Personally, I thought it was one of his better ones, and I thought his message was clear, as is the policy.
We are staying until the job is done. Period.
Here is the outline of the strategery.
This is all moot, though, since we know that the speech was rejected by certain quarters before it was even delivered.
*** Update ***
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid decided to send his response BEFORE the speech was over.
MrSnrub
How is it one of his better ones?
It’s the same speech he’s been giving for 2 years – and yet the press gives it Importance.
Doctor Gonzo
What is new in this speech exactly? That we will stay “until we are done”? That we may change troop levels, but there are no guarantees?
This reminds me of an SNL parody of a Bush the Elder debate. It’s the same message, over and over and over: “Stay the course…a thousand points of light…stay the course.” It’s inspiring, isn’t it?
rwallis
Of course; the leftys are in a myopic fog and do not have the itellect to find their way out
Perry Como
I loudly applaud our Commander in Chief for his bold new vision for Iraq. The determination and steadfastness of our President makes me proud to be an American. With President Bush’s bold leadership we will surely win the war on nouns.
Perry Como
That’s alot of “ists” to fight.
ppGaz
The speech will make no difference whatever.
The “plan” is nothing but a collection of ad-agency copy written so as to say nothing while appearing to say something. The gist is, if Iraq can take care of itself, then we can leave. Wow. So, that’s why we’re there now? Because Iraq can’t take care of itself? Who knew?
There is but one question to be answered in the coming year: Will the GOP lose control of the Congress?
If so, then the rescue of the country from these insane, dishonest, incomeptant assholes begins. If not, that opportunity will probably have to wait.
zzyzx
If I gave an incredibly powerful speech about the need for marriage equality, it would be rejected by certain quarters before it was even delivered. A presentation for increased social services and tax increases to pay for them would be rejected by some. If you disagree with the reverse domino theory of this war, I don’t see how this is going to convince anyone.
Here are our war goals by the way:
Does that mean we are going to stay at the current troop levels until Iraq has a good economy? I honestly don’t know.
The freaky bit though is that a condition for victory is that Iraq is a “full partner in the global war on terrorism.” How is that compatible with this being a war for their freedom? What if a democratically elected government decides that they don’t want anything to do with issues that we would consider vital in the GWAT? Is that a defeat? Do we send in some Marines to make them reconsider?
ppGaz
DougJ, I put water in your gas tank.
You’re welcome.
Andrew Reeves
Well, we’re not staying “until the job is done”–We’re staying until 2009. So we have a little over three years to get a decent Iraqi army and police force up and running.
Steve
I will go read it IF someone will promise me that it’s not just the same speech all over again. Anyone?
Gratefulcub
Someone want to tell me again how the president never groups saddam with AQ and says they are the same thing.
Scary thing is, I think he believes that statement
MI
Someone needs to clear this up for me. I’m currently under the impression that we can’t sustain our current troop level in Iraq for much longer, even if that’s one or two more years, so what if getting the job done is going to take five or six more years, how are we going to pull that off?
I’m not snarking, feigning ignorance, or using a straw man, this is just never explained by people who support “staying until the job is done.” How this is going to work if staying until the job is done means staying more than a couple of years.
Lines
Again, where is the measuring stick? When will we know we are “victorious”? Why is everything Win/Lose or black/white? A victory in Iraq is always going to be a self-determined event for all Americans. I personally don’t think there is anything to “win” because winning seems to indicate some sort of score. We did a job in Iraq, we messed up a lot, we built some schools and handed out some candy, then we left. We didn’t make up a new future for Iraq, as the future will always be indeterminate. Will we reinvade if they become Iran2 ten years after we leave?
In a sick sort of way, I’m glad Bush the Weaker won his second term, its easier to blame Republicans in general for putting us in such a poor position in Iraq.
Mac Buckets
“Rescue” being defined as “power goes to the insane, dishonest, incompetent assholes who I prefer.”
CaseyL
Wasn’t the speech supposed to have specific plans with a specific timetable? I’d heard it wasn’t going to be more of the same old vague platitudes; that there would be some actualy, y’know, metrics this time.
I do get a rreal kick out of the short- and mid-term goals: fighting terrorism, and defeating terrorism. What a knee-slapper! First, we turn Iraq into terrorist flypaper; then we make the Iraqis responsible for getting rid of the terrorists!
That George. Whatta kidder.
db
I must be pretty tired this morning because I thought it darn right lousy. It rambled and lost my attention. And I think the 9/11 reference right up front was what did the speech in for me.
But “better” is a relative term so I can’t disagree with you too much on this one – I still think there were “better” ones out there than this one.
demimondian
Oh, goody. Dubya got out there are repeated the strategery (nice touch that, John) that he’s repeated for two years now.
For once, I’d like a real roadmap.
Here’s what a roadmap means “We will measure the frequency of the following classes of events: x, y, z. This will be reported to the American people every six weeks. Statistical bounds for significant difference will be defined. We will withdraw the following percentage of our troops when the levels have fallen to x% of the current levels for one six week period with 95% confidence.” Etc.
That’s staying the course for victory. It means we have a notion of victory that we can rally around — or not — and that we have a sense, as a democracy, of whether we’re achieving our goals — or not.
But, of course, it’s the “or not’s” which the current Administration can’t tolerate. Self-confidence and vision don’t mean much when someone else can measure things. They could actually fail to succeed — and that’s something neither the president nor his advisors can allow.
Lines
How long before the first claims that the speech showed George is drunk again? That he’s showing the effects of alcoholism in this speech? Or am I already too late?
John Cole
That is a road map, for goodness sakes.
capelza
I loved the backdrop for his speech…that fancy “strategy” set. And the shiny new cover of the “strategy” plan book. Lordy, it felt like a book launching. Not trying to be snarky, but where was the special theme music?
I, too, did not hear anything new…just fancier packaging.
Gratefulcub
I wish someone could have gotten that through his head a few years ago.
John S.
Yeah, fantastic speech.
Lather – Rinse – Repeat.
I particularly liked where he compared the readiness of the Iraqi battalions to some of NATO’s forces. I’ll bet NATO loved that.
Tim F.
Is there something in the delivery that reading it can’t convey? Unless he slipped a crucial smirk or eyebrow-lifting mid-sentence pause in there somewhere I’d say no.
zzyzx
Not a military one. It’s a political one. World War II ended when the Japanese surrendered. What would be the equivalent for the Iraq war? If I wanted to throw a victory party, what would be the event that should make me order the champagne? The lack of a solid answer to that is what worries people.
Horshu
It sounds more like passing the buck than providing a strategy. Of course, that assumes that by “we won’t leave until the job is done,” he means that “we” is the Bush Administration, then it’s quite a strategy. Bush can basically keep troops there for the remainder of his term, and if his successor necessarily has to remove troops for whatever reason, the situation will be so uncertain in Iraq for the next 10 years, that any deviation from the Bush plan after his term can be blamed on this uncertainty.
Lines
Even the goals he outlined are fuzzy and lacking in a capability of measurement. The speech was more feel-good generality, talking to the faithful while not really answering the specifics to any degree that he can be held to anything in the future.
Politial bullshit, basically.
Rusty Shackleford
There was nothing new in Bush’s speech – even the plan he released was from 2003, just updated with BushCo optimism.
This speech will do absolutely nothing for anyone except the talking heads. The American populace won’t be persuaded by anything Bush said this morning.
Am I the only one who is tired of the smarty pants among us always referring to those who don’t approve of Bush’s job performance as whacko’s, unhinged, far far-left, etc? Bush has an approval rating of 39%, remove the immovable base (far-right Christ-er’s, no tax nutjobs) and Bush basically has the support of 10% of the population. 9 out of 10 Dems think he sucks, 8 of 10 independents now think he sucks – it’s just the dead-enders on the right who seem to think the man and his administration are competent.
We live in a Democracy – “majority” should mean something.
Nussmier
All I ask is what does “done” mean in the context of we will stay until the job is done.
docG
“The Eight Strategic Pillars for Victory.” Is this little gem one of Karen Hughes’ PR efforts to win the hearts and minds of Islam?
Let’s see. That means U.S. troops can go home when Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, League of Arab States, Hamas openly support democracy in Iraq. No wonder we don’t want a time line.
cd6
Perry, that is EXACTLY what I thought.
It’s like Bush and friends are compelled to drive their opponents into easily labeled “-ist” designations. Saddamists? Rejectionists? Are you fucking kidding me?
And this is the kind of shit that the republicans back home just pick up and run with – consider “Abortionists,” “Darwinists,” and “leftists.” What in the everfucking world is a leftist?
Tractarian
I happen to agree with Bush that we need to stay in Iraq as long as it takes to achieve victory. However, I would not define “victory” as being acheived only once Iraq is a thriving and stable democracy. That will take decades. But if you read the speech it sounds like we’re going to be staying there until that happens.
I would define victory more narrowly – we will be victorious when Iraq is secure and peaceful enough to ensure that 1) the Iraqi people are better off than they were before Saddam’s ouster, and 2) Iraq doesn’t serve as an open breeding ground for terrorists. Then we can pull out completely. It might take many more years. But it won’t take nearly as long as building a stable and thriving democracy.
