The incredibly-shrinking president told the Heritage Foundation today about the new target of his ire.
“When it comes to funding our troops, some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground, and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters.”
Well, at least didn’t refer to the “internets” or “the Google.”
It’s hard to know where to start with a paragraph like this, but let’s give it a shot. First, “when it comes to funding our troops,” let’s not forget Bush was the first president to ever veto funding for the troops during a war. Second, it’s odd to hear the president talk about taking bin Laden seriously when it was Bush who said, “I truly am not that concerned about him.”
Third, and perhaps most importantly, picking a fight with “MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters” seems like an unusually petty task for a president of the United States. Bush should hardly know who Code Pink is — and his criticism of the group has raised their profile to new heights and no doubt made their year. The whole thing just made Bush look rather small.
As Faiz put it, “With his anemic presidency on the rocks, Bush has resorted to battling with bloggers and war protesters for relevance.”
Of course, Bush had other things to say this afternoon, including his latest historical analogy.
He argued that the current debate over the Iraq war and the Bush administration’s anti-terror methods harkens back to debates decades ago in Washington when Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin first talked about launching a communist revolution, when Adolf Hitler began moves to establish an “Aryan superstate” in Germany, and when some argued that Cold War accommodation of the Soviet Union was wiser than competition.
“Now we’re at the start of a new century, and the same debate is once again unfolding, this time regarding my policy in the Middle East,” Bush said. “Once again, voices in Washington are arguing that the watchword of the policy should be stability.”
Bush said denial that “we are at war” is dangerous.
“History teaches us that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake,” Bush said. “Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is, will we listen?”
I’m looking for a coherent argument here, but it’s elusive. I suppose Bush’s point is that bin Laden is bent on world domination, so we should stay in the middle of Iraq’s civil war indefinitely.
Or something. It wasn’t exactly the president’s best speech.