Bush's Speech

Jeanwah

I have to give all of you who even attempted to watch his speech an applause! Because I simply can't (oh, I do try, I do!) sit there and listen to him. It's a combination of being a terrible speaker AND all of the words that come out of his mouth.

Pacomc79

hippiemom wrote:

I'm kind of surprised to find that there's not already a thread about this. There was a time when it would have been pages long by now, but I guess those days are gone.

I was tempted to pick it apart line by line, but instead I'm going to focus on the thing that struck me most ... and that's that Bush himself doesn't seem to believe in this plan of his. Look at this language: "this plan can work," "even if our new strategy works exactly as planned." Throughout the entire speech he looked tentative, and it was carefully crafted to leave a lot of wiggle room for when the whole thing goes awry.

This speech was not inspiring in the slightest. This was not a confident leader speaking, this was the gasp of a politician who knows he has the backing of about 15% of the public. There was not one vigorous assertion that we WILL succeed, we WILL prevail.

Obviously, I have never liked the guy. I've never had the slightest respect for his abilities, his intelligence, or anything else about him. But I will grant him this much ... when he got all fired up, he could give a decent speech. I have to think that he truly believed at least some of what he said. I didn't see that tonight. What I saw was a guy who knows he's blown it and can't quite bring himself to admit it yet.

I think the doubt comes from a lack of belief that the local Iraqi Government can do anything by itself without collapsing almost immediately. Essentially he knows if he doesn't commit more troops, this is his Vietnam, because the government they have in place is in name only and they don't have the troops on the ground to provide any semblence of order. The doubt comes from his realization that he may have bit off more than he can chew there (4 years late). He realizes that the control is no longer up to him or US troops, it's up to the Iraqi government and that's not very reassuring. One gets the feeling he assumed this would be easier.

siochan

I have always been an opponent to this war and to the Bush administration. History will hopefully remember this man for what he was - a terrible leader who's puppet strings are beginning to become more apparent with every decision he has made along the way.
As a non american I find it extremely difficult to understand the mindset that agrees with the mistakes currently being made in Iraq and the Middle East as a whole. I can comprehend the aspect of the viewpoint that you have to finish what was started but all i can say really is god ( or whoever one prays to) help those poor 20,000 young men and women who are going to a possible slaughter ......... I wonder how many more young working class kids have to die to help George Bush and his wayward adminstration.

SuzannePjam

A Crisis of Confidence
Bush's way forward may be sensible. But his face showed fear—and that's no way to rally a war-weary nation.

