Today, President Bush delivered a major speech on terrorism.
This is how those at the Los Angeles Times chose to write about his speech:
His remarks, in a speech sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy, suggested a renewed effort by the administration in the wake of Hurricane Katrina to bring new attention to the war in Iraq as Bush struggles to regain his political footing and counter the flagging popular support for the central tenets of his foreign policy.
He said that since the Sept. 11 attacks, the United States had snuffed out 10 Al Qaeda plots, including three in the United States. He did not mention specific planned attacks.
He said that new efforts to boost domestic security in the United States, and the intelligence on which it relies, helped the country better face the threat.
Overall, the president appeared to be justifying his handling of both Iraq and the larger war on terrorism amid growing evidence that Islamic militancy has increased, not decreased since Sept. 11, 2001 and the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003. That would enable him to make the case for holding to his policy in Iraq and elsewhere to defeat a new global enemy in the new century.
...The president's emphasis on the high stakes involved in Iraq served as a response to the anti-war movement in the United States. It comes just weeks after a massive demonstration in Washington, and the month-long protest outside his vacation home in Texas, brought new visibility to the war's opponents.
Justifying his opposition to a quick withdrawal from Iraq, as many of the protesters have demanded, Bush said that the United States had not invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein just to leave the country in the hands of groups dedicated to the destruction of the United States.
...Bush described terrorist leaders Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Zarqawi as modern-day equivalents of such 20th-century tyrants as Stalin, Hitler and Cambodia's Pol Pot.
Gee, that last comment reminds me of Dick Durbin talking about U.S. personnel at Gitmo. According to Dem Durbin, members of our military are equivalent to Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot.
Clearly, the LA Times critiques the speech as a weak effort by a beaten man to boost his sagging popularity, struggling to regain his political footing.
Rather than focus on the content of the President's speech, the spotlight is placed on Bush's political standing and how the speech relates to him personally.
Talk about taking your eye off the ball!
And now, we have news of a credible terrorist threat to the New York City subway system.
From Newsday:
A "credible threat" to the subway system has prompted a vast mobilization of police officers, officials said Thursday.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg appeared at a news conference alongside Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly in which they announced the threat, which they said originated overseas.
Bloomberg said it was the most specific threat New York officials had received to date; no one in New York has been arrested, he said.
...Kelly asked the public to report suspicious people or activities. Police planned to start looking through bags, brief cases, baby strollers and luggage as they launched a large-scale search of New York's mass transit system.
"We have never had before a specific threat to our subway system," Bloomberg said. "Its importance was enhanced above the normal level by the detail that was available to us from intelligence sources." New York's security level remained at orange, the same level it has stayed at since Sept. 11.
Hundreds of officers were dispatched early this afternoon to every station in Manhattan -- and possibly system wide -- to thwart the attack.
Scores of officers from various narcotics units are being called in to assist in patrolling the subways, with many expected to convene first at the Brooklyn Navy Yard.
...A law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told the Associated Press that the threat is "specific to place, time and method," and that the method is bombing.
Rep. Peter King of New York confirmed the threat, saying "Obviously, this is a significant threat." King is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
The threat comes as the city emerges from two days of hightened alert during the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashana. Police officers patrolled outside of synagogues as thousands of congregants attended services.
ABC reports that "19 operatives were to place improvised explosive devices in the subways using briefcases, according to two sources."
And in this post-9/11 world, what have the Dems been doing?
At every opportunity, many Dems have been doing all they can to divide the country and weaken Bush and the Republicans, undermining the War on Terror.
They put their personal political gain ahead of the security of the country. Rather than work together for the good of the nation, these Dems have been relentless in bashing Bush, with no regard for the consequences of their divisive, hateful, irresponsible rhetoric.
Our enemies know that America's leadership is not united in its resolve to defeat them. In fact, many Dems and some RINOs have behaved in a manner that actively aids the very people that want nothing more than to murder as many Americans as possible.
For instance, Dem Russ Feingold has called for a December 31, 2006, date for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.
Nancy Pelosi also seeks to aid the enemy.
The BBC reports:
Nancy Pelosi, the top Democrat in the US House of Representatives, said the US had gone into Iraq on the basis of false premises and the president had "mismanaged" the aftermath.
"He is trying to justify his actions with a series of excuses that are not justifications for being there," Ms Pelosi said following the speech.
Mr Bush's address also came hours after a bipartisan rebuff to the White House when the Senate voted to set new limits on the interrogation of detainees in Iraq and elsewhere.
Some see the 90-9 vote as indicative of a new boldness among those from Mr Bush's Republican party to challenge the White House over war policy.
Unlike Feingold, and Pelosi, and weak and wobbly Republicans, I don't see today's threat to New York subways, or the terrorist threat in general, in terms of how it will affect the 2006 or 2008 elections. I don't think of our nation's security in terms of the President's approval ratings.
America has enemies. They've slaughtered thousands. They intend to kill more.
It makes me ill to watch political opportunists--elected officials and media mouthpieces--use our safety and our future as pabulum for political advantage.
President Discusses War on Terror at National Endowment for Democracy
Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
Washington, D.C.
Transcript
(Excerpts)
Recently our country observed the fourth anniversary of a great evil, and looked back on a great turning point in our history. We still remember a proud city covered in smoke and ashes, a fire across the Potomac, and passengers who spent their final moments on Earth fighting the enemy. We still remember the men who rejoiced in every death, and Americans in uniform rising to duty. And we remember the calling that came to us on that day, and continues to this hour: We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire, or rest, until the war on terror is won.
The images and experience of September the 11th are unique for Americans. Yet the evil of that morning has reappeared on other days, in other places -- in Mombasa, and Casablanca, and Riyadh, and Jakarta, and Istanbul, and Madrid, and Beslan, and Taba, and Netanya, and Baghdad, and elsewhere. In the past few months, we've seen a new terror offensive with attacks on London, and Sharm el-Sheikh, and a deadly bombing in Bali once again. All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random and isolated acts of madness; innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train, or worked in the wrong building, or checked into the wrong hotel. Yet while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane.
Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus -- and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics.
Many militants are part of global, borderless terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda -- paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, and the Philippines, and Pakistan, and Chechnya, and Kashmir, and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells, inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for our world.
We know the vision of the radicals because they've openly stated it -- in videos, and audiotapes, and letters, and declarations, and websites. First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions. Al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, has called on Muslims to dedicate, quote, their "resources, sons and money to driving the infidels out of their lands." Their tactic to meet this goal has been consistent for a quarter-century: They hit us, and expect us to run. They want us to repeat the sad history of Beirut in 1983, and Mogadishu in 1993 -- only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences.
...With the rise of a deadly enemy and the unfolding of a global ideological struggle, our time in history will be remembered for new challenges and unprecedented dangers. And yet the fight we have joined is also the current expression of an ancient struggle, between those who put their faith in dictators, and those who put their faith in the people. Throughout history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision -- and they end up alienating decent people across the globe. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that regimented societies are strong and pure -- until those societies collapse in corruption and decay. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent -- until the day that free men and women defeat them.
We don't know the course of our own struggle -- the course our own struggle will take -- or the sacrifices that might lie ahead. We do know, however, that the defense of freedom is worth our sacrifice. We do know the love of freedom is the mightiest force of history. And we do know the cause of freedom will once again prevail.
