Bush's Speech

hippiemom · January 2007

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.

gue_barium · January 2007

Thank you for that color commentary.:)

trappedinmyradio · January 2007

it is a sign of a man who is not really calling the shots...

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.

fanch75 · January 2007

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.

Cosmo · January 2007

Everyone knows how I feel about this President... not as a person.. but, as OUR President. He is the worst President in the history of Presidents.
However... I am willing to give this one last try. I believe that a failed Iraq is a threat to the world and will create almost irreparable damage to America's standing in this world. Many people believe that Reagan alone brought down the Soviet Union... but it was Afghanistan that played a great hand in their downfall. They were never the same after that and it destroyed them from within. We didn't explode them... they imploded from deep divisions as their troops came home in boxes or missing one or more limbs.
I have always felt that there were several keys we needed to do to clear up this mess in 2003. The President has to take ownership of his decisions... his mistakes. He has FINALLY done that.. although I think he should have opened his address with this line... "My fellow Americans... I am a tool."
We NEED to get the Arab nations to buy into our plan. They have knowledge of Middle Eastern culture, customs, religion and language. To omit them from the 'Coalition of the Coerced and Bribed' was a huge mistake. At least, he is saying he will try to bring them into the fold... although it will cost us as taxpayers. Getting the NATO Allies into the mix is also a vital part of getting Iraq on track as it provided quality boots on the ground, other than U.S. troops. That is where the 'You're either with us... or against us' completely blew up in his face. NATO partner Turkey would be an ideal place to set-up quality trainning of Iraq soldiers.
And you all know I am a firm believe in the 'Powell Doctrine'. It was forged from the failures of Viet Nam and designed to never repeat that fiasco. OVERWHELMING force... not 20,000, but 120,000 to go over there. The 'Job' has always been the excuse for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush supporters... well, get the 'Job Done' by providing the proper tools and manpower it requires. The 'Whack A Mole' tactics we have employed has only hardened the resolve of insurgents and sectarian fighters. I am more along the thinking of Powell and Swartzkopf... Whack ALL The Moles.
And finally... blamng the Iraqis. That is weak. We blew up their shit.. we need to rebuild or pay for it. As Powell stated, 'We broke it... We bought it'. Now, we own a fucked up pile of shit that stinks of vengence and payback. All that shit is courtesy of this Administration and they are the ones who should be shouldering all of the responsibility. Yeah... the Iraqis should want peace and unity... but, they don't. Why shouldn't the Shi'ite exact vengence on the ones who dragged their relatives into the darkness of the night and dump their bodies in mass graves after putting a bullet in their ears? Shi'ites have the guns now and someone is going to pay. To not see that as a real probability means maybe you shouldn't be the ones making the big decisions. You know that many Americans... especially the Bush War supporters would do the same thing if it were their fathers and brothers murdered for their religious beliefs.
But.. as I said... I really, really hope this last ditch effort is successful. And if this doesn't work... and you are NOT willing to send in sufficient forces to 'Git 'Er Done'... then get the fuck out of there

fanch75 · January 2007

I keep having this image of Larry the Cable Guy going to Iraq to discuss diplomacy with the Shi'ites. Maybe he could lern 'em a good'un.

Cosmo · January 2007

fanch75 wrote:

I keep having this image of Larry the Cable Guy going to Iraq to discuss diplomacy with the Shi'ites. Maybe he could lern 'em a good'un.

...
The video of his beheading will end up on YouTube. That is Shi'ite Diplomacy... ask Muqtada al Sadr.

hippiemom · January 2007

Cosmo wrote:

Everyone knows how I feel about this President... not as a person.. but, as OUR President. He is the worst President in the history of Presidents.
However... I am willing to give this one last try. I believe that a failed Iraq is a threat to the world and will create almost irreparable damage to America's standing in this world. Many people believe that Reagan alone brought down the Soviet Union... but it was Afghanistan that played a great hand in their downfall. They were never the same after that and it destroyed them from within. We didn't explode them... they imploded from deep divisions as their troops came home in boxes or missing one or more limbs.
I have always felt that there were several keys we needed to do to clear up this mess in 2003. The President has to take ownership of his decisions... his mistakes. He has FINALLY done that.. although I think he should have opened his address with this line... "My fellow Americans... I am a tool."
We NEED to get the Arab nations to buy into our plan. They have knowledge of Middle Eastern culture, customs, religion and language. To omit them from the 'Coalition of the Coerced and Bribed' was a huge mistake. At least, he is saying he will try to bring them into the fold... although it will cost us as taxpayers. Getting the NATO Allies into the mix is also a vital part of getting Iraq on track as it provided quality boots on the ground, other than U.S. troops. That is where the 'You're either with us... or against us' completely blew up in his face. NATO partner Turkey would be an ideal place to set-up quality trainning of Iraq soldiers.
And you all know I am a firm believe in the 'Powell Doctrine'. It was forged from the failures of Viet Nam and designed to never repeat that fiasco. OVERWHELMING force... not 20,000, but 120,000 to go over there. The 'Job' has always been the excuse for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush supporters... well, get the 'Job Done' by providing the proper tools and manpower it requires. The 'Whack A Mole' tactics we have employed has only hardened the resolve of insurgents and sectarian fighters. I am more along the thinking of Powell and Swartzkopf... Whack ALL The Moles.
And finally... blamng the Iraqis. That is weak. We blew up their shit.. we need to rebuild or pay for it. As Powell stated, 'We broke it... We bought it'. Now, we own a fucked up pile of shit that stinks of vengence and payback. All that shit is courtesy of this Administration and they are the ones who should be shouldering all of the responsibility. Yeah... the Iraqis should want peace and unity... but, they don't. Why shouldn't the Shi'ite exact vengence on the ones who dragged their relatives into the darkness of the night and dump their bodies in mass graves after putting a bullet in their ears? Shi'ites have the guns now and someone is going to pay. To not see that as a real probability means maybe you shouldn't be the ones making the big decisions. You know that many Americans... especially the Bush War supporters would do the same thing if it were their fathers and brothers murdered for their religious beliefs.
But.. as I said... I really, really hope this last ditch effort is successful. And if this doesn't work... and you are NOT willing to send in sufficient forces to 'Git 'Er Done'... then get the fuck out of there

I agree with all of this. Unfortunately, Bush showed signs that he STILL doesn't understand what's going on over there.

"When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation."

Ok, now when the hell did they do that? There was an election, but Sunnis voted for Sunnis, Shiites voted for Shiites, Kurds voted not to have anything to do with either of them. Nobody voted for anything that anyone in the west would recognize as "a democratic nation."

As always with this president, I'm left wondering if he actually believes half the shit that comes out of his mouth, or if he's just hoping we'll believe it.

gue_barium · January 2007

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.

whidbey · January 2007

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.

Have you not seen the British news report about the Iraqi oil reserves?

Future of Iraq: The spoils of war
How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches
By Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb
Published: 07 January 2007

Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.

The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.

The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company
Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.

Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. But it will operate through "production-sharing agreements" (or PSAs) which are highly unusual in the Middle East, where the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's two largest producers, is state controlled.

Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132569.ece

CorporateWhore · January 2007

Bush's speech was a presidential meltdown. He's pathetic.

Rushlimbo · January 2007

Bush stole LBJ's speech?

http://www.attytood.com/2007/01/eday_it_was_40_years_ago_today.html

Ebizzie · January 2007

I didn't get to see the speech tonight, I was on my way into work. I've read the highlights and, in principle, he's got a good plan.

I'm with you, Cosmo. The proposed increase in troops is ESSENTIAL is quelling the violence and putting an end to the insurgency. Troop levels have NEVER been even close to the initial Iraq plans thanks to ole Rummy's extremely ignorant decision to dismiss the ENTIRE Iraqi military/police apparatus. From that point on, violence has increased.

If the security had been in place since day 1 of the invasion, we would not be where we are today. Kudos to whoever has finally forced Bush to make this move.

Gary Carter · January 2007

fanch75 wrote:

I keep having this image of Larry the Cable Guy going to Iraq to discuss diplomacy with the Shi'ites. Maybe he could lern 'em a good'un.

git-r-done

Cosmo · January 2007

hippiemom wrote:

I agree with all of this. Unfortunately, Bush showed signs that he STILL doesn't understand what's going on over there.

"When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation."

Ok, now when the hell did they do that? There was an election, but Sunnis voted for Sunnis, Shiites voted for Shiites, Kurds voted not to have anything to do with either of them. Nobody voted for anything that anyone in the west would recognize as "a democratic nation."

As always with this president, I'm left wondering if he actually believes half the shit that comes out of his mouth, or if he's just hoping we'll believe it.