By Howard Fineman
Newsweek
Updated: 10:43 p.m. CT Jan 10, 2007
Jan. 10, 2007 - George W. Bush spoke with all the confidence of a perp in a police lineup. I first interviewed the guy in 1987 and began covering his political rise in 1993, and I have never seen him, in public or private, look less convincing, less sure of himself, less cocky. With his knitted brow and stricken features, he looked, well, scared. Not surprising since what he was doing in the White House library was announcing the escalation of an unpopular war.
The president may well be right that we cannot afford to leave or lose in Iraq . He makes profound sense when he observes that a collapse of Iraq would mean the rise of a giant version of the Taliban's Afghanistan—with a million times the oil in the ground.
But if he was trying to assure the country that he had confidence in his own plan to prevent that collapse, well, a picture is worth a thousand words. And the words themselves weren't that assuring either. Does anyone in America or Iraq , or anywhere else in the world for that matter, really think that the Sunnis and Shia will make peace? Does anyone think that embedded American soldiers won't be in danger of being fragged by their own Iraqi brethren? Does anyone really think that Iran and Syria can be prevented from playing havoc in Iraq and the rest of the region by expressions of presidential will?
George Bush had the look of a man who knew he had made a royal hash of things in reaching for what most enlightened people would say was a noble goal: a stable, antiterrorist Iraq.******
In his televised address about Iraq, the president used the book-lined backdrop of the library in the White House to evoke the midwar FDR. This was supposed to be the kind of matter-of-fact, detail-filled radio address that the Old Man gave each week through the course of the last Good War.
Problem was, Bush had long since forfeited the political credibility that FDR was able to maintain through his presidency. Roosevelt made huge mistakes, and the rules of the times allowed him to hold back much information. But the public believed him in his role as a leader of the Western World. Luckily for Roosevelt, he was on the radio for the most part.
Bush's political problem is not so much that he has lied to the American people—though he may well have done so—but that he seems for years to have been lying to himself.
What the voters saw on TV just now was a man struggling to come to grips with his own unwillingness to face facts. It's still a struggle. His acknowledgement of mistakes was oblique and not as brave as it sounded at first blush. Mistakes were made, and he said. "The responsibility rests with me," he said. What he meant to convey was that others had made the mistakes, but that he was stepped up to take the hit. Hoo-aw! He said that he had "consulted" congressional leaders of both parties before he came to a decision on sending more than 20,000 additional troops. He didn't really consult with members of Congress, and certainly not with Democrats, unless you consider Sen. Joe Lieberman a Democrat.
Forty years ago, another president from Texas escalated an unpopular war. A famous Washington columnist, James Reston, described Lyndon Johnson's leadership as "war by tantrum."
This Texas president doesn't operate through tantrums, and this wasn't a tantrum. This is an expression of grim determination, based on a moral vision, a worthy if perhaps unrealistic goal, and a fierce hatred of being branded a loser. I could tell you lots of stories about just how much Bush hates to lose, and always has.
The president's chances of success, such as they are, now rest with the reasonableness and details of his plan. Will it work? His says that his generals "report" that it will. Do the American people believe that it will?
I'm not sure that they are really listening, but if they were watching, they can't have been reassured by the man they saw in the basement of the White House.

polaris

just trying to squeeze every dollar from the american public and every drop of blood from iraqis ... he's just killing time until his time is up and then he's gonna kick back ...

inmytree

gue_barium wrote:

Realistically, he doesn't expect to get the funding and the troops. This speech was designed to blame Democrats in the future for failing Iraq. That's all it is.

I agree...the dems are now in a shitty position, they either support bush and his "new plan" or they resist it, and face the "why didn't you support our troops" cry...

either way, we and the Iraqis are fucked..and we have the war-machine and those who support it to blame...

also, the Iraqi Gov't doesn't support a surge in troops...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/10/news/iraq.php

Iraq wants no part of more U.S. soldiers
By Sabrina Tavernise
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
BAGHDAD

As President George W. Bush challenges public opinion at home by committing more soldiers to Iraq, he is confronted by an essential paradox: An Iraqi government that does not really want them.

The Shiite-led government here has not opposed more troops. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki said as much in a videoconference with Bush on Saturday. But the government is skeptical of American intentions and is determined to push back the reach of Washington's authority to run the war the way it wants.

Haidar al-Abadi, a member of Parliament who is a close associate of Maliki's, said: "The government believes there is no need for extra troops from the American side. The existing troops can do the job."

That opinion is broadly held throughout the ranks of the Shiite political elite, which after two years in power is stretching its wings and trying to stamp its authority on a chaotic capital. A long-oppressed majority, they are acting out of a deep-seated fear that power could be taken away at any moment.

The Shiites rose to power for the first time in Iraq's history on the back of the American invasion, and they were amenable to American strategies in the early years. But as the vicious attacks by Sunni militants increased, the government became impatient with what it called Washington's cautious military action and its increased scrutiny of Shiite militias.

"You can't solve the problem by adding more troops," said Redha Jawad Tahi, a Shiite member of Parliament. "The security should be in the hands of the Iraqis. The U.S. should be in a supporting role."

Even as the extra troops are readied — more than 20,000, Bush was expected to propose — the Iraqis are drawing up their own plans.

Abadi and other Shiites spoke Wednesday of creating a new office — of the commander in chief — where Iraq's military commanders would meet and report directly to Maliki, cutting out the Defense Ministry, for example, which is beholden to the United States.

