George Soros gave a speech today. How about a look-see? Here goes:

This is the most important election of my lifetime. I have never been heavily involved in partisan politics but these are not normal times. President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests and undermining American values.

One could say "President Bush is endangering our safety." Or another way to put it: The people planning to blow us up are endangering our safety. The "vital interests" and "American values" themes will come up in more detail later.

That is why I am sending you this message. I have been demonized by the Bush campaign but I hope you will give me a hearing.

President Bush ran on the platform of a "humble" foreign policy in 2000. If we re-elect him now, we endorse the Bush doctrine of preemptive action and the invasion of Iraq, and we will have to live with the consequences.

Actually, Soros truncated Bush's foreign policy platform. During the 2000 debates with Gore, Bush said, "(O)ur nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we have to be humble. And yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom." (Emphasis added.) Bush was very clear about the need to promote freedom - even before the events of 9/11.

As I shall try to show, we are facing a vicious circle of escalating violence with no end in sight. But if we repudiate the Bush policies at the polls, we shall have a better chance to regain the respect and support of the world and to break the vicious circle.

That sounds like a lengthy way of saying, "surrender."

I grew up in Hungary, lived through fascism and the Holocaust, and then had a foretaste of communism. I learned at an early age how important it is what kind of government prevails. I chose America as my home because I value freedom and democracy, civil liberties and an open society.

When I had made more money than I needed for myself and my family, I set up a foundation to promote the values and principles of a free and open society. I started in South Africa in 1979 and established a foundation in my native country, Hungary, in 1984 when it was still under communist rule. China, Poland and the Soviet Union followed in 1987. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, I established foundations in practically all the countries of the former Soviet empire and later in other parts of the world and in the United States. These foundations today spend about 450 million dollars a year to promote democracy and open society around the world.

Around the world, with the exception of Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc.

When George W. Bush was elected president, and particularly after September 11, I saw that the values and principles of open society needed to be defended at home. September 11 led to a suspension of the critical process so essential to a democracy - a full and fair discussion of the issues. President Bush silenced all criticism by calling it unpatriotic.

It's a good thing that Soros doesn't have a blog, because he'd have to actually show, you know,proof or a link or a citation. A quick check at Project Vote Smart for all of President Bush's public statements doesn't show the incumbent ever using the word "unpatriotic."

When he said that "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," I heard alarm bells ringing.

So did the terrorists.

I am afraid that he is leading us in a very dangerous direction. We are losing the values that have made America great.

Values, such as the ability to send unlimited quantities of untraceable cash to shadowy figures in Yemen, or use cell phones and email to plan terrorist attacks.

The destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center was such a horrendous event that it required a strong response. But the President committed a fundamental error in thinking: the fact that the terrorists are manifestly evil does not make whatever counter-actions we take automatically good. What we do to combat terrorism may also be wrong.

Remember this quote. Remember it every time you hear from MoveOn.org or MediaMatters or any other Soros financed project. "What we do to combat terrorism may also be wrong."

Recognizing that we may be wrong is the foundation of an open society. President Bush admits no doubt and does not base his decisions on a careful weighing of reality. For 18 months after 9/11 he managed to suppress all dissent. That is how he could lead the nation so far in the wrong direction.

Sounds like Soros hasn't been paying attention to his own ventures or political allies. MoveOn.org has hosted ads likening President Bush to Hitler. Ted Kennedy has accused President Bush of concocting a war for political gain out of his ranch in Texas. Howard Dean raised tens of millions of dollars while running a campaign in which he called President Bush "the enemy here." That's suppressed dissent?

President Bush inadvertently played right into the hands of bin Laden. The invasion of Afghanistan was justified: that was where bin Laden lived and al Qaeda had its training camps. The invasion of Iraq was not similarly justified. It was President Bush's unintended gift to bin Laden.

Does Soros believe that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was justified? Or, after we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait, the set of rules that Saddam Hussein agreed to live by as a condition of ending Gulf War I? As far as a gift to bin Laden, here's how Abu Zarqawi described that gift: "By the Lord of the Ka`ba, [this] is suffocation and then wearing down the roads. "

War and occupation create innocent victims. We count the body bags of American soldiers; there have been more than 1000 in Iraq. The rest of the world also looks at the Iraqis who get killed daily. There have been 20 times more. Some were trying to kill our soldiers; far too many were totally innocent, including many women and children. Every innocent death helps the terrorists' cause by stirring anger against America and bringing them potential recruits.

And Soros is on record as saying the following about Saddam's mass graves and Chemical Ali's murder of 100,000 Kurds:

That's right. Nada.

And as far as stirring anger against America: Was the U.S. in major combat when the U.S.S. Cole was attacked? How about the Khobar Towers? Or the U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa? Or the first World Trade Center bombing? Or 9/11? Or the Iran Hostage Crisis?
Or the 1983 bombing of a Marine barracks in Beirut?

