I was planning on doing a whole workup of the many howlers in the president's speech on the GWOT yesterday, but there are too many, and I don't have time. (Matt flagged one here.)
So, I figured I'd just take one of the lowest-hanging pieces of low-hanging fruit:
Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. This is a dangerous illusion, refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people, and its resources?
Can the president point to one serious analyst who thinks - whether we leave next year or not - that there is a serious prospect of OBL and Zarqawi setting up a national government in Iraq? I mean, seriously, if the above suggestion isn't intellectually insulting to you, you may want to get that checked out. Here's Shibley Telhami on a similar point in today's WaPo:
"The vast majority of people in the Arab world sympathize with al Qaeda only because it champions their issues and speaks their language and it's seemingly effective against their enemies. But most would not want al Qaeda to be the rulers. They would be repulsed to have someone like Zarqawi, who is beheading people, to head their government."
And what do we think, say, Iran may have to say about this prospect? Or Israel? Or Saudi Arabia? Or ANYBODY?
Moreover, if you want to be really Machiavellian, wouldn't it be better if you could make the terrorists think they had won, and that they could set up a central government? And then, you know, bomb their first meeting of the minds into the stone age? I mean, really, THAT'D be a flypaper strategy--get 'em all to congregate in one place and then introduce them to our little friend JDAM?
How do they let him say stuff like this? It's embarrassing.
Comments