Bush Speech : First Thoughts
Wednesday January 10, 2007
Update: 9 pm Pacific
As I read and re-read the text of the speech (first, I watched the speech live), I was struck by the fact that the only "news" here seemed to be this sentence: "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."
Otherwise, there is nothing "new" here, on the US side, but the decision to throw a little more money in the economic development pot, as well as20,000 21,500 more troops. Troops that are already being deployed, thank you very much.
On the Iraqi side, the news was this: the US says that Iraq is going to pass a law "to share oil revenues among all Iraqis." Hmmm. Shouldn't the announcement that such a measure was going to be considered have originated from an Iraqi leader? And how does he know that the legislation will be implemented? I mean, Bush couldn't guarantee that a piece of legislation would pass Congress, even when his party controlled both Houses.
This must be a little part of the US-inspired bill that opens Iraq to "the first large-scale operation of foreign oil companies in the country since the industry was nationalized in 1972." Thirty year contracts for Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell. Is this really what the Iraqi citizenry wants? From the Sunday Independent:
My initial post follows - the observations are, I believe, still valid:
Point 1: President Bush still links American actions in Iraq with his global war on terror and says Iraq needs to "fight terrorists instead of harboring them" -- despite the fact that Iraq was not a home for terrorists before March 2003. He also linked US action in Iraq to 9-11, despite the fact that those terrorists were Saudis and al Qaeda had not stronghold in Iraq.
Point 2: There is "no magic formula" for success ... and "failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States." Not one word -- none! -- about what a disaster life is today for Iraqi citizens -- or how bad life would be if the country totally collapses. Since March 2003, more Iraqi civilians have died than American soliders, by more than an order of magnitude (estimated).
Point 3: The failure in 2006 was caused by not having enough Iraqi and American troops to protect the "neighborhoods cleared of terrorists and insurgents." Bush peppered the speech with sectarian violence, terrorists and insurgents ... as though they are all equally bad (ie, an insurgent is automatically a terrorist) ... and as though they were equally responsible for the anarchy that is Iraq.
From The Iraq Study Group: "the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq ... is the absence of national reconciliation." Maybe that's what the President meant when he uttered terrorist-insurgent-sectarian violence.
Point 4. Bush wants to give "commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance" -- like Katrina? Like the poor contracting that's already happened in Iraq, per the GAO? Like the missing weapons in Iraq? The missing millions in Iraq? The problem with spending money in Iraq for the past four years hasn't been too little flexibility, it's been too much!
Point 5: We are fighting "extremists who kill the innocent." So what does that make US action in Somalia this week, where we dropped bombs on civilians to try to root out or kill "suspected" terrorists.
Updated at 8.30 pm Pacific with links.
White House Fact Sheet; Text of Speech
As I read and re-read the text of the speech (first, I watched the speech live), I was struck by the fact that the only "news" here seemed to be this sentence: "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."
Otherwise, there is nothing "new" here, on the US side, but the decision to throw a little more money in the economic development pot, as well as
On the Iraqi side, the news was this: the US says that Iraq is going to pass a law "to share oil revenues among all Iraqis." Hmmm. Shouldn't the announcement that such a measure was going to be considered have originated from an Iraqi leader? And how does he know that the legislation will be implemented? I mean, Bush couldn't guarantee that a piece of legislation would pass Congress, even when his party controlled both Houses.
This must be a little part of the US-inspired bill that opens Iraq to "the first large-scale operation of foreign oil companies in the country since the industry was nationalized in 1972." Thirty year contracts for Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell. Is this really what the Iraqi citizenry wants? From the Sunday Independent:
Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.
The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972...
Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty.
My initial post follows - the observations are, I believe, still valid:
Point 1: President Bush still links American actions in Iraq with his global war on terror and says Iraq needs to "fight terrorists instead of harboring them" -- despite the fact that Iraq was not a home for terrorists before March 2003. He also linked US action in Iraq to 9-11, despite the fact that those terrorists were Saudis and al Qaeda had not stronghold in Iraq.
Point 2: There is "no magic formula" for success ... and "failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States." Not one word -- none! -- about what a disaster life is today for Iraqi citizens -- or how bad life would be if the country totally collapses. Since March 2003, more Iraqi civilians have died than American soliders, by more than an order of magnitude (estimated).
Point 3: The failure in 2006 was caused by not having enough Iraqi and American troops to protect the "neighborhoods cleared of terrorists and insurgents." Bush peppered the speech with sectarian violence, terrorists and insurgents ... as though they are all equally bad (ie, an insurgent is automatically a terrorist) ... and as though they were equally responsible for the anarchy that is Iraq.
From The Iraq Study Group: "the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq ... is the absence of national reconciliation." Maybe that's what the President meant when he uttered terrorist-insurgent-sectarian violence.
Point 4. Bush wants to give "commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance" -- like Katrina? Like the poor contracting that's already happened in Iraq, per the GAO? Like the missing weapons in Iraq? The missing millions in Iraq? The problem with spending money in Iraq for the past four years hasn't been too little flexibility, it's been too much!
Point 5: We are fighting "extremists who kill the innocent." So what does that make US action in Somalia this week, where we dropped bombs on civilians to try to root out or kill "suspected" terrorists.