Seems like the terrorists were "angry" at the U.S. long before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Immediately after 9/11 there was a spontaneous outpouring of sympathy for us worldwide. It has given way to an equally widespread resentment. There are many more people willing to risk their lives to kill Americans than there were on September 11 and our security, far from improving as President Bush claims, is deteriorating.

U.S. soldiers are battling terrorists on foreign land, not on U.S. soil. And, to correct Mr. Soros, the "people who are willing to risk their lives to kill Americans" are called "terrorists."

I am afraid that we have entered a vicious circle of escalating violence where our fears and their rage feed on each other. It is not a process that is likely to end any time soon. If we re-elect President Bush we are telling the world that we approve his policies - and we shall be at war for a long time to come.

Actually, President Bush said it would be a struggle that would be lengthy - as the U.S. is fighting an enemy different from any others we've fought in the past. It will continue for most of our lifetimes. The only way we won't be at war for a long time is, again, if we surrender.

I realize that what I am saying is bound to be unpopular.

Good thing President Bush took an oath to uphold his right to say it!

We are in the grip of a collective misconception induced by the trauma of 9/11, and fostered by the Bush administration.

As opposed to the collective misconception, fostered by the Clinton Administration and its predecessors that the U.S. was invulnerable to mass terror attacks.

No politician could say it and hope to get elected. That is why I feel obliged to speak out. There is a widespread belief that President Bush is making us safe. The opposite is true. President Bush failed to finish off bin Laden when he was cornered in Afghanistan because he was gearing up to attack Iraq.

Why let the facts get in the way of a good urban myth? One of the two ranking military commanders of the Afghanistan conflict spells out why this statement is an out-and-out falsehood in his recent interview with The Command Post.

And the invasion of Iraq bred more people willing to risk their lives against Americans than we are able to kill - generating the vicious circle I am talking about.

Vicious circle? Well, some of Soros critics might say that circle is exactly what it looks like when a billionaire chases his own tail. And for the record: setting up an improvised explosive device on an Iraqi back road at night, and then hiding in the bushes to wait for a coalition truck to drive by, doesn't exactly constitute "willing to risk their lives." It might constitute "terrorism," though.

President Bush likes to insist that the terrorists hate us for what we are - a freedom loving people - not what we do. Well, he is wrong on that. He also claims that the torture scenes at Abu Graib prison were the work of a few bad apples. He is wrong on that too. They were part of a system of dealing with detainees put in place by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and our troops in Iraq are paying the price.

Ah. The Abu Grhaib card. Except an independent panel reviewed the entire case and concluded that Rumsfeld condoned no wrongdoing. The panel found, indeed, it was "the work of a few bad apples."

How could President Bush convince people that he is good for our security, better than John Kerry? By building on the fears generated by the collapse of the twin towers and fostering a sense of danger.

Soros must have forgotten the weeks after 9/11. Most of New York walked around grief-stricken, dazed - emotionally paralyzed. Fears and rumors about the next attack spread like wildfire. Slowly - very slowly - people started getting back to normal. Then, during the 2001 World Series that President Bush took to the mound at Yankee Stadium and threw a perfect strike to New York Yankee Todd Greene, in the open air, in front of 57,000 people, while Osama bin Laden hid in a cave. Bush showed pretty much the whole world that Americans didn't have to live in fear; that they could get on with their lives. Though parts of the video were a bit schmaltzy, The Pitch (which can be found here), portrays it pretty well.

President Bush didn't tell or show the country that it had to live in fear. He did quite the opposite. But he also let it be known that were had to continue to fight for freedom like other American generations.

At a time of peril, people rally around the flag and President Bush has exploited this. His campaign is based on the assumption that people do not really care about the truth and they will believe practically anything if it is repeated often enough, particularly by a President at a time of war. There must be something wrong with us if we fall for it. For instance, some 40% of the people still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected with 9/11 - although it is now definitely established by the 9/11 Commission, set up by the President and chaired by a Republican, that there was no connection.

President Bush has never said - not a single time - that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Although, the 9/11 Commission report didn't "definitely establish" anything about a connection or non-connection. It found what's been said all along: no smoking gun has been found linking Saddam to the attacks. But Saddam wasn't overthrown for that reason.

I want to shout from the roof tops: "Wake up America. Don't you realize that we are being misled?"

But instead of shouting from the Mountain Tops, he's contributed lavishly to MoveOn.org and other anti-Bush organizations. They do all the shouting for him.

President Bush has used 9/11 to further his own agenda which has very little to do with fighting terrorism. There was an influential group within the Bush administration led by Vice President Dick Cheney that was itching to invade Iraq long before 9/11. The terrorist attack gave them their chance.

If you need a tangible proof why President Bush does not deserve to be re-elected, consider Iraq.

