"News that's not known,
or not known enough."
unique stickers,
books and surprises!
|
"News that's not known, or not known enough." |
We have unique stickers, books and surprises! |
| Home |
About us |
Contact us |
Dialogue |
Guidelines |
Index |
Mystery links |
Stickers & stuff |
|
|
Bush calls for war "across the world"
Casting another cloud over the administration's policy was a new book by veteran Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, State of Denial, which alleges a number of policy blunders committed in Iraq, amid bitter feuding by the president and his closest aides and refusal to acknowledge reality. The controversy may have further dimmed the public's view of the war. The latest CNN television poll showed 61 percent of Americans now believed the war in Iraq was going either "very badly" or "moderately badly," compared with 38 percent who thought it was going "very well" or "moderately well." But Bush insisted Saturday that claims that the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq was helping foster anti-American terrorism were tantamount to buying "into the enemy's propaganda." "The only way to protect our citizens at home is to go on the offense against the enemy across the world," the president said. "So we will remain on the offense until the terrorists are defeated and this fight is won." The Republican president, who just two days ago branded opposition Democrats "the party of cut-and-run," argued an early withdrawal from Iraq, as recommended by some Democrats, would only embolden terrorists. "It would help them find new recruits to carry out even more destructive attacks on our nation, and it would give the terrorists a new sanctuary in the heart of the Middle East, with huge oil riches to fund their ambitions," Bush stressed. "America must not allow this to happen." He said that for Al-Qaeda and its allies, a safe haven in Iraq "would be even more valuable than the one they lost in Afghanistan." However, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in an interview published Saturday, offered a different rationale for continued US military presence in Iraq, saying it was needed to counter the growing influence of neighboring Iran. "We just have to fight tooth and nail for the victory of the Iraqis who do not want Iranian influence in their daily lives," she told The Wall Street Journal. "We've got a chance to resist the Iranian push into the region, but we'd better get about it." The dissonant messages came against the backdrop of stinging criticism from top Democrats, who have found in the intelligence estimate and the Woodward book fresh fodder for attacks on the administration ahead of the November 7 midterm congressional elections, in which they hope to win back control of the House of Representatives and maybe even the Senate. Democrats have long accused the White House of failing to foresee an Iraqi insurgency, failing to create a viable international coalition behind the invasion and sending too few soldiers to control the restive country. Now they are also charging that the president is in a state of denial. "He doesn't want to see the facts. He doesn't want to acknowledge reality," Carl Levin, the top Democrat of the Senate Armed Services Committee, insisted Friday. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean called Bush's political counteroffensive "the product of a desperate White House with no credibility left with the American people." And Tammy Duckworth, a former US military pilot in Iraq who is now a Democratic congressional candidate, chimed in while giving the Democrats' radio address on Saturday. Her helicopter was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade and she lost both her legs; she is now running for Congress in Illinois. "As I went through my recovery, I started asking myself whether our leaders in Washington are doing their duty," she said. "After more than three years, more than 2,700 US deaths and tens of thousands of wounded, this administration still lacks a plan for securing Iraq. And the leaders of Congress still refuse to do their job of holding the administration accountable," Duckworth added. "Instead of a plan or strategy, we get shallow slogans like 'mission accomplished' or 'stay the course.' Those slogans are calculated to win an election. But they won't help us accomplish our mission in Iraq," she said. George W Bush Sept. 30, 2006 Good morning. Today I want to talk to you about a matter of national security that has been in the news The National Intelligence Estimate confirms that we are up against a determined and capable enemy. The NIE lists four underlying factors that are fueling the extremist movement: first, long-standing grievances such as corruption, injustice, and a fear of Western domination; second, the jihad in Iraq; third, the slow pace of reform in Muslim nations; and fourth, pervasive anti-Americanism. It concludes that terrorists are exploiting all these factors to further their movement. Some in Washington have selectively quoted from this document to make the case that by fighting the terrorists in Iraq, we are making our people less secure here at home. This argument buys into the enemy's propaganda that the terrorists attack us because we are provoking them. Here is what Prime Minister Tony Blair said this week about that argument: "This terrorism isn't our fault. We didn't cause it. It's not the consequence of foreign policy." Prime Minister Blair is right. We do not create terrorism by fighting terrorism. The terrorists are at war against us because they hate everything America stands for, and because they know we stand in the way of their ambitions to take over the Middle East. We are fighting to stop them from taking over Iraq and turning that country into a safe haven that would be even more valuable than the one they lost in Afghanistan. Iraq is not the reason the terrorists are at war against us. Our troops were not in Iraq when terrorists first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, or when terrorists blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, or when they bombed the USS Cole, or when they killed nearly 3,000 people on September the 11th, 2001. Five years after the 9/11 attacks, some people in Washington still do not understand the nature of the enemy. The only way to protect our citizens at home is to go on the offense against the enemy across the world. When terrorists spend their days working to avoid capture, they are less able to plot, plan, and execute new attacks on our people. So we will remain on the offense until the terrorists are defeated and this fight is won. In my recent speeches, I've said we are in the early hours of a long struggle for civilization, and that our safety depends on the outcome of the battle in Iraq. The National Intelligence Estimate declares "perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere." It also says that "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight." Withdrawing from Iraq before the enemy is defeated would embolden the terrorists. It would help them find new recruits to carry out even more destructive attacks on our Nation, and it would give the terrorists a new sanctuary in the heart of the Middle East, with huge oil riches to fund their ambitions. America must not allow this to happen. We are a Nation that keeps its commitments to those who long for liberty and want to live in peace. We will stand with the nearly 12 million Iraqis who voted for their freedom, and we will help them fight and defeat the terrorists there, so we do not have to face them here at home. Thank you for listening.
|
3 : ABSURD (an insane scheme for making money) in·san·i·ty n. 1 a : a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia) and usually excluding such states as mental retardation, psychoneurosis, and various character disorders b : a mental disorder 2 : such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility 3 a : extreme folly or unreasonableness b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable
|
We try not to whine too much or too loudly, but we are poor and this site eats a lot of money and time. We couldn't do it without the help of our volunteers. And for those who can't afford the time, giving just a buck or two can make all the difference and keep Unknown News alive. |
|
Talk
to Us |
Archives |
| If you have something to say, we'd love to hear from you. | Click here for archives of recent editions of Unknown News |
