Here's one sample comment the President made, which is inflammatory language:

some members of Congress decided the best way to encourage progress in Baghdad was to criticize and threaten Iraq's leaders

This smacks of the President implicitly equating Congress with the insurgents. The argument takes a positive-objective, and asks that we (absurdly) believe Congress is the reason for any problem, or that Congress is the threat to that objective.

However, recall, one (required) objective of the invasion was the defense of the United States. The President fails to explain why his reckless planning in Iraq makes us safer. Rather than accept responsibility for making the United States less secure at home, he's changed both the objective and the responsibility.

The President is making an absurd argument. The concern is the public is celebrating this absurdity. This is how recklessly tyranny is enabled. The President, not Congress is the domestic enemy to the Constitution. Indeed, Congress by refusing to conduct an impeachment investigation, in enabling this domestic threat to the Constitution. This President enjoys the disaster of Iraq because it distracts attention from the Oval Office, his alleged war crimes and reckless leadership.

Look at this comment for some Orwellian double-speak:

"When it takes time for Iraqis to reach agreement, it is not foot-dragging, as one senator described it during Congress' two-week Easter recess. It is a revolutionary undertaking that requires great courage."

The President is absurdly recasting his Iraq disaster. He's not only distracting attention from his failed planning before the invasion; but he's shifting attention to the Iraqis, and relabeling his reckless planning as someone else's problem; the relabeling that problem as something positive.

The President uses shell games because he cannot afford to let anyone focus attention on his recklessness. This could be accomplished if the Congress started an impeachment investigation.

Indeed, the President might whine and complain. But Congress is not obliged to respond to an alleged war criminal. The question is why the Congress, despite this overwhelming evidence, refuses to impeach. Part of the answer lies with Harmon's admission's about FISA. It appears Congress is in denial about it's powerlessness, and refuses to admit it was wrong.

Congress did not authorize the President to wage illegal warfare, nor in recklessly conduct war crimes planning over Iraq. The President is attempting to limp along, with insufficient resources in Iraq, to meet the United States' Geneva obligations as an occupying power. This is an alleged subsequent war crime.

This President relies on the image of the United States as a liberator of WWII Europe. Some of the Iraqis view the US as an illegal occupier. After WWII ended, US troops had to use force in Germany. Germans were suddenly free, and like Iraqis, began to loot. This President did not learn from the US experiences in Germany after WWII. His plan was insufficient. Congress did not challenge him. They still refuse.

This is more of the diversion and denial:

"No matter what shortcomings these critics diagnose, their prescription is always the same: retreat"

Regardless prudence, this President advocated for war, ignored problems, and failed to plan.

This President's symptoms have been the same: Ignore reality, advance into a mess, and blame others. The problem is his recklessness.

Circular Argument

Our strategic interests are not only preserved through military means, but also diplomacy. This President's plans hinge on planning. He hasn't done that. The objective of the President is to distract attention from his failed leadership, and point to the big scary threat, then induce the people to run with him. Congress is not obliged to assent to this non-sense.

Here is an example of throwing every convoluted argument into a single idea, then asking the audience to answer:

If America's strategic interests are not in Iraq, the convergence point for the twin threats of al-Qaida and Iran, the nation Osama bin Laden's deputy has called the place for the greatest battle, the country at the heart of the most volatile region on earth, then where are they

America's interests lie with constraining a reckless President. Rather than adjust the failed systems which he will not let work to manage these interests reasonably, he's merely asserting that we have an interest, therefore do not question his use of military power. That's foolishness.

The only reason AlQueda is in Iraq (if it is there) is because of the opposition to the US invasion and occupation. There was no ALQueda problem before the US invaded Iraq; and the US had no intereset in Iraq linked with Alqueda.

Notice he's also mixing into Iraq the Iranian opposition to the US's recklessness. This is more of a prepartion to attack Iran.

Here's more of the propaganda:

"taking the fight to the enemy overseas so we do not have to face them here at home".

When illegal POW abuse is used, the enemy is less likely to surrender. This puts American lives at risk. The President is distracting attention from the illegal invasion, and asking us to continue with what needs adjustment: A failed policy.

Notice the curious ownership the President has of the events in Iraq:

Over the past year, we have seen significant security gains result from the surge.

Putting aside whether the surge has failed, the Iraqis are in charge, yet the President is implicitly asking us to believe that it is "our" security. That's non-sense. US security at home is diminished when our forces are squandered in Iraq.

