“9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11”

From the AP:

President Bush compared the fight against terrorism to both world wars and other great conflicts of the 20th century as he tried to reassure an increasingly skeptical public on Monday to support U.S. military involvement in Iraq.

With the anti-war movement finding new momentum behind grieving mother Cindy Sheehan, Bush acknowledged the fighting in Iraq is difficult and dangerous. But he told the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention the fight is necessary to keep terrorists out of the United States.

As he did in last year’s election campaign and more recently as war opposition has risen, Bush reminded his listeners of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — reciting the date five times in a 30-minute speech.

The Discussion: 16 Comments

..and the point is?

August 22, 2005 @ 11:58 pm | Comment

I’m just putting it out there…

August 23, 2005 @ 12:36 am | Comment

Play It Again Sam — Why Are We In Iraq?

OK, I just got done watching the Inside 9/11 special produced by National Geographic and I just finished with a couple of discussions with my brother (TheChosenOne) about the whole blame game of 9/11 and why it happened in the

August 23, 2005 @ 1:49 am | Comment

My reaction precisely Gordon: “huh?”

August 23, 2005 @ 3:24 am | Comment

“Just putting it out there” so you can bask in an anti-Dubya echo chamber…

It’s these unnecessary partisan indulgences in American politics like this that prevent Peking Duck from being a truly great international anglophone blog on China.

I will continue to hope that one day Peking Duck separates into two blogs: One suitable for those who read Daily Kos, and the other, well, about China.

August 24, 2005 @ 4:19 am | Comment

Additionally, a leader’s rhetorical linkage of a current war to other wars in history is hardly a new development in politics…

August 24, 2005 @ 4:21 am | Comment

I think Conrad, Gordon et al would have something to say about TPD being a anti-Bush echo chamber!

Anyway, I won’t be guest-blogging about US politics—I know my limits.

August 24, 2005 @ 5:33 am | Comment

That bastard!

What right does the Commander in Chief have to remind us over and over that we are at war? And when speaking to a bunch of VETRANS no less!

When in the world will BushitlerMcChimpBurton understand that we DON’T CARE about his silly “war on terror” and certainly don’t want to be reminded of it in speeches?

August 24, 2005 @ 1:09 pm | Comment

I find the reactions to this post pretty interested. All I did was put up an excerpt from an AP article about Bush’s own defense of his war policies. And that’s enough for Johnny K. to go on a lather about partisanship.

August 24, 2005 @ 1:18 pm | Comment

Merely because it was one particularly bad example of the partisanship that lessens the overall quality of this site.

Or in a version you can understand, when the 1,974th soldier dies in Iraq and you protest it, you are not protesting the death of 1, but the death of 1,974 as most recently manifested in the 1 that is the 1,974th.

August 24, 2005 @ 3:59 pm | Comment

How is it partisan to simply repost the president’s own justifications for his war?

Which is not to say that I’m not a partisan.

As Richard himself has stated, if you don’t like the posts on American politics, don’t read them. And if you feel they so detract from the quality of this site, then do what others have done and start your own. Anyone who wants a platform for his/her views can have one, it just takes the commitment to do so.

And sorry, I don’t understand what the hell you’re talking about.

I read the military deaths columns every time they are printed in my paper. I read about each and every one of those deaths. I try to think about who these men and women were, about their lives, about their families. And I think about how they died, and why.

It’s not much, but if you are trying to say that I don’t care, well…

August 24, 2005 @ 4:27 pm | Comment

Guys, this is a partisan site so if that offends you, you really should go elsewhere. I don’t want to offend anyone.

I am outspoken in my contempt for the Iraq War, which had nothing to do with the war on terror, and Lisa is doing us a service by showing us in Bush’s own words how he shrouds the dirty Iraq war in the mantle of 911, because he needs to justify it somehow. Phrases like we are safer now and freedom is on the march and we’re taking the fight to the enemy are vacuous, utterly devoid of substance, as are Bush’s lame efforts, even now, to somehow tie this catastrophe to 911.

As to Bush bringing up these issues at a veteran’s meeting – it’s just what he did at that cadet graduation a couple months ago, the one where no one applauded. It’s pure Hughes-Rove, the guarded setting designed to maximize sympathy. Nothing terrible about that, though it reminds us of the Bush cocoon, where he always needs to be safe. And he needs those props, like a battleship and Mission Accomplished signs, or a fake turkey. Let’s face it, the guy’s a one-trick pony. Wind him up and he spouts the same tired clichees that no one believes anymore.

Now, it’s fine for him to remind us we are at war. But to speciously bring up 911 again and again as though it was the cause of that war is part of the reason America is up in arms today, with shrub’s approval ratings still falling for both the man and his dirty war. I am delighted to say that here in Asia, virtually every story on the state of the war is coupled with a story on Cindy Sheehan or one of the many American mothers following in her footsteps. You would be amazed. This site now reflects the mainstream thinking on Iraq, and, irony of ironies, the twisted contortions Rob and Johnny are going through to justify the McWar to themselves are now viewed as the partisan, extreme and deluded viewpoints. It took a while, but America has woken up. There are some stragglers, mired in emotional delusions of success and liberty and freedom, but luckily America is now seeing them self delusional at best and con artists at worst.

Johnny, I request that you refrain from attacking my site for its “partisanship.” This is an opinion site, not an objective newswire service. Feel free to criticize the content of any post, but please don’t knock my site, at least not here, where you’re a guest. Comments like that diminish the quality of this site which I and others work hard to maintain. Thanks a lot.

August 24, 2005 @ 7:14 pm | Comment

I realize that it is an opinion site, but I’d prefer if it stuck to being, well, about China.

Also, I’m not quite sure which Asian media richard is reading, but my own perusal of Asian media do not seem to verify his claim.

And please do not accuse me of going through ‘twisted contortions’ to justify this war. I’d be curious as to anything I’ve said that could be defined or interpreted as such.


August 25, 2005 @ 2:05 am | Comment

Johnny, with respect, I really don’t care what you think my blog should be. It reflects my opinions, not yours. I am a Daily Kos reader and believer; look at my blogroll to the left and you will see I am a proud liberal. Why do you want me to be something I am not? There are ample warblogs and to-the-right sites to delight you forever. I am who I am and make no apologies and no compromises. If you don’t like that, no one forces you to come here.

The media I was referring to in my earlier comment include China Post, Taipei Times and the Asia versions of CNN and the BBC. And on stations where I couldn’t keep up with the Chinese, Cindy leads the news on Iraq. It doesn’t matter if we hate her or love her. All that matters is her message is resonating around the world, for better or worse.

August 25, 2005 @ 6:34 am | Comment

Johnny K prefers this site to stick to China-blaming because then he feels more secure about himself. Typical neo-con…

August 27, 2005 @ 8:13 pm | Comment

Very interesting blog!

September 16, 2005 @ 6:59 am | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.