Bush's No-News Iraq Speech

Twelve days ago, The Washington Post reported that the Bush White House had concluded that George W. Bush--who was facing sinking polling numbers regarding the war in Iraq--needed to "shift strategies." He would (of course) not be implementing any policy changes, the paper noted; his new approach" would be "mostly rhetorical." Yet in his prime-time speech on Iraq--delivered before a quiet audience of troops at Fort Bragg on Tuesday evening--Bush proved the Post report wrong. There was no shift of strategy--rhetorical or otherwise. Bush delivered a flat recital of his previous justifications of the war, while offering vague assurances that (a) he realizes (really, really) that the war in Iraq is "hard" work and that (b) his administration is indeed winning the war. On that latter point, Bush mentioned no metrics (as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would call them)--that is, concrete indicators--to demonstrate that he holds a more accurate view of the war than, say, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel who days ago exclaimed, "The reality is that we're losing in Iraq." Bush's plan this night was rather transparent: assert success...and then assert it some more.

At other points during the war when the White House became worried about public opinion, the White House dispatched Bush to make a major speech on the war. But those speeches had little, if any, impact on the public mood, the policy debate, or the events in Iraq. His Fort Bragg address can be filed in the same folder. It was an artificial event; Bush was standing at the podium and reading words off a TelePrompTer that were written by a speechwriter not because he had anything new or significant to say but because the White House had no better PR alternatives at this moment. (What no flight suit?) And in this White House reconsidering policy is not an option.

So Bush warmed up and doled out the usual fare. He didn't even bother to come up with new lines of "disassembling." Once more Bush claimed the war in Iraq was an appropriate and mandatory response to 9/11. He repeatedly referred to the enemy in Iraq as "the terrorists," not the insurgents, continuing his strategic effort to blur the distinction between the foreign jihadists who have flocked to Iraq to kill Americans and the homegrown insurgent thugs who blow up US troops and Iraqi civilians for a different set of motivations. Bush keeps tying the insurgency in Iraq to 9/11: "Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York and Washington and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home." Many--and probably most--of the enemy forces faced by US troops in Iraq are not followers of Osama bin Laden. According to recent estimates gathered by the Brookings Institution, there are now about 16,000 insurgents and about 1,000 foreign fighters engaged in the war against the US military and the interim Iraqi government. And Bush neglected to mention the recent intelligence report noting that Iraq--thanks to his invasion--has become an effective breeding ground for the anti-American terrorists who may indeed look to attack the United States elsewhere.

Such facts are perhaps too subtle or nuanced to fit into the hit-the-bastards-before-they-hit-us view Bush wants to sell to the public. He noted, "We are fighting against men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons who are capable of any atrocity. They wear no uniform; they respect no laws of warfare or morality." That is true. But if the war in Iraq is nothing but a fundamental battle of good (us) against evil (them), then why is the US military, as the administration has acknowledged, negotiating with certain leaders of the insurgency? Can you cut a deal with evil?

Bush continued to maintain that Iraq is "a central front in the war on terror." How did he prove this case? He quoted Osama bin Laden, who once said, "This third world war is raging in Iraq. The whole world is watching this war." You see, Bush attacked Iraq (which had no weapons of mass destruction and no operational ties to the terrorists who mounted the horrific attacks of 9/11), a war ensued, Islamic fundamentalists rushed to Iraq to do battle with the Americans, bin Laden welcomed this opportunity to have his followers kill US troops (who might otherwise be coming after him or securing Afghanistan), and that is Bush's proof the war in Iraq is "a central front in the war on terror." In essence, because bin Laden said so after Bush invaded Iraq.

******

Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on who was wrong on Iraq, NPR's vacancy in Baghdad, and Karl Rove's hypocrisy.

*******

Bush tried to acknowledge the troubles in Iraq, while pushing the good news: "Our progress has been uneven, but progress is being made." He also said, "In the past year, we have made significant progress." In case anyone missed the message, he noted, "The progress in the past year has been significant, and we have a clear path forward." He also remarked, "We have made progress, but we have a lot more work to do." What signs of progress did he point to? He claimed that 160,000 Iraqi security troops have been trained and that NATO and several nations have joined in the training effort. Bush did not address the fact that several nations have pulled troops out of Iraq. But he did concede that these Iraqi security forces "are at different levels of readiness." How different he didn't fully explore. For example, how many of these troops are capable of fighting the insurgents on their own? Bush's answer: "some." When Senator Joe Biden returned recently from a trip to Iraq, he said he had been told that of the 107 Iraqi battalions being trained, only three were operational. Three certainly is "some."

Bush hailed developments that have been mixed at best. He declared, "we are partnering coalition units with Iraqi units. These coalition Iraqi teams are conducting operations together in the field. These combined operations are giving Iraqis a chance to experience how the most professional armed forces in the world operate in combat." But media reports from Iraq note that Iraqi and American units have often not worked together effectively. American soldiers have expressed doubts about the abilities and commitment of their Iraqi counterparts. The Iraqis have voiced resentment about their American partners. (Click here for one depressing account.) In any event, US military officials have estimated it could take several years to train an effective Iraqi security force. Bush made no reference to such a timeframe. Instead, he tossed out catchy spin: "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." Nor did he have anything to say about Rumsfeld's and Vice President Dick Cheney's recent comments on the insurgency. (Cheney said the opposition was in its "last throes," Rumsfeld noted that quashing the insurgency could take up to twelve years.)

No, everything policy-wise is fine. There is no reason for even minor adjustments. And Bush hid behind his commanders when necessary. "Some Americans ask me," he said, "'If completing the mission is so important, why don't you send more troops?' If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job." Then why do backers of the war complain about the porous borders (especially the Syrian border) that permit foreign jihadists to enter Iraq? Might that have something to do with there being not enough troops to secure the borders?

