Bush on Iraq: Nothing New
My insta-reaction to Bush's big speech on Iraq tonight was very simple: it was a Greatest Hits compilation of all his past evasions of responsibility, false analogies, refusals to correct course, and cheap acts of demagoguery.
Sure, he made the obvious points about the costs of simply abandoning Iraq to the consequences of his long series of mistakes, but in the glaring absence of any acknowledgement of a single one of those mistakes, his speech was, well, an insult to the American people.
I don't have time right now to go into detail about this speech, but three things about it really stuck out:
1) At a time when a graceful, and even minimal, admission of past errors, from WMD to the invasion plan to every aspect of the DOD "reconstruction" non-plan, would have disarmed some critics, the best Bush could offer was: "Our progress has sometimes been uneven."
2) At a time when a significant majority of Americans no longer believe the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with a rational response to 9/11, Bush repeated the claim that it was all about 9/11 several times, and at least twice suggested the war kept "terrorists" from attacking America.
3) And at a time when the country, and even Republican Members of Congress, are begging the administration for some change of course in the plan for Iraq, Bush offered as his "news" warmed-over military transition initiatives that essentially build on the failed efforts of the recent past.
I heard one NPR analyst suggest that the major object of Bush's speech was to reinforce Republican support for his Iraq policies (which has dropped from more than 90 percent to about 70 percent in recent months). I don't know if the speech accomplished that objective, but it's hard to imagine it had a positive impact on much of anybody else.
Yes. It's a shame that major networks gave Bush a 30 minute infomercial with no news content.
June 28, 2005 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
All the points are valid Ed. But #2 really jumps out at me...
2) At a time when a significant majority of Americans no longer believe the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with a rational response to 9/11, Bush repeated the claim that it was all about 9/11 several times, and at least twice suggested the war kept "terrorists" from attacking America.
The American people now seem to understand that Iraq and 9/11 are not connected. Bush tried to tie the 2 issues together without providing any new proof of a connection. I don't think Bush's speech will have much of a lasting impact on public opinion. His policies need to start showing tangible progress or the public won't be swayed by the same tired rhetoric.
Also his delivery was awful. He didn't seem sincere at all (not that he ever is in my mind, but worse tonight). It kind of looked like he was reciting a memorized speech rather then "leveling" with the american people.
June 28, 2005 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
except for in the post-speech coverage, it looks like more drank the kool-aid than didn't. Plus, the media has gone GOP insane afterwards. Flipping the channels as I type, we've got McCain on CNN, Gingrich on Fox News, and an unknown conservative (as well as Tucker Carlson and a group of troop families) on MSNBC.
Looks like another well-orchestrated event all-around for the right. The approval rating for the speech, the war, and Bush will, unfortunately, go up by tomorrow.
It's hard to walk in quicksand when people (the media) are throwing sticks at you instead of extending one to you.
<-Last Note- Chris Mathews just referred to the speech as "powerful" and said all of the pre-war promises by Bush were "made in good faith." He then turned the floor over to Tucker Carlson....-->
June 28, 2005 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The estimable Needlenose blog has a great chart on the contributions various NATO countries are giving for Iraqi troop training: http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1569
Here's what is listed for the United States: "Commands the operation under Lt. Gen. David Petraeus. 60 instructors and a force protection company with NTM-I mission in Baghdad. Providing logistics and airlift support. Pledged $500,000."
Now I'm sure the US is doing more than this with regards to training, but, as fubar notes, "the U.S. contribution to this effort is $500,000. That's out of a reported $408 billion defense budget and another $45 billion for Iraq alone.
When did you say the U.S. troops were coming home, Mr. President? No, seriously."
Isn't there an opening for Democrats to demand that the Bush administration do a better job on diplomacy and get more NATO resources for Iraqi troop training, and for the administration to devote more money & resources for Iraqi troop training, in order to substantially increase the speed and quality of the training, and increase the chances of success?
