Speaking out against Bush

Yesterday, wnile listening to NPR, I heard a report about President Bush mentioning in a speech that a planned terrorist attack against a building in LA had been thwarted in 2002. The reporting focused mostly on the mayor of LA's outrage at not knowing the details of this long ago. My reaction was anger. I assumed then (and still do now) that a large part of the reason for releasing this information now is to bolster support for his illegal wiretap activities.

I decided, instead of doing a knee-jerk reaction post, I would actually read the entire text of the speech, rather than base my comments on second-hand reporting. I came away with even more anger than before. Included below are excerpts from the speech, lifted from the transcript available at the White House's web site.

Here's the section that I originally heard on NPR:

Since September the 11th, the United States and our coalition partners have disrupted a number of serious al Qaeda terrorist plots -- including plots to attack targets inside the United States. Let me give you an example. In the weeks after September the 11th, while Americans were still recovering from an unprecedented strike on our homeland, al Qaeda was already busy planning its next attack. We now know that in October 2001, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad -- the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks -- had already set in motion a plan to have terrorist operatives hijack an airplane using shoe bombs to breach the cockpit door, and fly the plane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We believe the intended target was Liberty [sic] Tower in Los Angeles, California.*

Rather than use Arab hijackers as he had on September the 11th, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad sought out young men from Southeast Asia -- whom he believed would not arouse as much suspicion. To help carry out this plan, he tapped a terrorist named Hambali, one of the leaders of an al Qaeda affiliated group in Southeast Asia called "J-I." JI terrorists were responsible for a series of deadly attacks in Southeast Asia, and members of the group had trained with al Qaeda. Hambali recruited several key operatives who had been training in Afghanistan. Once the operatives were recruited, they met with Osama bin Laden, and then began preparations for the West Coast attack.

Their plot was derailed in early 2002 when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al Qaeda operative. Subsequent debriefings and other intelligence operations made clear the intended target, and how al Qaeda hoped to execute it. This critical intelligence helped other allies capture the ringleaders and other known operatives who had been recruited for this plot. The West Coast plot had been thwarted. Our efforts did not end there. In the summer of 2003, our partners in Southeast Asia conducted another successful manhunt that led to the capture of the terrorist Hambali.

I have a few problems with this. First of all, there's my initial reaction. If this took place in 2002, then why is it only now being released? What change in the state of the world made it OK to divulge this yesterday, but not a year ago? My assumption, as I've implied above, is that the change is not a military or intelligence change. It's a political one. President Bush is under fire for his handling of his self-proclaimed war on terror, and so he's falling back on the tried and true methods of fear and insinuation.

He also begins in this section to bolster his claims of broad international support, by talking about this unnamed Southeast Asian nation. It looks to me like he's again asking the American people, and the rest of the world, to take him at his word. I don't know too many people willing to do that at this point, except members of the Republican party.

Oh, and one little thing. I know that Mr. Bush is noted for his mispronunciations. So perhaps this was an honest mistake. But it wasn't the "Liberty" Tower. It was the "Library" Tower that was the supposed target. Honest? Maybe. But an attack on "liberty" sure plays to the crowd better than an attack on "library," don't you think?

Now, on to other points.

Mr. Bush said:

The terrorists have an ideology; they share a hateful vision that rejects tolerance and crushes all dissent; a world where women are oppressed and children are indoctrinated; and those who reject their ideology of violence and extremists are threatened and often murdered.

Certainly true, and I think we can agree on that. But I see this country heading down that very same path. Nowhere near to the same degree (yet), but there none the less. "No Child Left Behind" is one big child indoctrination machine. Oppose the administration's policies? You must be un-American, because you're helping the terrorists. Make (or receive) an overseas phone call? We'll be listening.

Mr. Bush likes to play up his idea of a coaltion of free nations united in a common cause. But then he uses sentences like this:

We're clarifying the choice facing every nation: In this struggle between freedom and terror, every nation has responsibilities -- and no one can remain neutral.

We're "clarifying?" That doesn't sound like words of encouragement to willing partners to me. It sounds more like a threat. "Fight with us, or you may be the next Iraq." Overstated, maybe. But the coersive threat is there none the less. Especially in light of this:

The courage of Iraqis is inspiring others across the broader Middle East to claim their freedom, as well. And the message is going forth from Damascus to Tehran that the future of the Middle East belongs to freedom.

Freedom, American-style, that is.

Mr. Bush states:

Free nations don't wage wars of aggression;

but how does that fit in with remarks made earlier in the speech?

We will continue to take the fight to the enemy.

and

The terrorists are living under constant pressure -- and this adds to our security. When terrorists spend their days working to avoid death or capture, it's harder for them to plan and execute new attacks on our country. By striking the terrorists where they live, we are protecting the American homeland.

Doesn't that sound like a "war of aggression" to you?

One more "picky" thing. I know this was said as an aside, in jest, but I think it's telling anyway.

When you're a Texan you always got to make sure you pay attention to your fellow Texans.

I'm afraid that, at some below the surface level, President Bush is a Texan first, and a US President second.