by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright September 12, 2006
All Rights Reserved.

ommemorating the fifth anniversary of Sept. 11, President George W. Bush spoke from the Oval Office, telling a national TV audience that “the war is not over,” no surprise to those watching bodies pile up and treasury drained. Speaking for 16 minutes, Bush did what many expected, to answer his critics, calling for an overhaul of his Iraq policy costing over $400 billion and 2,600 lives. Bush tried to renew flagging public support, insisting that America's security “depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.” Low approval ratings have already jeopardized Republican fortunes heading into midyear elections. While admitting Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with Sept. 11, something, until recently, 66% of Americans believed, Bush asked the country to forgive past mistakes and accept victory as the only option. Every American wants victory but question is at what price?

      No president should take down the U.S. military or treasury based on a theory that Baghdad's terrorists threaten U.S. national security. Despite Bush's claims, there's no evidence that Iraq's insurgents or foreign terrorists—Al Qaeda or otherwise—threaten terrorism on U.S. soil. “Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone,” said Bush, not admitting that today's Islamic extremists will continue to strike the U.S. and its allies whether the U.S. stays in Iraq or not. U.S. forces did not occupy Iraq at the time of Sept. 11, yet terrorist still hit. Bush never clarified what he meant by “mistakes,” implying that (a) Iraq possessed no WMD and (b) the insurgency was grossly underestimated. Vice President Dick Cheney recently admitted he miscalculated, saying May 31, 2005 that “Iraq's insurgency was in its last throes.”

      Democrats reacted harshly to Bush's speech, believing he used the Oval Office to answer critics, rather than mark a solemn occasion. “This should have been an occasion to bring everyone together and focus on the tragedy . . . you do not commemorate the tragedy of 9/11 by politicizing it,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of Bush's harshest critics. No one should be surprised Bush seized the opportunity to fire back and give the GOP a leg up heading into November. Bush's speech rehashed old talking points, mixing Iraq into the same stew as the war on terror. No one disagrees that Islamic extremism threatens free countries around the globe. Where there's colossal disagreement is whether Iraq is a wasteful detour. Bush's theory that Iraq's terrorists threaten to take the fight to America or other Western countries has no basis in fact, causing the rift.

      Bush asked the country to put aside differences on Iraq and accept the idea the U.S. is at war with a global enemy with ambitions to establish a worldwide Islamic state from Indonesia to Spain. He's wants the country to take his word that Iraq is today's front in this epic struggle. Whatever the schemes, propaganda and terrorist acts of Islamic radicals, there's no evidence that disparate terror groups have any master plan, or means, to topple any sovereign government. Bush's wild speculation takes White House propaganda over the top, desperately trying to convince growing skeptics that his war on terror has credibility. “This struggle has been called a clash of civilizations. In truth, it is a struggle for civilization,” said Bush, borrowing old talking points from former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu and former Reagan advisor and conservative author Norman Podhoretz.

      While Democrats moaned about the Oval Office speech, Bush reached too far making his case for the Iraq War. Concocting farfetched theories about Islamic intentions has as much credibility as recent comments by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling into question a possible U.S. role in Sept. 11. “The hypothesis that is gaining strength . . . is that it was the same U.S. imperial power that planned and carried out this terrible terrorist attack or act against its own people and against citizens of all over the world,” said Chavez, joining Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose recent Holocaust denials infuriated world leaders. Bush offered little hope to those seeking a merciful end to the Iraq war, insisting U.S. safety hinged on the outcome. If supporting troops means accepting Bush's way-out theory, then there's a lot of unpatriotic people living in America.

      Faulting Bush for talking up the Iraq war is like blaming McDonald's founder Ray Kroc for hyping hamburgers. Elected officials must separate the Iraq war from the broader war on terror. November's election should provide glimpse into whether voters accept Bush's theory, or whether they seek a new direction, including weighing the real costs and benefits of staying the course. Whether we stay in Iraq or not, the U.S. faces inescapable challenges confronting more terrorism and growing nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea. Bush talked about A-bombs falling into the hands of Iraq's terrorists, without mentioning attempts to restrain Tehran and Pyongyang. If winning in Iraq means depleting the resources—and will—to contain rogue regimes hell-bent on getting nuclear weapons, then most Americans would accept defeat. Staying the course in Iraq could have far more dangerous consequences.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.