It may seem like nitpicking, but as we've seen with body armor, the Bushies don't seem to have a sense of urgency when it comes to these kinds of things. Riding their ass when it comes to devoting maximum money & resources for Iraqi troop training might be decent politics for Democrats, and more importantly, it might be good for the country too.
June 28, 2005 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Timmie Russert even noted that Bush's reason for invading Iraq ha morphed from looking for WMD to eliminating a terrahist base. Of course the only terrorists in Iraq were brought there or created there by the invasion. The TV networks should be ashamed to provide free political speech time to the Republicans.
June 28, 2005 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe that Bush and his handler(s) went to the trouble of having a nationally televised speech (earlier today CNN called it a definitive statement on a bold new Iraq policy) to say no more than was said tonight. Something is missing. I can't put my finger on it, but this seems like an act in the play rather than the dramatic climax. I guess time will tell, but this evening just did not ring true to Rove, and I'm referring more to the overall political strategy involved than any words said or not said. Somehow I think there is more to come.
June 28, 2005 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I need to read the transcript of the speech to pinpoint all those statements that had me writhing with scorn, but Bush always has that effect on me. What truly sent me into paroxysms of outrage was our own boy Biden afterward (on ABC). How many times did he mewl his prayers to God that the American people would continue to support the president's course?
June 28, 2005 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, I am sure they will but approval won't be long lasting. Bush has no plan and that will be reflected by a lack of positive results.
<-Last Note- Chris Mathews just referred to the speech as "powerful" and said all of the pre-war promises by Bush were "made in good faith." He then turned the floor over to Tucker Carlson....-->
All the lies were in "good faith"? What little respect I had for Mathews just got flushed down the toilet like a big turd. He just said Bush lied in good faith? Amazing!!!
June 28, 2005 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably becasue the speech isn't really meant for the 50% that generally disapproves of him.
I think it was more designed to get those folks on the other side of the 50% who he has been losing back on board: especially Republicans who have been wondering away. Some polls have put Bush's approval amongst Rs only in the 70s, which is historically very low for Bush.
June 28, 2005 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't watch those things for a reason.
That said, apparently Russert, Blitzer, and Paula Zahn were all quite harsh on it. Matthews is impossible to read. He actually opposed/es the war.
Ben P
June 28, 2005 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The CNN channel i watched the last half of Bush's speech on (by accident, i had forgotten) actually did a good job immediately after the speech, of pointing out the attempts by Bush (6 i believe) to mention 9/11 to try to keep a connect between 9/11 and the Iraq coupe, and of the no mention of WMD in the speech. By pointing out those 2 things, they of course enlightened any dummies in the audience to these facts.
He really came across as a used car salesman again to me in this speech, but then I always consider him a used car salesman so I wouldn't be an objective person to ask.
I dont' think his approval rating will go up a notch. If it does go up a notch, it'll be back down next week.
Bush has really messed things up for the Republican Party, IMO, with the Iraq coupe debacle / quaqmire. (I think. I don't have much confidence in the average American so i'm not sure if mickey mouse in office would mess anything up for the Republicans.)
Bush stated there would be no timetable. That might mean that they do have a timetable, but that the timetable is linked to the next Presidential election, and if so, they want to keep the timetable a secret.
But I keep on saying, if Republicans push Democrats to produce their own timetable, they ought to state that 3 1/2 years more is needed in order to end the quaqmire in Iraq in terms of complete withdrawal. After all, Democrats are not the ones who got us into the Iraq quagmire to begin with. It was Bush. And since it was Bush, it was the Republican Party that got us into the Iraq quagmire. Democrats would not have gone in because they know better, they know that it would take about 6 years in total.
June 28, 2005 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush repeated the claim that it was all about 9/11 several times, and at least twice suggested the war kept "terrorists" from attacking America.
Well then, I guess I would have one question that I would like to ask President Bush.
Would invading Iraq in 2000 prevented 9/11?