It's a good thing Soros doesn't believe in factless, ad hominum attacks. Otherwise he might make a lot of unattributed, sweeping assertions.

The war in Iraq was misconceived from start to finish -- if it has a finish. It is a war of choice, not necessity, in spite of what President Bush says. The arms inspections and sanctions were working.

Which inspections? The ones where Saddam's scientists refused to be interviewed? The ones where he refused to permit U.S. intelligence overflights? The ones where he submitted a 12,000-page WMD declaration, dated 1973, that was written in Microsoft Word?

And which sanctions? The Oil-For-Food Program? Can someone help Late Final out; there's not enough bandwidth here to list all the links to material detailing how crooked, corrupt and dangerous to American interests that was.

In response to American pressure, the United Nations had finally agreed on a strong stand. As long as the inspectors were on the ground, Saddam Hussein could not possibly pose a threat to our security. We could have declared victory but President Bush insisted on going to war.

Or you could believe David Kay, who told this to Congress: "We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.

So much for successful inspections...

We went to war on false pretences. The real reasons for going into Iraq have not been revealed to this day. The weapons of mass destruction could not be found, and the connection with al Qaeda could not be established. President Bush then claimed that we went to war to liberate the people of Iraq. All my experience in fostering democracy and open society has taught me that democracy cannot be imposed by military means.

Well, unless you count that little skirmish that started in 1776.

Actually, the real reason for going to war is that Saddam Hussein invaded and raped Kuwait, lost the war when the U.S. got involved, made a bunch of promises so we'd stop shooting at them, and then reneged on every single promise. The onus was on Saddam to prove he didn't have WMD, not on the U.S. to prove he didn't have them.

And, Iraq would be the last place I would chose for an experiment in introducing democracy - as the current chaos demonstrates.

That's right. Only Western should be permitted a shot at democracy, liberty and freedom.

Of course, Saddam was a tyrant, and of course Iraqis - and the rest of the world - can rejoice to be rid of him. But...(Emphasis added)

That summarizes the anti-war left's entire discussion of the toppling of Saddam.

Iraqis now hate the American occupation. We stood idly by while Baghdad was ransacked. As the occupying power, we had an obligation to maintain law and order, but we failed to live up to it. If we had cared about the people of Iraq we should have had more troops available for the occupation than we needed for the invasion. We should have provided protection not only for the oil ministry but also the other ministries, museums and hospitals.

Or troops could have been in place to make sure there were no atrocities, no millions of refugees flooding into Iran, Jordan or oil fields set ablaze causing a monumental environmental disaster. Not that Soros would want to Monday morning quarterback or anything...

Baghdad and the country's other cities were destroyed after we occupied them.

Again, according to retired Gen. Mike DeLong, they were a shambles before U.S. troops ever got there. Saddam never spent a nickel on infrastructure. Nothing had been updated since 1979.

When we encountered resistance, we employed methods that alienated and humiliated the population. The way we invaded homes, and the way we treated prisoners generated resentment and rage. Public opinion condemns us worldwide.

Three words: "Thank you, America."

The number of flipflops and missteps committed by the Bush administration in Iraq far exceeds anything John Kerry can be accused of. First we dissolved the Iraqi army, then we tried to reconstitute it. First we tried to eliminate the Baathists, then we turned to them for help. First we installed General Jay Garner to run the country, then we gave it to Paul Bremer and when the insurgency became intractable, we installed an Iraqi government. The man we chose was a protégé of the CIA with the reputation of a strong man - a far cry from democracy. First we attacked Falluja over the objections of the Marine commander on the ground, then pulled them out when the assault was half-way through, again over his objections. "Once you commit, you got to stay committed," he said publicly. More recently, we started bombing Falluja again.

To put the hub-bub over Prime Minister Allawi to bed: Iraqi leaders consented to his appointment. Ayatollah Sistani consented - otherwise there would be real unrest in Iraq now. In fact, the only ones who didn't consent were the terrorists.

Now, three more words: Elections in January.

The Bush campaign is trying to put a favorable spin on it, but the situation in Iraq is dire.

Some might say it was dire when Saddam was filling mass graves with dissidents or prisons with children.

Much of the Western part of the country has been ceded to the insurgents. Even the so-called Green Zone (a small enclave in the center of Baghdad where Americans live and work) is subject to mortar attacks. The prospects of holding free and fair elections in January are fast receding and civil war looms. President Bush received a somber intelligence evaluation in July but he has kept it under wraps and failed to level with the electorate.

Security is good enough to allow elections, now, in 15 of 18 provinces in Iraq, according to Iraqis running the country now. In New York City during the Dinkins Administration, they would have loved if three boroughs had that kind of security.

Bush's war in Iraq has done untold damage to the United States. It has impaired our military power and undermined the morale of our armed forces.