The US doesn't own Iraq. The President owns the problem.

The President is using the idea of the WWII liberation of Europe and mixing it with Iraq and afghanistan:

Air Force was critical in liberating the people of Afghanistan, and the people of Iraq

This asks military perosnnel to ignore one key issue: Iraq is not related to 9-11; and Afghanistan and Iraq, despite liberation, are not secure. An invasion and liberation, as Senator Hagel and other GOP Members of COngress well warned, requires follow-up planning.

This President did not do that.

This glosses over the real problem:

Tragically, the progress threatened to unravel in 2006.

The Presidents failed planning before the invasion ensured US forces in Iraq were incapable of sustaining security or providing the promise to the Iraqis.

The problem didn't start in 2006, but before 2001 when the pretext for the Iraq invasion was decided.

The evidence does not support the President's claims about Iran:

Sunni extremists, including al Qaeda terrorists, and Shia extremists, some backed by Iran, slaughtered innocent Iraqis in brutal attacks and reprisal killings.

If this Iran-involvement were real and provable, the President hasn't made the case.

As with the Iraq invasion, the President is making sweeping assertions, but providing us with nothing concrete. These were the concerns the GOP Members of Congress raised with the President before his Iraq invasion.

The President ignored them.

This is a dubious assertion, which sounds nice, but has not been supported by the data:

"The surge is doing what it was designed to do. It's helping Iraqis reclaim security and restart political and economic life. It is bringing America closer to a key strategic victory in the war against these extremists and radicals."

The President isn't credibly discussing the real objectives of the surge: Recover from what the President failed to do in 2002 -- Ensure enough troops were there to do the job.

The President is sugar coating his reckless planning.

This is another way of saying, "My plan wasn't sufficient, so we had to do it again":

We've dramatically improved security conditions in many devastated neighborhoods in what some have deemed a "re-liberation."

Orwellian: "reliberation," without sufficient forces means we should expect other "re-liberations". Where are the troops going to come from?

The President has no answer.

The problem isn't just the US planning. Even with support from the Iraqis, the Iraq situation isn't stabilized:

more than 100,000 Iraqis have joined their nation's security forces

The Iraqis have added forces. Where are they going to get more people?

The President has no answer.

This is no thanks to the failed starts of US training:

The Iraqi forces are growing in capability.

Things have taken a while. Recall, the US "readiness reports about Iraqi forces" were grossly overstated.

This is a curious change of tune: The US was previously hoping to blame the Iraq PM for the President's reckless planning. The aim was to let the Iraqi PM take the fall.

Now the US is using glowing terms about the Iraq PM:

Prime Minister Maliki's bold decision -- and it was a bold decision -- to go after the illegal groups in Basra shows his leadership, and his commitment to enforce the law in an even-handed manner. It also shows the progress the Iraqi security forces have made during the surge. Iraqi forces planned this operation and they deployed substantial extra forces for it. They're leading the operation. Prime Minister Maliki has traveled to Basra to oversee it firsthand.

Whether any of this is true is another issue.

The President must have realzed he had no other option. Not a good idea for the US President to plan a coup against a democratially elected Iraqi PM.

Here's an example of starting with a false premise (that the surge worked) and asking us to believe something else (that someone built off that false premise):

This offensive builds on the security gains of the surge, and demonstrates to the Iraqi people that their government is committed to protecting them.

Then we hae to ask: Given the surge has failed, why should we believe that the offensive will be sustainable, much less believable?

By relying on a false premise, we cannot accept the subsequent assertion about what this "means" or what this "demonstrates". This is something tht isn't news, but a requirement for governance, and the same could be said of any tyranny:

demonstrates to the Iraqi people that their government is committed to protecting them

Protecting them from whom and what? Create enough messes, and you can rally the people to believe your abuse is for their security.

Whehter the Iraqi government is capable of achieving this goal is a secondary issue; whether the Iraqi government is serious about protecting them using reasonable methods is questionable. Iraq's government remains in shambles, is weak. It's a dubious assertion for the President to suggest a weak government can credibly guarantee anything.

More Presidential handwaving, as we saw before the Iraq invaion.

This is a laughable assertion, in that people are fighting to liberate Iraq from the US occupation, and they do view themselves as having a role:

But the ultimate result will be this: Terrorists and extremists in Iraq will know they have no place in a free and democratic society.