But never mind all that on-the-ground stuff; freedom is on the march. "Iraqis," Bush said, "will bind their multiethnic society together in a democracy that respects the will of the majority and protects minority rights." Let's hope he's right. But such happy-talk ignores the sectarian violence that appears to be on the rise within Iraq. The problem there is not merely that anti-American terrorists are using murder and mayhem to block the achievement of democracy. There are fundamental divides within the nation that are playing out--all too often in violent fashion--as well. But recognition of that would interfere with Bush's comic-book version of the evildoers-versus-us struggle in Iraq.

In this speech, Bush reprised the messianic and simplistic neocon analysis (or fantasy) that the war in Iraq has led to the spread of democracy elsewhere. He proclaimed, "Across the broader Middle East, people are claiming their freedom. In the last few months, we have witnessed elections in the Palestinian Territories and Lebanon. These elections are inspiring democratic reformers in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia." Well, Yassir Arafat's timely death did more than the war in Iraq to bring about the recent electoral success in the Palestinian Territories. The election in Lebanon was scheduled before Iraqis trekked to the polls. The Saudi election was a modest affair (and women need not apply). And in Egypt, democratic reformers howled about Laura Bush's support of an election law that allowed the ruling party to decide who could run against it.

Without showing much enthusiasm--is he war-weary?--Bush ended with the usual rah-rah. He suggested that anyone who counsels withdrawal is not part of the American tradition: "The American people do not falter under threat, and we will not allow our future to be determined by car bombers and assassins....Americans have always held firm, because we have always believed in certain truths. We know that if evil is not confronted, it gains in strength and audacity and returns to strike us again. We know that when the work is hard, the proper response is not retreat, it is courage." In other words, don't be wimps, don't listen to those who say that it might be time to rethink what the United States is doing in Iraq. Stay the course. Just do it. Believe.

With the polls registering what might be deepening skepticism about the war, this may be the most powerful political argument Bush has: Americans don't quit. His allies in Congress and the commentariat have been repeating a street-level variant of this message: America does not turn tail. It's the ultimate fall-back position for the pro-war crowd. It is not a policy argument; it's pushing a psychological button. And as the public mood appears to sour on the war, Bush-backers are also starting to accuse critics at home of undermining the war effort and--worse of all--demoralizing the troops in Iraq. Bush stayed clear of this scoundrel maneuver. But soon after his speech was done, Senator John Warner, the Republican chairman of the armed services committee, was on Fox News Channel warning unnamed persons of making "statements back home....that are troubling the troops." He added, "We here at home have to show a strong bipartisan support for our troops." This is the ultimate escape hatch for supporters of a war that is not going well: the critics are to blame. Bush ended his speech by thanking and praising the members of the US military and their families. He said nothing about the recently disclosed $1 billion shortfall in funding for veterans' health care.

Bush's speech will not alter the landscape--here or in Iraq. It was the rhetorical equivalent of treading water. Before the speech, NPR had asked me to talk about the address afterward with a conservative pundit. Minutes before we were to go on, an NPR worker called. We've decided, she said, that there was not enough in the speech to warrant an analysis segment. I could hardly protest.

*******************

IT REMAINS RELEVANT, ALAS. SO DON'T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN'S BOOK, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER! An UPDATED and EXPANDED EDITION is AVAILABLE in PAPERBACK. The Washington Post says, "This is a fierce polemic, but it is based on an immense amount of research.... [I]t does present a serious case for the president's partisans to answer.... Readers can hardly avoid drawing...troubling conclusions from Corn's painstaking indictment." The Los Angeles Times says, "David Corn's The Lies of George W. Bush is as hard-hitting an attack as has been leveled against the current president. He compares what Bush said with the known facts of a given situation and ends up making a persuasive case." The Library Journal says, "Corn chronicles to devastating effect the lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations.... Corn has painstakingly unearthed a bill of particulars against the president that is as damaging as it is thorough." And GEORGE W. BUSH SAYS, "I'd like to tell you I've read [ The Lies of George W. Bush], but that'd be a lie."

For more information and a sample, go to www.davidcorn.com. And see his WEBLOG there.

Comments (43)

1. I pity anyone who actually sat in front a screen or in person and listened to Bush's ridiculous drivel on Iraq.

   Posted by POSEIDON at 06/29/2005 @ 12:21am

2. When you write: "With the polls registering what might be deepening skepticism about the war, this may be the most powerful political argument Bush has: Americans don't quit," I would disagree. The most powerful argument Bush has is nobody is arguing with him. Reid's reply was beyond pandering. The old Dem party is dead and gone and mouldering in the grave, indeed; there are no Eugene McCarthy's at the wingdings anymore.

   Which is all right. Disconnecting any progressive movement from that corpse has to be an improvement. It should be mentioned that do it yourself protests are spreading. One of the best is the counter-recruitment movement. We can starve the beast by simply reminding parents not to let their children enlist, and reminding those tempted to enlist to heed the words of their Vice President, who said about Vietnam: I had other priorities in the 60s. That is the best advice Cheney ever gave. Other priorities should keep you out of harms way; it should keep the chickenhawk segment from taking advantage of the opportunities you foresake, in this country, to throw yourself away on the Bush Vanity Project. Find the net activist site, http://www.youthandthemilitary.org, and spread the word.

   The resistance has to be all garage band at this point. You'll never find a single media figure asking, why are we spending half a trillion dollars to defend the right of the Badr brigade to rule Iraq? not to speak of the 1800 dead, and the 14 thou wounded on the American side.

   And when the dems come around looking for your vote or your money come the next election season, don't spit at them. Be polite. Tell them to suck eggs.

