Bush Goes On Offensive Against 'Cut and Run' Democrats

Thursday , September 28, 2006


WASHINGTON — President Bush fired a shot across the bow of the Democratic Party Thursday, saying "the party of FDR... has become the party of cut and run."

In his most direct attack this election season, Bush flatly charged that Democrats are incapable of effectively fighting the War on Terror.

"The stakes in this war are high and so are the stakes this November. Americans face a choice between two parties with different attitudes on this War on Terror," he told an audience in Birmingham at a Republican fundraiser for Alabama Gov. Bob Riley.

"Five years after 9/11, the worst attack on the American homeland in history, the Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction and endless second-guessing. The party of FDR, the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run," Bush said.

With less than six weeks to go until a November election that polls suggest could result in lost seats for Republicans in both the U.S. House and Senate, Bush chided Democrats, saying they don't understand the enemy nor do they grasp that succeeding in the War on Terror means not retreating from Iraq.

"Our party record is clear. We see the stakes, we understand the nature of the enemy. We know the enemy wants to attack us again. We will not wait to respond to the enemy. We are not going to wait for them to attack us in order to respond," Bush said.

Bush quoted ominous words by Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden to make his point that the war in Iraq is not divorced from the global War on Terror. The president also quoted an April National Intelligence Estimate that he declassified earlier this week after selective passages in it were published in newspaper reports. Bush said those passages were "selectively quoted for partisan political use."

The NIE states that if would-be terrorists perceive success in Iraq, it will inspire more fighters to continue elsewhere. But it also reads that should "jihadists" perceive their efforts in Iraq to have failed, it will lead to fewer fighters signing up to carry on the war.

"The Democrats can't have it both ways. Either they believe that Iraq is a distraction from the War on Terror or they agree with the intelligence community and the terrorist themselves that the outcome in Iraq is important to the War on Terror. Truth is the Democrats used the NIE to mislead the American people and justify their policy to withdraw from Iraq," he said.

"I strongly believe that Iraq is a central front in the War on Terror. The Democrats may not think so, but Usama bin Laden does," Bush said.

The president also rejected an argument frequently used by Democrats to claim that the terrorists have declared war on the United States because of the situation in Iraq. He said that's untrue. If it were not Iraq, terrorists would use the excuse of "our relationship with Israel as a reason to recruit, or the crusades or cartoons as a reason to commit murder, a recruit based upon lies and excuses. And they murder because of their raw desire for power," Bush said.

Bush accused Democrats of misleading Americans using selective passages from the NIE to criticize Republicans and endorse their calls for withdrawal from Iraq. Without naming her, Bush referenced House Intelligence Committee Ranking Democrat Jane Harman of California, quoting her as recently saying that removing Saddam Hussein from power had been a bad idea.

Bush noted that if the former Iraqi dictator were still in power, today he would still be sponsoring terror and paying off the families of suicide bombers; he'd still be pursuing weapons of mass destruction and killing his own people; and he would still be firing at U.S. pilots protecting the no-fly zone, defying the United Nations on sanctions and bilking the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food program.

"Some Democrats in Congress say we should not be fighting the terrorists in Iraq, it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place. I think these Democrats must answer a question. Do they really believe that we'd be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power?" Bush asked. "If this is what the Democrats think, they need to make this case to the American people — that the world would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power."

The president defended two pieces of legislation in Congress. One, the warrantless wiretapping bill, has gotten stuck and will likely not be approved before Congress recesses this term. The second, a terror detainee interrogation and trial bill that was required by the Supreme Court, is likely to be completed in the Senate on Thursday. The measure passed the House on Wednesday 253-168. Seven Republicans voted with Democrats against the bill.

"I want to remind you of the (House) vote," Bush said. "The bill passed over the objections of 163 House Democrats, including the entire Democratic leadership. We must give our professionals the tool necessary to fight this War on Terror and those in the House of Representatives were wrong to vote against this bill."

Senior White House officials said the president's fiery speech is the first of many variations aimed to punctuate the race before the midterm election on Nov. 7. The GOP's rallying cry will be that Democrats are unable to defend the country effectively. Similar speeches in tone and feeling are to come, the officials said, and will be used as a "roadmap" for the party on their national security credentials.

"There will be a sustained hammering home of the top issue — and the president is the best at laying out the differences between the two parties on the issue," one official said.

After Wednesday's mostly party-line vote, Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said in a statement that Democrats who voted against the measure "voted today in favor of more rights for terrorists."

He added, "So the same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled, if we followed the Democrat plan."

Before the president spoke, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said she thinks "the speaker is a desperate man for him to say that. Would you think that anyone in our country wants to coddle terrorists?"

She added that Bush was selectively releasing the findings of the NIE rather than its entirety for his own political gain.

"As you all know, a National Intelligence Estimate was partially — very partially — released this week. And no matter how the White House wants to characterize it, it says very clearly: We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the international jihadist movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of this Estimate. One of those factors, says the Estimate, is the Iraq jihad," said Pelosi of California.

"They've gone from shock and awe to an American public shocked at how awful the situation in Iraq is," added Rep. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "Rather than heed the warnings in the NIE, President Bush politicized this discussion and the Republican Congress has stood on the sidelines."


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216417,00.html

What a surprise!

Actually it was. President Bush has been pretty restrained in regards to any criticism of the Democrats. Personally I was getting tired of him not speaking out while getting continually bashed by the Democratic leadership. Well, today he and the House Speaker told it like it is. A+

If there's one thing I associate with George W. Bush, it's restraint.

