On September 20, 2001, President Bush addressed the nation, stating that “enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country.” Indeed, they did. But did Congress, as is its constitutional imperative, declare war on those who declared war on us? No, it did not. And we’ve had trouble with this war on Islamic jihadists ever since.
The president continued, noting that Americans were wondering that night, “How will we fight and win this war?'’ His response was that he would “direct every resource at our command,” including “every necessary weapon of war, to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.”
If only.
One thing the president should have done immediately after 9-11 was set the tone that he wasn’t just serious, but dead serious. He should have immediately and publicly rescinded the executive order banning assassinations of heads of state.
That wouldn’t have meant that he would order any such assassinations, but that he might. And as former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer once remarked, a “single bullet” from a U.S. sharp-shooter in Baghdad might have prevented this entire Mesopotamian mess. Had Saddam been buried with an American bullet between his eyes instead of a rope around his neck, what effect do you think that might have had on the leaders of Syria and Iran?
And speaking of setting the right tone, do you remember the president’s answer that night to the question “What is expected of us?” He replied simply: “I ask you to live your lives and hug your children.”
In other words…nothing. No “skin” in the game. Business as usual.
The American people have been asked to sacrifice nary a thing in support of this war - other than some personal liberties, such as being able to carry a tube of toothpaste onto an airplane. Not only have the American people continued to get both their guns AND their butter, but a generous serving of pork on the side. While soldiers are fighting and dying in the Middle East, Congress unapologetically keeps using federal taxpayer dollars for bike paths and museums.
Is it any wonder that so few Americans still take this threat to our nation seriously? Why should they? It’s not affecting THEM. And after all, all the president ever asked them to do was hug their kids, right?
Here’s another seriously wrong message we sent the enemy almost from Day One, as described by the Center for Grassroots Oversight…
“On the first night of the Afghan war, an unmanned Predator drone identifies a convoy of vehicles fleeing Kabul. Mullah Omar, head of the Taliban, is determined to be inside this convoy. The CIA is in control of the Predator attack drone and wants to use it to kill Omar, but they have to ask for permission from military commanders who are based in Florida. General Tommy Franks decides not to fire any missiles or launch an air strike against the building in which Omar takes shelter.
“Eventually fighters attack and destroy the building, but by then Omar and his associates have moved on. One anonymous senior official later says of this failure to kill Omar, ‘It’s not a (deleted)-up, it’s an outrage.’ According to one senior military officer, ‘political correctness’ and/or slow bureaucratic procedures are to blame. It is later revealed that this is part of a pattern of delays that will hinder many attacks on al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders.”
Exactly. Like the politically-driven delay in clearing out Fallujah, which clearly gave the enemy plenty of time to clear out of Fallujah before we finally went into Fallujah to clear it out.
The problem isn’t so much that President Bush declared war on the jihadists in the vacuum of congressional failure to do so. It’s that once declared we’ve once again asked our military to fight a politically correct war with one hand tied behind their backs.
Either use “every resource at our command” and “every necessary weapon of war” to effect “the destruction and the defeat of the global terror network” or yes, bring our troops home. That means that if the surge is working, let the surge keep working…no matter what Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and MoveOn.org say. This is no time to go wobbly.
Posted on September 16th, 2007 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: National
What did the invasion of Iraq have to do with the global war on terror?
John is right, as often times he is. Iraq was a vacuum for Bin Laden; he was NOT welcome. Saddam kept Bin Laden out and kept Iran in check. So, WTF? Was it all about the oil as Greenspan says? Greenspan also decries the Rs depleting the budget surplus but in his numerous testimony before Congress, he emboldened them by supporting increased spending and tax cuts…another ass selling a book looking to rewrite his history.
Anyway, John, I agree..and, you are correct!, the the Sandinistas didn’t win an election in the late 1970’s but did overthrow the elected dictator Samoza (a Samoza in the presidency since 1935), who is blamed for 100,000 deaths. BUT, it was Samoza and his sypmathisers and former officials that were the Contras.
Since you read good books, I suggest, “The Power and the Glory: Inside the vatican of John Paul II” published 2006. Quite interesting, and nary a peep from the Catholic defenders.
I’ll read the Greenspan book, but I think I’ll probably be pounding my head into a wall before I finish it.
When news reports about the book started appearing over the weekend, they quoted Greenspan as stating that “the Iraq War is largely about oil.” The implication was that Bush/Cheney started the oil because of oil. On Monday, Bob Woodward reported that Greenspan was unaware of Bush/Cheney discussing any oil motive for invading Iraq. He just assumed that oil was the motive because he (Greenspan) thought that a stable oil market justified an invasion.
Greenspan’s book almost sounds like another version of his Congressional testimonies that no one could figure out.