June 28, 2005 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you think its easy, here are some questions to answer, before criticizing (or even making fun of ) the Commander-in-Chief during war:
1. Withdraw from Iraq?
Yes or no?
2. Troops.
a. Send more troops?
b. Bring back more troop?
c. Keep the same level of troops?
3. Money.
a. Spend more money on Iraq?
b. Reduce the amount of money spend on Iraq?
c. Keep the current amount of spending on Iraq?
4. Timetable.
a. Announce the timetable to witdraw?
b. Do not announce a timetable to withdraw?
5. Declare the Iraq war was:
a. For oil
b. a conspiracy by the neocons to support Israel
c. to spread democracy in the Middle East
d. a fight against the terrorists
e. a mistake
f. stupid
g. second Vietnam
h. ________________(fill in your answer)
6. Support of our troops.
a. We support what our troops are doing in Iraq?
b. We do not support what our troops are doing in Iraq?
7. When an American soldier blows up a terrorist or an insurgent
a. We support him/her
b. We do not support him/her
8. When an American soldier is ordered to attack or blow up a terrorist/insurgents
a. We support him/her
b. We do not support him/her
9. Is this a moral war?
a. yes
b. no.
10. This is an immoral war, but I support our troops shooting and killing Iraqis
a. yes
b. No
11. This is an immoral war, but I support our troops being killed in this immoral war
a. yes
b. No
12. Is this a just war?
a. yes
b. no
13. Its not a just war, but I support our troops fighting/killing/being killed in the unjust war
a. Yes
b no.
14. Its better to kill the insurgents/terrorists in Iraq than in USA
a. yes
b. no
15. We will stay in Iraq until the casualties are
a. 3,000 men
b. 5,000 men
c. 10,000 men
d. _____________ (fill in a number)
16. 2,000 American soldiers died
a. in vain
b. for the defense of our country
17. This is a moral war and the soldiers did not die in vain?
a. yes
b. no
18. This is an immoral war and President Bush bears the blame for every soldier that died in the war
a. yes
b. no
June 28, 2005 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the admin. follows up this speech with proper resources and aggressive coalition building I would be hopeful of a good outcome for this mess. They haven't done either yet, so I have real trouble being optimistic about it.
About the speech itself, I think it was good. He did avoid criticizing himself or his admin.'s actions, as always, but it was pretty effective at making the case of why the public should support the effort. He gave you what a war president should: confidence, encouragement, he praised the outstanding efforts of our troops.
My favorite part was actually after the speech watching Wes Clark on Fox looking presidential as usual (I'm partial). God I wish that guy was in the WH instead of Bush.
June 28, 2005 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it's unpatriotic for Bush to keep lying to us all about this, ("the Iraq war is good for the war on terrorism because the terrorists are waging their war in Iraq") since the resources being expended in Iraq are resources that could have been expended on fighting the real terrorists - the ones who are planning a WMD attack on US soil.
June 28, 2005 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi trashed the speech on NBC. She continues to be clear and to call out the lies. Tell Chris Matthews that THAT is powerful.
June 28, 2005 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush made it clear that we were going to finish the "job". What is the "job". Is it gettin rid of the terrorists? And the insurgency, too? How can you do one without the other? What if the Iraqis "stand up" before the "job" is done? Do we stay or do we go?
Rumsfeld made it clear at the Senate hearing that we are NOT going to kill the insurgency. We are trying to contain the insurgency and will leave it to the Iraqi army to deal with. Lucky them. But if we don't kill the insurgency, how are we going to defeat the terrorists? I don't think they are discrete groups to the point that we can do one without the other.
The final point W made on this "finishing the job" business that I'm sure will cause people in Iran and around the world some anxiety is when he said how glad he was we were fightin' 'em over there and would pursue them throughout the world (I guess, of course, unless they go to the mountains of Pakistan). I've always wondered how that statement plays in Iraq. When he says how fortunate that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq they must be saying, "Gee, thanks George, we're so happy to be taking all the suicide bombers for America." My understanding is there were five suicide bombers today. The Iraqis have a lot to be thankful for.