Bush’s goals for Iraq – and for the “War on Terror” itself – are way too lofty. It is beyond even the capabilities of the American military to build a stable and thriving democracy in a matter of a few years. Just like it is beyond our capabilities to end terrorism. It just can’t happen. And by failing to level with the people about the unattainable nature of these goals, Bush is condemning himself to failure.
Mac Buckets
The gorilla in the room, to me, is the 2006 Iraqi government, and in the speech excerpts I’ve read, I don’t see mention of their role in the exit plan.
If we can redeploy 40K sometime soon, but the Iraqis ask us to stay at current troop levels for X long, don’t we owe that to them? Far more probable, if they say, “your footprint is too large — we can handle it if you cut 40K more troops in three months,” wouldn’t giving them a flat “hell no, we’re staying” be unthinkable? I mean, it’s their finished-product Constitutional country at that point.
Clemons
So our new strategy is that our old strategy is working?
nyrev
zzyzx:
It’s a War on Terror. You get to buy the champagne when Terror surrenders. Or when the seeds of democracy sown in Iraq have flourished and bloomed into a lovely desert flower, causing the rest of the Middle East to weep with joy, abandon their heathen ways, and join us all in a rousing chorus of The Star-Spangled Banner. It’s all right there on the roadmap.
cd6
Why do we owe the Iraqis anything?
Don’t they owe US, since we brought them to the fantastic level of success and prosperity they now live with?
DougJ
John, what was actually new in the speech? Aside from newly inflated numbers about the number of Iraqis.
Not trying to be a smart ass, I’m genuinely curious.
kenB
I’ve never heard of a “Sadaamist” before — d’ya suppose that’s another one of those coded messages to the Religious Right, reassuring the faithful that GWB will keep fighting till he’s gotten rid of all the “sodomists”?
demimondian
Maybe the Bush administration doesn’t really believe in the Iraqi government?
I’m not snarking — if I were, I’d have called it a puppet government, or perhaps a “Vichy France in exile”. I’m deadly serious. I think that the Bushies think of the Iraqi government as windows dressing — even though they can’t afford to admit that publicly.
Jack Lindahl
We are staying until the job is done. Period.
Deja vu all over again, in the words of someone actually wise.
Is it possible to draw a distinction between the American job and the Iraqi job?
Jorge
Can I be totally and completely cynical? Thanks.
Bush and co. want to be in Iraq for a long, long time. Like South Korea long time. By creating a strong, irritating, US military pressence in the center of the Middle East they are ensuring fat paydays for the industrial military complex for decades on end. That means that the Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld families are guaranteed at least another genaration of two of wealth and access to power.
I did mention that I was being extremely cynical, right?
Retief
And Bush decides when that is based on he sees when he looks into Chalabi’s eyes?
At what point along the continuum of Goals is the job done?
Are we staying until Iraq is peaceful? And does ruled by deathsquads count as “peaceful”? What are we doing differently over the next year that brings us closer to “Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists” than the past two and a half years have done? Is “building democratic institutions” incompatible with “standing up security forces” if those security forces are factional militias in various government ministry uniforms? A list of goals does not a plan make.
As for “artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington”, is he telling us that he’s changed his policy since the Battle of Fallujah? Or does he expect anyone to believe that events on the ground dictated that it start the week after the election?
Jorge
My guess that the Bush talking about Saddamist instead of Bathist is a message to the Bathist in Iraq that they are welcome in the new system as long as they give up any loyalties to Hussein.
Vlad
It’s a big blob of pap and pablum, with none of the actual concrete goals we need. It’s all well and good to say you’re staying until the job’s done, but at some point, you have to actually come out and say what the job IS. Cut out the weasel words like “steady progress” and give me names, numbers and locations.
Mac Buckets
Saddam surrendered a while ago — when we pulled him out of the hole, that would’ve been a good time to pop the bubbly for Iraq. What we’re doing now in Iraq is reconstruction and dealing with the clear losers of the Iraq War, which is over by any historical standard (regardless of whether the politicians want to say so), and fighting a greater war on Islamic jihadists.
Japan was such a different story that to compare the two situations is difficult. They accepted that they were beaten. The Japanese had no insurgency because 1) they got nuked (which I imagine would take the starch right out of you) and more importantly, 2) their cultural values then did not support an insurgency.
jg
So what did he say that got JC all excited? Was it just the sound of his voice or did he really say something significant?
Don
This is all moot, though, since we know that the speech was rejected by certain quarters before it was even delivered.
I don’t need to listen to Louis Farakkhan, Arriana Huffington, Art Bell or Rush Limbaugh every time they speak to know they’re going to be full of shit and a waste of my time. Like it or not, W has demonstrated he’s equally one-message and unreliable without independent verification.
ppGaz
Well, no, although one can see why you would like to frame it that way.
In fact, though, when you have corrupt and incompetant government, the first thing you have to do is get rid of it. Replace it. Then you can start trying to put the country back together. Left unattended, of course, no matter what you replace it with, you are likely to end up with the same problem set down the road.
But the first step is replacement. Until you do that, you’re fucked. That’s where we are now.
ppGaz
No offense, but that is a really silly and useless thing to say. What’s more pressing and problematic is that the speech was accepted as gospel by certain quarters before it was delivered. It’s those certain quarters that we have to concern ourselves with, because those quarter are what got us into this shitpile in the first place.
Mac Buckets
Heh, I’m sure the “coded message” will be on all the blogs by this afternoon. Must. Kill.
SodomitesSaddamists.Mac Buckets
Glad to see you finally came around on Iraq.
ppGaz
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Laugh, because, of course that is the $64k question, and YOU realize it. Cry, because …. that is the $64k question.
Well, you are quite right, because without a stable government in place that those imaginary 200k Iraqi troops are willing to fight and die for ….. nothing we do over there is going to matter. Nothing.
People are yapping about what “victory” means? That’s what it means. It doesn’t mean “defeating terrorists” because terrorists will go where they need to go. They just move. It means leaving a stable democracy in Iraq, and that means a government, and one that those Iraqi troops will fight for. Without that, civil war, and with civil war, chaos.
Simple as that.
So now that you have that figured out, and I give you your props for doing so …. now what? How does your insane faith-driven incompetant Michael Brown-hiring spud president create this situation?
Take all the time you need to compose your answer!
ppGaz
Funny!
But not helpful!
See my last post.
Tractarian
Mac, you’re exactly right here, our mission was indeed accomplished when Saddam was apprehended. But you have to ask, why are we still there? It’s either because 1) our mission was in fact not accomplished, or 2) we didn’t define the mission correctly. I think it’s the latter. Bush and co didn’t understand the Pottery Barn rule – once we got rid of Saddam, we had to stay to do “nation-building” and “peacekeeping” (two things the Bush team finds odious) for our own safety’s sake. Ousting Saddam and turning Iraq into a stable and thriving democracy are both worthy goals, but they are very different goals.
Mike S
Ezra said it best.
skip
John is right. Some rejected the speech before it was made. The same people who don’t open junk mail.
Brad R.
John- it really is the same damn speech he’s been giving for years. The “goals” outlined in his “strategy” paper are vague to the point of meaningless. We’ll never get out of Iraq like this.
Brad R.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid decided to send his response BEFORE the speech was over.
Hey, when Bush says the same damn thing every time…
jg
Thats no plan at all. Thats the level of information that is given to those who don’t really have a need to know. Former military respect this type of leadership, as soldiers they were taught to do there job without question. I think the administration has issues dealing with the undisciplined non military public thats constantly asking ‘are we there yet’ until Bush turns and yells, ‘we’ll get there when we get there’.
This ain’t leadership, its bad parenting at best.
neil
This is all moot, though, since we know that the speech was rejected by certain quarters before it was even delivered.
But not before it was outlined and the transcript was released. Hell, they were dissecting the speech on cable news on Monday night.
Good analogy, skip…
John S.
WOW! Reid sent the same response to the same speech Bush has been giving for the past two years!
Stop the fucking presses…
metalgrid
John, I must have missed the coded words and actions in the speech. I haven’t gotten an updated Republican code speak booklet ever since I joined the LP. Maybe you can post yours so the rest of us can understand it?
neil
We are staying until the job is done. Period.
Also, isn’t that the same as the plan before? So what’s the matter with criticizing the speech before it was given, if it didn’t contain anything new?
zzyzx
Is that atypical really? People get advance copies of speeches and formulate responses after reading them. Sure you don’t get to hear the delivery, but the text is still the same.
My views on the war right now is that at some point, we are going to have to leave Iraq. It doesn’t have to be tomorrow, it doesn’t have to be next month, it doesn’t have to be next year, but eventually the American public is going to be sick of this war (you can already see it happening), will vote people in who run on a platform to take us out, and when that happens the withdrawal is going to be sudden and won’t take any long term consequences into account.
That’s why we need an exit strategy. We can’t stay there forever, so we have to have some real plan as to when we can leave and what the military can do to further that goal.
smijer
Oh, Goody. Peace with honor.. this is one of the best parts of the cycles of history… where we get to take bets on who gets to be the last person to die for a …to be generous… “mistake”. I got a boy 16 years old and one 14… I hope to God it isn’t either of them.
