He went into a long explanation. I think he really believes this. It reinforces everything he has said for the last year. But the argument is BS and sets up straw-men to attack, before it dissolves in incoherence and contradictions.
Uh, David...it's an interesting period, ummm, because, ummmm, instead of having foreign policies based upon trying to create a sense of stability, we have a foreign policy that addresses the root causes of violence and instability. Ummm, (shrug) for awhile, American foreign policy was just, "let's hope everything is calm." A managed calm. But beneath the surface brewed a lot resentment and anger that was manifested in its, uh, on September the eleventh.Clinton kept things calm and more peaceful but wasn't solving the real problems. A debatable point but a reasonable beginning, if you ignore the chaos the administration's new policies have inspired.
And so, we have taken a foreign policy that says, on the one hand we will protect ourselves from further attack in the short run by being aggressive and chasing down the killers and bringing 'em to justice. Make no mistake, they're still out there. And they would like to harm our respective peoples because of what we stand for. The long term to defeat this ideology, and they're bound by an ideology, you defeat it with a more hopeful ideology called freedom.Except he isn't chasing down the killers of 9/11! He has said he doesn't care about Osama. They diverted from the effort to capture and destroy al Qaida to invade and occupy Iraq, something his administration wanted to do before it came to power. Oh, and the reason they attacked us, only because they hate our freedom - the biggest and most stupid talking point of the right. They don't hate our freedom. They hate our policies. Even the religious fanatics, and many terrorists are not religious fanatics, can ignore our freedom but can't stand the Middle East policies and governments our government supports.
Look, I fully understand that some people don't believe it's possible for freedom and democracy to overcome this ideology of hatred.Does Bush even believe this? You have a group that you say hates freedom and democracy - so you give them freedom and democracy to stop the hate? Based on the results of elections in the Middle East it is not effective. Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Palestine all have Muslim extremist parties gaining strength with democracy. This is a very wrong frame, a way off-base way of looking at the problem.
I just happen to believe it is possible and I believe it will happen. And so what you're seeing is, a clash of governing styles for example, you know, the, the, the, notion of democracy beginning to emerge scares the ideo, ideologues, the totalitarians, those that who want to impose their vision. It just frightens them and so they respond. They've always been violent.He has incorporated "they hate freedom" so this is the way he is seeing the spreading chaos. Does he realize that he is saying that spreading democracy is going to lead to more violent clashes, more terrorists?
Now I hear this amazing kind of, uh, editorial thought that says all of a sudden, Hezbollah's become violent because we're promoting democracy?Is he arguing against himself? He just said groups that hate freedom will react against freedom but attributes this to other people having editorial thoughts! No, I guess he is setting up another straw man argument - "some people" say Hezbollah became violent because we promote democracy.
They have been violent for a long period of time. Or Hamas? One reason why the Palestinians suffer is because there are militants who refuse to accept a Palestinian state based upon democratic principles.But Hamas won the election and is now in power. Palestine is also in flames, suffering, because Israel and the United States didn't accept that election. Hamas accepted a Palestinian democratic state, they had problems with an Israeli state that oppressed their people.
And so what the world is seeing is a desire by this country and our allies to defeat the ideology of hate with an ideology that has worked.Where?
And that brings hope. And one of the challenges of course is to convince people that you know, that Muslims would like to be free.Straw-man again - the only people I know who think that Muslims don't want to be free are in his party.
You know, that there's other people other than people in Britain and America that would like to be free in the world. There's this, kind of, almost, a weird kind of elitism that says maybe, maybe certain people in certain parts of the world shouldn't be free. Maybe it's best just to let them sit in these tyrannical societies and our foreign policy rejects that concept.He supports tyrants, his best allies in the Middle East are dictators, feudal kingdoms, and military governments. The very conservative base of his party believe that certain people in other parts of the world shouldn't be free. These aren't straw-man arguments - they are Bizarro World arguments.
We don't accept it. And so we're working and uh, this is, I said the other day after these attacks took place. I said this should be a moment of clarity for people to see the stakes in the twenty-first century. I mean, now there's an unprovoked attack on a democracy. Why?I assume he's meaning the kidnapping of two soldiers. He wouldn't mean the over-reaction where Israel destroys Lebanon's infrastructure. To answer why - because this has been going on for fifty years.
I happen to believe because progress is being made toward democracies. And I believe that.How do you believe an attack on Israel was made because democracy is increasing and hold that is not the reason at the same time? Bush just said that this is the incorrect belief of some people's editorial thoughts. He also said that that Hezbollah attacked because of its history of violence. These are incoherent thoughts.
I also believe that Iran would like to exert additional influence in the region. A theocracy would like to spread its influence. Using surrogates.What he really wants to do is blame Iran because they and Syria are next on his list. He has given a democratic Iraq dominated by fundamentalist Muslims to Iran as a surrogate, Doesn't he realize that is what the elections in Iraq did?
And so I am as determined as ever to continue fostering a foreign policy based upon liberty. And I think it's going to work. Unless we lose our nerve. And this government isn't going to quit.He won't quit his incoherent policy and he thinks it will work.
Bush is still answering questions wearing his earpiece and someone supplies him with key words and phrases. You can hear bits of previous speeches in this answer but having them altogether makes the incoherence more visible. His arguments are against himself, against his conservative party base, and against non-existent straw men.
ADDED - I hadn't realized there was a follow-up with more of the Bush response. Part of the Bush response was telling the reporter by asking these questions you are helping the terrorists.
Well, David, we went to the G8 and worked with our allies and got a remarkable statement on what took place. We're working to get a United Nations resolution on Iran. We're working to have a Palestinian state. But the reason why -- you asked the question -- is because terrorists are trying to stop that progress. And we'll ultimately prevail, because they have -- their ideology is so dark and so dismal that when people really think about it, it will be rejected. They just got a different tool to use than we do: They kill innocent lives to achieve objectives. That's what they do. And they're good. They get on the TV screens and they get people to ask questions about, well, this, that or the other. I mean, they're able to kind of say to people, don't come and bother us because we will kill you.
And my attitude is, is that now is the time to be firm. And we've got a great weapon on our side, and that is freedom, and liberty. And it's got -- those two concepts have got the capacity to defeat ideologies of hate."