June 28, 2005 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 28, 2005 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of false choices there. I'll answer number 18, though, it's yes.
June 28, 2005 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all about theater, isn't it? Addresses to the nation are normally given from the White House. I think the final lines - those praising the servicemen and their families as the camera panned the military audience - were the ones meant to be remembered by the American audience. Laying a guilt trip on the doubters and naysayers as a follow up to Rove's odious remarks. He even had a tear in his eye and choked up at the end. If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops.
Everything before that was a rehash of every other speech he's uttered. September 11. Terrorists are bad. Freedom in the Middle East blah blah. September 11.
His plan is this. "When the Iraqi forces stand up, we will stand down." Gee, thanks for clarifying everything, George.
June 28, 2005 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post is unclear. If you are trolling, then "NO" I don't think it is "easy" and the Commander-in-Thief should have thought of that before he acted, committing thousands upon thousands of lives into combat. He SHOULD have taken the advice of "liberals" to try to "understand the terrorists" and the impossibility of a "war" against "them" before jumping headlong into this "quagmire" and now the Republicans are looking towards the Democrats to come up with a plan? I bet you are! He should admit his ineptitude and mistakes and beg the forgiveness of the soldiers and their families.
June 28, 2005 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mathews has become a butt boy for the right wing lately. I'm sure it's no coincidence that he hosted his show on the night of Bush's speech from an evangelical Baptist church in Tennessee . . . you can safely expect the whole audience to be pro-Bush in that crowd.
Can't stand the way he constantly refers to the president as "commander in chief." President is more civilian sounding, but Mathews apparently likes the military state Bush is creating.
The guy's lost all credibility in my book.
June 28, 2005 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Ed Kilgore that as a whole the speech is pretty much a cut and paste job of previous rhetorical devices strung together and repeated too often. Yet nowhere in the speech was the question addressed as to whether our presence in Iraq is actually encouraging and strengthening the insurgency Bush claims we want to defeat, (of, course, in this speech he calls them "terrorists", not insurgents).
But this point is central to any reality based discussion as to what our "mission" really is in Iraq. If we want peace and security, (and "democracy) for Iraq, are we preventing that process from moving forward just by staying there? Sadly, none of the talking heads seem to have addressed this either.
The other thing I've been mentally chewing on for a while is the argument that "if we set a timetable for withdrawl the insurgents/(terrorists?) will wait us out and then wreak havoc after we've left". But this whole premise disintegrates when you consider that if it were true, then the insurgents could simply melt into the background now, (while they still have large munitions stockpiles), and wait for the US military to withdraw sooner, since if there's no violence to provide the excuse for us staying there, the public pressure to withdraw would be enormous. Then, as soon as we're gone, start the explosions again.
Since I don't believe the Bush regime has any intention of withdrawing from Iraq either now or in the forseeable future, these points I raise are moot in my own mind. Nevertheless, they are questions and issues that need to be addressed in the public discourse, if only to get the Bush team to explain their way around them.
One more thing. Bush seems to want us to believe that if we "win" in Iraq that it will make us safer here at home. Now, does he really think that Bin Laden and his sidekick Zawahiri, (both still on the loose), are going to be so depressed if the insurgency loses in Iraq that they'll be incapable of finding a couple of dozen suicidal zealots to commit some new atrocity here at home. If he thinks this, and if he expects us to believe such nonsense, he really is delusional in addition to being an imbecile.
June 28, 2005 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something is missing. I can't put my finger on it, but this seems like an act in the play rather than the dramatic climax.
I don't think so. Everytime there is some kind of trouble and Bush thinks he NEEDS to make a speech, he comes right out and stiffs it. It's been true since the 2000 election brouhaha. He's stiff, unconvincing, insincere, and generally clueless.
