Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

Recommended Photo Store
 
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
 
 
 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • SOTU Links – Offered for Comment

    Posted by Ginny on January 24th, 2007 (All posts by )

    Bush’s State of Union (with streaming video).

    Webb’s response. Also on Drudge.

    Michael Gerson speaks for himself (though where his loyalty lies remain clear).  So often his precision, more articulate than Bush’s own, led to our understanding the person who spoke them.  (Yes, I wish our presidents wrote their own speeches, but in the end it is Webb’s inconsistency rather than his hoary cliches that poses a problem.)

    Here is some framing by Bush, that develops the narrative Kristol praised on Fox:

    Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the shoreless ambitions of this enemy. The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that’s the case, America is still a nation at war.

    In the mind of the terrorist, this war began well before September the 11th, and will not end until their radical vision is fulfilled. And these past five years have given us a much clearer view of the nature of this enemy. Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats, instruct with bullets and bombs, and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent.

    He outlines quite “explicit” aims: overthrowing moderate governments, establishing safe havens. He quotes bin Laden: “Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us.” Then argues, “These men are not given to idle words, and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement.” So, “The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity.” His narrative of the last two years gives the killers their due, but helps connect the dots into a pattern.

    we’ve seen the desire for liberty in the broader Middle East — and we have been sobered by the enemy’s fierce reaction. In 2005, the world watched as the citizens of Lebanon raised the banner of the Cedar Revolution, they drove out the Syrian occupiers and chose new leaders in free elections. In 2005, the people of Afghanistan defied the terrorists and elected a democratic legislature. And in 2005, the Iraqi people held three national elections, choosing a transitional government, adopting the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world, and then electing a government under that constitution. Despite endless threats from the killers in their midst, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came out to vote in a show of hope and solidarity that we should never forget.

    A thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck back. In Lebanon, assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel, a prominent participant in the Cedar Revolution. Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon’s legitimately elected government. In Afghanistan, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces. In Iraq, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam — the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia — and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.

    This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we’re in. Every one of us wishes this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk.

    Webb wrote his own speech and he has energy; the conclusion is an assertive punch:

    These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

    Still, such rhetoric is often combined with a kind of muddiness. At least it seems that way to me. Would one of our commentors with more expertise explain what Webb means:

    The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

    Not a precipitous withdrawal but allowing us “in short order” to leave? And not ignoring “the possibility of further chaos” but shifting toward “regionally-based diplomacy.” So, in Webb’s world those who are arming and encouraging the warring factions in Iraq – aiming at chaos – will be the creators of order. They may well be, but I have my doubts the Iraqis or we will find that particular order attractive.

    I don’t understand much about the middle east – so maybe this makes sense. I’m also curious about the new mantra that many Democrats argue – that the army is firmly against the president’s plan. The high re-enlistment rate seems to belie this. But maybe they are right. It does make me think, however, that Instapundit’s remark, that for our generation it will always be Vietnam rings true here. We’ll all be sitting around nursing homes and muttering about Vietnam. It doesn’t seem like a productive way to have spent our lives. Cyclic history, perhaps, but that would mean we’d have moved on to a new one. Indeed, we’ve never learned from our own – or anyone else’s – history.

    Of course, considering the front half of the speech, Bush argues the economy is good. He has a few facts to back it up (remarkable gains in jobs, low unemployment, low inflation, deficit diminishing, home ownership up. But the Democrats seem to think that complaining about how much CEOs make is a winning strategy. Perhaps some individual companies should think a bit about the pay for what are not always high-performing executives who have friends on the board. But exactly how is that a problem for government to solve? The economists on this blog will know more than I do – maybe I’m living in a fool’s paradise. Things just don’t seem that bad.

     

    5 Responses to “SOTU Links – Offered for Comment”

    1. James A Pacella Says:

      Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Let’s set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace–and you can have it in the next second–surrender.

      Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face–that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand–the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he would rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war.

    2. James A Pacella Says:

      That was by Ronald Reagan.. somehow that was cut off from the message.

    3. Robert Schwartz Says:

      The Webb speech was tendentious nonsense. If corporate presidents make 400X what workers make they are making something like $12 Million to $20M. Maybe that happens at the very largest corporations, but not very many and seldom for very long. Why is it we never hear Democrats complaining about how much surly NBA point guards make, even though they are the same rarefied income bracket.

      And this gem: “Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.”

      What does that mean? What is the difference between precipitate and short order? And what pray tell is “regionally-based diplomacy”. Does it mean ask Ahmadi’nejad if he would mind waiting until our troops were gone before he let the dogs out? That would be just plain dumb.

    4. James A Pacella Says:

      Bush’s call for a doubling of the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve should be a Red Alarm to everyone about what the future is holding.

      He knows War (War not war) is coming.

      Nobody is talking about it.

    5. PoliticalCritic Says:

      Loved the Webb speech. He threw in some stuff he didn’t have to (probably b/c establishment Dems made him), but his comments about the Iraq War were right on the money.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.