   Posted by rogergathman at 06/29/2005 @ 01:02am

3. Bush chooses the language of partisan terms to describe these foes: "We are fighting against men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons who are capable of any atrocity.They wear no uniform; they respect no laws of warfare or morality."

   Underestimated another enemy. If Bush really wants help he would say how smart, organized, and motivated these people are. Genuine motivation is the greatest foe enabler and if he were to address it in realistic terms perhaps others would help us and fewer would be inclined to oppose aid there.

   Instead he prefers to have disparate sides, the less chance of resolution the more the war would cost. The longer his political capital extends.

   Their culture is older than his. To try and slight or discard the ability of an enemy in any aspect of their capability is to invite failure. Their hatred sees the way we support regimes that oppress people they identify with(Palestenians, lower class Sauds, other ethnic Muslim groups). Saying it is blind hatred is, in itself, ignorant.

   Wearing no uniform, they still deny the cultural context of identity some of these people have and really are not empowered to judge so effectively. There are so many cultural shortcomings in the familiarity it invites the policy of isolation on the ground. Had America formed a legitmate Arab/Persian coalition this would not be the case. If atrocities are of concern and their capability to use such, where is the accountability for torture on our behalf? Such morals tarnish the effort to win the peace. Without legitimate emotional repatriations the loss of blood and effort is in vain.

   They wear no uniform, that is no reason to enact policy that makes ours in uniform more at risk by associating them with the anger inspired to fuel further collateral damage.Just say no to torture. On the ground humiliation denies working interactive political process which is crucial to devloping a stable template for multiethnic models of society.

   Our soldiers are capable of being the best, why order them to become less than this, and make their security compromised in so doing? This done threefold via bad/false INTEL, increased hostility resistance, and emotional stress upon ours under orders? As Senator Durbin noted, the FBI did nothing to prevent a crime and the proximity of soldiers to these "interrogators" endangers them. The FBI should come under scrutiny for this more than soliders, as "interrogators" could be considered contractors.

   Just because you ignore the fact such has gone on will not stop others from becoming angry. Saying something about it may have kept some moderates from cultivating anger, resentment, or violence in reply. This was a lost opportunity at legitimate damage control.

   Record per capita suicides for ours, for a reason, within this conflict. That a good man or woman in service sees this as an option is an indictment of leadership. Such policies as this, the humiliation of all people as a means of breaking the will to resist, in being ordered will not make things easier.

   These same people are the ones we ask to fight others after trying to break them psychologically. Then we wonder why it is taking longer to get quality result for their well being and our security.

   There is no consistent model in the moral policy our soldiers must try and make real. They deserve better under oath to our Consitution and as wards thereof.

   Bring them home, or scale their duties back and let other countries come in and help Iraq rebuild. This while we take on some of the other strategic logistical support concerns in parrallel efforts.

   Posted by Mr.Murder at 06/29/2005 @ 03:02am

4. At the rate Bush is going, by the end of his term he'll be standing up there telling us all that the world is flat after all...and the craziest thing about it is that we'll actually debate it in the press for months and months.

   You cannot deny that this man and his administration have so completely turned America inside out and upside down; and you can't help but just be in awe of it. He has made every political commentator in America look either naive, wrong or just plain pathetic given that no argument they can posit can do a thing to touch him. Nothing even comes close to touching this man.

   And, for as reprehensible as he is, you have to simply marvel at his complete lack of knowledge about it; I will concede that George Bush is a terribly remarkable person.

   Posted by mattbrady at 06/29/2005 @ 03:36am

5. Reading about (I refused to waste my time watching) Deputy Dubya's latest same-old-same-old regurgitation of non-sequiturs and outright fabrications concerning his failed Crusade in Iraq, I thought back to some interesting comments made in the British Parliament protesting a similar failed Crusade unfolding on a continent far across the Atlantic Ocean, long long ago. I found these historical thoughts infinitely ironic given that our President simultaneously bragged of our hiring 40 nations (and 20,000 hired gun mercenaries from 51 different countries) to come to our aid against the Iraqi "insurgents" while moaning about the totally unfair way that the "insurgents" had gotten some help from a handful of suicide bombers from (7?) countries in their immediate vicinity.

   Anyway, just do a few name substitutions here, fellow Crimestoppers, and you'll see how utterly stupid and vainglorious America now looks in the eyes of a disbelieving world. From: "THE HESSIANS and the other GERMAN AUXILIARIES OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR," by Edward J. Lowell (Harper and Brothers Publishers, New York, 1884).

   "On March 5, 1776, the Duke of Richmond moved in the House of Lords that a humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to countermand the march of the foreign troops, and to give directions for an immediate suspension of hostilities in America ("Parliamentary Register," 1st series, vol. v. pp. 174-216.) The protest expressed the sense which the House entertained of the danger and disgrace of the treaties, which acknowledged to all Europe that Great Britain was unable, either from want of men, or disinclination to this service, to furnish a competent number of natural-born subjects to make the first campaign. It was a melancholy consideration that the drawing off the national troops (though feeble for the unhappy purpose on which they were employed) would yet leave Great Britain naked and exposed to the assaults and invasion of powerful neighboring and foreign nations."

   " . . . the protest continues: 'We have, moreover, just reason to apprehend that when the colonies come to understand that Great Britain is forming alliances, and hiring foreign troops for their destruction, they may think they are well justified by the example, in endeavoring to avail themselves of the like assistance; and that France, Spain, Prussia, or other powers of Europe may conceive that they have as good a right as Hesse, Brunswick, and Hanau to interfere in our domestic quarrels.'"

   So, the more Deputy Dubya talks about his Crusade in Iraq, the fewer American-loving Americans wish to take part in it and the more American-hating jihadis do. Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, of course, see no reason why they shouldn't meddle since we have invited so awfully many of our own friends to do so.

   My, my: have we ever made a mess; and all because we forgot how much we hated Great Britain when they did the same to us.

   At least the outnumbered, minority Whigs had the balls to demand that their government call the whole thing off as a bad idea, which sure looks like more stones than the lapdog Democrats have right now.

   Posted by mrmurry at 06/29/2005 @ 03:56am

6. The lack of content in the President's speech is one reason for cancelling the analysis segment. The President didn't provide enough fodder to give the conservative pundit ammunition to defend his mis-leading, rhetorical diatribe which flowed from the his oral cavity.

   Still, they could've let you discuss the lack of content. The lack of any sensible message. There was not any mention of practical strategy. It seems that staying the course is only making things worse. Could it actually be, this is what the administration wants? - They actually want to sink deeper into the quagmire? There are any number of options open to them at this point to alleviate the tension in Iraq:

   Force Halliburton and Bechtel to come clean - and come through on their contracts to: restore access to potable water, repair sewage treatment facilities that were damaged in the opening days of the war, fix the electrical grid. 2) come clean on the oil issue - make sure the oil wealth in Iraq is held in a national public trust so that all Iraqi's will benefit from it. 3) don't be so stubborn about conditions for accepting the offers of other nations to train the new Iraqi Army. e.g. Let the French bring Iraqi's to France for training.

   These are just a few of the options you have for improving the situation in Iraq Mr. Bush. You're speech only convinced us of your administrations profound confusion, incompetence and delusion. All the gold in the universe won't get you into heaven.

   Posted by rob.olywa at 06/29/2005 @ 04:16am

7. ROB.OLYWA, you wrote, "There are any number of options open to them at this point to alleviate the tension in Iraq:

   Force Halliburton and Bechtel to come clean - and come through on their contracts to: restore access to potable water, repair sewage treatment facilities that were damaged in the opening days of the war, fix the electrical grid."

   I think the Iraqi's should be paid to rebuild their country. It would be cheaper and give the Iraqis jobs (which they need). Then they wouldn't be sitting around idley contemplating blowing themselves up in a suicide attack.

   Posted by ramzman at 06/29/2005 @ 07:29am

8. Mission Incredible – President Bush 6/28/05 speech on Iraq War

   I'll skip the still changing rationale for the Iraq War and the continued attempts to link it to 9/11. Let's just consider what Bush said in his speech about the "mission."

   If, as Bush now says, (1) Iraq is the central front in the global war on terror, and terrorists are flocking there from all around the Middle East (Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.); and (2) the US objective for our national security is to fight the terrorists in Iraq so they will not be able to attack us here…

   Then why is our mission in Iraq (as now explained by Bush) to train the Iraqi forces so they can take over the fighting themselves and defeat the terrorists? And US troops will come home when that training is completed. Does Bush really intend to leave it to the Iraqis to fight and defeat the terrorists he says are determined to do us harm? If defeating the terrorists in Iraq is really that important to our national security and the global war on terror, shouldn't the US stay in Iraq until those terrorists are completely, finally, and forever defeated, rather than handing that job over to the Iraqis once they are trained?

   Before the war, did Bush tell the Iraqis or the rest of the world that the US wanted to use the Iraqi playing field (country) to play our war game against terrorists from all over the Middle East (and that the US and the terrorists would kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis while doing so)? Did he tell the American people that we should sacrifice thousands of American lives (deaths, dismemberments, and other physical and psychological injuries) and spend a few hundred billion tax dollars, on a mission to train Iraqis so we could turn over to them the job of fighting the terrorists who want to harm us?

   Now, maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention when this all started, but I seem to have missed that part.

   Posted by rickjones at 06/29/2005 @ 07:56am

9. The war is serving the Republicans well because it distracts public attention and debate from the health care crisis, rising gas prices, the increasingly fouled environment and other issues. And whether the war is "worth it," as Bush puts it, depends largely on whose children are coming home in body bags. Last time I looked, the Bushes, Cheneys and their jet-setting pals weren't being affected at all by the rising body count in Iraq. But it's important to look beyond this war. This debacle occurred because it's simply too easy for the president and Congress to commit troops abroad for long periods. The laws must be changed -- by constitutional amendment, if need be -- to impose strict criteria on keeping U.S. forces committed for periods exceeding say, thirty days. If we don't change those laws, there will be another unecessary war in the next decade or so. And another. And another. Waging war is an easy way to quickly gain public goodwill -- at least, temporarily -- and American politicians can't seem to resist.

   Posted by aamurphy at 06/29/2005 @ 08:28am

10. The medium is the message! Hey everybody, these days, lies are perfectly acceptable! They're hip! They're cool! C'mon, this is the 2000's dudes! Besides, didn't you hear Rumsfeld's Pentagon briefing? He stood before the reporters, (at least one of whom raised the memory of Vietnam,) and said again, "Everyone remembers September 11, 2001 . . ." thus continuing to connect the events of that day with the reason this nation continues to fight a needless, senseless war in a country that had no credible connection to the events of September 11, 2001. Bush and Rumsfeld continue to plant this idea in the minds of the American public, that Iraq under Saddam was a training ground for the bad guys that attacked us that day. Where's the evidence? Hmmm? Don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain . . .!

