Re: Presidential address on Irag
This is from the Orange County Register in Southern California. Before you go yelling "vast liberal media conspiracy" you have to understand that the Register is very conservative/ libertarian/republican. This is the newspaper that put Richard Nixon, Darrel Issa, Bob Dornan, Dana Rohrbacker, William Dannemyer and other members of the "vast right wing conspiracy" into office.<br /><br />
http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=56558 <br /><br />Thursday, September 11, 2003 <br /><br />Editorial - Longer-term lessons of 9-11 <br /><br />It's been two full years since al-Qaida operatives turned the United States, the Middle East and most of the civilized world upside down. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were so brazen and breathtaking that they changed the way Americans think about their own safety.<br /><br />It hasn't been long enough to heal, but it has been long enough to reflect on the attacks and on the American government's response.<br /><br />When George W. Bush was elected by the slimmest of margins in such a disputed way, conventional wisdom held that he would be a caretaker president, always struggling with his own legitimacy. During the campaign between Mr. Bush and Al Gore, both men emphasized domestic policy. Pundits concluded that, for the first time since the end of the Cold War, foreign affairs would not dominate the presidency. Then Sept. 11 happened. It was President Bush's defining moment. His legitimacy was unquestioned. Foreign policy became pre-eminent. <br /><br />Some of the policies undertaken by the president and an uncharacteristically unified Congress were necessary. Others were more questionable, albeit understandable in the wake of a national tragedy. Still others were, quite simply, terrible. The war on Iraq, for instance, has immersed the United States in a foreign imbroglio that will continue to claim lives and tax dollars for years or even decades.<br /><br />On Wednesday, the Arabic TV network Al-Jazeera aired a videotape of 9-11 mastermind Osama bin Laden and his deputy. On a separate audio tape, the men were urging Islamic fighters to "bury" American troops stationed in Iraq. It's uncertain if bin Laden really is alive, but U.S. officials seem to think so.<br /><br />As intended, the release of the tapes opens not-yet-healed wounds and reminds Americans, and the Bush administration, of the many unanswered questions and loose ends that remain in the war on terrorism.<br /><br />As we see it, the administration was right to send troops to Afghanistan and displace the Taliban, which was harboring al-Qaida terrorists. There was an obvious target with a clear role in the attacks. Although Afghanistan will long be a financial basket case, American efforts to create a new, non-terrorist- harboring government are in America's national interest. The Afghan people likely will be better off also, although measuring better off in a land of poverty and warlords is a tough task.<br /><br />The war on Iraq, however, was not adequately justified. The Bush administration never made a firm case linking Saddam Hussein's admittedly awful regime with al-Qaida or any terrorists that threatened the United States. The administration relied on spectacularly faulty intelligence or stretched the truth about Saddam's overall threat - or both. The military's inability to find weapons of mass destruction in the months following the war only confirms critics' worst fears.<br /><br />In his speech last Sunday, President Bush called for $87 billion in new funding to help pay for U.S. operations, mainly in Iraq. "This will take time, and require sacrifice. Yet we will do whatever is necessary, we will spend what is necessary to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror."<br /><br />This is what critics predicted would happen.<br /><br />We're even more concerned about the Patriot Act, a hodgepodge of measures that gives the federal government more power to snoop on American residents in the name of protecting the country against terrorism. The dystopian-sounding Department of Homeland Security, with its centralized functions, also troubles us.<br /><br />And the calls for expanding the Patriot Act and the powers of the department keep growing. "President Bush on Wednesday was to call for tougher anti-terrorism legislation to deny bail to terror suspects, expand the death penalty and let investigators bypass grand juries to issue subpoenas," according to a Reuters report.<br /><br />Furthermore, leading Bush administration officials, such as Attorney General John Ashcroft, have refused to take questions from the print media as they have toured the country pitching the benefits of the Patriot Act. Why such fear of tough questions? Administration officials even have complained to Congress that openly expressed concerns about U.S. policy in Iraq bolster America's enemies. This is part of a disturbing tendency by the administration to try to shut down legitimate debate.<br /><br />One of the best ways to honor those who died in the Sept. 11 attacks is to uphold the values of the American democratic system. That means, at the very least, engaging in open, honest and contentious debates about the nation's response to the life-changing events of two years ago. What better time to start that process?
