Bush's Speech: Five years after 9/11

[August1991]

You can read the text here.

The key phrase in my view:

Years of pursuing stability to promote peace had left us with neither. So we changed our policies, and committed America's influence in the world to advancing freedom and democracy as the great alternatives to repression and radicalism.

This is the clearest statement of Bush's intentions in the Middle East that I have seen. The Saudis' days are numbered - as well as the other autocratic regimes.

Claiming to be a "stable" force doesn't work anymore.

[KrustyKidd]

This is the clearest statement of Bush's intentions in the Middle East that I have seen. The Saudis' days are numbered - as well as the other autocratic regimes.

Let freedom ring! Lincoln killed a million Americans and is revered by the left and right. Should we turn a blind eye to the repressive dictators of the world or free the people?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

"I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks," Bush said. "The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat.

Here is the biggest lie. Colin Powell had said "Saddam is unable to project force against his neighbours", and that he was "being kept in his box". Strange he would keep repeating this lie.

The Saudis' days are numbered - as well as the other autocratic regimes.

Not as long as their existence can be seen as beneficial to the US.

[Higgly]

The only country threatened by Saddam was Israel - Saddam was giving $US 20,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Other than that, the years of sanctions and constant bombing by the US and Britain had him completely on the ropes.

As for Saudi Arabia's days being numbered, what do you think the US is going to do? Depose the Saudi royal family and end up with a Sunni fundamentalist government? The Saudis have a lot of US fighter planes and other state of the art military equipment. Don't expect them to be going anywhere any time soon.

[Black Dog]

Years of pursuing stability to promote peace had left us with neither. So we changed our policies, and committed America's influence in the world to advancing freedom and democracy as the great alternatives to repression and radicalism.

Comparatively speaking, the Middle East was far more stable beforehand. Bush's policies (like making the jihadi wet dream of an infidel invader occupying a Muslim nation come to pass) have done more to spread radicalism than they have to curb it.

This is the clearest statement of Bush's intentions in the Middle East that I have seen. The Saudis' days are numbered - as well as the other autocratic regimes.

Nonsense.The U.S. will continue to sypport regime slike the Saudis, and the military dictatorships n Egypt and Pakistan because the alternative-democracy-would be worse for their interests.

Let freedom ring! Lincoln killed a million Americans and is revered by the left and right. Should we turn a blind eye to the repressive dictators of the world or free the people?

False dilemna. If Sunni Wahhabist Jihadism is the problem you say it is, why go after the most secular state in the region. Oh right, I remember: because they needed to take troops out of Saudi Arabia to deal with Saudi Arabia.

[KrustyKidd]

False dilemna. If Sunni Wahhabist Jihadism is the problem you say it is, why go after the most secular state in the region. Oh right, I remember: because they needed to take troops out of Saudi Arabia to deal with Saudi Arabia.

Conservative Wahabbism is a force in Saudi Arabia which also seeks to overthrow the Roayals and replace them with an Islamic state with no Royals. When OBL began bitching about the US being in SA it provided a gravitational point for the people to rally behind making CW more powerful than the Royals wanted . To keep the US there gave Al Queda more power so they asked the US to leave. When the attack on the Kobar Towers happened there was absolutely no Saudi cooperation and no clamp down on Al Queda activity so, the US knew the Suadis were not going to deal with Al Queda within their own borders out of fear of a revolution. By invading Iraq, the US was able to show the Saudis that they were willing to go all the way and didn't need their help to do it anywhere in the region. It also placed US troops with armor within striking distance on a semi permanent foothold to deal with any Al Queda activity inside the kingdom without actually invading them,. As any moron would know, invading Saudi Arabia would be a very good thing for Al Queda to rally the entire Muslim world around, Shiite and Sunni. Instead, Saudi Arabia did a very quiet rounding up of Al Queda cells breginning right around the time Johston was beheaded. Strange, they never knew where he was being held but the moment the video is published, they have the cell leader killed an hour later. They have been taking care of business so much so that Al Queda in Iraq is only a small faction rather than a main one. Why? Because Al Queda in SA is fighting for their very existance thank to the pressure the US placed on SA without invading.

[August1991]

By invading Iraq, the US was able to show the Saudis that they were willing to go all the way and didn't need their help to do it anywhere in the region. It also placed US troops with armor within striking distance on a semi permanent foothold to deal with any Al Queda activity inside the kingdom without actually invading them.

I agree.

The signal has been sent.

[Liam]

Conservative Wahabbism is a force in Saudi Arabia which also seeks to overthrow the Roayals and replace them with an Islamic state with no Royals. When OBL began bitching about the US being in SA it provided a gravitational point for the people to rally behind making CW more powerful than the Royals wanted.

Not entirely true. Wahabbism is the strain of Islam practiced by and endorsed by the House of Saud. They sponsor and pay for Wahabbist schools and mosques all over the world -- not OBL and al-Qaeda. I doubt the Sauds would so openly endorse a version of their faith that identifies themselves as public enemy #1.

[GostHacked]

I am starting to really like Keith Olberman from MSNBC.com He did a commentary from the old WTC site and totaly gave it to the current administration.

Check out Youtube for it, I am at work now and cannot search for it. But I will add some later on. But check it out, watch it, then respond to it.

Esentially saying , 5 years later and our would is still open and unhealed for the world to see. He was hoping for some closure on the horrific event and you can tell that man is angry at the still empty hole in the ground that was the WTC.

This man has more balls than any other reporter out there today. I laugh my ass off when Bill O'Riley talks crap about Olberman. After Keith's 9/11 speach, hard to ignore the facts. He slams the Bush Admin on the Iraq war and the now bullshot/sexed up reasons for the Iraq war.

[jdobbin]

[KrustyKidd]

Not entirely true. Wahabbism is the strain of Islam practiced by and endorsed by the House of Saud. They sponsor and pay for Wahabbist schools and mosques all over the world -- not OBL and al-Qaeda. I doubt the Sauds would so openly endorse a version of their faith that identifies themselves as public enemy #1.

Conservative Wahabbism Liam. The radicals view and espouse the belief that the Royals are aposphates that must be overthrown along with other corrupt regime leaders of the former Caliphate. That is the idealology. The Royals are Wahabbists as they must be, much like the King of England is Christian but not an Evangelical Baptist.

[August1991]

Comparatively speaking, the Middle East was far more stable beforehand. Bush's policies (like making the jihadi wet dream of an infidel invader occupying a Muslim nation come to pass) have done more to spread radicalism than they have to curb it.

This is the clearest statement of Bush's intentions in the Middle East that I have seen. The Saudis' days are numbered - as well as the other autocratic regimes.

Nonsense.The U.S. will continue to sypport regime slike the Saudis, and the military dictatorships n Egypt and Pakistan because the alternative-democracy-would be worse for their interests.

You're missing the point, BD.

In the past, the US generally wanted "stability". Canada's foreign policy used to aim for, and bureaucrats around the world want, "stability". Stability was presumably the status quo, an absence of violence and keeping regimes in power. Mubarak, the House of Saud, the Arab League and the Oslo Peace Process all seem to represent "stability".

Well, it doesn't work. What the US got for stability was airplanes flying into big buildings. The problem isn't getting better, it's getting worse.

"Stability" in the Middle East is like "Detente" in the Cold War. During detente, the Soviets took Vietnam and invaded Afghanistan. Ronald Reagan refused to meet any Soviet leader or hold any summit (until he was forced to in 1987). He put tactical nuclear weapons into western Europe. No more detente.

Bush Jnr has chosen to do the same with this Islamist threat. It means no more policies aimed at "stability". Is the US going to invade Saudi or Egypt? No. But these regimes will no longer be able to use the argument in Washington at least that they are a "stabilizing force" in the region.

The new president in 2008 may be more doveish than Bush Jnr but the point has been made.

The Royals are Wahabbists as they must be, much like the King of England is Christian but not an Evangelical Baptist.

The Saud family is large and has different members of different views. Moreover, I have never thought that Wahabism or the Saudis were firmly or naturally entrenched in Arabia.

BTW, there was a time when monarchs in Europe were violently religious.

[KrustyKidd]

The Saud family is large and has different members of different views. Moreover, I have never thought that Wahabism or the Saudis were firmly or naturally entrenched in Arabia.

BTW, there was a time when monarchs in Europe were violently religious.

The Saudi family is made up of those who are with and without portfolio and, as you observed, have different views. You are wrong about Wahabbism not being entrenched though as it is.

Wahhabism (Arabic: الوهابية, Wahabism, Wahabbism) is a Sunni fundamentalist Islamic movement, named after Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab (1703–1792). It is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

As for the monarchs in Europe, interesting.

[Black Dog]

Bush Jnr has chosen to do the same with this Islamist threat. It means no more policies aimed at "stability". Is the US going to invade Saudi or Egypt? No. But these regimes will no longer be able to use the argument in Washington at least that they are a "stabilizing force" in the region.

Ah, but the question is: are they better than the alternative? The answer is yes. If any of these states held elections tomorrow, the Islamists would win. So their choice is supporting regimes that support radicals on the side or turning over the reins to the radicals themselves.

[Figleaf]

You can read the text here.

The key phrase in my view:

Years of pursuing stability to promote peace had left us with neither. So we changed our policies, and committed America's influence in the world to advancing freedom and democracy as the great alternatives to repression and radicalism.

This is the clearest statement of Bush's intentions in the Middle East that I have seen. The Saudis' days are numbered - as well as the other autocratic regimes.

Claiming to be a "stable" force doesn't work anymore.

Unfortunately, the passage you have quoted is rife with the disingenuity/self-deception that characterizes U.S. foreign policy. There are no 'years of pursuing stability'. There are years of shielding Isreal from reality, years of confronting the USSR, years of hegemonizing in South and Central American banana republics. What Bush means by 'stability' is tempering super-power-impulses with some sense of long-term interests. What he is proud to have discarded is the tempering element in favor of unfettered emotion.

BUsh is also wrong to have criticized the practical progress the US had acheived despite the moral flaws in its foreign policy. At Bush's inauguration, the US had more peace and more hope for peace than at any time in its history. That peace failed and then appeared to die during Bush's own presidency, not through the policies of his predecessors.

The claim to be advancing freedom and democracy is questionable too. Freedom and democracy are only possible when the rule of law and of equality before the law are strong. Yet Bush has determinedly undermined these things both internationally and domestically. The list of things this administration has done to undermine these fundamental features of democracy is long ... from illegal surveillance through detention without trial, and from illegal invasions to legitimization of torture. (Not to mention election-theft!)

In fact, this quote is anything but 'clear'. It is a gordian knot of doublespeak and jingoism.