Cheney hasn't made any comments during this election cycle either has he?

Bush has been doing a much better job ever since he brought Tony Snow on board. The press conference 2 weeks ago was great and he has been very impressive in articulating his position and putting down the typical, pathetic crap you typically hear from Democrats. He's doing a good job of focusing on where we go from here, as opposed to living in 2003. Hope he keeps it up.

The Party of Lincoln has become the party of a big stinking pile of crap!

Well, as always, if the Democrats have a better way of fighting the Worldwide War on Terror, I'm all ears. However, they oppose every measure that has been put forward -

-- NSA "wiretapping"? Nope.
-- Bank Data Collection? Nope.
-- Assertive Interrogation of Terrorists? Nope.
-- Military tribunals? Nope.
-- War in Iraq? Nope.

So what is the alternative?

none of the above

and I love how torture now amounts to "assertive interrogation of terrorists"

*high five

it's a sad state of affairs indeed. it's pretty clear people are disassociating themslves with the reality of what torture is when they use that rhetoric.

as for those five 'measures', well shit, i wouldn't vote for any party that didn't oppose them. all five.

Were they getting the Bank Data without court orders?

well, we are talking about the republicans. i just assumed

Just because someone can't come up with an alternative doesn't mean your idea is a good one. It merely means you have one. SFW.

No, they were not getting the Bank Data illegally. There was congressional oversight of the program as well.

Well, that's true....just because someone has an idea that doesn't mean a better one exists.

On the other hand, the Democrats can bash what the Bush Administration is doing all day long, but at the end of the day the voters are going to want to know what they will do differently. Without a cohesive counter-argument, the criticism is without merit.

I disagree.
You can easily criticize and show flaws in an argument or position without presenting one of your own. Sure, having a counter-argument strengthens your point. But again, just because there's one idea doesn't make it a good one.

How about these suggested measures.

- Commit sufficient amounts of resources to secure and stabilize Afganistan. The Taleban has regrouped, is producing more heroin than ever and is potentially a long term disaster.

- Instead of kissing Saudi royalty on the cheeks, press for reform and democratization. Remember the majority of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. If Bush wants to ensure safety from terrorism, how about eradicating the conditions that spawned the last attack.

- Walk the walk. Consistently extolling the virtues of justice, civilization and freedom. Deal with enemy through civilized channels. As I have said before here, the War on Terror (if that means anything) is an ideological struggle between the West (along with progressive Muslims) and the extremist fundementalist. Ultimately what will decided the success or failure is the consensus of moderate Muslims. Whether reject/embrace fundementalism or Westernization.

The success of the American ideology, (economic growth, opportunity, ability to vote, just resolution of conflicts) strengthens America's postion in that ideological warfare. When those ideal and values are comprimised (torture, lack of due process in dealing with prisoners, wiretapping) it undermines your position.

- Carrying on from that - engage more actively with the International communtiy. Worldwide pressure and popular consensus will make it far easier for the US to win an ideological War. Bush is the least popular US president in living memory. While right wingers probably don't care about that, ultimately it would make the "War on Terror" far easier to fight if an American president can effectively engage with people all around the world.

Clinton made a fine statement (please criticize the content not the source).

my view is that we live interdependent world, where lots of good and bad things happen and that most of the problems of that world do not
readily lend themselves to unilateral solutions.

That is, if you are in an environment where you have actual and potential adversaries, and you don't want any help in dealing with them, and you'd like to do whatever you want to do. The first question you have to ask
yourself is a practical one. Is it possible for me to kill, occupy or jail all these people. If the answer to that is no, which it clearly is with the terrorist threat, then you need two things. You need allies and you need politics. You need in other words, a process for making war with more
partners than if you were a terrorist.

-- NSA "wiretapping"? Yes, with a warrant.
-- Bank Data Collection? Yes, with a warrant.
-- Assertive Interrogation of Terrorists? Code word for torture and quite ineffective, so ... Nope.
-- Trials for accussed terrorists? Yes. Just because you don't live in the US doesn't mean that we assume guilt w/o a trial.
-- Civil War in Iraq? On-going.

Gee, what an exciting way to debate current events. Perhaps I'll employ this proven strategy from now on in N&D.

If all folks on the left have to offer in terms of ideas for combatting terrorism is 'your ideas suck' - i'd say that's probably going to be a rather pesky little detail when it comes to things like winning elections.

That's wrong. Iraq is now, and has always been, a distraction from the war on terror. Just because we have now so entangled ourselves in Iraq that pulling out could very well be more of a disaster than staying does NOT mean that it was right to go there in the first place, or that it had anything to do with the "war on terror" BEFORE we went in there, which is what Bush is implying.

There were a lot of people, myself included, who on the eve of war in March 2003 were saying that this was a huge mistake, but if Bush is going to fucking do this, we have no choice but to succeed. BUSH KNEW THIS WHEN HE WENT IN AND IT WAS ESSENTIAL TO HIS STRATEGY. He KNEW that this was a step that you could not retreat from. It's like backing yourself into a corner so that you have no choice but to fight your way out. It doesn't change the fact that it was HIS OWN DOING that he ended up in the corner to begin with.

Nobody should ever let this administration, this president, or this limp-dicked Congress forget that it is entirely of their creation that we are mired in this war in Iraq, and that it was unneccessary from the start. The fact that it is NOW inextricably tied to other Islamic terrorism around the world is NOT a validation of this stupid fucking decision.