The office would have a commander for four portions of Baghdad and would coordinate the security work by dividing the capital into 9 districts and the greater metropolitan area into 15.

The central issue in the new plan is operation control. Iraqis insist that they be given full control of all operations within Baghdad, a control that U.S. commanders — concerned that Iraqi forces will serve as a tool on one side of a civil war — have been reluctant to hand over.

"Iraqi commanders will be in charge of all operations," Abadi said.

Some of Iraq's most prominent Shiite leaders traveled to the southern city of Najaf on Wednesday to get a blessing for the plan from Iraq's highest Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

"We are working on a major operation to clear the places the terrorists hang around, as you witnessed what happened in Haifa Street," said Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the national security adviser, who attended the Najaf meeting.

Rubaie was referring to an offensive in recent days by American and Iraqi Army troops against Sunni Arab militants in central Baghdad.

The Iraqi government wants the American military to help in areas of strong Sunni resistance but wants to handle Shiite stronghold areas itself.

The Iraqi authorities, meanwhile, reported that 60 bodies were found in Baghdad on Wednesday.

In other violence, unidentified men opened fire on two buses of pilgrims returning to the Shiite city of Karbala from Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, killing 8 people and wounding 14, Reuters reported, citing police officials. Iraqiya state television said the attack killed 12 and wounded 18.

gue_barium

I am partly wrong. The Dems aren't going to oppose anything. What they are saying is that they will need definitive feedback over the course of this new plan to show if it is working or not. Of course, the problem with that is that this President has a problem admitting when things aren't going as "planned."

searchlightsoul

What do they think is going to happen when they leave Iraq eventually? It will be just like Vietnam because there are no 'terrorists', the 'terrorists' are just Iraq's citizens. The administration even admitted this when they conceeded that umemployed people were more likely to engage in violence.

NCfan

hippiemom wrote:

I'm kind of surprised to find that there's not already a thread about this. There was a time when it would have been pages long by now, but I guess those days are gone.

I was tempted to pick it apart line by line, but instead I'm going to focus on the thing that struck me most ... and that's that Bush himself doesn't seem to believe in this plan of his. Look at this language: "this plan can work," "even if our new strategy works exactly as planned." Throughout the entire speech he looked tentative, and it was carefully crafted to leave a lot of wiggle room for when the whole thing goes awry.

This speech was not inspiring in the slightest. This was not a confident leader speaking, this was the gasp of a politician who knows he has the backing of about 15% of the public. There was not one vigorous assertion that we WILL succeed, we WILL prevail.

Obviously, I have never liked the guy. I've never had the slightest respect for his abilities, his intelligence, or anything else about him. But I will grant him this much ... when he got all fired up, he could give a decent speech. I have to think that he truly believed at least some of what he said. I didn't see that tonight. What I saw was a guy who knows he's blown it and can't quite bring himself to admit it yet.

I couldn't agree more!

NCfan

polaris wrote:

just trying to squeeze every dollar from the american public and every drop of blood from iraqis ... he's just killing time until his time is up and then he's gonna kick back ...

So much for feeling good about a thread where every post is intelligent and isn't spewing with hatred.

polaris

NCfan wrote:

So much for feeling good about a thread where every post is intelligent and isn't spewing with hatred.

If any of what I wrote is untrue - please let me know ... but, all the evidence points to this ... how can you acknowledge a lying president that has sent many to war without hatred? ... how can you acknowledge a man who cares nothing for the people that continue to suffer based on his agenda without hatred? ... maybe it is slightly misdirected at only one individual when it is the result of many - but the continuing sacrifice of lives for the sake of profiteering sickens me ...

NCfan

polaris wrote:

If any of what I wrote is untrue - please let me know ... but, all the evidence points to this ... how can you acknowledge a lying president that has sent many to war without hatred? ... how can you acknowledge a man who cares nothing for the people that continue to suffer based on his agenda without hatred? ... maybe it is slightly misdirected at only one individual when it is the result of many - but the continuing sacrifice of lives for the sake of profiteering sickens me ...

