ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

9/11 and our efforts in the Middle East

I noticed the following two items in today's Media Research Center Cyberalert.

The following item, which covers CNN talking heads being "offended" that the President linked 9/11 to our efforts in Iraq.

1. CNN Team Upset by Bush Tying 9/11 to Iraq, Gergen "Offended"
The CNN analysis team, after President Bush' national address Tuesday night from Ft. Bragg, seemed obsessed about Bush tying September 11th to the war in Iraq. Wolf Blitzer fretted: "We heard a lot of explanations of the connections to 9/11, the new world after 9/11. We heard no reference to the major argument that he made going into the war: weapons of mass destruction." David Gergen falsely asserted that Bush "never once called them 'Iraqi insurgents,' as the media does. He called them terrorists, you know, as if they're all associated and linked to the attacks here on 9/11." When Zahn asked if Bush "overreached with these multiple references to 9/11 when there has been absolutely no linkage established between the actions of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein on that horrible day?", Gergen said he was "offended by the regularity of coming back to 9/11" because "none of the terrorists were linked to Saddam, and, you know, there's been this myth for a long time that's just untrue that Saddam was somehow responsible for 9/11." But that wasn't Bush's point. He was just putting Iraq into the context of world threats post 9/11. On ABC, George Stephanopoulos also questioned Bush's linking of 9/11.

First, this parrots Harry Reid's milquetoast statement here - trying to assert that the President is doing a bait & switch on the American people. So, it's interesting that CNN and the Democratic leader have similiar initial perspectives.

Second, our efforts in Iraq are very much part of a reaction to 9/11 and, if successful, could eliminate the possibility of future 9/11s. As we have seen in Lebanon, the possibility of a democracy in one country in the Middle East inspires others to seek freedom as well. And governments which must rely on the votes of their people are unlikely to kill innocent men, women, and children for dubious purposes. And as Bush said immediately after 9/11, the main problem in the Middle East isn't that the governments there are targeting us - it's that they give terrorists such as Al Qaeda safe harbor to train, plan, and launch attacks. Democratically elected governments don't allow such things.

It's amazing to me that 4 years into this war, the folks at CNN (and many on the left like MoveOn.Org) don't get this... I wonder if they would have understood why we went to war with Hitler (and didn't negotiate with him) even though it was Japan that bombed us.

This second item relates to the good news from Iraq that you don't hear often. It seems that ABC News decided that it might as well provide something other than the IED of the day.
3. In Midst of Listing Problems in Iraq, ABC Notes Positive Trends
In the midst of a Tuesday World News Tonight story on the problems facing Iraqis, ABC's David Kerley also pointed out benefits gained by Iraqis thanks to the U.S. removal of Saddam Hussein. Kerley showcased one family with "a computer, which their teenage daughter uses to chat online, and satellite TV, which the family often gathers around -- two things they were not allowed to own under Saddam." But, he added, "the electricity is unreliable" and "went out during our interview." Kerley noted, however, that "more electricity is being generated than before the war" and the problem is prosperity: "With the purchase of so many appliances -- TVs and air conditioners -- demand far outstrips the supply of electricity." He cited other successes: "Internet and telephone subscribers have doubled" and "more children are attending school."

Click on each link for more in depth "coverage of the coverage"

***UPDATE***
Powerline provides us with the text of the Congressional Resolution to go to war with Iraq. Hmmmm, it seems that the Dems that voted Yea on the option (including John Kerry) understood that there were links between al Qaeda, Saddam, and the War On Terror as well (although they're singing a different tune today):
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;


Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler