I was a bit perturbed that President Bush's speech to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks interrupted "The Path to 9/11" last night. It seems to me that his speech could have aired just as effectively before or after the show. By the way, I want to highly commend ABC for airing this mini-series uninterrupted. They gave up commercial dollars to present an uninterrupted lesson in American history. It seems to me that if they could forego the revenue, our Commander-in-Chief could have reconsidered the timing of his speech.
Look, it's obvious that I'm a Conservative. I support President Bush even though he does not, in many ways, represent the true Conservative ideology. He is my best hope for a responsible, self-reliant, Conservative country. But, even this diehard Conservative was dismayed with the timing and content of this speech.
President Bush is absolutely right in his estimation that this war will be a long and hard fight. He is absolutely correct that we MUST win this war. I thought he stressed that very clearly and made all the right points. However, I found myself disturbed that Iraq was brought up in this particular speech. It was clearly out of place in the remarks.
If he felt the need to ask for unity in this country, he could have done so without even mentioning Iraq. The partisan politics and the hateful rhetoric to which we are subjected daily by the Left these days is not even really about Iraq. It's about one party's dissatisfaction with their loss of power. Without a doubt in my mind, I know that even if we were still solely fighting in Afghanistan, the Leftists in this country would be roiling with hatred and dividing this nation with nasty partisan manuevers on some other basis.
I fully support this war against Islamo-fascist terrorists. As an armchair quarterback, I remain convinced that the US should have concentrated our efforts in Afghanistan for years rather than opening a new front in Iraq. I understood completely the threat we thought we faced given the intelligence in hand prior to invading Iraq -- if Hussein had the weapons we thought he had (and very likely still has), then the civilized world was at risk had he sold those weapons to Al Qaeda, terrorists who would certainly have used them against us.
So, why was I disturbed by the mention of Iraq in the speech? Well, it simply seemed totally unnecessary. There is no solid proof at present that Hussein had any hand in the terrorist attacks on our soil on 9/11. Nor, as far as I've read, is there any evidence that Hussein did anything other than provide safe harbor in Iraq to Al Qaeda. Hussein had broken UN resolution after UN resolution for years on end and, while there is no direct link to terrorist actions against us, there was definitely cause for concern.
So, even though the Iraqi front in this war is valid and needs to be pursued to victory, the mention of that front had no place in commemorating the victims and heroes of 9/11. Those people and their families deserved a speech dedicated to them and to our determination to win this war against Islamo-fascism. Focus should have been on the broad effort to defeat the Islamo-fascist terror plague that has spread globally. There was no need to call for unity in American opinion of the Iraqi front of this war. It seemed devisive and disjointed.
The failure to build unity over the war is based on one point that President Bush and the GOP need to be making over and over and over again: Iraq is only one FRONT in a global war on Islamo-fascism. It's that simple. It's not the "Iraq war;" it's the Iraqi front. Had it been positioned properly, it might have seemed to fit the speech. Unfortunately, talking about Iraq in the context of 9/11 continues to fall short and seem disjointed because the distinction is simply not being made.
My feeling toward the speech last night was lukewarm. Parts of it were stirring and appropriate in memoriam; other parts should have been saved for a more political venue. Simply put: the President made some unfortunate choices last night. I hope to see him do better.
Look, it's obvious that I'm a Conservative. I support President Bush even though he does not, in many ways, represent the true Conservative ideology. He is my best hope for a responsible, self-reliant, Conservative country. But, even this diehard Conservative was dismayed with the timing and content of this speech.
President Bush is absolutely right in his estimation that this war will be a long and hard fight. He is absolutely correct that we MUST win this war. I thought he stressed that very clearly and made all the right points. However, I found myself disturbed that Iraq was brought up in this particular speech. It was clearly out of place in the remarks.
If he felt the need to ask for unity in this country, he could have done so without even mentioning Iraq. The partisan politics and the hateful rhetoric to which we are subjected daily by the Left these days is not even really about Iraq. It's about one party's dissatisfaction with their loss of power. Without a doubt in my mind, I know that even if we were still solely fighting in Afghanistan, the Leftists in this country would be roiling with hatred and dividing this nation with nasty partisan manuevers on some other basis.
I fully support this war against Islamo-fascist terrorists. As an armchair quarterback, I remain convinced that the US should have concentrated our efforts in Afghanistan for years rather than opening a new front in Iraq. I understood completely the threat we thought we faced given the intelligence in hand prior to invading Iraq -- if Hussein had the weapons we thought he had (and very likely still has), then the civilized world was at risk had he sold those weapons to Al Qaeda, terrorists who would certainly have used them against us.
So, why was I disturbed by the mention of Iraq in the speech? Well, it simply seemed totally unnecessary. There is no solid proof at present that Hussein had any hand in the terrorist attacks on our soil on 9/11. Nor, as far as I've read, is there any evidence that Hussein did anything other than provide safe harbor in Iraq to Al Qaeda. Hussein had broken UN resolution after UN resolution for years on end and, while there is no direct link to terrorist actions against us, there was definitely cause for concern.
So, even though the Iraqi front in this war is valid and needs to be pursued to victory, the mention of that front had no place in commemorating the victims and heroes of 9/11. Those people and their families deserved a speech dedicated to them and to our determination to win this war against Islamo-fascism. Focus should have been on the broad effort to defeat the Islamo-fascist terror plague that has spread globally. There was no need to call for unity in American opinion of the Iraqi front of this war. It seemed devisive and disjointed.
The failure to build unity over the war is based on one point that President Bush and the GOP need to be making over and over and over again: Iraq is only one FRONT in a global war on Islamo-fascism. It's that simple. It's not the "Iraq war;" it's the Iraqi front. Had it been positioned properly, it might have seemed to fit the speech. Unfortunately, talking about Iraq in the context of 9/11 continues to fall short and seem disjointed because the distinction is simply not being made.
My feeling toward the speech last night was lukewarm. Parts of it were stirring and appropriate in memoriam; other parts should have been saved for a more political venue. Simply put: the President made some unfortunate choices last night. I hope to see him do better.
Comments