I agree 100% that Bush has made huge mistakes in his presidency, and is teetering upon going down as maybe THE worst president in the history of the United States.

But I disagree with your assertion that malicious intent has driven his decisions. That is just rediculous.

polaris

NCfan wrote:

I agree 100% that Bush has made huge mistakes in his presidency, and is teetering upon going down as maybe THE worst president in the history of the United States.

But I disagree with your assertion that malicious intent has driven his decisions. That is just rediculous.

it is only ridiculous in your opinion ... not to me ... while you may think his bumbling of iraq was just bad planning - i consider it intentional ... similarily to the videotaping of saddam's execution - which sole intent was to ensure continued hostilities ...

the military industrial complex is in full swing - i won't get into the reasons as they should be apparent ...

either way - with the latest announcement of who gets the oil - it just keeps adding to the long list of evidence ...

my2hands

fanch75 wrote:

I kind of winced at the socialism that he's apparently bringing to Iraq, where every Iraqi will share her oil revenues. Oh, and all the Iraqi New Deal stuff.

dont worry, the major energy/petro companies will be splitting a larger portion of the profits very shortly.

Cosmo

CorporateWhore wrote:

I think all of you are insane for supporting Bush's troop increase. I guarantee you 100% that the surge will have absolutely no effect whatsoever. I know this because soldiers on the ground have repeatedly stated that they do not need more men, when talking to Oliver North. All this will do is offer more targets for Al Sadr and his thugs.

Fuck the middle east. I don't want one more American dying in that shithole.

...
I believe in increase of troops can possibly stop the violence... but, not in the manner in which President Bush is deploying them. 20,000 isn't going to do the trick. And i agree... it will have little effect.
Bush is leaving us his legacy... a fucked up future. I don't know why anyone would want the job of President in 2008. Whoever it is will inhierit one gigantic mess in a nation that is divided along political lines.

callen

NCfan wrote:

I agree 100% that Bush has made huge mistakes in his presidency, and is teetering upon going down as maybe THE worst president in the history of the United States.

But I disagree with your assertion that malicious intent has driven his decisions. That is just rediculous.

I've been anti Bush since before 9/11 but I do believe he did really want whats best for America(course he uses fear to cover for his real strategy of protecting the worlds oil supply)...course I disagree on many fundemental ideas he has (abortion, seperation of church and state, gay rights, environment, etc etc)...but again he seems genuine. I do though feel he is weak and that Cheney/Rove/Rumfeld are truely evil and have played George and the American people.

Cheney is Mr Burns on the Simpsons....acts and looks like him... (-:

Iraq has been about oil..and always been about oil...thats why we kicked Sadaam out of kuiwait (sp?) and why we wanted him deposed. There are many that are very fearful of the impact fundemental Islamists will have if they control a large portion of the worlds oil...and the negative impacdt it will have on American industries...think of Ford GM and Chrysler if oil went to $120.00 a barrel. Its very real.

Two items from Bush's speach last night.....he spoke on a report on Al Queda the acquired..and I thought "Dude no one's going to believe anything you say about intellegence materials" Second was when he wanted Moderate Muslims in control...and I'm thinking yea like your a moderate Christian. Sad sad.

Cosmo

callen wrote:

...
Cheney is Mr Burns on the Simpsons....acts and looks like him... (-:
...

...
http://mud.mm-a2.yimg.com/image/2215960220

http://mud.mm-a6.yimg.com/image/3459353817

norm

Jeanwah wrote:

I have to give all of you who even attempted to watch his speech an applause! Because I simply can't (oh, I do try, I do!) sit there and listen to him. It's a combination of being a terrible speaker AND all of the words that come out of his mouth.

I'm with you. I give credit to all that could stand to watch that buffoon. I wonder if W knows what the word quagmire means? Hell, can even say quagmire??:mad: