President's Speech - Open Thread
By Mark Kilmer Posted in War — Comments (61) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The President is making his case.
Our troops are succeeding, but the terrorists and the anti-war lefties are becoming increasingly desperate.
What do you make of all this?
Talk about it.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Who Understands Iran Best? — Comments (16) »
President's Speech - Open Thread 61 Comments (0 topical, 61 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Sure, it's effective 'framery' but is it true? I guess I don't buy it. It's like creating truthery on the fly. It makes me uncomfortable.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
and I had to smile when, ever the gentleman, he offered the Dems a way off their own petard, which they'd sheepishly take if they weren't so wedded to defeat.
As someone who was on the fence about the president even making this speech in primetime instead of letting The General’s and Ambassador’s testimony stand on their own. I have to say this was a good speech - stayed on message, good delivery.
"It's never too late"
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
I mean, Petraeus made his recommendation, isn't it to the president to react in a statement of intent of policy?
...I thought after the last Iraq speech (which didn't go well imo) maybe releasing a statement would be a better way to go this time!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
People to analyze. We believe in the Mission and we always have. This has many of the same concepts that previous speeches have made.
It looks as though the Dems have the same message they have always had.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
"Blah, blah, blah, blah. Whatever. As I combat veteran, I know that we have to let the chips fall where they may in Iraq and resolve ourselves to catching the bogeyman. We don't know what we're going to do, but the American people have spoken. Yeah, that's it. The American people have spoken. I'm a combat veteran."
If the Dems are recommending we leave troops in Iraq to fight AQ and train Iraqis, then how are they differing? They think our troops will be more successful with less of them there?
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
To Jack Reed go to my last blog entry.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
this war. It is now more than eight months since Dems took control of Congress. They haven't been able to stop bush from killing terrorists for one second nor abandon the Iraqis for two. His stay the course till iraqis trusted we were their to stay has worked. Staying. Not running. Have both been more important than any surge. We wouldn't have been their long enough to do a surge had Bush succummed to the press and the dems.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I'm not so happy to call President Bush the leader of my party, but I am dang proud to call him my Commander in Chief.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
reflect my sentiments very well. I guess I usually think of what would happen if a Reagan were in there fighting like he did at his best. But he also flagged at one point as the Dems in their morally superior way hammered at him night and day and believed he was truly evil. I guess Bush has excellent company.
and yet they cannot defeat him. And as much as I wish he would defend himself, it's almost funnier that he doesn't respond. He just wins. And they seethe.
and me. Bush is winning his way.
emphasis on winning
America winning
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
The president hit a home run tonight. I agree the delivery was key. He was strong, confident, commanding, somber, and open all at the same time. He reached out to Dems and asked them to agree with him on the moral imperative of helping our ally Iraq.
Then Reed comes on and tells the president to shove it. I loved the line where Reed said "our military can defeat any enemy on the field of battle." Yes Senator, except this one, eh? If Reed believes that, what not get the h*ll out of the way and let them do it?
President Bush wins this round hands down.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
The General saved the day with his brilliance. Maybe he will be able to convince the Iraqis to join him in the quest for their free country.
I was really glad that President Bush made that speech tonight. It's important to hear from the President himself, and he made the case effectively.
Here is the situation in Iraq as I see it. Things are probably a little worse than the General is letting on, but that said I still think we can win.
Americans are so used to getting everything "right now!" We must have the patience to see this thing through to the end. We were definitely on the wrong road from the beginning of the occupation phase, but I think we are on the right road now.
Contrary to what the Administration told us at the beginning of the invasion, I never thought this was gonna be a win the war and come home situation. We will have some type of presence in Iraq for the next 20-30 years, much as we do in Japan, South Korea, and elsewhere.
Even if you disagree with the Iraq war in principle, we owe it to the Iraqi people to leave that country better than we found it.
I don't understand how anyone cannot see how incredibly harmful it would be for the U.S. to be seen as leaving Iraq in defeat.
In 1998 Osama Bin Laden was asked by ABC reporter John Miller about the “Black Hawk Down” incident and the role of Al Qaeda in that attack. Bin Laden said this, “The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda … about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat.”
For us to withdraw from Iraq without leaving a stable Government in place, would only serve as confirmation to the entire Arab world that bin laden and Al-Qaeda were right.
I agree that it's up to us to leave Iraq in the strongest possible way. That is a tall order to fill with what their population and infrastructure has been through. But this is the easier part than counting on the Iraqis to "do us well" as allies in the future. It's a cultural thing for them, nothing personal. I "support" the effort as much as I possibly can, but I can imagine the day when the Dems are saying "well, Bush created that situation" like they said Nixon created the Saddam problem in the first place. I am praying for history to find this situation much improved however.
I don't think the President added much to what General Peterus testified to this week. I doubt he converted few fence sitters in Congress to his side or drove those supporting his position away, at best a draw.
The interesting thing in the speech was the long term association with Iraq, the security agreement that the President talked about. Is the President talking about some new form of treaty that would take Senate approval or what? Not quite sure I got the sense of that right.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
The President was very gently explaining that we are in the process of building permanent bases for a long term presence.
