In·sur·gent
Pronunciation: -j&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin insurgent-, insurgens, present participle of insurgere to rise up, from in- + surgere to rise -- more at SURGE
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party
Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals.[1] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are: intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for a political goal (as opposed to a hate crime or "madman" attack), deliberately target "non-combatants". Some definitions include a priori immunity for the "legitimate" government. Consistent definitions may not restrict or fix in advance the list of possible affected subjects and must include state terrorism. In many cases the determination of "legitimate" targets and the definition of "combatant" is disputed (especially by partisans to the conflict in question).
With these definitions in mind, read the interview Bush had with Scott Pelley on January 12th 2007. Here's the beginning, you can read the whole thing here.
SCOTT PELLEY: The war on terror, in a sense, began in this room, began in this cabin where your Cabinet meeting was held. Back then the whole country was with you. And now you seem to have lost them. Why do you think so?
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Not to correct you, but the war on terror began on the streets of New York when an enemy attacked us. But you're right. We came here to plan a response. And, you know, I can remember thinking that it's gonna take a monumental effort to keep the country's attention on this war because it's an interesting dilemma for the president. On the one hand, you want them to understand we're at war. On the other hand, you want people to go about their daily lives. In other words, people can't be looking over their shoulder and seeing the next terrorist attack. And America has gone ahead. Our economy's good and people are, you know, helping their neighbors. And so I'm not that the danger the country felt after September 11th has slipped. Secondly, the Iraq War hadn't gone as well as I had hoped at this point in time. I mean, in my speech to the country I said we had good successes in 2005, and I truly believe we're gonna be in a position to reduce our presence. And then the situation changed on the ground. And people are, you know, people are discouraged. They don't approve of where we are. And so I think it's where the country is.
I think all we can do at this point is see the humor.
6 comments:
Not quite sure I see where the humor lies. War or any type of armed conflict is hardly humorous. W is right that the general public doesn't approve of how things have turned out. That's what led to the great congressional purge this past year. The one thing that I firmly believe the extremists that planned and carried out the acts of terror on 11 sep 2001 is that the American people didn't have the stomach for war. They were right. Unfortunately with war or any armed conflict comes casulties and as long as they are inflicted on the other side we are happy campers. That's why nary a peep was heard from anyone while the war was waged from the air. But, the reality is that you need ground forces to win any war. I beckon you back to 1940. Germany waged an air war on Britain and was very succesful with their attacks. Had they followed those up with an invasion force I have no doubt Britain would have fallen. Japan made the same mistake in 1941. Had they followed the attack on pearl harbor with an invasion force they would have controlled the Pacific. We knew that the air war itself would not succesfully carry out the objective of overthrowing Saddam. Right or wrong once we got ourselves into this mess we should have been prepared to carry out the mission to completion. I too would like to see us hand the country back over to the Iraqi government and concentrate on what the intial objective should have been which was to seek out Bin-Laden and bring him to justice. I thought that Iraq was a mistake from the beginning. I hated Saddam as much as the next guy as I do all dictators. Mission one (bin-laden) should have been accomplished before any other undertaking. And now with Saddam gone I believe our mission there should be done once we have helped train the Iraqi army and leave them to protect their own country.
Oh, and just to clarify my position about war not being humorous. I served in Grenada and found nothing funny about being shot at by Cuban soldiers. I also have a son in the USAF who is scheduled to deploy in September. Where has yet to be determined. The worst thing is the darned fool wants to go.
Wow Larry! Spoken like a Liberal! Woo hoo, there is hope for you my man!
Every lib I know agrees with you. Not a single one had a problem with going into Afghanistan and after OBL. Not one. And certainly not me, I was handing out coffee and donuts to the first wave of soldiers leaving Arizona. That, I'd do again. Iraq, on the otherhand is a clusterfuck of errors. Look, I can't stand gw. At all! But God help the poor bastard who thinks he's going to invade my country and save me from him.
You were in Grenada? So was I, well, I was the blonde chick on the helo getting shot at. No, no humor there.
My "humor" was listening to a man spin everything, go off all cowboy and in the end of 4 pages told the American people : Screw you.
I really didn't mean to rant on that one too much. I thought that George the first should have let Schwarzkopf continue on to Baghdad in the first war. At that time I feel we were justified in doing so. I don't know exactly what went on in the planning of this expedition to Iraq nor do I know what was in W's heart either. I think he got bad intel and info and was misled by his own advisors. But in the end the responsibility is his. Same with Clinton sending troops into Somalia and the Balkans. Maybe I'm just a bit jaded but I never thought the military was a fricking police force. We had no business being in either of those places either.
Oh and that wasn't spoken like anything more than a man that has served his country and has studied military history. Oh, just to add something somewhat radical so you won't think I've mellowed too much. Geraldo Rivera should have been summarily executed for treason on the battlefield for what he did!!
You're not jaded, we shouldn't be. BUT! I'd rather see these poor guys in Durfur rather than Iraq. At least one has meaning.
Bad intel? We have the greatest intel in the world. It wasn't bad, it was bent to his will, as everything in the last 6 years has been. Oh to be a fly on the wall of scooters trial!
Refresh my memory... I'm not a Geraldo fan - at all!
Post a Comment