"Democracies don’t attack each other or threaten the peace."

Aren't the leaders of Iran elected?

and

"For a half- century, America’s primary goal in the Middle East was stability"

Isn't this still the goal? If not, we can just leave Iraq now and let the whole thing implode.

Bottom line, more war drums. Just can't figure out if it's real or for the November show.

You say "nuance and technicality," I say "functional literacy."

You say "defending ourselves," I say "making it harder to defend ourselves."

Not much room for agreement there, Z. baby.

For a half- century, America’s primary goal in the Middle East was stability. This was understandable at the time; we were fighting the Soviet Union in the Cold War, and it was important to support Middle Eastern governments that rejected communism. Yet, over the decades, an undercurrent of danger was rising in the Middle East

Read: We used you as pawns against the Russians, and now we're paying the price. This isn't new, it's been said before, but not that I can recall from the President himself so clearly.

Democracies don’t attack each other or threaten the peace. Governments accountable to the voters focus on building roads and schools — not weapons of mass destruction.

This was most unusual, since we are a democracy that attacked another country that was not an immediate threat to us, we are falling behind much of the world in terms of education and public transportation, and we are still developing new weapons of mass destruction. Now not all this is bad (except education and transportation), and not all of this is the fault of the current administration (except the invading Iraq part). I'm just surprised it made it's way into this speech.

As for LJD's "statute of limitations" comment, the point wasn't that the atrocities should be forgotten, but that they should be responded to in a timely manner, not decades later (see Iraq here also). You can't claim self-defense against an action that took place 20 years ago.

So we're going after Saudi Arabia, right?

Well, LJD, how else would you gauge people's actual aims? Since the U.S., the richest & most powerful country in the history of the world, doesn't seem to be able to do such a bang-up job of that.

If we're going to invade countries whose nationals actually pose a terror threat to the U.S. homeland, Iran is pretty far down the list, isn't it? Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are an order of magnitude more dangerous, with Egypt not far behind.

If you are equating internationally requested U.S. intervention in the Middle East (remember Kuwait?), and the U.S. desire to enforce the terms of ceas fire when we spanked Saddam the first time, then I guess you could say that is interfering (with Saddam's desire to support terror abroad and on his own people). What frickin twisted view you have.

How far does this lassez faire policy of yours go? What kind of 9/11 would have to occur to justify any response? Is that your policy, to wait it out until an enemy's aims are proven with their actions (at the cost of many innocent lives)?

Which side are you on, Takfir-boy?

Well, it is indeed good that he's caught up that far, at least. Though "Islamist" doesn't even seem like a word. Would fundmentalist Christian terrorists be "Christist"? "Christic"? Sounds like Heidegger.

I'm reading The Looming Tower, and "Takfirs" seems a pretty good word for the kind of quasi-Muslims we're fighting. Though probably not technically accurate.

Let me know when you give up, and I will enlighten you.

As for the "SOL on American lives," I thought we outsourced our retribution to the Israelis ... besides, that's LAW ENFORCEMENT talk. Whose side are you on, jihadi boy?

I agree that there's not much new here in the sense that he's said variations of these things before. Putting them into a single speech, though, and tying the threads together is helpful.

It was only recently that Bush has been willing to say that we are fighting an Islamist movement. Until then, he always couched things in terms of "terrorists" who "hated us for our freedom," which missed the point entirely.

I do agree, though, that a causus beli dating to 1983--similar to making a case against Saddam based on attrocities committed during the Iran-Iraq War--is bizarre. While there's not a "statute of limitations" on such things, I'm not much impressed unless they're given as part of a much longer chain that continues to this present.