The President has no credible plan to ensure Iraq remains free or democratic; or that those who opposite American abuse of power will have a place. For this reason alone, Iraqis believe they have a place in Iraq: To expel the Americans.

The President isn't able to point to data showing Iraqis are returning to Iraq:

Before the surge, politics at every level was shutting down.

Half-measures do not solve problems.

There are many reasons to doubt the President's claims. Anecdotes have been fabricated.

This assertion needs to be followed up:

Let me give you an example.

Remember those claims about incubtors in Kuwait? Fabricated.

Notice how many times the President has to explain what his non-sense means:

In other words

Convoluted stories require spin. Just as we saw before the invasion of Iraq.

This is something the President should read in the mirror:

We can't stand the thought of people who murder the innocent to achieve political objectives, and we intend to do something about it.

POW abuse, rendition, and the "politial objective" of using illegal force to invade Iraq. Whether we can "stand" the thought or not, the objective requires prudent planning. The President has not given us this.

This Congress doesn't intend to do anything about the President's illegal activity.

This needs a follow-up:

committed $196 million to fund jobs programs

Were there any real jobs; and how much money went where; what didn't get funded?

Did the President steal one of Saddam's speeches:

brave Iraqis who stand up to the extremists and the murders and the criminals can learn the skills they need to help build a free and prosperous nation.

If only the residents of New Orleans had a President that could say the same about their plight.

Don't miss the Orwellian speak on this:

bottom-up political process

The same decentralized approach is what AlQueda and the Taliban use. The US hasn't developed a strategy to comabt this.

Why should we believe the US is managing or assisting in Iraq what it does not understand in Afghanistan? "Trust me," says the Preident.

Here's another meaningless statement: Start with a false, dubius premise, and magically wave the wand to have us believe:

You know, another sign of bottom-up political progress is the rebirth of Iraqi civil society.

"Another" sign of something that is an illusion isn't a sign, but more illusions. Anything that's been destroyed can only, with time, improve.

The President is invoking the Roman model of governance: After we destroy it, anything after that we take credit for.

I challenge anyone to show me how a General office physically counted 180 soccer games while flying over Iraq:

On his final flight last month, he counted more than 180.

How many did he really "count"? 181?

This is a dubious assertion, and inprecise.

Notice how many times we've read this: "it is a sign" . . .of more handwaving. "Trust me, it's a sign."

Read this in the mirror, Mr. President, and reconsider your oath to the US Constitution:

You build trust by honoring commitments.

This isn't something to celebrate, in that the US supported the opposite:

In January, leaders enacted a de-Baathification law that allows mid-level Baath Party members to re-enter political and civic life.

The US didn't want the Baath Party members. When they were removed from the security service, the security situation deteriorated. The President is taking credit for someone else cleaning up the mess the Preident created.

This is meaningless, the US abused these prisoners, calling them, "bad":

And on the same day, leaders enacted an amnesty law to resolve the status of many Iraqis held in Iraqi custody.

Why not give Amnesty to the innocents at Guantanamo, and end the secret agreements to re-arreset them if they oppose the US? We need a resolution, Mr. President not handwaving.

The President is celebrating those who pass laws:

leaders reached agreement on a provincial powers law that helps define Iraqi federalism

The President doesn't talk about the laws he ignores. Nothing to celebrate, Mr. President. What the law defines, this President ignores.

Curious, the President is talking about "reconciliation" while the combat continues. This is absurd:

These pieces of legislation deal with complex issues that are vital for the reconciliation of the country, and fundamental for a democratic society

If the Iraqis are offering amnesty, why aren't US forces leaving? Reconcilation means building off fact finding: Impeachment inestigations against this President, then building a plan to resolve those probems. This President and Congress want smokscreens.

This President ignores the legal decisions of the court, and pretends the Constitution is debatable.

I mean, we've been arguing about the role of the federal government relative to the states for a long time here in America.

The states are not obliged to assent to illegal FISA violations or violations of the state privacy statutes.

The US government has no business waging illegal warfare, abusing POWs in vioation of Geneva, or in firing US Attys for political retalation. These are not arguments, they are matters of international criminal law, war crimes, and impeachment offenses.

Orwellian: War is Peace

he understands what I understand -- free societies yield the peace we want.

Wanting peace is different than having peace. Whether a societ is free or not does not mean there is or is not war or peace. The President is mixing desirable goals of freedom, peace, and security without a plan to achieve them. Convoluted.

Conversly, arguing that something is "undesirable" does not mean we have the resources or leadership to avoid what may be inevitable. Vietnam.