As opposed to, say, billionaires giving fact-free speeches that say, in words or in substance, that the U.S. is losing?

Before the invasion of Iraq, we could project overwhelming power in any part of the world. We cannot do so any more because we are bogged down in Iraq.

Looks like Libya didn't get that memo.

Afghanistan is slipping from our control.

True. It's a sovereign country about to elect it's own leadership in about 10 days. Then the country will be in control of its own destiny.

North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and other countries are pursuing nuclear programs with renewed vigor and many other problems remain unattended.

Pakistan is an ally. It developed the bomb, however, during the Clinton Administration.

By invading Iraq without a second UN resolution, we violated international law.

Soros might be a billionaire, but he's not so good at math. There were more than 16 U.N. resolutions condemning Iraq and demanding it conform to the will of the world community. He snubbed each one.

By mistreating and even torturing prisoners, we violated the Geneva conventions.

It's not clear that Geneva conventions would have even applied. Many of those Iraqis and terrorists in custody weren't uniformed soldiers on a field of battle - a key qualifier for the Geneva conventions. But, still, all agreed that Abu Ghraib was bad.

President Bush has boasted that we do not need a permission slip from the international community, but our actions have endangered our security - particularly the security of our troops.

Actually, the terrorists have endangered U.S. security, and the security of troops. That's why we're at war.

Our troops were trained to project overwhelming power. They were not trained for occupation duties. Having to fight an insurgency saps their morale. Many of our troops return from Iraq with severe trauma and other psychological disorders. Sadly, many are also physically injured. After Iraq, it will be difficult to recruit people for the armed forces and we may have to resort to conscription.

Actually, Bush opposes a draft while Democrats are pushing it.

And as far as morale, it might be better if they listened less to Soros and more to President Bush who told them this earlier this month:

"Tonight I want to speak to all of them and to their families: You are involved in a struggle of historic proportion.

"Because of your service and sacrifice, we are defeating the terrorists where they live and plan, and making America safer. Because of you, women in Afghanistan are no longer shot in a sports stadium. Because of you, the people of Iraq no longer fear being executed and left in mass graves. Because of you, the world is more just and will be more peaceful.

"We owe you our thanks, and we owe you something more. We will give you all the resources, all the tools, and all the support you need for victory."

There are many other policies for which the Bush administration can be criticized but none are as important as Iraq. Iraq has cost us nearly 200 billion dollars -- an enormous sum.

And because of an attack on one day - Sept. 11 - the cost to one city - New York - was $95 billion. An enormous sum.

It could have been used much better elsewhere. The costs are going to mount because it was much easier to get into Iraq than it will be to get out of there. President Bush has been taunting John Kerry to explain how he would do things differently in Iraq. John Kerry has responded that he would have done everything differently and he would be in a better position to extricate us than the man who got us in there. But it won't be easy for him either, because we are caught in a quagmire.

The "Q" word. And Soros can't provide any more details about what to do differently than Kerry has...

It is a quagmire that many predicted.

Many also predicted higher casualties. (Barry McCaffrey: “[W]e could take, bluntly, a couple to 3,000 casualties.”)

I predicted it in my book, The Bubble of American Supremacy.

(Currently ranked 4,376 at Amazon.com)

I was not alone: top military and diplomatic experts desperately warned the President not to invade Iraq. But he ignored their experienced advice. He suppressed the critical process.

He asked the U.S. Congress for support. It was given. He asked the U.N. for a resolution; Resolution 1441 was unanimous. And anyone who believes the war wasn't fully debated beforehand must not have a television, radio or access to the Internet. Yet, for some reason, Soros continues to say discussion of the war beforehand was suppressed.

The discussion about Iraq remains stilted even during this presidential campaign because of the notion that any criticism of our Commander-in-Chief puts our troops at risk. But this is Bush's war, and he ought to be held responsible for it. It's the wrong war, fought the wrong way. Step back for a moment from the cacophony of the election campaign and reflect: who got us into this mess? In spite of his Texas swagger, George W. Bush does not qualify to serve as our Commander-in-Chief.

Well, 50 million voters in 50 states and the U.S. Constitution say he is qualified. And some might say that it was Saddam Hussein - who invaded Kuwait, then lost the Gulf War, then ignored the obligations of his surrender - got the U.S. into the war.

There is a lot more to be said on the subject and I have said it in my book, The Bubble of American Supremacy, now available in paperback.

Yes, we know. (4,376)

I hope you will read it. You can download the chapter on the Iraqi quagmire free from www.georgesoros.com

That will have to wait for another post.

If you find my arguments worth considering, please share this message with your friends.

Hey, even if a lot of people don't find your arguments worth considering, they'll share them! It's the age of the Internet, fisking and PhotoShop!

I would welcome your comments at georgesoros.com . I am eager to engage in a critical discussion because the stakes are so high.