Tuesday, July 24, 2007

AQI and Bush's Latest Deception

Why is Bush stressing the existence of al Qaeda in Iraq? In part to drum up support for staying, but that's not all.

My guess is that this is just his latest attempt to mislead people into thinking that al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded. When he claims that the enemy in Iraq is the enemy that attacked us on 9/11, he hopes to trick the uninformed into thinking that his decision to invade was justified. And I'm sure this gives a little thrill to the dogmatic partisans who, in their heart of hearts, will always believe Saddam was in on 9/11 no matter what the evidence.


Blogger Unknown said...

This quote is classic Bush:

Charges that al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist until the U.S. "invasion of Iraq and that it's a problem of our own making" are part of the "flawed logic that terror is caused by American actions," Bush said.

Once again, he has generalized the issue to an inarguable point, devoid of any real meaning. People aren't arguing about "terror," they are arguing about Al Qaeda in Iraq and whether or not it existed as a threat to the US before we invaded. Bush's tactic throughout this whole mess has been to mis-characterize any opposing views to the absurd and then argue against that absurdity.

To break it down further, "terror" is an emotion. We're not at war with an emotion. "Terrorism" is a tactic. We'd better not be at war with a tactic. "Terrorists" are practitioners of said tactic, but sadly that label is subjective and used by each side in any conflict.

I understand that Al Qaeda is affiliated with many groups that go by different names, but I really think the American people and the world would have "gotten it" if we would have declared war on "Al Qaeda and its allies" and if that required a strike against JI in Asia or the training we did in the Phillippines, it all still would have fit. But we could have clearly held up this justification to invade Iraq against the definition of whom we're at war with, and I think we all know it would've turned out differently.

Bush would not be so easily able to redefine debates to his own goofy interpretations of opposing views then, and we would be less subject to his "inarguable" whims.

1:48 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home