Retief
ppGaz,
Aren’t the people yapping about what victory means just asking whether Bush understands this?
Pb
Yeah, it’s not like this was a secret–in fact, I saw an early summary of it too…
etc.
smijer
Nobody fights and dies for a government. They fight and die for their families, maybe… for “honor” and other Orwellian ideals, for anger, for fear… Governments are for bitching about, not inspiration.
guyermo
I heard nothing new. He lays out his ‘strategy’ but it’s vague. He talks about meeting milestones, but he leaves those milestones as general as possible “political milestones,” “rebuilding infrastructure.” He doesn’t label priorities as far as what would be rebuilt. The political milestones can only be reached when the country is under complete lockdown.
His statements about the Iraqi military completely clash with the official military assessment before Congress a month or two ago where they said there was ONE batallion (division? i don’t remember which) that was ready for independant combat operations.
This was not a plan. A plan expains how we’re going to get there. All he’s doing is saying that these are the general conditions that will be met before he thinks about bringing troops home.
When Iraqis are allowed to drive to their polling places, then I will say the security situation has improved. until then, I’m calling “shenanigans.”
Steve
I barely glanced at Reid’s response, but if the best answer the blogosphere can come up with is that it was issued before the speech was over (as if the White House doesn’t routinely release speeches before they’re given), it must have been a pretty good response.
ppGaz
Sure they do. The government will train, equip, and deploy these people. They will provide the leadership.
Armed men who are out to defend their families will only take that to a higher level if the higher level thing, the government, is something they think is worth fighting for. Otherwise, they are just a militia looking out for their own interests.
The stable democracy requires an organized government, and one that can martial its defenses and keep order.
Do you think Iraq will have that situation in a year? Five years?
What will create it? Does Spud have a plan to produce this miracle, this product of magical thinking?
He didn’t have one in 2003. What makes you think he has one today? Did you hear about one today?
smijer
I don’t have time to read the speech right now… Did he say anything about turning over the reconstruction plan, and the power to negotiate the contracts, to the Iraqi people? Boy, that would be such a huge gesture of good will, and would provide a way to give Iraqis a stake in the success of whatever political system eventually emerges there…
I hope so.
the only thing I could hope for more than that would be for Bush to announce an end to offensive warfare there so that troops can be protected in highly fortified areas and can devote their time to training security instead of shooting people.
Do those two things, and lord have mercy, we might even see a “milestone” or two passed. It’s too late to dream about undoing the war… but there’s hope for staunching the bleeding.
KC
I missed the speech, but given his last two, I’m not too disturbed that I did. Looking at the “plan” John links to–the road map–it really does just seem like a quick collection of talking points spun to look like a plan. This tells me that 1) we’re in a very difficult situation over there, 2) the president is really just kind of hoping things come out alirght, and 3) it’s a we’re-in-it-because we’ve-got-the-balls game. It only underscores how thoughtlessly we got into this mess in the first place.
That said, I do have trouble with pulling out. Anyone who thinks, with the recent news about Shiite army forces killing Sunnis, that the army is doing wonderfully has to think about what’s happening. We could effectively be taking sides in a low-grade civil war by arming Shiites. If the Sunnis see things that way, the guerrillas are only going to gain adherents. That to me, is a big problem. On the other hand though, in the case that we leave Iraq though, I can only see the situation devolving into a full scale civil war.
smijer
I meant in the sense of “being willing to fight for” and “valuing enough to defend”… nobody does that. Americans in WWII fought for the “country”, but that wasn’t for the government… they fought for their families that live here, and for the ideals that the government, in theory, should be operating on here. Yeah, they fight “for” the government in the sense that I work “for” my employer, but they don’t fight for the government in the same sense that Ghandi worked for peace.
smijer
KC – you have a point… I think we should (of course after “consulting” the puppet government) require all training units to be ethnically mixed… It makes it more difficult to have a war between Sunni & Shi’ite if you have the same number of Sunnis and Shi’as in each platoon, fighting together under the same command.
Pb
smijer,
Ha ha. No. Here’s what he said.
And if you believe that… Actually I think this speech was meant for True Believers Only; here’s another quote.
Heh. A little late to start listening to them now, isn’t it?
Steve S
I actually listened to the speech, which is amazing because I had to hold down the gag reflex making me want to retch my guts out into the toilet everytime I hear that voice.
There was nothing new or remarkable. It’s the same shit he’s been saying for 3 years.
Terrorists hate freedom… blah blah blah.
The President needs to face the reality on the ground, and admit that he was wrong in the past, apologize to the American people, ask their forgiveness and then get everybody involved in a plan for the future. Instead we got more sloganeering, strawman arguments and platitudes.
This we know… A War can not be won with slogans and platitudes. Maybe that’s what the Republicans think was the failure of Vietnam, but it wasn’t.
Pb
KC,
Do we have to leave Iraq before we can declare that civil war has started there yet? I have a feeling it’ll go something like this:
October 2006: Look, the Iraqis are trained, we can start drawing down troops! Mission accomplished!
Later: all hell breaks loose.
Administration conclusion: See what happens when you cut and run from Iraq? The Iraqis weren’t ready for freedom because the Democrats didn’t clap loud enough! Now they’ve got a civil war on their hands! We don’t know how that could have happened otherwise… *cough*
Steve S
One more thing…
The problem Bush has, is the more he talks, the lower his ratings go down. He should hire an orator on his behalf.
Here’s a thought… Have Tony Blair come over to the United States and deliver a “State of the War” address.
Gratefulcub
The indespensible Billmon:
A Strategy for Victory
Use lots of bullet points
Failure is not an option
If it moves, bomb it
Death squads
Phased withdrawal
Use more bullet points.
smijer
lol at Billmon… He left out “Iraq is the central front in the war on terror”… or more accurately, “Iraq is the flank we opened for the terrorists to attack us on.”
Pb
Steve S,
That’s not a bad idea… maybe they could get a Brit over here to do something like “Question Time” as well–it’d sure beat Scotty “ongoing investigation” McClellan’s Talking Point Time.
ppGaz
I get the feeling that no point is too obvious that you can’t miss it here.
Try it this way: No stable, responsible government, no defense. They won’t fight for a clusterfuck. They won’t fight because somebody orders them to.
They’ll put on a uniform and fight only if they think the government that is employing them has a future, and has a moral basis for asking them to do so. And has the ability to support, train and equip them. Etc.
It’s not a difficult point, but it looks like you can make it into one.
John S.
Bullet point city!
My favorite (and presumably one of theirs since it’s bolded):
This is particularly amusing since Governor Bush once said:
So timetables CAN win wars – but only when there is a Democratic administration in charge.
DougJ
I have a theory about how we can get out of this. As a former alcoholic, George Bush knows well that you’ve got to hit rock bottom before you can start to improve. That’s what we’re doing in Iraq, deliberately flailing about with no plan in hopes of fanning the flames of anti-Americanism and sectarian discord into a raging inferno of death and destruction. Once it has reached a point where it can’t possibly get worse, it will have to start to improve, or at least stay the same, since that’s the definition of “it can’t possibly get worse.”
The day when we hit rock bottom in Iraq may be years away, but, make no mistake, it *will come*. And when it does, we will have some sort of improvement to look forward to.
smijer
Sorry ppGaz.. I really wasn’t clear on what you meant.
Gratefulcub
He wasn’t an alcoholic. He just drank some, and laura didn’t like it, and he found jesus, so he quit. That isn’t the same thing at all.
TM Lutas
This speech was an exercise of connecting the dots for the slow kids, the ones who couldn’t figure it out on their own. It’s not substantively new but it puts it all together in a package than an honest person who hadn’t paid too much attention before can figure it out easier. In that, it’s a public service.
demimondian – Right. Because nothing gets the US public rallying around a cause better than “We will measure the frequency of the following classes of events: x, y, z. This will be reported to the American people every six weeks. Statistical bounds for significant difference will be defined. We will withdraw the following percentage of our troops when the levels have fallen to x% of the current levels for one six week period with 95% confidence.”
That’ll get the statisticians of America behind the President! Having the President morph into the pointiest of pointy headed wonks on national TV would probably scare the rest of us, though.
Gratefulclub – Knowing what we know now, we still should have gone in. They now have the skeleton of a free society and time and experience will provide them with the habits. The US role will be long but declining. We’re now at a peak. We should be drawing down from that peak reasonably soon.
John S. – Truth hurts. Some of the NATO countries don’t have an army. They know how bad they are. It’s an old topic. Maybe the prospect of another muslim ME country having a better army (Turkey already qualifies) will wake them up.
Clemons Says – The major problem with our old strategy was that we had supposedly serious people running around saying that there was no strategy. They convinced a significant portion of the US public that this was the case. With this speech and the release of an unclassified version of our strategy, we now know that all those people were either seriously misinformed, incompetent, or lying.
