We are watching the NBC feed.
No Sound….Ah there he is. Very furrowed brow.
Wow, he is admitting that his plan didn’t work. (9:02)
Background information but still not calling it a Civil War (9:03)
He’s taking responcibility but then he is the determiner
Sound problems(9:04)…and we are back.
Invoking September 11th again. Panic and Fear runs the streets yet again.
So if I am understanding this he thinks that if we secure Bagdad then we secure the Iraq? (9:06)
So this is what the Iraq military will do but what will our commitment be?
20,000 more troops from where? Where are we finding these troops? A question not answered(9:08)
Sounds like a scorched earth policy with Iraq help. Didn’t work in ‘Nam too well did it?(9:08)
So more death will help the progress in the country? Sounds like he is covering his kister for many more American troops that will be killed(9:09)
Build up the Iraq troops and give money to the reconstruction getting the money from where? (9:11)
Brings up the ghost of Bin Lauden again along with Al Quida to again raise the fear level.
Notice that he keeps bringing it back to what might happen here if we don’t do something there. Let’s leave the mess there (9:13)
And we are now onto Iran again and the threat that is Iran (9:14)
At least he said “nuclear” correctly.
Condi is going to Iraq again. Hope she packs her flak jacket. (9:15)
Are we going to cut and run or stay and mire? (9:16)
Dehumanizing the enemy yet again (9:17)
Changing what Victory is. I think this is a good example of factiness. (9:18)
He still can’t say the words “Civil War” can he?
So by sending more people in, we can get the troops out faster? I am flashing on the last days in ‘Nam. (9:19)
Yet another bi-partisan working group being formed to join all the other groups that have gone before them.
Kath is not happy with the troops are great part of the speech. She has friends who have lost brothers, sons, daughters and even grandchildren as recently as yesterday. She feels he really doesn’t get it.
And we are back to the commentary…..
• 
Did he just admit that this is his fault?
GHERU
Just let me know when he gets to the words “I resign”.
I don’t give a rat’s ášš about anything else he has to say.
It seems to me that he is speaking for the Iraqi government quite a bit.
Um, which blog entry should we post on Peter?
So far, this is the speech he should have given about a year ago.
“So far, this is the speech he should have given about a year ago.”
Yea, but there is one big difference..now he has to convince Congress to go along
GHERU
Did he just refernce Leiberman as some one in the other party?
That’s funny
Well, that was short. (Thank God.)
I think this is a good example of factiness.
*snort*
Nice.
Why another bipartisan working group? He completely blew off the last one!
I Don’t think that will be a problem–, at least not as much as some may think. How many members of congress will be willing to stick their necks out and potentially take the blame if everything falls apart?
On the other hand, if they (reluctantly, oh so reluctantly) give him what he wants and it doesn’t work–and that’s quite possible–they have their 2008 issue nicely lined up. As one pundit at national review said Want a little tough truth with your morning coffee? McCain can do this, and Rudy can do that, and Romney can do the other thing. But if tonight’s speech doesn’t herald the beginning of a serious turnaround in Iraq that is plain to see by spring of next year, the Risen Christ could be the Republican nominee in 2008 and He wouldn’t be able to win against Al Sharpton.
An overstatement to be sure, but there’s truth there. McCain in particular has stick his neck out pretty far on this.
Peter do you give credence to the reports back in September that bin Laden is dead, or did you just use the word “ghost” metaphorically?
I was speaking metaphorically.
PAD
As usual, I just couldn’t bring myself to watch the buffoon that is “Dubya.”
At least by watching Mythbusters instead, I’m watching people who admit from the outset that failure is an option, and that they sometimes go over the proverbial top.
Now…if only they’ll do an episode busting “Dubya”‘s myths.
So, he’s going to just shop around until he finds a study group that will tell him what he wants to hear.
Just like he does with Generals.
I think Bush is sticking to the same plan he’s had for awhile now: Do anything to stay in Iraq until he’s out of office.
That way, when we pull out from Iraq after he leaves office and the government we set up crumbles, he can say that he was right to not pull out and that the administration should have given it more time.
