on 9/11 enough. It's that the administration has not done a good enough job of probing and underscoring the nexus between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda. It is absolutely appropriate, it is vital, for him to stress that connection. This is still the war on terror, and Iraq, where the terrorists are still arrayed against us, remains a big part of that equation.
And not just because every jihadist with an AK-47 and a prayer rug has made his way there since we invaded. No, it’s because Saddam made Iraq their cozy place to land long before that. They are fighting effectively there because they’ve been invited to dig in for years.
The president needs to be talking about Saddam and terror because that’s what will get their attention in Damascus and Teheran. It’s not about the great experiment in democratization — as helpful as it would be to establish a healthy political culture in that part of the world. It’s about making our enemies know we are coming for them if they abet and harbor and promote and plan with the people who are trying to kill us.
On that score, nobody should worry about anything the Times or David Gergen or Senator Reid has to say about all this until they have some straight answers on questions like these. What does the “nothing whatsoever” crowd have to say about...:
McCarthy goes on to document
twenty separate pieces of evidence - a "preponderance of evidence" - of links between Al Quaeda and Hussein.
Which leads to another post I'll hope to get to tomorrow...
Posted by Mitch at
June 29, 2005 12:56 PM
| TrackBack
Linky?
Posted by: Pious Agnostic at June 29, 2005 02:35 PMSorry. It's there now.
Posted by: mitch at June 29, 2005 03:52 PMIn almost every case where the President mentions 9/11, his point is: after 9/11 we understand that we can't just sit around and wait for terrorist plots to develop. We've learned that we need to be proactive, and militarily preemptive even, when other means have failed. And proactive can mean lots of things: cutting financial support, putting diplomatic pressure on countries that harbor, offer rewards to locals who cooperate in captures, or just small covert ops. The lesson of 9/11 is that we need to handle these things upstream from ourselves before they get to us.
Posted by: RBMN at June 29, 2005 07:34 PMNo one's listening anymore.
Say goodnight Gracie.
Posted by: Dan at June 29, 2005 08:17 PMNobody but the 2,000 visitors I get per day. Otherwise, yep, nobody.
Or were you talking about yourself?
Posted by: Mitch at June 29, 2005 09:13 PMWonder what the NR would have said about this issue back in the days of real conservatives like Russel Kirk, James G. Burnham and Frank Meyer?
Unfortunately, save for Buckley on occasions, the whole mob is nothing more than running dogs for the Republican party establishment.
The argument quoted as conclusive with twenty or thirty or fifty connections between Saddam and Osama is just wonderful - great, Saddam is out, Saddam is locked up, the regime is gone. We have done the world a favor, and the Iraqis a favor. Now we owe these wogs something? We have to protect them, and make them pure and wholesome and democratic? What the hell else are we talking about? We owe them nothing.
As for this continuous bloviating about the WTC casualties, so what? If you want to be the big dog in the world - like a lot of others I won't name - you will take some civilian casualties. Quit whining.
regards,
bobbythehat
Posted by: bobbythehat at June 29, 2005 10:14 PMI was refering to the pResident. Not you.
You really need to learn some humility.
BTW, how's it going detailing those alleged push polling questions for me?
Back to Bush's speech?
We're at war with Eurasia. We've always been at war with Eurasia.
Now Winston, get back to work.
Posted by: Dan at June 29, 2005 10:41 PMpResident?
Man, I loved early 2001. I kind of wish I could live there forever.
Posted by: Jerry Leigh at June 30, 2005 02:33 AMa preponderance of questions and allegations is more like it.
like I said on NP - Bush's speech was a repeat.
Posted by: Chuck Olsen at June 30, 2005 03:35 AM"BTW, how's it going detailing those alleged push polling questions for me?"
Better than you think. Maybe today, maybe tomorrow, maybe Monday.
It's going to be fuuuuun.
-29 points for misapplied Orwell quote.
Chuck,
"Bush's speech was a repeat."
Churchill's Dunkirk speech was in essence a repeat of his Narvik speech. Both were needed.
Posted by: mitch at June 30, 2005 07:17 AMMitch, You really shouldn't need that much time to explain why any one of those questions is leading.
Also, technically, I'm not quoting Orwell. I'm simply referencing a line from 1984 and it is applied correctly.
Listen for the Bush version, "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them on our shores."
In other words, we either stay the course in Iraq or we WILL be hit again.
In other words, we afraid America... Be very afraid.
Bush said it at least twice and then Simple Scotty was rolled out to repeat their new mantra.
The ironic part is that Bush will drag your entire political structure down but you're too brainwashed to see it.
Bush is creating more terrorists in Iraq while at the same time losing Republicans here at home.
Remember when he campaigned as a uniter, not a divider?
Well, the world is uniting against the US and he is 100% responsible. Way to go!
Posted by: Dan at June 30, 2005 05:41 PMcsThis is very sadly, but such resource are exists: mexican ass
Posted by: mara at May 5, 2006 05:40 AMhttp://anal.more-chicks.com/
free anal s3x movies
http://anal.more-chicks.com/free-anal-s3x-movies.html
whipped ass
http://anal.more-chicks.com/whipped-ass.html
anal penetration
http://anal.more-chicks.com/anal-penetration.html
fine ass
http://anal.more-chicks.com/fine-ass.html