He's only good when he's on the political attack. Any kind of setback throws him off. The White House and staff simply cannot adjust to off-schedule or out-of-sequence or unplanned or unwanted events.
They have only one workable mode: attack and cue the Three Monkey Republican Chorus. And they only succeed in political version of that game. The have no clue when it comes to the military version. They couldn't react quickly after 911, the couldn't adapt to the situation in Afghanistan (bin Laden got away, didn't he?), they couldn't adapt to the Iraqi situation in the beginning, the middle, or now. Or in Korea. Or with Pakistan. Or with the Russians. Or the Chinese. Or Venuzuela. Just keep plodding on, following the same endlessly repeated rhetorical strategy, and hope you have competent subordinates.
George Bush: would have been the worst Marine EVER.
ash
['George! We're changing direction!' 'Why?' 'There's a gun emplacement that way! We gotta go around!' 'Well, I'm gonna follow the plan, Sarge, I'm sure my Daddy will sort things out later...']
June 28, 2005 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jerks never apologize.
June 28, 2005 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
In 1999, (According to Scripps Howard), he also said, (in reference to President Clinton & Kosovo);
"I would strongly urge that if there are U.S. troops involved, they be under U.S. command or NATO command," Bush said Thursday. "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn. If there needs to be a residual force, it is important that over time U.S. troops are withdrawn and our European allies carry the majority of the load."
Here's a link to the article.
June 28, 2005 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That sounds like a really neutral setting! <snark><p><br><br /><br />Apparently they had a fairandbalanced Fox style panel too: ie 2 hard right conservatives, a moderte conservative, and a "nonpartisan" journalist, but Matthews go even further - with a bunch of evangelical military wives. <p><br /><br />Geez, can you imagine if we went to, say, a coffee house in Berkeley with the panelists as: Molly Ivins, Eric Alterman, Marshall Witmann, and David Gergen. Thats about the equivalent to Matthews panel as a mirror image. I really can't figure out Matthews's deal: apparently he opposes the war.
June 28, 2005 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The choices were not false. And you proved my point, which is you can't give an answer:
//
Is this a false choice?
12. Is this a moral war?
b. no
a. Yes
//
Is this a false choice
This is an immoral war, but our troops should continue fighting an immoral war
a. yes
b. No.
//
Is this a false choice?
2. Troops.
a. Send more troops?
b. Bring back more troop?
c. Keep the same level of troops?
//
Is this a false choice?
4. Timetable.
a. Announce the timetable to witdraw?
b. Do not announce a timetable to withdraw?
//
Is this a false choice?
5. Declare the Iraq war was:
a. For oil
b. a conspiracy by the neocons to support Israel
c. to spread democracy in the Middle East
d. a fight against the terrorists
e. a mistake
f. stupid
g. second Vietnam
h. ________________(fill in your answer)
//
Is this a false choice?
8. When an American soldier is ordered to attack or blow up a terrorist/insurgents
b. We do not support him/her
a. We support him/her
June 28, 2005 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
George W. Bush is our president.
I've been repeating this to myself every night for 5 years, but it never looses that new car stink.
George W. Fucking-Ass-Wipe-Shit-for-Brains-Motherfucking-Criminal-Liar Bush is our president!!!
Tonight W showed not only his stubbornness and myopia ("resoluteness" and "focus" according to the GOP) but he also showed us all just how much contempt he has for the American people.
June 28, 2005 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not refine that list and take out some duplications, two questions in one etc. I'm not coy so here's 1-10.
1. No 2. I'm not a military commander 3. a 4. b 5. e 6. a 7&8. a 9. b 10. a
June 28, 2005 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
THere are no false choices:
Is this a false choice?
9. Is this a moral war?
a. yes
b. no.
Is this a false choice?