Sometimes I really wish the Presidant (and any other politicians of any party), immediately after a speech, had to talk with an interviewer who’s job it was to call bûllšhìŧ and actually answer their questions. No giving some other answer. No restating the question. Sit there and you are not allowed to leave and you have to actually answer the question asked.
And I’d ask Bush, “You said in your speech that you took input from many sources including the Iraq commission report. That report’s main two directives were to have a “surge” in diplomacy, getting all of the nations in the region involved, and a withdrawal of troops. You make no mention of engaging other countries and your increase in troops is exactly the opposite of what they suggested. Just where in your plan is anything they suggested?”
Ah, more truthiness.
Has anyone read Sun Tzu’s THE ART OF WAR? (It’s pretty clear that Bush hasn’t.) Applying the Iraq situation to THE ART OF WAR shows how poorly we thought this out, from unifying the people (It’s weapons of mass destruction! No, wait…) to consistently applying rewards and punishments (wrong about the intelligence — get a medal; caught committing torture — no leaders lose their jobs; general opposed to troop increases — lose their jobs) to the idea that a military action must be done quickly.
As for Bush, it was same old, same old. He takes responsibility for any mistakes — without taking any consequences for them. He says we’ll be seeking a political solution, while increasing the American troops and ruling out any diplomacy with two of the most influential countries in the region. (I certainly don’t like Iran, but we can do better than pretending that they don’t exist, except to threaten them.) He talks about bipartisan committes, while ignoring the recommendations of the bipartisan panel that said a military victory was impossible. And he continues to stress the absolute necessity of the war in Iraq, without suggesting any sacrifice on our part (taxes, convervation) to help win this war.
And Bush can’t say “civil war” because he’s trying to frame the debate as a situation where we should be. A “civil war” sounds like a situation where it needs to be handled internally; an “insurgency” sounds like a situation where we can/should help the government. (Lisewise, any talk of withdrawl lacks any suggestion of “fewer American casualties” or “reducing American casualties” because those sound good. It supports Bush’s plan more to say “cut and run,” which sounds cowardly and doesn’t mention saving American lives.)
Of course he doesn’t “get it”.
Bush Minor’s entire experience of military service is something to be avoided by means of political influence or simple desertion (with the penalty avoided because of political influence).
The phrase from the Late Unpleasantness Between the States (technically, the War of 1861 – 65 isnj’t a “civil war”) was “seen the elephant” (as opposed to Union General Sedgwick’s last words which were “Nonsense, they couldn’t hit an elephant at this…”)
Bush Minor not only hasn’t seen the elephant, he’s not real sure about peanuts.
His philosophy of management, all of hislife, has been “Do what I want to, ignore anything that sounds like I might be wrong, and someone will bail me out.”
Was kinda hard on the people employed by the oil companies he (mis) managed, and it’s even harder on soldiers.
I sympathise with Kath about the people she knows who have had losses – i don’t know any one in particular who has, but i feel for all of them.
I was just so glad a few months back when son-in-law Steve got home and got to meet his three-month-old daughter (whose first birthday is Saturday, BTW) for the first time; from what i hear of his experiences, it was a close thing indeed…
More fear to justify the killings… that’s sad. remembers me of the Megadeth song “Blackmail the universe”:
Blackmail the Universe with the greatest of calamities
Awaken those sleeping giants in the dust of the ground
With their skin destroyed, unjust to innocence
Lawful possessor of the world’s last 24 hours
Nuclear battlefields energized
Cold wars are heating up again
The tensions mounting
People lift up your fists in revenge
Peace at any price
With a gun to your head, bang, bang
The stage is set
Who will be the first to blink?
We can’t go to war
Remember that “Vietnam thing”
“Appeasement only makes the aggressor more aggressive, he understands only one language – action!
And he respects only one word – force!
No sign of them stopping, no time for back channel communiqués, we need all the help we can get, air strikes and invasions!
Retaliate, I say!”
The same blasted song and dance routine he’s been giving all along. I’m not surprised.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, SOMEONE SLAP THIS MAN ALREADY!