Notice how the President is pointing to a goal, without taking responsibity for the bungled planning which makes this goal elusive. The reason it is now in our interests to do something is that we haven't achieved the goal of security:

And it's in our interests to stand strongly with the leaders like that in Iraq and give them all the support necessary to succeed.

That "success" would have been more secure had the President listened to Congressional concerns about post-invasion Iraq planning.

Reconsider this statement in light of the US empahsis on the Iraqi oil infrastructure:

The infrastructure for Iraq's oil sector is still owned and managed by the central government, and suffers from decades of under-investment. Iraq's economic problems grew worse during the sectarian violence that preceded the surge -- oil revenues declined, businesses closed their doors, and infrastructure was destroyed.

Despite the US Vice President's attention on the Iraqi oil infrastructure before the invasion, the Iraqi oil situation still hasn't the resources it needs. It was anticipated Saddam would burn the oil, but the US could save te oil, and still generate revenue to make the invasion "self-financing".

Indeed, Iraq's economic situation was worse. The Preident's plan was success oriented, not credible. Without a plan, the economic consequences were foreseeably going to be worse, especially as the insurgency opposed the US.

When expectations are low enough, anything above disaster is success:

A year later, almost every key economic indicator has turned around.

The other businesses hae either been destroyed, run out of money, or their owners fled the country:

More than 75 percent of Iraqi businesses, according to a recent survey, expect the economy continue growing over the next two years.

If they didn't expect things to be better, and they had money to spare, would they stay? We have no information how many businesses they sampled; or how the businesses in 2008 differ from those in 2001, before the invasion planning started.

This infrastructure funding needs an audit:

Early in the war, America funded most of the large-scale reconstruction projects in Iraq

Where did the money reall go; what did the Iraqis get for this expenditure?

It's 2008, five years after the invasion, and the President wants to be congratuated:

We're sending experts to help them succeed in their goals.

Who were we sending them before?

Isn't it interesting how the Iraqis and US officials are using the same talking points, but asking us to believe it is "the Iraqi" plan:

Listen to the words of Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister: "Last year was the year of security," he said. "This year is the year of reconstruction, it is the year of services, and it's the year of combating corruption."

The year of the same spin.

Iraq is "so safe" that the conference must be held in Kuwait:

And next month, the third Expanded Neighbors Conference will meet in Kuwait City to discuss ways the region and the world can further support Iraq's political, economic, and security progress.

Why not force the attendees to see in Iraq what they're supposedly addressing?

Bush gets religion on the UN:

This is a key diplomatic initiative. It will include all of Iraq's neighbors, as well as the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the G8, the Arab League, and the Organization of Islamic Conference.

Is he going to ignore the UN again?

Rendition alive and well:

And we're constantly sending out diplomatic missions to encourage them to do more.

The President only wants American violence:

At the same time, the regimes in Iran and Syria must stop supporting violence and terror in Iraq.

Wild accusations, dubious claims, no evidence, a convenient scapegoat. How do Iran and Syria feel being treated like Congress?

Owellian: "Partnerships" = Unilaeral Presdientail treaties without the constitutionally required Senate advice or consent: Illegal, unenforceable, meaningless.

Let's not talk about the coalition of the "willing" or the economic threats made against countries for refusing to assent to US war crimes:

Now, this partnership would not bind future Presidents to specific troop levels. This partnership would not establish permanent bases in Iraq. It would be similar to partnerships that we have with Afghanistan and other free nations around the world.

If the agreement will not bind future Presidents, why have an agreement?

Where are the troops going to stay during this perpetual occupation of Iraq?

The President declares war on the Senate:

And it's in our interest that we stand with them.

This is classic reverse-logic-planning of the President: After doing what you should not have done, and refused to do what you should have done:

Having witnessed all this progress from the surge, the natural question is: What are the next steps?

He starts with a false premise of "progress from the surge," and asks, "What do we do now?" No, we were asking that before this disaster unfolded. The President got the planning backwards. Again.

He didnt have an answer then. No reason to believe he has an answer now.

Here, the President admits, in 2008, five [5] years after the invasion, he still has no answer to "what do we do," but admits he's still talking about it:

Well, this week I've been discussing that question with my national security team in Washington, as well as with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker in Baghdad.

If he doesn't hear answers he doesn't like ["You failed to plan, Mr. President'] he'll fire them as well. More denial.