10. This is an immoral war, but I support our troops shooting and killing Iraqis
a. yes
b. No
June 28, 2005 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
1,740 Americans have died in vain over Bush's bullshit war-of-choice - a war unworthyof the death of one - in exactly the same way 57,000 of my brothers-in-arms died in vain in a war unworthy of the death of one of them for that other Texass moron, Lyndon Johnson.
(Said as a Texan who learned my lesson about voting Texans into national offices 40 years ago)
And if you keep this bullshit up with a third post, I'm going to troll-rate you.
June 28, 2005 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jenkins, you are the only one who posted answers. Kudos.
Others who can't give a logical, consistent, well supported answered, merely avoid answering the questions or claim "these are false choices."
Unless Democrats learn to answer specific questions and/or argue with reason, they will be a minority party.
June 28, 2005 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your comment. You know, I for some reason never considered what you state so obviously, which is that the insurgents could, if they wanted, melt away and make us think there's peace and then strike after we've gone.
They haven't done that, obviously, which implies that Americans are a primary target. If that's true, attacks on the Iraqi forces and police could be viewed as either them being American proxies (in their minds) or as provocations in order to draw us out. Attacks on Iraqi civilians could be viewed almost the same way, with less emphasis on them being proxies and more on them trying to draw our people out and adding them trying, in a probably ineffective and definitely unreasonable way, to convince Iraqi civilians that they won't be safe as long as we're in their territory.
I don't know the answer. War is complicated. Gang wars within a society are even more complex. Motives change constantly and rationality isn't the most guiding force.
But, you make a great point that if the only rationale is to get rid of us -- hiding, hording and tricking us into reducing our presence is the most rational course of action.
I don't really know or understand what's going on there. But you brought up something that is so obvious that it kicks you in the face... and it's something that hasn't been dealt with or considered, at least publicly.
June 28, 2005 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean Chris "Do you think God plays Hardball" Matthews?
...He really did ask that question of Billy Graham.
June 28, 2005 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like the question of whether Bush's approval rating will go up after this speech, and if so, for how long, is *the* question regarding this speech. (Therefore you can logically bet it was *the* reason for the speech.)
If you think about just who exactly is it that no longer approves of Bush, who did approve of him the poll before the last few, -- I don't think this speech will win those persons back. I don't think those persons will flip flop on Bush in other words.
If this is so - the net effect then of this speech will be to just send Bush's approval ratings farther downward.
Let's hope so. That's the way i'm betting on this one at least.
June 28, 2005 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. This post is very clear. It makes everyone think clearly. It makes you answer specific questions, rather than "spin like a politician."
2. now the Republicans are looking towards the Democrats to come up with a plan? I bet you are!
(a) The President has a plan - No withdrawal, no timetable, no more troops, moral and just war, we better wage it in Iraq and not in USA, etc. (Remember Bush's powerful line - "I know where I stand, whether you agree with me or not. On the other hand Kerry doesn't know where he stands." )
(b) Greens have a plan - immediate withdrawal, timetable, no troops, immoral and unjust war, etc.
(d) What's your plan? Where do you stand? Only when you answer the specific questions, then you will know where you stand.
BECAUSE CLARITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN AGREEMENT.
June 28, 2005 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh great anonymous quiz-maker. Who the fuck do you think you are? Please do me a favor and check back in when you think we dems are ready to move out the minority. We breathlessly await your judgement.
Your quiz is pointless. It's obviously just a silly attempt to try to box people into saying bad things about the troops so you can take offense and justify all your bad thoughts about liberals. But here's a 1 question quiz from me to you:
Then go sit in a corner and quietly work it out for yourself from there.
It'll all come to you eventually.
June 28, 2005 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Unlike you, I answer questions. You obviously failed to answer.
There are just wars and there are unjust wars.
There are immoral wars and there are moral wars.
2. I still await for your answers. Once again,
The President has answers. The Greens have answers. The Libertarians have answers. Do you have answers? No.
June 28, 2005 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do. Not. Feed.
June 28, 2005 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Any reflexive outrage about supposedly tying 9-11 to Iraq lacks subtelty of thought or even a minimal comprehension of what's actually being asserted."
Well said Anon. The Downing Street Memos show the importance of 11 September in the thinking of the President and the British. The Foreign Secretary indicated that "If 11 September had not happened, it is doubful that the US would now be considering military action against Iraq."
That does not indicate that the American and British administrations believed that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in that attack. Rather, it showed recognition of the willingness and ability of terrorists to take actions that murdered thousands of people.
As the Report by the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence showed clearly, Iraq had many contacts and provided support to various terrorist organizations. The Downing Street Memos show the honest belief of the British administration that Iraq had WMD that it might use before or after invasion or against Israel.
The British and American administrations were concerned that an Iraq that had previously used WMD would provide it to one or more of the terrorist organizations with which it had many contacts. One may reasonably differ with that assessment; however, one may not reasonably deny that people of good faith could have taken that position given available intelligence at the time.
Thus, 11 September very much ties to the decision taken to intervene in Iraq even though evidence to date does not indicate that Saddam directly participated in the attack.
Again, Foreign Secretary Straw captured this concept well in one of the Downing Street Memos: "Objectively, the threat from Iraq has not worsened as a result of 11 September. What however has changed is the tolerance of the international community (especially that of the US), the world having witnessed on September 11 just what determined evil people can these days perpetrate."
June 28, 2005 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all so depressing. Withdrawing from Iraq would almost certainly mean prolonged chaos and likely civil war in Iraq, with instability possibly spreading to neighboring countries or even throughout the region. This is not a responsible answer. Yet the Freidmanists who continue to cry out for more troops either apparently still don't realize there are no more troops to be had, or don't have the cajones to say the word: draft. As it is, with recruitment in near-freefall, simply maintaining the current force levels in country for years to come (if Rumsfeld says twelve it almost certainly means fifteen or twenty) is going to require a draft in the next year or two. Bush had better hope that when that moment comes independents are in a much better mood than they are right now.
June 28, 2005 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I watched the speech I thought I was watching the Pope preach his dogma for the millionth time. Apparently the President likens himself to a religious orthodox content to repeatedly advance the orthodox belief regardless if true. Make what is opinion the truth in the minds of the blindly obedient. After 2,000 years of Bush's authority we all might belief in what is actually one opinion among many and the wrong one in fact.
I feel sorry for those orthodox red staters who feel obligated to blindly follow their leader. Evidence of blind obedience can be heared on CSPAN call ins from Bush supporters.
So the problem we have to grapple with is an administration happy to exploit a complacent public. Getting the red staters to discontinue being empty vessels of the word to being critical thinkers will be a challenge.
"just believe" -Pres. Bush
June 29, 2005 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read the rules. You can't come in here an troll rate people's opinions.
June 29, 2005 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactamundo with the pre-scripted stuff, Ash. Remember the SOTU speech they rescheduled with great fanfare to come the day after the Iowa caucuses? He delivered what was basically an anti-Howard Dean screed because he takes longer than a high school sophomore to "practice" the speech he reads off the teleprompter and couldn't react to the new reality.
These people are proving the unfortunate saw that Republicans can't govern and Democrats can't elected. One would think that sooner or later, the former would change the latter, but in the post-reality-based world (I guess conservatives have stopped worrying and learned to love postmodernity) it's anyone's guess what flows to what in a causal chain in the electoral world.
June 29, 2005 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Destor--I think of things this way: there isn't an insurgency, there are insurgencies. Each group has specific interests and the only way to mitigate them is to ensure that everyone has a real stake in a federated Iraq, that they will get enough out of it to make a maximalist civil war unpalatable. That's a tall order to achieve and the real hand-tier in terms of American commitment. If the U.S. leaves when things are relatively stable, but it blows up in civil and regional war five years later, was our mission a success or a catastrophe?