I thought it was a good speech. Ultimately the proof is in the pudding. I know soldiers and Marines who’ve served, and ultimately, they want to win there. I think the consequences of failure are acknowledged by most as pretty high and therefore we have no choice. Personally, I’d like to see a lot more troops added than what is being added, however, I understand the plan-most of the casualties are coming from certain areas. Frankly, I thinkl the greatest failures in fighting this have been made in an attempt to have few casualties which in turn has led to more. Better to strike harder and faster early on-sure you’ll avoid the chance that it may work out quick and easy, but in the long run, assuming quick and easy don’t work, you’ll actually have less casuatlies. More casualties in the short run, less in the long run.
I don’t see the speech as changing many minds-many people’s minds were made up pre-2001 about Bush, those people he’d never reach, and the bulk of fair minded people have grown tired of war. Ultimately, I feel very strongly the commander in chief, as set forth in the constitution, whoever that is, is the once to direct the war once war is chosen, not congress, or anyone else. If someone in congress wanted to do it, they should have run in 2004. and can run in 2008.
Like i said, the proof is in the pudding. The problem is the enemeny knows all they have to do is hold on, and we eventually will leave. Which makes it difficult. They also know, the more they kill, the more dramatic the attacks, the worse it looks to americans-which means the more uneasy Americans get, the more killings will be done.
At any rate, victory or defeat at this point will be determined by the Iraqis. Do they want a burgeoning, growing imperfect democracy, or death, chaos, and a failed state, and all out civil war.
BTW, the comparisons to the last days of Nam do not hold suit. Rather than pouring more troops in, Nixon actually was pulling troops out. Which was why he could end the draft. (and thus lessen the protests). Less US troops, more air support and the like-that was Vietnimization. Plus, negotiating directly with China and Russia to put the squeeze on the North Vietnamese. Would it have worked? perhaps. Some argue that had Nixon not been weakened by Watergate, and ultimately replaced, he would have had the politcial capital to give air support and equipment support to outh Vietnam when the North made that last attack, without needing to put in any US troops, which would have saved S. Vietnam. On the other hand, the S. Vietnamese government, after Kennedy allowed Diem to be assassinated (undemocratic as he was), never again really was all that strong,and it may have been a losing proposition no matter what.
I’m a bit slow here, but when Bush says he’s taking responsibility, what does it really mean?
The pudding was “Mission Accomplished” 2 months into the invasion, yet has outlasted the US’s participation in WWII. The gray-green pudding is obviously proof against everything you say.
>I’m a bit slow here, but when Bush says he’s taking responsibility, what does it really mean?
I missed the pseech. Did he actually take responsibility or did he say, as Rice said today on NBC, that the responsibility falls at his feet. The first is ownership which, to the best of my recollection, he has never done. The latter is a statement of responsibility that is passively acknowledged as being present. I know it’s semantics, butthis administration has worked this angle of deceit and dodging throughout its post-911 administration.
At some point, we have to ask ourselves this: Do we have any reason to believe that Bubble Boy will experience a sudden surge in competence over the next two years? After four years of bungling this war, why should we have reason to believe that he won’t just continue to screw things up?
So, he’s responsible for mistakes? That’s nice to know. What would have been nicer was for him to say what those mistakes were, and that he is responsible for them. Maybe, as President, he needs to appear faultless, or at least not admit to any mistakes. But claiming responsibility for something he won’t admit to is an empty statement.
From things I’ve heard over the past few weeks, the plan will switch to “Take and Hold.” Vietnam era generals claim that such a strategy had just been implemented in Vietnam before Congress pulled the funding plug, and that it was working.
Gee, sending troops in to a populated area, in major force, walking the streets armed, that quells resistance? You’re kidding. I’m shocked. I wonder what happens when the troops leave…
So now this is to be the strategy in Iraq…take and hold. I guess they don’t see the major flaw…it requires you to HOLD the territory. That suggests a long-term occupation. Like the US and the Phillipines. We had a major military presence there for a good long time. Rarely did stories of unrest come from that nation. We pull out…and now they’ve got active militant terrorist cells operating in the open. I guess Take and Hold didn’t “take” there too well.