    Bush and Rumsfeld are part and parcel of the "credibility gap" that has been created about this war since its very inception. They're the fathers of it! How can a father deny his own child when it looks so much like him, when it in fact carries his own DNA? They're the very ones who laid the foundation for and helped to construct the lies, tell the lies, and in fact CONTINUE to this very day to tell the lies about the reasons we are prosecuting a very expensive (in terms of human lives lost as well as financial cost) war with no end in sight. "Success has many fathers, but failure is doomed to be a poor bastard all its days." J. F. Kennedy

    Posted by jottings at 06/29/2005 @ 10:20am

11. The United States is now doing overtly what it has been doing covertly for more than 100 (one hundred) years. Slaughter all those who oppose the "democratic-capitalist" system. We forget, we have a republic, not a democracy. A republic with some democratic processes. Those processes must be fought for tooth and nail. Are we prepared for that?

    sierra 7

    Posted by sierra7 at 06/29/2005 @ 10:30am

12. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed..." Benj Harrison: "We have no commission from God to police the world." JFK: "We cannot expect that all nations will adopt like systems, for conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth." And this one is good too: "Naturally the common people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and endangering the country. It works the same in every country." H. Goering! and my personal favorite: "Let us, by all wise and constituional measures, promote intelligence among the people, as the best means of preserving our liberties." Mr. Bush, how dare you insult our intelligence with lies, deceit, and a "believe what I say because I am the president" attitude. You are bad for America and may God have mercy on your soul.

    Posted by fornhgov at 06/29/2005 @ 11:15am

13. NPR most likely was afraid that, as noted above, there would be nothing for the 'conservative' commentator to discuss. This is no reason not to hold the discussion. The simple fact that Bush reverted to form, distorted or ignored the many, many issues surrounding this fiasco is itself worthy of discussion. By cancelling the analysis, NPR acts as an enabler of the continuing Bush administration abuse of power.

    Posted by norbal2 at 06/29/2005 @ 11:16am

14. If things continue, than predictable future wars will become the way to go..."another potentially paramutual operation," says Helliberton, Bochtool and various assorted Body Baggers.

    Ground troops will consist of the many products of 'unwanted' pregnancies, thereby helping to maintain a stable population balance of Evangelical Neocons and semi-literate hard working middle classers, who were truly 4F physically but at least passed their (instrument) written.

    Posted by antigenerator at 06/29/2005 @ 11:53am

15. Since good and evil is such a hot topic for the Bush Administration it seems appropriate to call to attention some questions of ethics and morality. As one writer noted earlier, it is interesting to point out that this administration and its followers believe that fighting our "War on Terror" on innocent people's soil in Iraq is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. Their strategy to keep America safe by such means is reprehensible. But equally reprehensible is the civil society's inability to form coherent thought around this "tactic" for surely if they understood it they couldn't comply with it, could they? It is probably truer that what we see in the peripheral, but never can quite get a handle on, is the absolute brazen idea that we believe we "deserve" our safety over the safety of the "other."

    Also the empty rhetoric of those calling for exit strategies without calling for the end of the pillaging that is going on, no less to the same innocent people we will let die for our safety, obliterates any credence such proposals may have had.

    Posted by megdlan at 06/29/2005 @ 11:54am

16. It just floors me that Bush can speak of "sacrifices". Can anyone seriously name even ONE sacrifice that man has made in pursuing his illegal and immoral war???

    Posted by kww355 at 06/29/2005 @ 11:59am

17. In the Church of Jesus Christ, Bush Lies About Everything we think about Iraq every day. Every Day. And while liberals howl that the Mess-Opotamia our leader has wrought has made America less safe, know this: with the overthrow and capture of Saddam "he tried to kill my dad" Hussein, the world is a safer place for George H. W. Bush. In our church, we protect our own! Oh, and by the way, your Halliburton stock is at an all-time high! And you wonder why Four Deferments Dick is delirious...

    Posted by nathanhale at 06/29/2005 @ 11:59am

18. I made my very best effort to listen to him, but only lasted for 4 minutes. Listening to the unmitigated lying (not that lying CAN be mitigated), the "disassembling," and repetition of the same old bu(ll)sh*t made my head feel that it was about to explode, and I just could NOT do it.

    As low as his poll numbers are getting, they are not nearly low enough. I do not understand how there is ANYONE left on this planet who is unaware of the truth, or of the fact that if this guy's lips are moving, he is lying, big time.

    It is just incredible.

    Posted by gifted at 06/29/2005 @ 1:06pm

19. Hell no, I didn't listen to Bush's crap. I spent a productive evening walking the dog in the oppressive Memphis humidity & then knocked off a few more pages of Robert Caro's book on LBJ, 'The Means of Ascent' ... ah, now there was a lying Texan whose political skills were unmatched, and unlike the lazy Bush, was an obsessively driven workaholic control freak - and in the end he was DESTROYED, literally, by the Vietnam War escalated by his lies.

    The 'chicken hawks' are coming home to roost for W, my friends, bank on it ... as LBJ used to say, "It's a lead-pipe cinch" ... body bags trump political genius every time ...

    Posted by EnviroVarmint at 06/29/2005 @ 1:17pm

20. AAMURPHY says:

    The laws must be changed -- by constitutional amendment, if need be -- to impose strict criteria on keeping U.S. forces committed for periods exceeding say, thirty days. If we don't change those laws, there will be another unecessary war in the next decade or so. And another. And another. Waging war is an easy way to quickly gain public goodwill -- at least, temporarily -- and American politicians can't seem to resist.

    You are right, altho I would suggest that it will take a Democratic presidency to clean things up, and after a while the natives will get restless and elect another Republican to wage an illegal war and destroy any surplus again.....or to give it to those who really don't need any more $$.

    How anyone in their right mind can ever think anything positive about this administration is beyond me. How I wish for once that the American people would hear and see the truth about them--oh god, please just let me live long enough to see the shift in attitudes and to see them overthrown!!

    demwoman

    Posted by demwoman at 06/29/2005 @ 1:41pm

21. Last week I heard an NPR story where an American officer in Iraq said that for each insurgent we kill, three more are created. He could have easily said that for each innocent Iraqi killed in the war we create ten more "insurgents" who want revenge. Comparing statements like that to a speech that cries out "ignorance," as in "I choose to ignore facts and reason," is what the NPR analyst should have done.

    There is a way out: 1. Bush needs to revisit the word "democracy." The Republicans love to say "up or down vote," which translates into "if I can get even one vote more than the other candidate I rule." Bush continues to trample on the views and beliefs of the majority of American - and the polls show he has lost their respect. In countries like Iraq this translates into civil war and ruthless leaders like Hussein. Proportional voting would get Iraq a real working government - and it would get America leaders that build consensus, not divide. 2. We can win the confidence of the Iraq people by just saying "No" to military tactics that hold average Iraq citizens hostage to fighting. Our military goal should be to normalize commerce in Iraq and protect Iraq's citizens. That means no sorties into cities - let the insurgents run away! 3. Support out troops by supporting human rights. No more torture - no more locking people away without trials or hearings in court. The excuse that we are dealing with "evil" people is childish - two wrongs don't make a right, even if you are a member of the Cabinet.

    Posted by New Pundit at 06/29/2005 @ 2:11pm

22. I appreciate David Corn's account of the Bush message last evening. In spite of a heartfelt letter from Senator Kerry advising me to watch it very carefully I simply could not WASTE my time to listen to the same old stale rhetoric, half-truths and downright lies.

    One thing Bush is smart enough to know is that he's bitten off more than he can chew. Rather than being an honest leader who's made this grossly enormous mistake, he's burying his head in the sand and insisting that he is right. He should be meeting with knowledgable minds from across the earth and follow their advice on an exit from Iraq. Iraq does not want us there. Our troops do not want to be there. WHERE, for God's sake, is the sense in the status quo?

    Osama may very well be right in that Bush may have begun the third world war. Certainly he has opened the door WIDE for it. Prior to his preemptive strike on Iraq, I communicated with a Fellow from a Washington think bank who was working on a plan to secure the borders in Iraq so that insurgents would be kept out. All of this sane and sound advice was completely ignored by Bush and we, our troops and the Iraqi people are paying a dear price for it.

    What's the answer? I'm no war expert but I do know action must be taken to end this war. A march on Washington sounds good but frankly, I'd be afraid of being shot, along with anyone else who might march. It could be a fatal disaster. The only thing left is to insist to our Senators and Representatives that they take action strong enough to oust GW Bush and his cabinet from leadership. Whatever ensues couldn't possibly be as disastrous as what we're facing as things stand.

    Posted by uglyduckling at 06/29/2005 @ 3:11pm

23. Who needs commentary?

    George W. Bush, June 29, 2005

    The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September 11, 2001.

    The terrorists who attacked us and the terrorists we face, murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent.

    Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression by toppling governments, by driving us out of the region and by exporting terror.

    To achieve these aims, they have continued to kill: in Madrid, Istanbul, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali and elsewhere.

    The terrorists believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent and, with a few hard blows, they can force us to retreat. They are mistaken.

    Lyndon B. Johnson, March 31, 1968

    Even while the search for peace was going on, North Vietnam rushed their preparations for a savage assault on the people, the government, and the allies of South Vietnam.

    Their attack--during the Tet holidays--failed to achieve its principal objectives.

    It did not collapse the elected government of South Vietnam or shatter its army--as the Communists had hoped.

    It did not produce a "general uprising" among the people of the cities as they had predicted.

    The Communists were unable to maintain control of any of the more than 30 cities that they attacked. And they took very heavy casualties.

    But they did compel the South Vietnamese and their allies to move certain forces from the countryside into the cities.

    They caused widespread disruption and suffering. Their attacks, and the battles that followed, made refugees of half a million human beings.

    The Communists may renew their attack any day.

    …We have continued our efforts to equip and train Iraqi security forces. We've made gains in both the number and quality of those forces.

    Today, Iraq has more than 160,000 security forces trained and equipped for a variety of missions. Iraqi forces have fought bravely, helping to capture terrorists and insurgents in Najaf and Samarra, Falluja and Mosul.

    And in the past month, Iraqi forces have led a major anti-terrorist campaign in Baghdad called Operation Lightning, which has led to the capture of hundreds of suspected insurgents.

    Last week President Thieu ordered the mobilization of 135,000 additional South Vietnamese. He plans to reach--as soon as possible--a total military strength of more than 800,000 men. To achieve this, the Government of South Vietnam started the drafting of 19-year-olds on March 1st. On May 1st, the Government will begin the drafting of 18-year-olds.

    Last month, 10,000 men volunteered for military service--that was two and a half times the number of volunteers during the same month last year. Since the middle of January, more than 48,000 South Vietnamese have joined the armed forces--and nearly half of them volunteered to do so.

    All men in the South Vietnamese armed forces have had their tours of duty extended for the duration of the war, and reserves are now being called up for immediate active duty.

    President Thieu told his people last week:

    "We must make greater efforts and accept more sacrifices because, as I have said many times, this is our country. The existence of our nation is at stake, and this is mainly a Vietnamese responsibility."

    We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard, and rebuilding while at war is even harder.

    Our progress has been uneven, but progress is being made. We are improving roads and schools and health clinics. We're working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.

    In the past year, the international community has stepped forward with vital assistance. Some 30 nations have troops in Iraq, and many others are contributing non-military assistance.

    A number of its nations have shown what can be accomplished under conditions of security. Since 1966, Indonesia, the fifth largest nation in all the world, with a population of more than 100 million people, has had a government that is dedicated to peace with its neighbors and improved conditions for its own people. Political and economic cooperation between nations has grown rapidly.