There were an awful lot of mea culpas in that speech, admissions of original ideas and initiatives that were wrong and then corrected. According to the Bushco crowd, Bush never admits mistakes. He did admitted a slew of them in this speech and nobody seems to notice.
cd6 – When you say you’re going to hold a guy’s coat while he fights, you hold the damn coat. When you say you’re going to midwife Iraqi democracy, you midwife Iraqi democracy. We owe Iraq in the sense that our commitments should be honored.
ppGaz – You can replace one government with a worse one. As the Russians found out in 1917, it’s quite easy to do. If the Democrat party would have produced a better candidate, it would have won in 2004. There was an awful lot of waverers on the right that were scared back into the Bush camp by Kerry, his history, and his plans for the future.
smijer – “The last to die for a mistake” is just not what’s going on. We’re in a long war with people who are personally committed to humiliation for the dhimmi and death for the non-dhimmi infidels. That’s going to take decades to fix no matter what the result is in Iraq. I think that we’re going to do all right in Iraq and the next couple of years are going to be a pleasant surprise for the honest doubters.
DougJ
TM — I don’t see a rebuttal to my proposal, so I assume you agree with me about the “wait until we hit rock bottom thing.”
Pb
John S.,
Victory means exit strategy.
But 9/11 changed everything!
Another classic: “I believe we’re overextended in too many places.” Whoops.
Actually this Governor Bush guy should run for President, he was right about so many things:
“if we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road”
“it’s going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the military power”
“he is going to grow the federal government in the largest increase since Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1965. We’re talking about a massive government, folks. We’re talking about adding to or increasing 200 programs, 20,000 new bureaucrats”
etc.
DougJ
From TM’s blog (which I found refreshingly candid):
That is just the kind of optimistic rhetoric that’s going to get everyone behind this thing.
ppGaz
What good is that the GOP had a “better candidate” when that candidate can’t govern?
Because, he can’t.
ppGaz
No problemo. I am just in a pissy mood. This ridiculous little man, this potatohead, and his foolish, irresponsible speech today just have me in a bad mood.
In New Orleans, it was the staged appearance in front of the picturesque building. Today, the staged appearance in front of the military academy. Does he think that he is in a tv show? Let him make his useless speeches in front of real citizens who came in at random off the street and see what happens. He’d be jeered off the stage.
Pb
Gratefulcub,
Nah. He just covered up a few DUIs, and couldn’t cut it in TANG and had to duck out a year early or so. But hey, maybe that was just the cocaine instead. Anyhow, he never thought he was ‘clinically’ an alcoholic. But after being arrested in 1976, he realized he had a problem. And that’s why he quit, in 1986. Never to drink again. Most of the time.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Bullshit. There was an “awful lot” of asshats who were looking for a reason to oppose Kerry because they really don’t support Bush. The got their reason with TOTAL LIES from the Swift Boat fuckfaces for “truth”.
Don’t act as if Kerry himself turned them off–it was the Rovian smearing that only gave them an EXCUSE now to support Kerry.
The Disenfranchised Voter
*now=not
Gratefulcub
PB,
Exactly. But not an alcoholic. He was just doing the best he could back then, but you can’t judge that W, you can only judge post ‘i found jesus’ W. After you find Jesus, it is perfectly acceptable to ‘rewrite history’ because nothing before Jesus was his fault.
But he always stayed the course, when he drank, he kept on drinking till he found victory.
Fledermaus
Casualities when Saddam was captured: 631
Casualities since: 1,680
Gratefulcub
Yeah, but……
Kerry had his problems too. Many people that I know, that wanted something besides bush, just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Kerry. If I had another option I would have used it. I thought Kerry would have been a horrible president. But, I realized the incompetency of W, I am a liberal, I could have never voted for Bush. Many in the middle that could vote Dem, couldn’t vote for Kerry.
And yes, there were plenty of people that voted for Bush because Karl Rove is a real turdblossom.
John S.
TM Lutas says:
Too bad Bush was comparing EXISTING units in NATO to EXISTING Iraqi units. Non-existent NATO units are irrelevant to the comparison Bush was trying to make. And if you REALLY think Iraq’s troops are just as good as NATO’s troops, I have a bridge to sell you in Tikrit.
Steve S
Remember. Jesus died for your sins. So your sins don’t really matter as long as you accept that Jesus died for them.
What’s the old saying by Nathan Hale?
“Give me Victory, or Give me Death!”
That’s what GW Bush is seeking.
DougJ
I am not a liberal, but I don’t see what was so bad about Kerry. He seemed fine to me, as would the majority of members of Senate. Bush is unusually incompetent. If people don’t see that, they’re missing the big picture.
Gratefulcub
i don’t know if that was sarcasm or not. If it wasn’t, I have a bridge to sell you in heaven.
John S.
This is some especially noteworthy bullshit:
I guess I heard the wrong speech, but I will gladly eat crow if anyone can find a specific instance in Bush’s regurgi-speech where he:
– Admits making a mistake
– Accepts responsibility for failure
– Mentions where something that was wrong was corrected
Gratefulcub
I got the bush part.
I never could put a finger on my problem with Kerry. I can’t say that it was specific policy positions, because i can’t even tell you what Kerry was offering, other than an alternative.
For once, I think the CW was spot on (at least a snippet of it). He didn’t stand for anything. I know that sentence sounds like rhetoric and talking points, but I don’t know how better to say it. He just reacted.
Primary campaign slogan: I’m most electable.
General Election: I’m not Bush.
I would have loved to have seen if john Edwards may not have been the most electable, and he had ideas. He did stand for something, you may not agree with it, but the 2 americas did exist. And he believed passionately in it, and it showed.
John Kerry’s passion was to be president, and it showed.
DougJ
That’s good enough for me.
We’re in an awful political situation right now. It used to be the Republicans (correctly, in my view) believed that the government shouldn’t do very much. Now, they’ve gone crazy and want even more government than the Democrats have. I don’t want a “dynamic leader” with all sorts of harebrained, if well-intentioned, schemes to “spread freedom” (or “end poverty”, for that matter).
What happened to the idea of a small, well-run government with modest aims run by a decent, competent man? Is there a political party that still believes in that ideal?
Kimmitt
As mentioned above, when a guy gives the same speech every time . . .
Retief
If we read far enough, the plan for victory in Iraq actually does offer some metrics along which Bush would like us to measure progress. Here they are.
I’d still be interested in Number of bombings, especially if you’re going to report nubmer of bombs defused. Because I’m ostensibly working now I can’t search out the values for these variables from 2001 to today but now that we know what Bush would like to look at maybe we could see some numbers. Of course, these measure aren’t perfect. The unmeasurable “other indicators” may well be more significant than Voters Registered or Turnout. And does GDP include payments made by the US goverment to K,B&R for work not done in Iraq? The nubmer of extrajudicial killings carried out by the security forces could be useful. Still, while the document gives us a few scattered nubmers on some of the metrics but surely some kind of time series stretching to before the invasion is what’s called for.
Gratefulcub
Me too, but I think the original point was ‘why other people voted against kerry.’
That would have been something. I wasn’t asking for Kerry’s poverty ending, gay wedding, social security for all at 45, big government utopia. But, IMO, we got nothing. We got a guy that reeeeeeally wanted to be president. To me, that seemed to be his goal. That may have been Reagan’s only goal as well, but the appearance was that he wanted a better america. That is what I got from Edwards, and people trust that.
Pb
Gratefulcub,
It may hearten you to know that out of the three current Democratic front-runners for 2008, (Hillary, Kerry, and Edwards) Edwards is currently polling the best for an actual election contest. Maybe not enough to beat McCain yet, but then it’s still really early to even be talking about 2008.
Gratefulcub
Does anyone actually want a set of metrics attached to a timetable.
For every 25,000 troops trained, we will bring home 10,000 or ours.
There are 100 attacks per day, for every 10 APD we reduce that number we will bring home 5,000 troops.
Really? Does anyone out there want to see something like that. I know it works well for the opposition party to say “We need well defined metrics attached to a timetable.” It works as clean simple talking points, especially when you don’t have to actually submit a detailed plan to back up your talkies.
Good decisions are not made that way. You use data, but you have to analyze the situation. You have to remain flexible. It may suddenly occur to our military leaders, after they train 100,000 Iraqi troops, that we shouldn’t yet withdraw because….I don’t know why, but insert reason here.
Sometimes I just like to argue against my own point of view.
Mac Buckets
Ppggaz wrote:
If you also realize the street cred of the new Iraqi government is the biggest question, then your outlook should be getting progressively brighter instead of progressively gloomier, as it has been (and as I predict it will continue to get as we get closer to the all-important midterm elections).
Well…now I see that you’re agreeing with a point I wasn’t making, and I think you overstate the case, of course. My point had only to do with the immediate credibility of the new government in the next few months with respect to Coalition withdrawl, not their longterm stability. To your point, I think that Iraqi forces will fight resolutely for the new government, moreso as US forces are withdrawn and whatever insurgent activity becomes increasingly pointless and anti-authority rather than anti-US.
Also, among the many facets of victory in Iraq is that, in future, we don’t have to worry about Saddam and whatever weapons programs he was dreaming of unleashing. I don’t think a stable democracy is necessary for that victory.