Our already overtaxed troops will become moreso. Rotations home will be shorter, while active duty assignments will be longer. Duty will involve less time on-base, and more time afield.
And what if we manage to take and hold Bagdad? That’s not going to change the mindset of the resistance…they’ll just move away, lie low, and wait for us to leave.
The only good thing I heard last night was a plan to improve the economy. This is the only way, long term, that we can achieve victory in Iraq. Only when the people have a stake in peace will you remove the pool of new recruits the terrorist and resistance have. Give the people jobs and security and they’ll fight to keep it. More, the won’t fight if it means losing it.
Whenever Bush (reluctantly) accepts responsibility, he always becomes incredulous that anyone believes that implies he should be held accountable. Silly us for believing one flows from the other.
I don’t feel he is entitled to claim any military service at all: Regardless of the paper trail on his long-ago excuse from his duties in the Texas Air National Guard, I challenge anyone to explain how working on an Alabama GOP campaign furthers the safety of Texas skies. Wait, wait, maybe it was a good idea to keep GWB out of the cockpit of an F-4, after all.
Bush has taken responsibility before, but it’s always been phrased vaguely. When he clarifies at all, it basically comes down to him being responsible because he was the Commander in Chief when these things happened. In other words, he takes responsibility in the same way that a manager takes responsibility for anything that the employees under him do, even if they were the ones who were actually at fault.
So Bush has said that he’s responsible, but I don’t believe he’s ever said that he’s made mistakes or would do anything differently if he had it to do over.
I’m still trying to figure out what constitues “winning”, what constitutes “victory”. There were no WMD and Saddam was given the boot. What’s left? A democracy in Iraq? That’s up to them, isn’t it? We’re spending, what 2 billion a week on this mess? Can’t we just send the money to New Orleans or something? No insurgents down there to keep blowing up stuff. I think Bush is simply buying time until he gets out of office – let the next guy try and get our leg out of the bear trap…
I still say the only way Bush can truly show he’s responsible is to say two little word:
I resign.
I didn’t watch the speech, but I’ve read articles about what he said.
Nothing new in there whatsoever to show that Bush is learning from his mistakes. What a fûçkìņg crock.
My brother finishes up his post-Basic Training stuff in June, and then he says he knows he’s off to Iraq. He says he won’t be front line, but nowhere is safe in that country.
Bush is getting closer to joining my List of People Who Need to Drop Dead Tomorrow.
I still stand by what I’ve said in other threads about how sending more troops in could have been a good thing. Well, I’ve just watched last night’s speech on the DVR and Bush is a greater fool then I have ever given him credit for before.
What he wants to do is put a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. The troop levels he wants to add to Iraq will do NOTHING but add to the final American death count and put off admission of “defeat” until after he leaves office. And there is no doubt about that. If he continues to mismanage Iraq until January of 2009, then any and all chances of claiming anything like a victory will have been well and completely flushed.
Not that there’s much left to claim as a victory. Their constitution clearly spells out the facts of life in Iraq will fall under fundamentalist Islamic law, the numbers of Iraq’s people who hate us are about the same as those who like us and our biggest ally, Maliki, has a twenty plus year history with the Dawa party (they were suspected of being involved in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kuwait) and has ties to Iran, Syria and Hezbollah in his closet from when he ran Dawa’s Jihad Office.
And our leader is a moron who seems determined to stall just long enough to dump defeat onto someone else’s legacy. Screw it. Get out.
I didn’t watch the Prez’s speech because it had already been released so I knew what he was going to say.
Ironically, I also knew what the reactions (PAD’s included) would be as well, without the benefit of a leak.
1So now this is to be the strategy in Iraq…take and hold. I guess they don’t see the major flaw…it requires you to HOLD the territory
****
Not really. You imply indefinitely It requires you to hold it only so long as the government there gets strong enough, which it cannot do now, to hold it itself. That may or may not ever happen, but is not the same thing as saying we have to hold it forever.
