Can You Marginalize a Majority?

Warren Vieth writes in the Los Angeles Times: "President Bush said Thursday that mistakes made by three of his predecessors . . . had emboldened terrorists and helped set the stage for the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Bush said he was determined not to repeat the pattern by pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq before the insurgency there is contained and Iraqi forces are able to provide adequate security. . . .

"Bush's characterization of progress in fighting terrorism was questioned by some.

"Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), the senior Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, said the number of 'significant terrorist attacks' tracked by the State Department had reached its highest level and that most occurred in Iraq.

"'There are nine times as many terrorist attacks in Iraq this year as there were last year,' Markey said. 'What kind of progress is that?'"

A Reader's Critique

White House Briefing reader J. Harley McIlrath of Grinnell, Iowa, e-mailed me yesterday some insightful questions about just one sentence of Bush's speech.

In fact, his questions about that one sentence alone were more penetrating and important than any of the coverage I read of Bush's whole speech this morning.

The sentence from Bush: "The only way the terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon the mission."

McIlrath wrote:

"1. Who are 'the terrorists?' He's talking about Iraq. Are 'the insurgents' also 'the terrorists?' Has Bush ever defined just who 'the terrorists' are?

"2. What would constitute a 'win' for the terrorists? What do they want? Do we know? Has Bush ever asked himself what 'the terrorists' want and whether or not it's reasonable? Tactics aside, what do they want? Don't tell me 'they hate freedom.'

"3. What constitutes 'losing our nerve?' Is it losing one's nerve to pull resources back from an ineffectual approach and apply them to an approach that is more promising? How many times in WWII did we pull resources off one front to reinforce another?