Redstate

By Mark I Posted in User Blogs — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Today, appropriately at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, President Bush delivered his fourth and final speech in a series of speeches leading up to tomorrow's historic Parliamentary elections in Iraq.  

The speech was a triumph.

In it, the president capitalized on the momentum he has built for himself with the previous three speeches, and drove home his points with characteristic optimism.

Read on... The president stated early in this address that he would discuss why the United States went to war in Iraq, why we stayed there, and why we will continue to stay until victory is achieved.  He wasted no time in answering the first question:

We saw the future the terrorists intend for our nation on that fateful morning of September the 11th, 2001. That day we learned that vast oceans and friendly neighbors are no longer enough to protect us. September the 11th changed our country; it changed the policy of our government. We adopted a new strategy to protect the American people: We would hunt down the terrorists wherever they hide; we would make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them; and we would advance our security at home by advancing freedom in the Middle East.

September the 11th also changed the way I viewed threats like Saddam Hussein. We saw the destruction terrorists could cause with airplanes loaded with jet fuel -- and we imagined the destruction they could cause with even more powerful weapons. At the time, the leaders of both political parties recognized this new reality: We cannot allow the world's most dangerous men to get their hands on the world's most dangerous weapons. In an age of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, if we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.

We removed Saddam Hussein from power because he was a threat to our security. He had pursued and used weapons of mass destruction. He sponsored terrorists. He ordered his military to shoot at American and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones. He invaded his neighbors. He fought a war against the United States and a broad coalition. He had declared that the United States of America was his enemy.

Over the course of a decade, Saddam Hussein refused to comply with more than a dozen United Nations resolutions -- including demands that he respect the rights of the Iraqi people, disclose his weapons, and abide by the terms of a 1991 cease-fire. He deceived international inspectors, and he denied them the unconditional access they needed to do their jobs. When a unanimous Security Council gave him one final chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences, he refused to comply with that final opportunity. At any point along the way, Saddam Hussein could have avoided war by complying with the just demands of the international community. The United States did not choose war -- the choice was Saddam Hussein's.

This won't satisfy the president's critics, however.  They will continue to whine that the president's stated reasons for the war were much more reliant on the WMD argument that on any notions of spreading democracy.  They, of course, will resist any attempt to portray Saddam Hussein as bearing the ultimate responsibility for the war.  Saddam is not on the ballot in 2006, but the president's party is.  No, the responsibility for the war is all President Bush's because BUSH LIED! about the WMD.

The president had an answer for that as well.  Media reports on the speech have focused on the following quote:

When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As President, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq...

What they have largely ignored is what comes after the ellipses:

...and I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that. At the same time, we must remember that an investigation after the war by chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer found that Saddam was using the U.N. oil-for-food program to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions, with the intent of restarting his weapons programs once the sanctions collapsed and the world looked the other way. Given Saddam's history and the lessons of September the 11th, my decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Saddam was a threat -- and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power.

Look for the Democrats to respond that this statement in itself is a lie.  They will cite David Kay's Iraq Survey Group report that found no evidence of large WMD stockpiles or active WMD programs.  They will look awful small and petty in the process.  They will also say that our presence in Iraq is creating more terrorists and has therefore made us less safe.  Again, the president has his answer ready.

First, the president went on to restate some of the highlights from his previous three speeches.  He stressed that while our tactics in Iraq have changed with events, our overall goal of leaving behind a stable, democratic, free Iraq has not.  He recounted the history Japan after World War II as an example of successful nation building by the United States.  He touted the Iraqi Constitution with its guarantees of freedoms of assembly, speech and the press, respect for women's rights, the right to vote, and private property rights.  He cited challenges that will face Iraq even after the new government is seated.  Then he turned his attention back to his critics and the "Bush created terrorism" meme.

What follows is the strongest response I have seen, by the president, to the contention that terrorism is fueled by American actions in the Middle East.

Today there's an intense debate about the importance of Iraq to the war on terror. The constant headlines about car bombings and killings have led some to ask whether our presence in Iraq has made America less secure. This view presumes that if we were not in Iraq, the terrorists would be leaving us alone. The reality is that the terrorists have been targeting America for years, long before we ever set foot in Iraq.

We were not in Iraq in 1993, when the terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Center in New York. We were not in Iraq in 1998, when the terrorists bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. We were not in Iraq in 2000, when the terrorists killed 17 American sailors aboard the USS Cole. There wasn't a single American soldier in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001, when the terrorists murdered nearly 3,000 people in the worst attack on our home since Pearl Harbor. [snip]

Some in Washington are calling for a rapid and complete withdrawal of our forces in Iraq. They say that our presence there is the cause for instability in Iraq, and that the answer is to set a deadline to withdraw. I disagree. I've listened carefully to all the arguments, and there are four reasons why I believe that setting an artificial deadline would be a recipe for disaster.