In other words, he takes responsibility in the same way that a manager takes responsibility for anything that the employees under him do, even if they were the ones who were actually at fault.
***
That’s what Harry Truman’s the buck stops here means. whoever blew it, it is me that’s responsible.
The pudding was “Mission Accomplished” 2 months into the invasion, yet has outlasted the US’s participation in WWII. The gray-green pudding is obviously proof against everything you say.
*****
Well if our goal was to annhilate everything in Iraq like in WWII, and defeat the people totally, I am sure we could have ended it in two seconds by dropping a few atomic bombs like Truman did. (which i’ve actually heard a couple of WWII vets advocate, knowing nothing but total war). Otherwise, I don’t see what the relevance is to the length of the war vis a vi WWII. Two different wars, times, goals. Modern warfare is more difficult, both in goals, and in tactics allowed, even as technology and training improves.
“That’s what Harry Truman’s the buck stops here means. whoever blew it, it is me that’s responsible.”
Which is all well and good, but fault is important too. It’s great that Bush accepts the responsibility, since that’s the *minimum* he is expected to do from the moment he takes the oath of office. What he needs to do is admit the personal fault, which he hasn’t done yet.
1What he needs to do is admit the personal fault, which he hasn’t done yet.
****
I would imagine that there is not one specific thing he can point to that he feels he did wrong. he obviously believes he was justified in going to war, and obviously thinks the consequences of pulling out our disastrous. So I am sure he sees things have gone wrong, but can’t really see things he could have done differently-he was advised to go in, and he agrees with that, he was advised to use the strategy and troop levels he did, and he was advised adn believes he has to stay. So what can he say he did wrong specifically that he also believes was wrong (not what you believe he did wrong) and his specific responsibility?
If you weren’t 3-years-old, you might remember the White House (not the navy) floated a “Mission Accomplished” banner behind Bush when he made a speech 01 May 2003, less than 2 months into the invasion.
Time is relevent because Bush made it relevent.
Sean Martin stated:
“I’d ask Bush, ‘You said in your speech that you took input from many sources including the Iraq commission report. That report’s main two directives were to have a “surge” in diplomacy, getting all of the nations in the region involved, and a withdrawal of troops. You make no mention of engaging other countries and your increase in troops is exactly the opposite of what they suggested. Just where in your plan is anything they suggested?'”
Weird thing is, as liberal as I am I would probably SUPPORT a troop surge if it was coupled with a full court diplomatic press. It could be used to stabalize the country until a regional solution is found through diplomatic talks. We might even be able to get some military support from the participants.
A statement on Senator Richard Lugar’s (R)IN website looks encouraging:
“I was encouraged by the President’s emphasis on a regional element in his Iraq strategy. Whenever we begin to see Iraq as a set piece – an isolated problem that can be solved outside the context of our broader interests — we should reexamine our frame of reference. Our efforts to stabilize Iraq and sustain a pluralist government there have an important humanitarian purpose. But remaking Iraq, in and of itself, does not constitute a strategic objective…
…For this reason, I have advocated broader diplomacy in the region that is directed at both improving stability in Iraq and expanding our options in the region. Inevitably, when anyone suggests such a diplomatic course, this is interpreted as advocating negotiations with Syria and Iran — nations that have overtly and covertly worked against our interests and violated international norms. But the purpose of the talks is not to change our posture toward those countries. A necessary regional dialogue should not be sacrificed because of fear of what might happen if we include unfriendly regimes. Moreover, we already have numerous contacts with the Iranians and Syrians through intermediaries and other means. The regional dialogue I am suggesting does not have to occur in a formal conference setting, but it needs to occur and it needs to be sustained. “
Now, granted, Senator Lugar has a habit of never saying a bad word about anybody and gushing over fellow Republicans in particular. But what if Congress forced Bush’s hand to initiate a Regional Summit including Iran and Syria in exchange for his troop surge?
–Captain Naraht
P.S. Sorry for the lengthy post.
So what can he say he did wrong specifically that he also believes was wrong (not what you believe he did wrong) and his specific responsibility?
How about instead of taking advice from the chickenhawk contingent, talking to people who have actual combat experience for his advice? How about instead of firing people who gave him realistic advice and promoting the suckups, he took the realistic advice? How about not being a freakin’ moron?
Nah.
Helpful Den, real helpful. and totally contrary to what I posted-something he thinks he was wrong on-not what you think he was wrong on. So, actually, not helpful at all
But namecalling always helps. It’s a great way to build bridges and make people think you are a reasonable person they can find common ground with.
Or…does it simply make people even more defensive.
Hmmmm..
As to combat experience-there are literally millions of Americans with some form of combat experience, who have literally thousands at least of different ideas of what to do. My grandfather in law has combat experience. His idea is to nuke the country until not a single Iraqi lives, treat them as harshly as we fought Japan. But he’s got combat experience, so he must be right.
[i]At least he said “nuclear” correctly.[/i]
He did? Not the part that I watched. It was “nucular” as usual.
/ola
Helpful Den, real helpful. and totally contrary to what I posted-something he thinks he was wrong on
Really? I thought he was extremely specific.
That was definitely NOT namecalling. Taking the advice on military matters from people who haven’t been in combat, stovepiping the intelligence and banning people from making contingency plans (not making BAD contingency plans but not making them at all) would be things we all agree are mistakes Bush has made.
That seems to be a petty one. We all have regional and accental ways of pronouncing words. My Uncle calls my sister Dawn, Don, i saw coffee different than a southerner. etc. Seems like with Bush, and in general, this particular word seems to be a pet peeve, and I don’t know why. A significant portion of people say it that way, abnd heck, the dictionary even has two ways
nu·cle·ar noo-klee-er or nyoo-kyuh-ler
Although it notes the second one is not favored or technically correct, it also notes that the nonfavored pronunciation is the more common sound in other words. and it notes “although it occurs with some frequency among highly educated speakers, including scientists, professors, and government officials, it is disapproved of by many.”
Helpful Den, real helpful. and totally contrary to what I posted-something he thinks he was wrong on-not what you think he was wrong on.
You asked for specifics as to what we thought he was personally responsible for doing wrong. The fact that you may not agree with them doesn’t make it contrary to what you asked for.
As for the military experience thing, if I were going to build a house, I’d talk to a carpenter, an electrician, a plumber, etc. People with experience in that area. It was going looking for legal advice, I’d talk to a lawyer. If I was looking to start a war, I’d talk to people who have actually fought in one. The fact that he systematically cut out the advice of people with combat experience (because they wouldn’t tell me what he wanted to hear) in favor of those (including Rummy, who was in the military but never saw combat) without any such experience is just ludicrous.
Bush is famous to listening to those who tell him what he wants to hear and ignoring all else. That’s a great trait for the commander-in-chief of the world’s only superpower. Right.
1If you weren’t 3-years-old, you might remember the White House (not the navy) floated a “Mission Accomplished” banner behind Bush when he made a speech 01 May 2003, less than 2 months into the invasion.
Time is relevent because Bush made it relevent.
****
Nice insult, but no Bush did not make time relevant. He (or his people) were responsible for mission accomplished banner, but that was not relevant to time or WWII. Now if it had said “Mission Accomplished, in your face Roosevelt, I got it done quicker than you” yeah, than time would have been relevant. But the words mission accomplished have nothing to do with time. other than the fact that everything occurs at a certain time. I really don’t even have a clue what you mean, frankly.
Den: You asked for specifics as to what we thought he was personally responsible for doing wrong. The fact that you may not agree with them doesn’t make it contrary to what you asked for.
******
Den, no I didn’t ask that at all. First, my question was more rhetorical. Second I specifically said what he would feel he did wrong, not what “you” feel he did wrong-and then cited he obviously believes continuing is correct and that starting it was correct.
As a reminder:
“So what can he say he did wrong specifically that he also believes was wrong (not what you believe he did wrong) and his specific responsibility? “