Congerss was supposedly upset at the US Atty firings. Why not upset about firings of key advisors who call the President what he is: An alleged reckless war criminal.

More worthless information:

They will discuss that question with members of Congress when they come and testify in April.

Those who tell the truth or plan to do the right thing will be fired. DoJ AG's job is secure.

Look at the President's agenda for the information to COngress: More excuses for why the US hasn't made progress:

- Blame Syria, Iran, and Alqueda

including the continued presence of al Qaeda, the violence caused by Shia extremists, the destructive influence of Iran, the flow of suicide bombers through Syria, the activities of PKK terrorists.

Congress, dutifully mesmerized, is likely to embrace this fiction, and rubber stamp the invasion. "Do you want the invasion money for Iran in this years' or next years' supplemental?"

Same president made claims about WMD, couldn't find it. The real problem for the securty situation in Iraq? The oval office. Impeach!

The President's idea of "reviewing" recommendations is to give others what he wants to hear, but fire them if they don't give it back:

I'm going to carefully consider the recommendations of Secretary Gates, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and those on the ground, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.

If they refuse to tell him what he wants to hear, they're fired or ignored, like the Baker-Hamilton report, Congress and the Constitution.

Believe the opposite:

the progress in Iraq is real, it's substantive,

- Unreal
- Lacking substance

Who wrote this:

"No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. If the United States provides sustained support to the Iraqi government -- in security, governance, and development -- there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state."

Why not name him, and have some independent questions of the source?

Undesirable outcomes does not mean those outcomes will not happen, regardless the Preisident's hope. These are speculative, dubious assertions requiring Congressional debate. The US has substantially sewn the seeds for or fabricated, as was the Vietnam dominoe-theory.

The reality is that retreating from Iraq would carry enormous strategic costs for the United States. It would incite chaos and killing, destroy the political gains the Iraqis have made, and abandon our friends to terrorists and death squads. It would endanger Iraq's oil resources and could serve as a severe disruption to the world's economy. It would increase the likelihood that al Qaeda would gain safe havens that they could use to attack us here at home. It would be a propaganda victory of colossal proportions for the global terrorist movement, which would gain new funds, and find new recruits, and conclude that the way to defeat America is to bleed us into submission. It would signal to Iran that we were not serious about confronting its efforts to impose its will on the region. It would signal to people across the Middle East that the United States cannot be trusted to keep its word. A defeat in Iraq would have consequences far beyond that country -- and they would be felt by Americans here at home.

He's asking Americans to be afraid unless we continue with what is reckless. Congress needs to conduct an impeachment investigation, otherwise we would be at risk of losing our Republic.

After we've scared you with scary things, we'll give you the milk and honey, the things we promised in 2003, but still haven't ocurred.

Notice the format: If (elusive goal), will (speculatve outcome), but not specifics on basis to believe the President. "Trust me". as with the Iraq WMD arguments, the Preident is talking about the idea of a goal, not discussing whether the plans are reasonable or achievable:

For the same reason, helping the Iraqis defeat their enemies and build a free society would be a strategic victory that would resound far beyond Iraq's borders. If al Qaeda is defeated in Iraq after all the resources it has poured into the battle there, it will be a powerful blow against the global terrorist movement. If Iran is turned back in its attempt to gain undue influence over Iraq, it will be a setback to its ambitions to dominate the region. If people across the Middle East see freedom prevail in multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian Iraq, it will mark a decisive break from the long reign of tyranny in that region. And if the Middle East grows in freedom and prosperity, the appeal of extremism will decline, the prospects of peace will advance, and the American people will be safer here at home. The surge has opened the door to this strategic victory. Now we must seize the opportunity, and sustain the initiative, and do what it takes to prevail.

Heil Hitler!

These are the phrases to memorize and repeat back to the President:

Yet we should never let the difficulty of the fight obscure the justice of the cause. We should never let the difficulty of the moment cause us to shirk our duty to lay the foundation of peace for generations of Americans to come.

The speech writer was dreaming of W. Churchill.

This is what it's about:

ideological struggle

A lawless President against an inept Congress.

The President refers to the Sons of Iraq in his speech. Look at 38 of 48.

- Is this CSIS report the basis for the President's speech?

- To what extent is the Iraq NIE related to these slides presented to CSIS?

The ISG report forecasted problems, which Iraq drawdown plan ignores. The President reacted too late, the conditions he says he wants to prevent have arrived, and the draw down plan is not reasonable.