There was something missing from Bush’s speech last night. Let’s see if we can figure it out.
I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims — a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed. Terrorist operatives conduct their campaign of murder with a set of declared and specific goals — to de-moralize free nations, to drive us out of the Middle East, to spread an empire of fear across that region, and to wage a perpetual war against America and our friends. These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield — and they seek to attack us wherever they can. This has attracted al Qaeda to Iraq, where they are attempting to frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat.
The terrorists do not merely object to American actions in Iraq and elsewhere, they object to our deepest values and our way of life. And if we were not fighting them in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Southeast Asia, and in other places, the terrorists would not be peaceful citizens, they would be on the offense, and headed our way.
So, have you figured out what’s missing? I got it in one. Substitute “Israel” for the words in bold, and you have That Other Place where terrorists are attacking. That Other Place in the global jihad. That Other Place, where the U.S. has fallen down in her task to stop terrorism from spreading through the Middle East. Because W. needed points at home, Condi strong-armed Israel into agreeing to terrible terms in Rafah, and the terrorists are loading up Gaza with weapons and, gee, more terrorists.
As Lair has pointed out numerous times, this president has abandoned his promises to stop rewarding terrorism by the Palestinian Authority. Only last week, PA policemen were caught aiding and abetting what would have been an enormous terrorist attack on the Karni crossing.
We did not see a word from Condi on that. Nor have we heard anything about the continuous captures of terrorists by the IDF, the continuous rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza, and the continuous incitement in the palestinian media. Every one of these things are the things that the Bush Administration and State Department said that the PA must stop. None of these things have stopped.
And still, Bush sends Condi to Israel to strong-arm an agreement that doesn’t even include preventing the entry of terrorists, according to the palestinians. And still, the State Department insists that Israel should allow convoys between Gaza and the West Bank, knowing full well those convoys will be filled with more terrorists working on more ways to murder more Jews.
Am I happy that Bush will be staying the course in Iraq? Yes. Do I think he’s a lying hypocrite when he excludes Israel as part of the front of the War on Terror, and doesn’t push the palestinians to crack down on terror? Yes. Do I think his attitude is going to change at all in the next two years?
No.
As you have pointed out. I’m just following your lead as Ginger did to Fred.
(No heels, though.)
Couldn’t it also be substituted with England or Spain?
He did it again this morning!!!
He specificially said “an ally of the united states” when he referred to a head of a country declaring anihilation thereof – he was tlaknig about the iranian president’s call for destruction of Israel. Some “nest friend” Bushie is.
You bolded two phrases. There was nothing “missing” in either instance.
#1 Is Israel our ONLY friend which is having a terror campaign waged against it? I didn’t think so.
#2 Are we – Americans – fighting in Israel? When did this happen, and why isn’t it on the news?
Bush didn’t mention Israel specifically in either phrase because there was no reason to. It would have either weakened his case in the first instance, and would have been demonstrably false in the second. While I too am dismayed by the administration’s actions (and/or lack thereof) towards the PA, you are far off base in regards this speech.
Mick: Not in the context of ignoring the terror war in Israel. That’s the point of the post. We aren’t ignoring it in Spain or England. Nobody’s asking the Spanish or British to “use restraint” against the terrorists within.
Jim, you have a point about American boots on the ground, and in that context, you are correct on both points.
But I was talking about the larger point, which is that Israel is enveloped in a terror war that is now being ignored by the Bush administration. It wasn’t four years ago. It wasn’t when he said that Israel should not have to deal with a palestinian leadership that was “compromised by terror.” Hamas is nothing BUT terror. Their goal is to wipe Israel off the map.
Al Qaeda has entered the Gaza Strip, and they entered it after the Israelis pulled out. Yet the president continues to overlook the terrorists on that front.
I find it curious that the Administration is unable to use the “I” word when talking about terror. If Bush can no longer discuss terror attacks on Israel, he has caved to the Arabists in the State Department, and to the Jew-hatred of the Arab/Muslim world.
Town Crier: That’s very interesting, in light of what I wrote. Here’s the link and the quote:
Apparently, we now have the president forbidden to use the I-word.
The keys to the Israeli-Palestinian problem are not in either Israel or Palestine. So stop looking under that street light. You will find nothing.
The keys are in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.
Bush has collected two of them so far. The rest will be collected in time.
Pingback: Israpundit
What was truly missing in Bush’s speech: any evidence that he has a grasp on reality, or any concept other than admitting a mistake would be admit to imperfection, and we just cant have that…
The following seems a lovely example of terrorising:
O little town of Bethlehem, ‘gainst thee we wage jihad
Sometimes I think you are too sensitive on the lack of specifically saying “Israel”. To take the latter quote, I feel that everyone knows the Iranian President threatened Israel, so specifically using the name adds nothing to the matter. On the other hand, by explicitly referring to them as “an ally of the United States” not only reaffirms our national commitment to Israel but also places the threat in a context that has relevency for the United States.
Cynic-
Notice how the story doesn’t say how the standoff was resolved.
The breakin and takeover was planned and staged. This is just Fateh’s way of passing cash from political types to military types in a way that doesn’t appear on Fayyad’s ledgers, setting off the EU and US alarms.
Supposedly, it’s an old IRA trick for passing money from the Irish government to the IRA without making it look like they’re out and out funding the goons. The boyos taught their pali pals this one back in their days together in the sand.
On the one hand, I agree with everything you wrote, Meryl, about Condi and the pressure that the Bush adminstration is putting on Israel to water down its defense against terrorism.
As to the I-word, part of me agrees with you, and part of me asks whether we want the David Dukes, Pat Buchanons, Michael Moores, Cindy Sheehans and various Democratic congressmen and ex-CIA flacks repeating the canard that US actions in the middle east are dictated by Israel? This may be one instance where “shah shtill” has some continuing validity.
Yankev