First, setting an artificial deadline would send the wrong message to the Iraqis. As Iraqis are risking their lives for democracy, it would tell them that America is more interested in leaving than helping them succeed, put at risk all the democratic progress they have made over the past year.

Secondly, setting an artificial deadline would send the wrong message to the enemy. It would tell them that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run. It would vindicate the terrorists' tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder. It would embolden the terrorists and invite new attacks on America.

Third, setting an artificial deadline would send the wrong message to the region and the world. It would tell our friends and supporters that America is a weak and unreliable ally, and that when the going gets tough, America will retreat.

Finally, setting an artificial deadline would send the wrong message to the most important audience -- our troops on the front line. It would tell them that America is abandoning the mission they are risking their lives to achieve, and that the sacrifice of their comrades killed in this struggle has been in vain. I make this pledge to the families of the fallen: We will carry on the fight, we will complete their mission, and we will win.

President Bush has drawn a clear distinction between himself and his opponents.  The president claims the mantle of optimism.  A can-do spirit that most of America can identify with.  The Democrats are left to cater to those in our society who see America as the ultimate source of her own ills.  A nation that does damage to herself and other nations by acting in her own self interest.  

And now that the president has boxed them into their position, he ties the Democrats to their extreme left wing support base.

One of the blessings of our free society is that we can debate these issues openly, even in a time of war. Most of the debate has been a credit to our democracy, but some have launched irresponsible charges. They say that we act because of oil, that we act in Iraq because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. Some of the most irresponsible comments about manipulating intelligence have come from politicians who saw the same intelligence we saw, and then voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein. These charges are pure politics. They hurt the morale of our troops. Whatever our differences in Washington, our men and women in uniform deserve to know that once our politicians vote to send them into harm's way, our support will be with them in good days and bad, and we will settle for nothing less than complete victory. (emphasis mine)

I have no doubt that the president is seeking to place Democratic critics of the handling of pre-war intelligence with the likes of moveon.org, Cindy Sheehan, ANSWER, United for Peace and Justice, and other far left fringe groups who have made "war for oil" and "war for Israel" hallmarks of their protests in Washington.  

He drives this point home with the very dramatic and touching story of a war hero.

The work ahead will also require continued sacrifice. Yet we can be confident, because history has shown the power of freedom to overcome tyranny. And we can be confident because we have on our side the greatest force for freedom in human history: the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.

One of these men was a Marine lieutenant named Ryan McGlothlin, from Lebanon, Virginia. Ryan was a bright young man who had everything going for him and he always wanted to serve our nation. He was a valedictorian of his high school class. He graduated from William & Mary with near-perfect grade averages, and he was on a full scholarship at Stanford, where he was working toward a doctorate in chemistry.

Two years after the attacks of September the 11th, the young man who had the world at his feet came home from Stanford for a visit. He told his dad, "I just don't feel like I'm doing something that matters. I want to serve my country. I want to protect our lands from terrorists, so I joined the Marines." When his father asked him if there was some other way to serve, Ryan replied that he felt a special obligation to step up because he had been given so much. Ryan didn't support me in the last election, but he supported our mission in Iraq. And he supported his fellow Marines. (emphasis mine)

President Bush didn't have to hint at how this young Marine voted.  His story is heroic enough and is no more heroic because he may have voted for Senator Kerry in 2004.  I assume the president had the permission of Lt. McGlothlin's family to include this information.  

The president relayed it to show just how far his critics, by comparison, are willing to go to score political points against him.  They are willing to do and say things that hurt the morale of our troops.  They are willing to accuse our troops of immoral behavior.  They are willing to damage the credibility of the United States abroad.  In fact, there is only one thing they are unwilling to do.  That is, they are unwilling to sacrifice their own political ambitions to the best interests of the troops and the nation as a whole.

President Bush's speech today was another home run.  There's a saying in baseball, "A home run ends the rally."  I certainly hope that the president doesn't now fall to the temptation of resting on his laurels.  

We are about to enter a long stretch of positive news for the president.  The Iraqi elections are sure to be a great success.  The economy is roaring by any objective standard.  Judge Alito will be confirmed in mid-January.  The State of the Union Address follows and will keep the focus on the president's agenda and keep his critics in response mode.  The president's approval ratings are bound to go up as a result.  

This public relations effort by the White House has been an unqualified success, despite less than enthusiastic media coverage.  In four speeches, the president managed to turn the tide of the debate over the war, and some will say, rescue his second term agenda.  I hope that the White House has learned that it must stay on the offensive not only with respect to the situation in Iraq, but on tax reform, Social Security, and the whole host of issues in the run up to the 2006 elections.