    I think every American can take a great deal of pride in the role that we have played in bringing this about in Southeast Asia. We can rightly judge--as responsible Southeast Asians themselves do--that the progress of the past 3 years would have been far less likely--if not completely impossible--if America's sons and others had not made their stand in Vietnam.

    At Johns Hopkins University, about 3 years ago, I announced that the United States would take part in the great work of developing Southeast Asia, including the Mekong Valley, for all the people of that region. Our determination to help build a better land--a better land for men on both sides of the present conflict--has not diminished in the least. Indeed, the ravages of war, I think, have made it more urgent than ever.

    Whatever our differences in the past, the world understands that success in Iraq is critical to the security of our nations.

    As German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said at the White House yesterday, "There can be no question a stable and democratic Iraq is in the vested interest of not just Germany, but also Europe."

    But the heart of our involvement in South Vietnam--under three different presidents, three separate administrations--has always been America's own security.

    And the larger purpose of our involvement has always been to help the nations of Southeast Asia become independent and stand alone, self-sustaining, as members of a great world community--at peace with themselves, and at peace with all others.

    With such an Asia, our country--and the world--will be far more secure than it is tonight.

    I believe that a peaceful Asia is far nearer to reality because of what America has done in Vietnam. I believe that the men who endure the dangers of battle--fighting there for us tonight--are helping the entire world avoid far greater conflicts, far wider wars, far more destruction, than this one.

    When the history of this period is written, the liberation of Afghanistan and the liberation of Iraq will be remembered as great turning points in the story of freedom.

    After September 11, 2001, I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult and that we would prevail. Well, it has been difficult and we are prevailing.

    Our enemies are brutal, but they are no match for the United States of America, and they are no match for the men and women of the United States military.

    May God bless you all.

    Thank you very much.

    With America's sons in the fields far away, with America's future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world's hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office--the Presidency of your country.

    Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.

    But let men everywhere know, however, that a strong, a confident, and a vigilant America stands ready tonight to seek an honorable peace--and stands ready tonight to defend an honored cause--whatever the price, whatever the burden, whatever the sacrifice that duty may require.

    Thank you for listening.

    Good night and God bless all of you.

    Posted by rhlucier at 06/29/2005 @ 3:18pm

24. RHLUCIER - Thanks - You did a great job intertwining Bush's/LBJ's 'state of the war' speeches ... both full of lies & fruitless attempts to put the best face on tragedy. Of course, the punchline - LBJ stating he would not seek reelection, can't happen with Bush, because he got reelected (well, sort of) & we've got him for 3 1/2 more years.

    LBJ died within a year or two of leaving office of heart disease. He probably would have died that way any way (heart disease ran in his family), but the mounting death toll & tragedy of Vietnam no doubt contributed to his death. Yes, he was a world class liar, but he was ultimately haunted by his actions.

    Is Bush ever haunted by his actions? Is he so totally arrogant that he never entertains the notion that he is wrong, or is he just too plain dumb to fully understand what he has done? Unfortunately, it's probably both ...

    Posted by EnviroVarmint at 06/29/2005 @ 3:48pm

25. I listened to NPR's rendition of "The Speech" and even that was too close. "The Speech" appears to capture a man who's killed his wife, realizing he could not do it legally. Then, sensing the rising disapproval of the neighbors, he cautions them against looking too closely at her body. Too messy. And besides, she was a real bitch and he was right. So there.

    Posted by Sailor at 06/29/2005 @ 6:55pm

26. Maybe that thing on his back is some sort of souped up pace maker/artificial heart mechanism that keeps GWB alive despite the fact that his spirit has extinguished.

    Posted by rob.olywa at 06/29/2005 @ 7:02pm

27. There is a certain blind loyalty to this administration particularly in the Red States that needs to be broken... President Bush spoke of "sacrifices" being worth it. Since he has brought up the subject, can anyone, please, media, Congress men and women, etc. please directly and on record ask him what kind of sacrifice him and his family are making? Ask what kind of sacrifices his Vice President is making? Ask other supporters of the war in Congress what sacrifices they are making?

    Posted by bains at 06/30/2005 @ 02:30am

28. NATHANHALE,

    Actually, that is six deferrment Dick Cheney, but then again who is counting...........?

    Posted by POSEIDON at 06/30/2005 @ 02:44am

29. Historically, people who start wars and lose them tend to wind up in front of war crimes tribunals. People who start wars and win them have better prospects. His mission is clear. President Bush needs the American people to stay the course to keep him from the tribunals that await him in 2009.

    Posted by coal_train at 06/30/2005 @ 1:58pm

30. "Is Bush ever haunted by his actions? Is he so totally arrogant that he never entertains the notion that he is wrong, or is he just too plain dumb to fully understand what he has done? Unfortunately, it's probably both ... "

    It just really pisses you guys off that much that you lost huh? Get used to it, at least for another four years anyway.

    May God bless you, President Bush, his administration, and our troops defending America against terrorism.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/30/2005 @ 2:03pm

31. Todd,

    I love your attitude! "To the victor go the spoils", so they say, right? Bush won because God blessed him over Kerry, and winner take all. Take the Iraqi land and oil. Take the resources of the environment. Take it all. Screw the losers! They should just be silent.

    I hear this again and again on liberal blogs from the conservatives who are willing to try to respond. "We won, so screw your opinion. Be silent!" That sure shows respect for the democratic process. Of course, dialogue and debate are not the administration's strong suits either. This winner take all attitude may lead to partisan successes, but it is not healthy for the future of our country. We need open lines of communication. Why is it that Bush is afraid to speak to people that he doesn't already know agree with him?

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 06/30/2005 @ 2:53pm

32. "Bush won because God blessed him over Kerry, and winner take all."

    Well, yes. I can assure you, if God wanted Kerry to win, Kerry would have won. The votes would have been there. He didn't, so they weren't….