The likelihood of fullscale civil war (meaning, beyond the present form) is remote, even if the democracy isn’t stable for awhile. The Sunnis generally realize this (the 20% minority don’t feel the need to be slaughtered), Shiites realize this, Kurds realize this — the only people who seem to think Sunnis are mass-suicidal are Westerners.
I’d take you a bit more seriously without the pointless modifiers — it would make you seem less hysterical. Well, short answer: Don’t look now, but insane incompetent demonlord host-of-all-evil Bush has already created a situation where tyranny is out, democratic rule is in. I realize that it must be hard work to ignore free elections and the Iraqi Constitution, but stop pretending they never happened.
As to stability, the insurgency and foreign terrorists are only a persistent nuisance, delaying the inevitable, just as they were to the elections and the Constitution. The Coalition are training Iraqis to take their place, which is crucial to stability (which is why the terrorists blow up volunteers). They are working on the infrastructure of Iraq, which is crucial (which is why the terrorists blow up oil pipes and electricity plants). The huge majority of the Iraqi people don’t want to go back to tyranny, and they generally believe that democracy can work for them. They have their Constitution, they have their Bill of Rights.
But let’s be honest. I don’t expect you to express that Iraq will be workable, and I expect you to hype the negative on anything Bush touches, as your only goal is to have Democrats beat Republicans in elections. You’ve made that clear. Fine, and good luck with all that. But I know that you know, and now you know that I know that you know.
Mike S
I had no idea Rummy posted here.
Yup, It’s Rummy.
Steve S
Oh my god. Have you seen his backdrop? Looks like the set to Captain Kangeroo or some low-budget PBS TV Show. What the fuck ever happened to respectful Presidents who just setup a red velvet backdrop or better yet just make it real, giving the speech from the back of a train car. Sheesh, this phony backdrop crap become a joke long ago.
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/POLITICS/11/30/us.iraq/top.bush09.vicplan.ap.jpg
Steve S
If you were actually being honest you’d admit that what he really wants is better policies than what Bushco has to offer. And the only reason he cares about Democrats winning is because they aren’t as fucking incompetent as the Republican n00bs we’ve got in charge of things now.
But you don’t want to be honest. You want to stick your head in the sand and believe criticism towards Bush is simply about partisanship.
Hint: I’m partisan because I’m critical… not the other way around, you dipshit.
Steve S
Well, I was being sarcastic. But that is what “Born Again” means to the psuedo-Christian evangelicals.
Pb
Mac Buckets,
Got me there. America and the world are safer now that Saddam is prevented from dreaming about weapons programs.
Fortunately for us, although Kim Jong-Il *has* weapons programs, he only *dreams* about Daffy Duck. (eww)
Patrick Lightbody
“We are staying until the job is done. Period.”
I’m sorry John, but if the leadership of my company said that I’d fire his ass. That remains a horrible strategy as long as “done” is undefined and a roadmap to getting to “done” does not exist.
In business, people give deadlines. When they miss them or are on track to miss them, they either provide new estimates based on additional information… or they are fired. One of these needs to happen with Bush. Set a roadmap, tie it to a calendar, and, if needed, make adjustments as time goes on.
Jesus christ, this is simple business planning 101.
p.lukasiak
Really? Does anyone out there want to see something like that. I know it works well for the opposition party to say “We need well defined metrics attached to a timetable.” It works as clean simple talking points, especially when you don’t have to actually submit a detailed plan to back up your talkies.
actually yes, the first metric is precisely what I’d like to see.
And the reason is that if we are withdrawing 10,000 troops for ever 25,000 Iraqi troops trained, and things don’t get better, it means that we’re not accomplishing anything. It means that Bush’s approach is a failure, and that a change in leadership is needed.
The fact is that Bush put on his flight suit and declared that we’d won, and ever since then every time Bush talks about Iraq he tells us we’re winning, and things are getting better — but the insurgency continues to thrive, and the security situation continues to deteriorate.
Geez, Bush insists upon testing for children to make sure that their schools are effective — isn’t it about time that we insisted upon “testing” of Bush’s Iraq policies?
Gratefulcub
MacB
Isn’t this also possible:
The kurds remove themselves from an unified Iraq, and the pesh merga dares anyone to challenge that. Turkey, Syria, and Iran all become very uncomfortable due to their own Kurdish minority.
The new government becomes Shia dominated. The rest of the region sees Iranian hands in the Iraqi system (perceived or real, it doesn’t really matter). Syria, SA, etc decide they must protect the Sunni minority from Iranian theocracy and discrimination.
Iran now takes an active role in defending the Shia from the oppression of the Sunni minority in the region.
I am in no way trying to predict the future. But, Iraq sits on a major fault line of three enthicities and two religious sects. It is a combustable area. shouldn’t we consider that outcome as well, if only to better avoid it. Clapping louder hasn’t worked so far, this time we should examine all outcomes, not just the ones we want.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
If offered a choice between a wonk and the status quo, I’ll take Poindexter any day of the week. A wonk knows exactly what’s going on, at the very least.
Pb
Steve S,
Ahahahah… that looks so fake. It looks like something out of a child’s toy train set, out of a village of miniatures. Does the White House have a props department too?
Blue Neponset
It is clear to me that Bush is never going to tell us what metrics we need to use to determine victory in Iraq. What is unclear is why he won’t tell us that.
My take is that Bush doesn’t want to define the metrics because he knows it will take years and thousands more dead American troops to stabilize Iraq, and the Amercian public won’t accept that right now. This war was suppose to be a cake walk that was paid for by the profits from Iraqi oil and that hasn’t been the case. Bush is afraid to admit the truth about how much of a mistake he made by leading us to war in Iraq. To me, this latest speech is more proof of that.
p.lukasiak
Oh my god. Have you seen his backdrop?
I like the fact that the faux-window behind Bush looks like a big arrow pointed downward….
and what is up with those crests? Does anyone have a closeup of them?
Patrick Lightbody
And one more thing… Peter Drucker would be rolling over in his grave. Seriously, none of the objectives in the speech were SMART. Please explain why these common-sense guidelines shouldn’t apply in this case, but have been the foundation for solid business planning for over 50 years.
Mac Buckets
So you think the Baathists are making a 4th-quarter comeback to put Saddam back on the throne? Dream on.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
I prefer a baseball analogy: The American manager, his handling of the bullpen sucks.
John S.
The President seems to think so:
I guess Bush dares to defy your prescient knowledge and dream on.
Gratefulcub
p.lukasiak
You don’t have to sell me Bush’s problems. I have been on board since 1990 when we had to regularly sit behind the smug SOB at Rangers games.
But, artificial metrics, imo, are not the way to withdraw. I don’t know how to do it, that is way above my pay grade. It just seems to me that timelines and metrics have become talking points and rhetoric for the Dems.
My biggest problem is that we have gone from no discussion about Iraq policy straight to a debate about timelines and metrics. We skipped the whole debate about what to do. Then dems found talking points that stuck. Americans can understand a timeline, so it has become the focal point of the discussion.
There has been no real public discussion about:
-What do we want to accomplish before we leave (without the rhetoric than means nothing)
-What is the best way to achieve this goal (stay the course is not a policy, it is a talking point)
All we have is
-Stay the course vs change the course
-Timelines vs timelines will embolden the terrorists
-Exit stategy vs we don’t cut and run
Has our country really become this dumb, or have we always been this way?
smijer
Does anyone really think the old boy’s club will let McCain, Giuliani, or any non-member of the Dobson Club on the top of the GOP ticket in the next election?
Mit Romney would have the best shot if he wasn’t sinking in his own state… and even then, who knows?
John S.
George W. Bush: Master of the Potemkin Village.
Patrick Lightbody
Metrics and artificial metrics are very different things. Let’s not pretend that they are the same thing.
Pb
smijer,
I think McCain would definitely have a rough time in the primaries. Still, I don’t know that they’ll have a choice. I’ve even seen polls that show McCain could win in a general election running as an Independent. And that’s just crazy.
ppGaz
Well, I think you are being …. a victim of magical thinking. Short term is what? Six, twelve months? Long term …. 24-48-60 months? Longer?
I don’t think that there is any reason to think that there will be a stable, self-sufficient government in there 24 months from now. What US actions will create such a possibility? Seriously. Bush making more speeches like today? Remember, he is talking mainly to Iraqis, not to Americans. Americans are not buying his snake oil right now. He must have the Iraqis buying into the “scheme” otherwise what Americans think won’t matter anyway.
The Iraqis must mount a stable government capable of controlling a military and providing stable leadership to that military. If that doesn’t happen, then the whole thing falls apart.
What produces this miracle, man? Seriously. I haven’t seen any plan that produces it.
And you are wrong about what Bush The Pretender has created. He has created one thing and one thing only. An occupation. There is no functioning, governing, stable democracy in place. Getting people to go to polls and cast ballots does not create a viable government. The government has to govern. To do that, it has to be able to defend itself on one side, and have the trust and confidence of the people it represents, on the other.
Right now it has neither the ability to defend itself, nor the trust and confidence of its own people.
It exists mostly on paper, and the idea sticks to the wall mainly on the strength of our occupation and the status quo that the occupation provides.
Suppose you take the occupier away. What causes the insurgency to go away? Suppose you don’t take the occupier away? What causes the insurgency to go away? Do you really think you are going to kill all of them?
Or persuade them? Or ….?
Like I said three years ago, this is a big, badly run experiment that basically can’t be controlled once started.
Another word for that is “clusterfuck.”
ppGaz
Most Americans don’t think he knows what he is doing at this point. They aren’t as dumb as he had hoped.
Gratefulcub
Point taken.
I guess I should clarify. I am 100% in favor of metrics. I am weary of triggers. People aren’t able to read the future. Training 100,000 troops is a good metric, but it should not trigger bringing home X number of troops. We don’t know what the landscape is going to be at that time.
So, clarification is that we should definitely use metrics to judge progress, but we should not set up mathmatical formulas that use metrics as triggers for our actions.
p.lukasiak
My biggest problem is that we have gone from no discussion about Iraq policy straight to a debate about timelines and metrics. We skipped the whole debate about what to do. Then dems found talking points that stuck. Americans can understand a timeline, so it has become the focal point of the discussion.
Grateful, the problem is that “we” have no control over any of this. The President is in charge of all the details, and Congress cannot micromanage what happens in Iraq even if it wanted to.
The bottom line is that the American people need some measure by which Bush’s actions can be measured. Hell, Bush needs a measure by which his policies can be evaluated, because when there is no metric he doesn’t have to acknowledge that failure, and change course.
Patrick Lightbody
Gratefulcub,
That’s why good businesses are constantly tweaking their goals (see my other comments re: Peter Drucker and SMART objectives). Make a plan based on what you know today, and then tweak it tomorrow if needed.
I’m glad we can all agree that Bush has shown his crap leadership. I thought he was supposed to be unique because he was the “MBA president”?
p.lukasiak
We don’t know what the landscape is going to be at that time.
if the “landscape” isn’t improving, and we want to keep the troops there, we can still do so. But at least everyone will have to acknowledge that Bush’s approach to the situation is a failure.
Gratefulcub
Agreed. That is why i came around to the metrics argument, just not for metrics to be used as triggers for our actions. (above)
ppGaz
It’s a losing argument you have there, son.
First of all, the burden of proof is on him, not me. The majority of the people don’t think he knows what he is doing. They don’t think the war was a good idea, that it makes us safer, that they were told the truth about it three years ago. Bush has to convince the people that they are wrong … that they should listen to him, and not trust their lying eyes.
That’s his problem, not mine. You have chosen to also make it your problem. Well, good luck with that.
John S.
Bush is the ‘MBA President’, it’s just that he runs government the way he ran his OTHER businesses.
Not exactly an exemplary track record there
Gratefulcub
I got me one a dem too. And i wasn’t a C+ student. not qualified for his job any more than he is.
That is a much better summation of my point than I have been trying to make, comparing metrics with triggers.
Even today, as I am trying to channel my inner moderate nonpartisan self, I can agree with that.
Mac Buckets
It could happen, of course. You’re not describing an Iraqi civil war, though. You’re describing the pan-Islam endgame war-to-end-all-whatever, which has been anticipated for decades because of various triggers. Some claim it’s inevitable, some claim that it’s overhyped.
It’s worth noting that Iran’s own Sunni population have been politically dominated, and the Saudis never felt the need to “protect the Sunni minority from Iranian theocracy and discrimination.”
Shiite Muslims are well-aware that they are outnumbered 10-to-1 by Sunnis in the world. The Iraqi Shiites have realized that they need to be inclusive of Sunnis to avoid even giving the appearance of oppression.
Randolph Fritz
You still trust him. Why? After all the lies, after the torture, after the disappearing of US citizens. All the things you have written about, right here in this journal. All the things he can stop with a word that he never says.
You still trust Bush. Why?
croatoan
There was one trained battalion in September; “now more than 120 Iraqi army and police battalions are in the fight.” (Or is it 95, as Rumsfeld says? Why are their counts so different?)
If we’re going to stand down as Iraqis stand up, why haven’t we withdrawn 120 battalions of our troops?
Maybe it’s because Iraq doesn’t have an army. As James Fallows writes in the December 2005 Atlantic:
Faux News
Personally I would have found it more helpful if Bush gave a Power Point slide presentation, with a laser pointer to show the most important bullet points.
I prefer my speakers to read each and every bullet point to me.
If Bush used the words “quality” and “net gain” throughout the speech that would have been even better!
Mac Buckets
Where exactly did he say that the Baathists are making a comeback? The war isn’t over because they stopped trying. The war is over because they failed. In every war, there are losers who dream of winning in the future.
ppGaz
I prefer that he “take a leadership position” and “get out in front” of the Iraq problem. Employ some horizon-based thinking and explore opportunities to leverage existing favorabilities.
If he’d do that, I could get him a job here being a stupid asshole at a mid management level. He wouldn’t have to actually know anything.
Actually, the perfect job for him.
John S.
You’re “right” as usual, Mac.
Bush doesn’t say the Baathists are making a comeback. He just says that Baathists are one of the enemies we have to defeat in Iraq because they harbor dreams of returning to power and are trying to subvert the Sunni community.
No way those are the same thing.
Pb
Don’t call it a comeback!
Faux News
ppGaz:
How could we have possibly missed THE most important bullet point:
“Think Outside The Box”!
I would have quietly wept with joy and relief if Bush used that term.
Gratefulcub
I was just putting out a worst case scenario to balance yours, which is somewhat rosey.
My only point being, all outcomes should be considered. Our civilian leaders where surprised by the insurgency, they shouldn’t be so surprised by the next round of setbacks, they should already be on the table.
scs
What’s with the left and the word “failure”? They manage to stick in it everywhere. It’s like they are giddy with anticipation for it. It is too soon to judge any failure or success in Iraq. You will have to wait 5-10 years for that. For instance, Afghanistan is just now starting to pick up steam, and the had a good head start on Iraq. Right now, we just help Iraq with their government and army, help them with infrastructure, knock down any egregious militias and would be dictators and then draw down to bases after a couple years. What ELSE is there to do? The Left keep whining about “The Plan”. That is the plan. The only failure that will take place belongs to the Iraqis, in the end, if they can’t get themselves organized.
Patrick Lightbody
scs said:
Oh man… dude. Are you kidding? That reminds me of slacker coworkers who have status reports that say “working on X”. Uhh… working? Helping? With what? When will it be done? What problems do you anticipate? Who do you need to get it done?
Jesus, could you get more vague. That is NOT leadership.
Lines
The new paradigm is the old paradigm. Why do you hate the paradigm?
Gratefulcub
Congratulations on naming your fall guy this early on. I am just surprised it isn’t clinton.
scs
I’m sure if you want more details, you can get a more detailed approach from the State Department and the military. They will be able to tell you how many commanders for how many Iraqi troops, what equipment Iraqi troops get, how many power plants we are building, how many local political races we are holding, how many schools we are building and on and on. That is the real plan and it is taking place already and has for years now.
scs
The left is clamouring to make them a sovereign country asap aren’t they? If they are sovereign, they are responsible. We are just there to HELP them.
Gratefulcub
So, it’s the left’s fault that they become sovereign too soon, then the new sovereign Iraq will fail. If their is failure, it sure isn’t george’s, or Rummy’s, or any republican in charge of the world’s only superpower that made the decision to invade the country. Sweet.
Kimmitt
Two reasons: If you define victory, you define failure. Second, what Bush wants (a platform from which to threaten Iran and Syria via bases in a friendly country) is not easy to sell.
Gratefulcub
I was just being a smart ass for shits and giggles, then I reread this:
Are you serious? Justifiabley or not, we blew the joint up. We are a bit more responsible than just providing a little help. I realize that at some point, they have to take over.
If it turns into a civil war, or a failed state terrorist haven, or a theocracy, or a clash of civilizations…..we are responsible. we are responsible for today’s situation.
DougJ
They were never gone.
John S.
What’s with the “right” asking stupid questions that rely on making sweeping generalizations?
All lefties are consumed with failure. We pray for it everyday in our personal and professional lives, because the concept of winning is anathema to us. Didn’t you get the memo?
And yet, the administration seeks to constantly remind us of all the successes we are seeing in Iraq. How can they do that if it’s too early to tell?
Pick up steam – is that the new euphemism for on the brink of disaster?
.
Oh so THAT’s the plan…I don’t see why so many lefties are complaining. I mean, it’s so simple and easy to follow like my three part plan for world peace:
1. People learn to get along with each other.
2. People do nice things for each other.
3. Everyone holds hands and sings Kumbaya.
Voila! World peace accomplished. And people try to overcomplicate things and make it more difficult than it needs to be.
Mac Buckets
You’re not telling me: Why not? Why do you think the Iraqi government as is currently drawn up in its Constitution will fail?
I’m sure they much prefer the 80% being terrorized by 20% “scheme.” They don’t say it in polls, but they secretly liked being tyrannized, right?
“Arewethereyet? Arewethereyet? Arewethereyet?” is for annoying kids. You discount an election and a Constitution because they don’t suit your partisan purposes, and then fall back on “Arewethereyet?”
And I must say, as far as this being an “occupation” (that never fails to make me chuckle), it must be the worst occupation in the history of the planet. I mean, what kind of occupation announces that it wants to be replaced by an freely elected government and go home? That’s bad planning by the “occupiers,” if you ask me. Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia…THOSE were good occupations!
It won’t have the ability to defend itself for awhile, true, but the confidence of its people is there. The people believe in democracy and they believe this government will represent them (to the extent that any democracy does) — after all, they are risking their lives to vote for it.
It’s never a bad time to remind that all of the great political achievements, from Athenian Democracy to Magna Carta to American Democracy, were experiments based on nothing but the faith that good men could make them work, and the knowledge that whatever came before did not work.
As I said before, the insurgency doesn’t defeat democracy. It is only delaying the inevitable. They can’t win — they have no possible strategy to win. They are the ultimate sore losers.
As far as it going away, the insurgency is, if we are to believe them, against the US forces. When the US goes away, whatever violence continues will be against the elected representatives of the free Iraqi people. Popular support will evaporate when this type of terrorism shows itself to be the enemy of the Iraqi people.
Again, I expect nothing more of you, but clusterfucks don’t overthrow a dictator, produce free elections, draft and vote on a Constitution, and produce a new government in 2 1/2 years time. They just don’t.
Gratefulcub
DougJ,
for the first time ever, you disappoint me.
They were never goneThey’ve been here for years!
scs
Come on now, we are not children here. There is no date or measurement on which we can say “AH HAH! Today Iraq is a success!” The world is not so black and white. Instead, it will be a process of, hopefully, continual improvement and stability, in terms of governmental stability and infrastructure. Or not. As parameters, I would say when they have enough water and electricity to run their cities, when the government has had a few years to get settled, when the military had enough organization to have at least some of their units functioning. Kind of what Bush said, actually.
Gratefulcub
MacB
again, just trying to lay all the options on the table. Another possible scenario:
Elections take place, Sunnis participate, Sunnis lose….Big. What does democracy mean to them? they may see democracy as the tool that the Shia and Kurds take the country that they see as rightfully theirs. What is to keep a Shia/Kurdish run democracy from dividing the country into 3 parts, 2 with oil, one without.
Democracy has losers.
Democratization happens over many generations. first you get to vote, but that is the easy part. Democratic traditions and ideals have to form. Many peaceful transfers of power have to take place. It has to become unacceptable to the populace for someone to use force to interfere with domestic politics.
Mac Buckets
But that makes for such a weak Whining Point! Let’s pretend Iraq is a football game again.
Gratefulcub
Funny thing about all the metric talk. Sure, we need defined metrics to judge progress. But, metrics are meaningless without verifiable data.
If we measure progress on # of troops trained, we have to be able to know how many troops are trained. That could be anywhere between 200,000 and 2, depending on who you ask, and what day you ask.
If you start measuring number of attacks on our soldiers as a metric of progress, we could just use blackhawks more, patrols less, viola, fewer attacks.
Pb
scs,
Yeah, just like they were before, before we liberated the crap out of them.
scs
I like Chris Hitchens, but his editorial is not exactly the equivalent of hard news. I am sure he is correct that there are still terrorists attacking our troops and there are warlords there. However that is not the full story. I read a large article in the NYT about two weeks ago that wrote about how the economy in Afghanistan is booming, how is it hard to even see some of the bombed out war damage in Kabul anymore and how the violence for ordinary citizens is falling, and the government is doing well. In other words, they made it sound really good. I’m surprised Ballon Juice didn’t refer to it. I’d reference it now but I checked for it and since it’s over two weeks old or such, you have to pay to read it online now. Like I said, Iraq will be a gradual, mixed bad process like Afghanistan.
Gratefulcub
Without the snark, that is basically what I was saying earlier.
We can’t measure success and failure like this.
But, can’t we judge progress by setting clear goals, i.e. metrics? I assume the military and the admin are already doing this, they just aren’t making it public. They are, aren’t they?
Gratefulcub
Oh yeah, I missed this:
They’re not.
scs
Since some are taking issue with this, I am talking about just not now but in the near future, as their “sovereignity” is supposed to grow. With that comes responsibility, no? Iraqis are not US robots, they are living partners in this as well, let’s not forget.
scs
I meant mixed “bag” above. Sorry.
DougJ
I think it focused on the booming heroin trade.
Gratefulcub
scs,
Yes, at some point, they have to be a sovereign nation that defends itself, but when will that be? At what point can we morally say, it is your problem now? We replaced a dictator with sectarian violence. I have never been to Iraq, so I can’t possibly say which is worse, but it is irrelevant. We are responsible for the problems we unleashed. We started the insurgency, we are responsible for it.
The problem is, we have to somehow leave iraq with a government that respects human and minority rights, and is multi ethnic, and is neither controlled by Sunnis or Shia. Anything other than that, will just be a new Iraq that oppresses a minority. Even if he is not Saddam, it will be somewhat brutal.
scs
I do agree that our presence does fuel the insurgency somewhat. It’s kind of turned into a ‘make-work’ program for unemployed Arab youths across the Middle East. So I think we set up what we can, and then leave, or draw down, because the insurgency will go on as long as we’re there.As for the government, we just have to wait and see how it goes. No way to predict it. If things start getting much worse, then… well I’m not sure. I guess we will have to cross that bridge.
John S.
scs-
Better check your sources on how fantastic Afghanistan is doing. I’ll give you a helping hand:
Signs of foreign support, new tactics signal reemergence of Taliban
Peace and security remain an elusive dream in Afghanistan
Collective Security Organization alarmed by Afghan situation
Afghanistan’s opium production declining but prognosis gloomy
Those are just stories out in the last 24 hours. I could go on, but “Mission Accomplished”, right?
Gratefulcub
We can’t leave until the government is stable enough to survive without us. This includes:
-being seen as legitimate (none of us are smart enough to know when that will happen, some sects may reject it because they see it as american no matter what, or everyone may be trying to cling to something so they support it; we don’t know) But it won’t be legit until it is out from under our thumb.
-they have to have a defense force.
Problem is, I don’t think they can become legit while we are there, and they can’t survive with us gone. the insurgency won’t slow down until we are gone, but the government can’t defeat the insurgency if we leave.
Rambling on, I know. Basically, we are in a place that we can’t morally leave, but our presence is a large part of the problem.
This situation takes some real creative thinking and some nuance to thread the needle into something workable. i don’t trust these guys to do it. They have earned that distrust. Even if they didn’t lie, or mislead, they have been wrong about everything. WMD. level of insurgency. oil money. turkish cooperation. number of troops to secure Iraq post war. EVERYTHING. so, my confidence is incredibly low.
scs
That’s for sure. As for trusting Bush and Co, we all don’t have much choice. They are around for the next 3 years. I am still optimistic, mainly it’s because it’s in the Iraqi’s general interest to work things out. Other countries have set up governments in difficult circumstances, and I think Iraqis can too.
Retief
Um Mac, in Poland, Hungary, & Czechoslovakia the Red Army went home after local “elected” govenments took over. Of course the govenment in Hungary didn’t have the ability to defend itself for a while, so the Russians had to come in and help with that defence in ’56.
ppGaz
A piece of paper versus a couple thousand years of Arab history?
Yeah, uh, I’ll take the happy Kay Big Hair Hutchison view of this, and assume that it will work out just like the spuds said it would. Sure I have every reason to trust them. Just the way they have run this war from to get-go is a confidence builder.
After all, Bush has a long track record of success. His ANG service. His alcoholism. His oil adventures. His sweetheart deal in the baseball business.
But mostly it’s his faith that inspires me. Somebody who believes so strongly that he’s right, just can’t be wrong.
Right?
Fuck you, Mac. You’re just a goddamned troll. You are trolling your own crap now. Keep spewing the noise and the horseshit, please. A few more months of you and your kind of nonsense and we can finally start voting some of you morons out of office.
Don
Heh. A little late to start listening to them now, isn’t it?
No no, Pb – this is where reading and hearing are so different. You have to know which word had the emphasis.
If our military leaders tell me we need more troops, I will send them.
jg
Do we have more? I thought we were at a breaking point as it is?
Pb
Don,
Good call. :)
Pb
scs: re: “gradual mixed bad process” — I like the original Freudian slip better.
Pb
ppGaz,
But it worked so well when the British did it the first time… D’oh!
DougJ
Don’t count on it. The last second term president to sink this low in public approval didn’t serve out his last three years.
Mac Buckets
You old fool, you don’t need to trust Demonlord Faithhealer NaziBush. He hasn’t written Word One of the Iraqi Constitution. He hasn’t cast Ballot One in Iraqi elections. As much as this makes your hatefilled brain explode, this isn’t about Bush anymore. You don’t need to trust or distrust him. You just need to trust that the large majority of Iraqis would rather have freedom and majority rule than tyranny by a minority dictator. If you can’t trust that, or even give it a fair shot, rather than dismissing it out-of-hand, I’d like to know why.
Your idiotic opinions and witless ad hominems mean less and less to me every time you post your whining, nonsensical prattlings. If your ceaseless groans had the least amount of depth, I’d be a bit concerned with your judgements. Sorry your guys keep losing elections, and sorry you can’t defend your positions very well, but that’s no reason to turn into a piece of shit human being.
Sojourner
scs:
You claim to be a feminist but you don’t seem to be coming to terms with the very real possibility that Iraq will end up with a fundamentalist Islamic government that will remove the significant rights women had before the war. Why do you think that’s a good thing?
DougJ
Demonlord Faithhealer NaziBush isn’t that good. I think Chimpy McHiterlburton is better.
On the other side, dear leader has been banned. I’ve been using Lord George Jesus Bush, but I’m not happy with it. We can do better.
DougJ
I’m afraid that what we have in this country right now is tyranny by a minority dictator. Let’s hope it doesn’t last another three years.
ppGaz
Aw, shut up.
John S.
For goodness sake people, learn the meaning of the term ad hominem.
Calling someone an asshole is not ad hominem.
Saying that someone’s argument is wrong because they are an asshole is.
Insults ≠ ad hominem.
John S.
This just says it all:
Bush’s view of Iraq doesn’t square with reality
As John would say, read the whole thing.
Mac Buckets
Yeah, LGJB is awkward, even in acronym form. If “Chimpy McH” is played already, then the search must continue. I’m sure a dedicated team of blograts is at it day at night in their lairs (mom’s basement) to roll out something for the new election cycle.
On a related note, what rhymes with Guiliani?
Mac Buckets
Calling someone a troll has always been a way to dismiss someone’s arguments without feeling the need to address them. “Troll” is usually an ad hominem attack. Capisce?
Mac Buckets
I’m not hungry for that small bait right now, Doug. Here, fishy, fishy, fishy!
ppGaz
You’re a troll.
Sometimes a spade is just a spade.
Mac Buckets
Racist.
Mac Buckets
Retief, think long and hard whether you get into a discussion comparing either the motives or the tactics behind Nazi (the Polish and Hungarian Occupations to which I was referring — no elections there) or Soviet occupation to the US “occupation” of Iraq. Most people will find that inaccurate and offensive.
A more soft-focus line on Prague Spring I’ve seldom heard. The Czechs were given reforms, including voting rights, before the occupation, and the Czech reform leaders were the reason the Soviets occupied and tried to install puppets in order to take those rights away. Not exactly like Iraq, eh?
John S.
No, Mac. Seeing as how an explanation was given to why someone dismissed your argument prior to calling you a troll, your little manipulated definition of what constitutes ad hominem doesn’t apply. You weren’t called a troll to dismiss our argument, but rather, because someone actually thought you were a troll.
Like I said, it’s only ad hominem if it is used to dismiss your argument. You cannot make shit up as you go along just because you hate being wrong. Capisci?
John S.
*our = your
ppGaz
WASHINGTON (AP)- President Bush’s depiction of Iraqi security forces as “helping to turn the tide” is difficult to square with persistent setbacks in handing control of the country back to its own people.
His suggestion that Americans are solidly behind the mission also understates opposition at home, and his hard sell on the rising quality of Iraqi forces overlooks complexities on the ground.
Bush on Wednesday declared the Iraqi army and police forces are “increasingly taking the lead in the fight against the terrorists,” even as recruits patrol Iraq’s most violent cities barely three months after learning how to use weapons and police forces struggle to get officers to come to work.
Doesn’t Bush have a fact-checker on his speechwriting staff?
ppGaz
Sorry, your text editor sucks. All but the last line on my preceeding post should be blockquoted. And would be if the damned thing worked right.
DougJ
Bush’s speech today made all further attempts at satire superfluous.
ppGaz
Do you have young kids? Relax. Let them grow up, serve their tours of duty in Iraq, and then let them decide if the war is a success or not.
What’s all the fuss about?
ppGaz
Thanks, Slate.
John Redworth
I have read the press copy on Internet, listened to the speech and even some of the round table discussions (BTW- someone at MSNBC should fired for having a discussion the speech on Coast to Coast with guest Pat Buchanan and Morgan Fairchild… MORGAN FAIRCHILD??)
Anyway… while adding a few more sentences, changing a few words and not giving that little grin that makes me think he is the kid who just broke the vase, the meat of the product is the same as it has been for the past 6 to 9 months… maybe it is just cheaper to reuse the same points rather than to have someone write a new speech (see, Bush is fisically responsible!)
I know some people have mentioned that this has been the same speech for the past two years… but let me remind most of you that the speeches two years ago were very much like the Underpants Gnomes from South Park…
Victory in Iraq
1) Invade and topple Saddam
2) ???
3) Democracy
Kimmitt
And this is different from the past, say, fifty years of Iraqi history HOW? I mean, come fricking on.
John S.
Heh, I’ve said that a couple of times before myself. It’s eery how similar the plans are.
Perhaps our government has been infiltrated with gnomes.
ppGaz
Reminds me of an old Steve Martin routine, the History of Dance:
1) Cavemen wave arms and stamp feet around fire
2) ???
3) The Tango
But seriously … the new “plan” is the same as the old “plan”, isn’t it?
a) Old Plan: Go into Iraq and stay indefinitely
b) New Plan: We’re in Iraq, and we have to stay indefinitely
Difference:
a) Then: Nobody talked about pulling out
b) Now: Everybody is talking about pulling out, time to browbeat our political opponents into accepting our New Plan (see “b”, above) by making platitude-filled speeches in front of well-groomed military audiences
Did I miss anything?
The Disenfranchised Voter
I agree. I fail to see how a liberal like Gratefulcub could not bring himself to vote for Kerry, when a libertarian such as myself held my breath and voted for Kerry.
And you say that Kerry’s position was that he wasn’t Bush, I have to disagree. Kerry’s position were pretty clear if you paid attention. To someone who just glanced at the campaigned or listened to Bush’s complaints of “flip-flopping”, I can see how you wouldn’t know Kerry’s positions but if you took the time to view the Dems platform and Kerry’s speechs you would know where he stood.
Retief
Mac, this isn’t the place for the full history lesson. This is. Briefly, at the end of World War II, the Red Army occupied Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Poland, and eastern Germany, and Soviet front commanders headed the Allied Control Commission in each of these occupied countries. By 1949 the Soviet Union had concluded twenty-year bilateral treaties of friendship, cooperation, and mutual assistance with Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania.
In 1956 Khrushchev sought to achieve greater legitimacy for communist party rule on the basis of the party’s ability to meet the material needs of the Soviet population. His de-Stalinization campaign quickly influenced developments in Eastern Europe. Khrushchev accepted the replacement of Stalinist Polish and Hungarian leaders with newly rehabilitated communist party figures, who were able to generate genuine popular support for their regimes by molding the socialist system to the specific historical, political, and economic conditions in their countries. Pursuing his more sophisticated approach in international affairs, Khrushchev sought to turn Soviet- controlled East European satellites into at least semisovereign countries and to make Soviet domination of the Warsaw Pact less obvious.
Hangarians misjudged the limits of this new policy and Imre Nagy, instituted multiparty elections. More important, Nagy withdrew Hungary from the Warsaw Pact and ended Hungary’s alliance with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Army invaded with 200,000 troops, crushed the Hungarian Revolution, and brought Hungary back within limits tolerable to the Soviet Union. The five days of pitched battles left 25,000 Hungarians dead.
Prague Spring wasn’t until ’68.
BTW, you are the one who initiated the comparison of the occupations of Poland, Hungary, and Chechoslovakia, apparently in another effort along the “we’re not as bad as the Nazis” line of argument. If you insist on that, I’ll gladly concede that we’re not as bad as the Nazis and we didn’t invade Iraq in search of lebensraum. Happy?
Don
And that will work with the majority of America how?
I am sure someone will take this as elitist liberalism but I don’t mean it that way, I only mean it as realistic. When you consider the amount of attention the ‘average’ person pays to things you should remember that by the very definition of average, half of the population is less intelligent and less attentive than that.
If you don’t have a message that’s obvious to someone of below-average intelligence or, more importantly, someone who’s only vaguely paying attention, you aren’t going to reach most people. The Bush administration is incompetent at governing but they understand communicating with the public.
Beyond that, one thing that was communicated clearly to the public was the targeted advertising. The message that only the people who could swing the election would be wooed was insulting to me and I was firmly in the “anyone but Bush” camp. I can only imagine how someone who was waffling must have felt about it. I have no illusions about modern politics but if you don’t at least pay lip service to me that you want to be OUR president, not THE president… well, fuck you.
The Disenfranchised Voter
You make valid points Don, but my remarks were directed specifically at Gratefulcub. I would assume anyone that cares enough about politics to spend time on the blogs is someone who is more than your “average” voter. Of course I think the average voter wouldn’t have been able to see Kerry’s position clearly, but I would think that someone like Gratefulcub would, especially given the fact that he (or she perhaps) considers themselves a liberal.