...
Don't get me started on that 'Spreading Democracy' bullshit. Bush and his supporters are always harping about how they hate us and want to destroy us. If people who hate us get to vote for their leaders... who do you think they will vote into power?
Hint: His name starts with Muqtada and his middle name is 'AL'.
...
If Democracy spreads to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait... look for similar election results like those in Iraq, Lebannon and Gaza... Shi'ites (aligned with Iran), Hezbollah and Hamas, respectively.

Cosmo · January 2007

Ebizzie wrote:

I didn't get to see the speech tonight, I was on my way into work. I've read the highlights and, in principle, he's got a good plan.

I'm with you, Cosmo. The proposed increase in troops is ESSENTIAL is quelling the violence and putting an end to the insurgency. Troop levels have NEVER been even close to the initial Iraq plans thanks to ole Rummy's extremely ignorant decision to dismiss the ENTIRE Iraqi military/police apparatus. From that point on, violence has increased.

If the security had been in place since day 1 of the invasion, we would not be where we are today. Kudos to whoever has finally forced Bush to make this move.

...
I hope it works out.. but, I believe this is way too little, way too late. The Al Sadr militias are not going to just lay down their arms and hug the nearest Sunni.
And the Iraqi Security Force is littered with sectarian fighters who hate the other side. I don't trust those fuckers and I don't want them armed and covering the back of our Rangers and Marines. I wouldn't trust them in ammo depots or posting guard duty over our sleeping soldiers. We don't know who those fuckers are and where their alligences lie.
Put those 320,000 Iraqis that Bush and Rumsfeld bragged about in the fight and have our guy covering their backs.

CorporateWhore · January 2007

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.

mammasan · January 2007

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.

Shit I actually agree with barroomhero, sorry CorporateWhore. Many generals including Gen. John Abizade and even some member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have stated that more troops is not the answer. I hate to say it because I know that the majority of Iraqies are probably good people who want nothing to do with all of the shit happening there but if the Iraqi Government is unwilling to put an end to the militias and death squads and corruption then we pull the hell out. I would say that if by the end of summer there is no noticble progress by the Iraqi government we pack up and leave.

On a different point. I was waqtching the speech last night but was also in the middle of doing some work. I thought I heard the President state that we should give this new direction 2 years to see if it will work, if he didn't please correct me. I thought to myself how fucking convenient. Let's give it two more years and if it doesn't work not his problem because he is out of office by then. If I am correct that he did mention this, isn't he just passing the buck to the next administration.

blackredyellow · January 2007

Random thoughts....

* If he gave this speech in 2004 I might go for it, but not now. I don't know how anyone can be confident that the al-Maliki can actually convince and control the Iraqi army, and what is left of the police to help secure and hold cities.

* Bush is sending these troops over there to prolong the inevidible. If we leave now, the capital city will collapse almost immediately. If we send in 20,000 troops to sweep the areas of the city (again), then hand them off to Iraqis, then the collapse might take a little longer, but it WILL happen. I think he is buying time so that he is gone before all hell breaks loose over there. I keep thinking of him as the boy with his finger in the dike.

* Who are we fighting over there? When we go after the Sunni death squads, we are taking the same side as Iran and pissing off the Saudis... When we go after the Shi'a insurgency, we are pissing off the majority ethnic group over there. We can't win, no matter what we do.

* The victory will not come in the form of a surrenderr ceremony on a battle ship line? WTF? Even he's admitting that we can't "win" this war. What exactly is victory Mr. President?

* The Iran comment? Before he leaves in 2009, thanks to continued pressure from our friends in Israel, we will attack Iran in some form or another. We are scraping together to get 20,000 troops, how are we going to open a third front on this war? He is leaving one HUGE bag of shit for the next president. We fucked that part of the world up for decades to come.

* Dick Durban's response was harsher then I expected, and pretty much right on mark. Now lets wait and see if they actually do anything besides non-binding resolutions and whining to the media.

even flow? · January 2007

The one thing that stuck out in my head from listening to the man speak was this. He goes on about the oil fields (remember this is not why you are there) and says that we can't let them slip into the wrong hands to fund terrorism. So should he have not followed that up by saying that they are working on a new source of energy and the States will become self sufficient on it. Then you can just light up the desert by blowing up the oil fields and force everybody else to purchase this new source from the States.

Once he is out of office and even if the other party wins. Are things really going to change?

MakingWaves · January 2007

I just want to say it is great to read a thread where every post is intelligent and isn't spewing with hatred. It feels good!

Bush's Speech

Comments

Categories