So whether Americans are the primary target now or not doesn't mean that will always be the case. Even if that changes the Iraqi government will likely be fragile and unstable and all our efforts may well have been for naught. Now more than ever it's clear this wasn't a hand we'd likely win with.
June 29, 2005 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you think its easy, here are some questions to answer, before criticizing (or even making fun of ) the Commander-in-Chief during war:
You've trailed this one on several boards, and I am guessing you are working for the RNC. But what fun!
1. Withdraw from Iraq?
Yes. I see no reason to stay long-term.
2. Troops: a. Send more troops?, b. Bring back more troop?, c. Keep the same level of troops?
Irrelevant. I see no reason to try and hold Iraq in its entirety so sending more troops is silly.
3. Money: a. Spend more money on Iraq?, b. Reduce the amount of money spend on Iraq?, c. Keep the current amount of spending on Iraq?
Keep the same level until withdrawn. I don't need to short troops on armor while I'm trying to get them to conduct a withdrawal in good order.
4. Timetable: a. Announce the timetable to witdraw?, b. Do not announce a timetable to withdraw?
In this wargame, I am withdrawing to the Sunni line, and it gets done when it gets done. No announcement.
5. Declare the Iraq war was:
a. For oil, b. a conspiracy by the neocons to support Israel, c. to spread democracy in the Middle East, d. a fight against the terrorists, e. a mistake,
f. stupid, g. second Vietnam, h. ________________(fill in your answer)
I'm getting out so it hardly matters. However, yes to a., b., c. in the ironic sense, d. in the stupid sense, e., f., h. (Daddy didn't get relected in 1992 because of tax increases, and Iraq, so he decided on the opposite policy), but not g. because Vietnam was different. More important in the global sense and less disasterous.
6. Support of our troops: a. We support what our troops are doing in Iraq?,
b. We do not support what our troops are doing in Iraq?
By 'Support the troops', I think you mean 'support the President'. I do not support destroying my army for no good. If we're gonna get guys killed, let's get them killed for a reason, like say kicking the hell out of the Pakistanis.
8. When an American soldier is ordered to attack or blow up a terrorist/insurgents: a. We support him/her, b. We do not support him/her
I'm not going to attack American soldiers for doing their job, which is why I would like them to leave. That applies to 7. too.
9. Is this a moral war? a. yes, b. no.
I may support a war but war is not moral, it is amoral. That's why it is war and not badmitton, not going to church, not helping others. Wars are fought to kill people and break things.
10. This is an immoral war, but I support our troops shooting and killing Iraqis: a. yes, b. No
I am against fighting the Iraqis, particularly Iraqi patriots. But if it's a choice between my guys and them, f*** 'em. Also applies to 11 and 12. And 13.
14. Its better to kill the insurgents/terrorists in Iraq than in USA: a. yes, b. no
It is better to kill terrorists in Pakistan, which is where they actually are.
15. We will stay in Iraq until the casualties are: a. 3,000 men, b. 5,000 men, c. 10,000 men
You seem to be asking for a prediction: I predict we will stay until the President actually manages to destroy the army wholesale.
16. 2,000 American soldiers died: a. in vain, b. for the defense of our country
I hadn't noticed we had annexed Iraq. Same for 17.
18. This is an immoral war and President Bush bears the blame for every soldier that died in the war: a. yes, b. no
This is a pointless war. It's not good, it's not bad; it has no f***ing point whatsoever. Military or otherwise. So damn skippy.
And if he destroys my army, I cannot say what I would do, because it would be illegal to do so.
ash
['But they ought to build a nice gallows.']
June 29, 2005 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The local ABC News affiliate in LA ran a poll a day before the speech and then immediately thereafter.
I was expecting a small bully pulpit bounce, but the results showed something like a 4 point DROP in support for the war AFTER the speech.
June 29, 2005 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
A related question is: Does this mean we will have to stay perpetually at war in order to guarantee our safety in the future?
June 30, 2005 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink