"Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001 -- and al Qaeda attacked us anyway. The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse."
Yes, George, al Qaeda attacked the U.S. on 9/11, and the U.S. wasn't in Iraq at that time, and while the U.S. presence in Iraq didn't "cause" or "trigger" the rage of all Islamic radicals, it unquestionably caused or triggered the rage of some of them, thereby "strengthening" extremism. And no, the U.S. wasn't occupying Iraq on 9/11, but it was involved elsewhere in the region, as you yourself recognize:
"Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago."
I love the way he tries to distract the audience by throwing in the Crusades to suggest that these Islamic radicals are just trying to revenge centuries old defeats, and the defeat of the Taliban, which perhaps he'll acknowledge occured after 9/11, in order to detract from the two causes which were the stated reasons for the 9/11 attacks -- the oppression of the Palestinians, and the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia. Of course he tries to minimize the former, by referring only to the West Bank, as if Gaza were not occuped on 9/11, and were not in fact still under the control of the Israelis, being operated in effect as a large open-air prison. He also completely avoids mentioning the United States. It wasn't "the Israeli occupation of the West Bank" which caused the hatred of the United States, it was the United States support -- financial, political, and military -- for that occupation, which was, and remains, the source of Arab hatred of the United States. Something which Bush has no intention of changing, and therefore carefully avoids even mentioning.
As for the rest of Bush's "argument" -- "We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world." -- I've already addressed that piffle. al Qaeda wasn't even in control of Afghanistan, one of the weakest (politically and militarily) countries in the world; it hardly has as its objective to "enslave whole nations." That's your goal, George.
Does anyone think it's mere coincidence that, on the day Bush delivers this speech, New York City is suddenly in a panic over alleged threats to the subway system?
