Re: Editorial: President Bush's Reality

He did say that "Establishing democracy at the heart of the Middle East
no longer qualifies, desirable as that would be.". Bush failed his
expectation in Democracy for Middle East. US occupied Hawaii, Puerto
Rico and many places by force. They won't let native people the
freedom. US want to occupied Iraq. When Bush didn't say Democracy for
Iraq, Democracy for Iraq is noly a joke.


rst0wxyz@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/opinion/12tue1.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Published: September 12, 2006
Last night, President Bush once again urged Americans to take terrorism
seriously - a warning that hardly seems necessary. One aspect of that
terrible day five years ago that seems immune to politicization or
trivialization is the dread of another attack. When Mr. Bush warns that
Al Qaeda means what it says, that there are Islamist fanatics around
the world who wish us harm and that the next assault could be even
worse than the last, he does not need to press the argument.

After that, paths diverge. Mr. Bush has been marking the fifth
anniversary of Sept. 11 with a series of speeches about terrorism that
culminated with his televised address last night. He has described a
world where Iraq is a young but hopeful democracy with a "unity
government" that represents its diverse population. Al Qaeda-trained
terrorists who are terrified by "the sight of an old man pulling the
election lever" are trying to stop the march of progress. The United
States and its friends are holding firm in a battle that will decide
whether freedom or terror will rule the 21st century.

If that were actual reality, the president's call to "put aside our
differences and work together to meet the test that history has given
us" would be inspiring, instead of frustrating and depressing.

Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror until the Bush
administration decided to invade it. The president now admits that
Saddam Hussein was not responsible for 9/11 (although he claimed last
night that the invasion was necessary because Iraq posed a "risk").
But he has failed to offer the country a new, realistic reason for
being there.

Establishing democracy at the heart of the Middle East no longer
qualifies, desirable as that would be. Where Mr. Bush sees an infant
secular Iraqi government, most of the world sees a collection of ethnic
and religious factional leaders, armed with private militias, presiding
over growing strife between Shiites and Sunnis. Warning that American
withdrawal would "embolden" the enemy is far from an argument as
long as there is constant evidence that American presence is creating a
fearful backlash throughout the Muslim world that empowers the fanatics
far more than it frightens them.

Fending off the chaos that would almost certainly come with civil war
would be a reason to stay the course, although it does not inspire the
full-throated rhetoric about freedom that Mr. Bush offered last night.
But the nation needs to hear a workable plan to stabilize a fractured,
disintegrating country and end the violence. If such a strategy exists,
it seems unlikely that Mr. Bush could see it through the filter of his
fantasies.

It's hard to figure out how to build consensus when the men in charge
embrace a series of myths. Vice President *** Cheney suggested last
weekend that the White House is even more delusional than Mr. Bush's
rhetoric suggests. The vice president volunteered to NBC's Tim
Russert that not only was the Iraq invasion the right thing to do,
"if we had it to do over again, we'd do exactly the same thing."

It is a breathtaking thought. If we could return to Sept. 12, 2001,
knowing all we have seen since, Mr. Cheney and the president would
march right out and "do exactly the same thing" all over again. It
will be hard to hear the phrase "lessons of Sept. 11" again without
contemplating that statement.

.