Updated at 8.30 pm Pacific with links.
White House Fact Sheet; Text of Speech
Also, see What A Difference Four Years Makes, Who Will Bush Listen To On Iraq, Bush Needs Congress On New War Strategy, Bush Move Contrary to Iraq Study Group, Issue: War In Iraq
Comments
First thought: Impeachment.
Second thought: Impeachment.
Third thought: Impeachment.
And so on.
Impeachment talk has been pretty quiet, lately. Except for McKinley’s outgoing filing, of course.
Interesting thoughts on impeachment from Detroit Free Press readers.
Is being a crappy president really an impeachable offense?
We have no one but ourselves to blame for Bush. We elected him - twice!
Jennifer is right, US voters who feel unhappy today about the “new” Iraqi policy of the White House can only blame themselves. This said, I would repeat what was said many times by different analysts around the wolrd: Iraqi, Europeans, Arabs, Iranians, Somali, etc. never elected G.W. Bush, but they all have to suffer for his policies and the ones of his boot licking allies such as Tony Blair. Now, allies of the USA in the Middle-East (like in Dubai or Egypt) are simply turning their backs away, conscious as they are that there is nothing good for them coming from USA. And all too conscious that they will be the ones who will have to clean this mess as good as they can. Because, let’s not get blind. The main problem for Europeans and Arabs all together will be to deal with the extremist Shia new power in the Middle-East once the US troups will have left. And the likely surge in terrorist violence we will have to handle…
We should pull out.
Oh, I have heard that one before. Do not worry, I will pull out before I ejaculate and you will not get pregnant. Well my friends, we did not pull out fast enough and she went and got herself pregnant. Now that she is in trouble and having a very difficult pregnancy some of us just want to wash our hands, pull our zipper up, and get out of her as fast as we can. Somehow, it seems that many out there have no concern for their offspring. Maybe they just convince themselves that it is just another virgin pregnancy and they had nothing to do with it.
I say it is time to man-up and accept the responsibility for our actions. We invaded her country, we raped her, and we put her in the condition she now finds herself experiencing. This has never happened to her before, or to anyone else she knows, and she has no one that can explain to her why all these things are happening to her. Her fear she lives with must indeed be great. That fear she lives with is shaping the child within her. We must accept the responsibility for our actions. We must be with her through her pregnancy, and we have to assure her we will be there holding her hand right through the bloody birth of our child.
I myself want to man-up along with President Bush.
Yeah the USA should pull out - right.
And leave what behind? An anarchic state controlled by Anti-American terrorists?
Oh why oh why can’t Americans see that you cannot solve religous and political problems with firepower?
The whole crazy mess in Iraq is about the stupidity of trying to rule a country by firepower alone.
It’s more or less an exactl repeat of the mistakes of Vietnam - military victory followed by political defeat.
The Iraq study group told us there was 6 fluent Arabic speakers in the US Embassy among the 1,000+ staff.
What do the other 994 people do if they can’t speak to the people in the country? What useful purpose do they serve?
Whether it was right or wrong to invade Iraq is irrelevant. The USA has a moral obligation to solve the mess. . . .but Americans seem incapable of thinking about solving political problems by any other method than a rifle bullet.
The lessons from history are there. . .How did the Romans and the British rule thier empires? How was occupied Germany and Japan run in the wake of WW2?
Albanaich
The sad bit of all this is that the are the solutions are simple - all the USA has to do is follow the 200 or so UN resoluitions it has vetoed against the entire world.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2000.htm
If the USA made some attempt to agree with the rest of the world - instead of defying it and taunting it there might be some chance of success - but as long as the US carries on oblivous to World Support and opinion everything is hopeless
Albanaich
If you’re truly concerned about the President’s motivation: (1) determine when he first used the word “crusade”; (2) the length of time between his 1st and 2nd use of “crusade”; and, (3) why he uses the term.
Hello, gjsamuels — that’s a very good idea!
I would rather NOT see an impeachment just that we would go down a road of every President being impeached now.
Clinton, Bush an impeach for an impeach??
Much rather see a long drawn out investigation with scandal after scandal being revealed and leading to a censure of some sort.
Bush’s legacy will be much fully destroyed with the scandals all being revealed and with the public being fed up with him by the time he leaves office.
Much better fate and deserving to hopefully seal the fate of the Bush family out of Presidential politics.
146,000 US troops in Iraq and 5700 get to come home. Other countries have 10,500 TOTAL of their troops in Iraq! Am I the only one who sees a problem here! When did Iraq attack the US on September 11th. I thought it was Osama Bin Laden who attacked our country! And our troops according to Bush are a major part of the freedom efforts in Iraq, NO SIR MR PRESIDENT! They are 110% part of freedom efforts in Iraq! I think it is time to pull out and let them to continue what they have been doing for 1000’s of years, fighting THEIR Holy War! Let’s worry about the safety in our own country, let’s work on keeping the terrorists out of the US and stop opening the back door to let them come to our country. Enough is enough! Enough lies from Bush, Enough deaths of our soldiers, enough fighting for a country who is not willing to help themselves.