    "They should just be silent."

    Not at all, the 1st amendment clearly gives everyone the right to voice his or her opinions and speak freely. However that right extends to evangelical Christian Bush voters as well my friend.

    Please, let us know your opinions! I can assure you, we will be giving you ours.

    Sincerely,

    Todd

    "Thank God we have a President in place with the intestinal fortitude to do what's morally right, instead of what's politically correct."

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/30/2005 @ 3:10pm

33. How does the Christian conservative movement morally support a war? Why don't Christians have to obey the ten commandments: "thou shalt not kill". That's not too subtle... What happened to "turn the other cheek"?

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 06/30/2005 @ 4:34pm

34. "thou shalt not kill".

    Actually, most interpretations including the Bible I read say, "Thou shalt not murder".

    There is a huge and unquestionable difference between killing and murder. As a matter of fact many times in the Bible, such as all of the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges, God clearly called his chosen leaders such as Joshua, and King Samuel and King David to destroy the inhabitants of the land that God gave to Jews to inhabit.

    "Turn the other cheek"

    You're absolutely right, and this is always the best solution. To the best of my knowledge we tried to "turn the other cheek" during the American troops barracks bombing, during the U.S.S. Cole bombing, during the 1st world trade center bombing etc.

    Additionally, "There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven. A time for war, and a time for peace."

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/30/2005 @ 4:54pm

35. Todd, you state "There is a huge and unquestionable difference between killing and murder", yet you fail to differentiate between them in your argument. What is their definitions? Which is acceptable in the eyes of God? And how does this justify the thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths over the course of the war?

    Posted by Boleyn at 06/30/2005 @ 5:42pm

36. Todd, According to your logic, then, as you understand God, it would be okay if this God told another nation to inhabit the United States and to make it "habitable" by killing us all. That would be killing right, not murder? I would perfer, actually, the option to move.

    Posted by Sailor at 06/30/2005 @ 7:49pm

37. What year was it that Ho Chi Min said, "You (the US) will kill one thousand of us and we will kill one of you, but in the end it will be irrelevant."

    That is the story of "occupation." Read the history of the French in Algeira, Vietnam. The history of the Dutch in Indonesia.

    Like I said above, we are doing overtly what we have been doing covertly for many generations, at least since the Spanish American War.

    Both administrations have participated in this kind of foreign policy, so there is not "hope that the Dems will change things for the better."

    I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that we are in a terrible mess and there are almost no politicians with any courage to stand up and walk out of the halls of congress or the senate. Unless our elected officials have the stomach to begin articles of impeachment for this president and his cabinet, this country is doomed to a good generation of "imperial machinations."

    Either we change our foreign policies or we will have more violence against the people of this country because of the elected official's foreign policies that are contrary to the constitution, and international law. Either we join the company of nations or we will perish.

    For us to believe that we can acquire all kinds of WMD and the rest of the world is too dumb to have them is ludicrous. Critical thinking tells us that in the long run all countries will have some kind of WMD. We have used most all of them in the past and we have threatened to use them of those, "...who are against us." So, what do you think the rest of the world is going to do? Sit on their hands????

    Trying to listen to this President the other night gives me nightmares, and reinforces the idea that he is either a mindless twit, or a "Ceasar playing his violin, while our servicepeople are slaughtered in a foreign land."

    When the Nazis came to power in the '30's they knew they had to usurp the powers of the supreme court of Germany. They were successful and the rest was history...does this not indicate just what the Bush people did in the election of 2000?

    Wake up, America!

    And, by the way, wouldn't we have avoided 15 years of murderousness in Iraq if April Glaspie would have been instructed by then Secty of State, Jim Baker to make it perfectly clear that "....the US takes a very dim view of any move to invade Kuwait by Iraq." That message was never delivered by Ms Glaspie....why not? We set up Iraq in 1990 and we have slaughtered them for 15 years....no fly zones were illegal and never sanctioned by any UN resolutions...therfore, we are guilty of war crimes, simply put... Diplomatic records indicate that Saddam Hussein was very wary of any forceful opposition to his policies...we chose to ignore a fundamental tenant of carrying out those policies..and we did it on purpose.

    Think about it.

    peace, sierra7

    Posted by sierra7 at 06/30/2005 @ 8:13pm

38. "Todd, According to your logic, then, as you understand God, it would be okay if this God told another nation to inhabit the United States and to make it "habitable" by killing us all."

    Correct, if the God was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Jesus. If it was the God of Muslims, well then Hell no. We would stand and fight.

    Hope that clears it up for you.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 06/30/2005 @ 9:09pm

39. Todd, if you want to stand and fight I hear the line is pretty short at the enlistment centers.

    Posted by Friscodog at 07/01/2005 @ 12:35am

40. Herr Todd typed: Correct, if the God was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Jesus. If it was the God of Muslims, well then Hell no.

    I've got bad news for you, Mr Death - The God of the Muslims is the God of Abraham, Jacob and Jesus.

    Posted by REP at 07/01/2005 @ 05:40am

41. "I've got bad news for you, Mr Death - The God of the Muslims is the God of Abraham, Jacob and Jesus."

    Not in my book.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/01/2005 @ 09:34am

42. In the congress of nations, if there is no "universality of morals and truths," there will be no peace.

    A good article by Norman Solomon reflecting the mirrors focussed on the President's recent speech and the reactions of various politicians, go to:

    http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0630-20.htm

    (He does write for the Nation also....)

    peace, sierra7

    Posted by sierra7 at 07/01/2005 @ 11:00am

43. Jeez, talk about having nothing new to say. If Bush's speech "was the rhetorical equivalent of treading water" so was this article.

    Posted by jeck at 07/01/2005 @ 11:32am