Post #13

Bush links Lebanon to war on terror

President says violence a reaction to efforts to build democracy

This story is from MSNBC.com . My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday that his administration’s determination to remain in Iraq and its efforts to end violence in Lebanon are key to protecting the U.S. from future terrorist attacks.

[Let’s see: Stay in Iraq where our presence is the focus of terrorism. Make Israel leave Lebanon. Isn’t that a contradiction? Shouldn’t Israel, too, be allowed to keep their troops in Lebanon as the focus of terrorism? Fight em in the streets of Beriut instead of Tel Aviv, ya know.]

Democrats countered that Americans will be safer if the nation begins a phased pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq.

“It is no coincidence that two nations that are building free societies in the heart of the Middle East — Lebanon and Iraq — are also the scenes of the most violent terrorist activity,” Bush said in his weekly radio address. “We will defeat the terrorists by strengthening young democracies across the broader Middle East.”

[Um, isn’t Israel a thriving democracy? Why does that not help with us rooting out the Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan?]

He acknowledged that “the way forward will be difficult.” But, the president said, “America’s security depends on liberty’s advance in this troubled region.”

[No, Mr. President, your legacy depends on liberty’s advance. If democracy were to bloom tomorrow in Iraq, we would not be safer.]

Democrats chose Joe Sestak, a former Navy vice admiral who is challenging Republican Rep. Curt Weldon in a competitive race outside Philadelphia, to deliver their party’s response to the president. Sestak argued for “a new direction for America’s security.”

He said it is time for the U.S. mission in Iraq to end.

“We must begin a phased redeployment of our forces so that we are prepared to face the security challenges we have worldwide,” he said.

[Yes, as showed by the recent foiled plot to blow up planes over the Atlantic, our most serious security challenge remains Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. And the logic of “no distinction between terrorist organizations and the governments that harbor them” says that Pakistan is next. Isn’t Pakistan ripe for some of that liberty advancing!?! :p ]

The nation’s safety looms as a major issue in the midterm elections Nov. 7, particularly after last week’s news of a foiled plot in Britain to blow up jetliners over the Atlantic. Both Republicans and Democrats are maneuvering for the political advantage in an election in which control of Congress is at stake.

Democrats have been accusing the Bush administration of trying to ignite fear among Americans and gain political points by claiming they alone can keep them safe.

[Uh, how does that work? The crowd who was asleep on 9-11, the crowd who promised to bring Al-Qaeda to justice – literally, all they have done is “smoke em out, get em on the run…” and run… and run, the crowd who avoided New York subway bombings in 2003 because Al-Qaeda called them off, the crowd who sings “God Save the Queen” every morning….:p ]

Republicans argue that Democrats are weak on national security.

[I disagree with some Democrats’ tactics in fighting the war on terror. But #1 is getting out of Iraq… now – there are other more pressing needs.]

With American deaths in Iraq over 2,600, the U.S. public growing more weary of the war, and even some troops frustrated with the pace of progress, Democrats have been increasingly vocal about what they say is the lack of a plan for success in Iraq and the need for a timetable for bringing U.S. forces home.

Sestak said ending the U.S. presence in Iraq would free up money and energy to concentrate on other dangers, such as nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran and bolstering homeland security protections. Two days of spending in Iraq would pay for screening all air cargo on passenger planes, while five days of Iraq costs would fund the screening of all cargo coming into the nation’s ports, he said.

“We are fostering a culture of dependence in Iraq,” Sestak said. “Iraqi leaders must be responsible for their own country. They must make the difficult political compromises that will stop the civil war and bring about stability. Completing our mission in Iraq will also make America safer everywhere.”

Bush argued that his approach is working.

“We will defeat the terrorists and expand freedom across the world, we’ll protect the American homeland and work tirelessly to prevent attacks on our country,” he said. “The terrorists remain determined to destroy innocent life on a massive scale, and we must be equally determined to stop them.”

[Bravo – well said. Except for that “expand[ing] freedom” part. We can not “work tirelessly” and “be equally determined” against our enemy if we are involved with “expand[ing] freedom.” Iraq is NOT part of the war on terrorism. Win, lose or draw, Iraq is an isolated mess. We broke it, let’s fix it… or leave. Staying in Iraq is hurting our war on terror.]