Clearly he's insane...
Great, just what we need: yet another damn speaking tour...
With anti-war protesters continuing their vigil outside President Bush's ranch, the commander in chief began a five-day push Saturday to tell Americans why he thinks U.S. troops must continue the fight in Iraq.
In his weekly radio address, Bush argued that the war in Iraq will keep Americans safe for generations to come. He'll try to drive the point home with speeches in upcoming days in Utah and Idaho. "Our troops know that they're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy," the president said in the recorded broadcast. "They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war, and they know we will prevail."
For the last time: you CANNOT simultaneously use the "Honeypot" arguement AND the Humanitarian arguement! The two are in direct conflict!
-If the point of the war in Iraq is to draw potential terrorists there to attack US soldiers, then a stable Iraq is a bad thing, because 1) chaos allows a freedom of movement conductive to frequent strikes and 2) stability would mean Iraq could solidify its government, and the 1st thing they would do upon that is say they want us gone. The best scenario from a "Honeypot" standpoint would be exactly what's going on right now -- Iraqi progress going clumsily if at all, and a loose border w/ a steady stream of jihadis coming in.
-If the point is as the Neo-Imperialists say, "spreading democracy", then every Radical Islamist that comes in represents a piece of a loss, ever so steadily adding up. Iraq cannot even hope to establish anything worth maintaining unless they have as tight a perimeter as can be managed, because while people are blowing stuff up the populace will be thinking about security and not freedom -- we oughta know, that's the reason our last couple elections went the way they did. For the Humanitarian view to actually work, Iraq would have to be a closed lab, so the borders would have to be tighter than spandex on an elephant. Say it with me now: Not-Enough-Troops...
There's a right way to do anything, even if it's wrong. We shouldn't have been there in the first place, but if we were going anyway there should've been double the force deployed, with the aim being to win the intial battle, crush the internal insurgency, then post up at the borders and kill anything that comes across while the Iraqi people made the sausage that is representative government. If I were Bush, Rumsfeld would've been out of work a year ago. This "lighter, sleeker war" thing may look neat on CNN w/ all the streaking lights and whatnot, but I get the feeling we should've stuck to the doctrine of overwhelming force.
By now it's no wonder that the american public is changing their minds. It's not that they're "anti-war" though, more accurately anti-wars-that-don't-seem-to-accomplish-anything. They're old-fashioned like that, they want a military that does one thing -- killing -- and does it really well, and doesn't concern itself with babysitting.
...Next week, the president will regain some of the spotlight with scheduled speeches to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Monday and a National Guard group on Wednesday.
As he has before when he has been challenged, Bush invoked the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in his radio address. "On that day, we learned that vast oceans and friendly neighbors no longer protect us from those who wish to harm our people," he said. "And since that day, we have taken the fight to the enemy."
Number of Iraqis that were 9/11 hijackers: Zero. So drop it.
If Bush's previous speaking tour is any indication, this is going to backfire huge. I get the feeling if he were to do a speaking tour in support of the War on Drugs the result would be demonstrations favoring legalization becoming mainstream-acceptable.
***Updated 4:27pm EST***
Speaking of the "Honeypot" arguement, Joe Gandelman spotted it being challenged -- by the Pentagon's own guys...
...Pentagon officials now fear those freshly trained terrorists are taking the deadly lessons they learn in Iraq to other countries. U.S. intelligence indicates many of the militants are returning home or slipping into Europe, where they may join existing terrorist groups or create and train new cells of their own.
That’s exactly the opposite of what the Bush administration had in mind when it invaded Iraq.
If you look at this report that isn't from a partisan blogger, opinionated columnist or a talk show host on Air America, what do you see? You see sources clearly quoted by NBC's Pentagon reporter Pentagon Jim Miklaszewski saying (a)expect a big attack, it will likely happen, (b)the U.S. war has strengthened terrorism in Iraq, and c)the terrorists that flocked there have now allegedly become better trained to use the techniques learned there all the world.
Sean Hannity sometime in the future:
"Oh my God....The Pentagon has been infiltrated by left-wing anti-american liberals that hate america!!"
*click* (changing the channel)