I laughed out loud at that part imagining far left bloggers falling out of there chairs screaming.
War is hell, and our men and women are finally taking the fight to the enemy. It may be later then we all would have liked, but every war has it's pitfalls. I thought the message was right on, and you could hear the Dems running for the microphones screaming, "It's Bush's war! There' no new strategy! We're in a quagmire!. So, he's given Warner his 5,000 troops before Christmas; he's given the Dems additional troops returning as continued progress unfolds; he's asked the General and Ambassador to return in March for an update; while still pushing forward with our country's commitment to the people of Iraq. Now that's being a Commander in Chief. The only problem is, the Dems and Moveon.org are having convulsions trying to think of what new obstacles they can throw in the way. And by the way, Jack Reed was a great choice for the Dem's response; you could have only beaten that choice with his colleaque Patches Kennedy.
What you saw tonight was a President divorced from reality
You saw ...
A president who lives in a world where Anbar has been pacified...while in the real world Abdul Sattar Abu Risha , who was the leader of an alliance of Sunni Arab tribes that rejected al-Qaeda because of its methods and worked with the US was killed in a bomb explosion in Anbar today hours before the President assured how much better Anbar had become
A president who wants to frame this quagmire as the US helping an ally against those who would overthrow a friendly government...while in the real world there IS no effective Iraqi government. There was no aknowlegement at all that the problem is a classic civil war with our forces caught in the middle, NOT a situation where Iraq has been invaded by someone other than the US.
A president who lives in a world where there are 36 other countries fighting alongside us in Iraq, implying that there is some sort of coalition of nations sharing equally in the fiasco... In the real world even RS readers and writers can’t swallow that one with a straight face.
A president who looks at the recommendation of General Petreaus to remove some troops back to pre-surge levels as some sort of validation of the surge strategy, while in the real world it is a recognition that the US military simply cannot sustain the current force levels. We don’t have a choice other than to reduce our forces.
Look RS...denial of reality is not a workable foreign policy, and it harms our country. I am sure that you will continue to pat each other on the back with assurance that “The surge is working”, while in reality the surge is literally rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Some provinces have been made more stable (at the cost of American lives and dollars) but in the long run there has been NO PROGRESS toward pro-western Iraqi government. Unless we increase forces well beyond our current capability, the whole mess will collapse into chaos and mayhem when we leave, no matter how long we stay there. The longer you jerk yourselves off by pretending this President knows what he is doing, the longer it will be until we begin to solve the Iraq problem President Bush has created.
Flame away boys and girls....it ain’t gonna change reality one little bit.
I wish more of your kind here would do this, just come out and post your illogical rantings, then call us out so you'll get blammed. RS would be more pleasant to read that way.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
sabbatical or is it Maxwell House?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I'm not sure but I think I make more short and (nt) posts now than I did before.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
one where A is A, but not as we know it. Everything has already been written before it happens. And he was just so angry he had to post his vent, let the world know that he was capable of a REALLY VICIOUS RANT.
Oh, the past tense being what it is...
no more.
Pity.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Better than the world in which Anbar was pacified by a terrorist state run by Saddam.
The Iraqi people are our allies against al Qaeda and other extremists.
We had no effective government from 1776-1789.
You infer. Bush did not imply.
We could and can do what we must. It just kills you that our drawdowns are as a result of success, and not lib-dem forced defeat.
Look T, you and the dems are an iceburg the american people will not run into. See 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988 and 2004.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I'm not going to flame you, that's what they would do on Daily Kos. I like having reasonable discussions about issues like this.
I am under no illusions that Iraq is suddenly a great place because of the surge. Iraq is still arguably the most dangerous place on earth.
What I do know is that like Anbar, the rest of the provinces will tire of the endless bloodshed created by Al-Qaeda and will turn to us in the same way.
If we could just get the Iraqi's more electricity than under Saddam, better sewage, clean water, and other basic services things will really start to turn around.
None of that will be possible without security and we are gonna have to be the ones who provide that at least for the moment.
The biggest mistake Bush made was to leave the American people with the ridiculous impression that this would be over quickly.
Moreover, I think HE really believed that which is itself stunning. We got off to a rocky start, but things are finally beginning to turn around.
...who discusses the war sensibly. I didn't know we had such things at RS.
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of Bush's biggest mistake. But it's more than a mistake. It's his whole idea that war is an easy thing, and that's at the core of our problems. First, we can't go into war easily and casually. War is never easy, and if we're going to go to war, there are certain stipulations...most of these fall under the idea of a Just War. But we can't fight a war without full support, and Bush played us into this war without full support. Thus, HE is to blame for putting us into a war while we have a full-fledged anti-war protest going on constantly back home.
Secondly, I'm not convinced that Iraq was ever necessary, but if it was, there's no excuse for starting it before Afghanistan was finished and Osama was captured. This idea of fighting on multiple fronts at once, when it's not absolutely necessary, is just foolish, and goes back to that idea of war being easy. This is why I prefer to have people with military experience in the White House...because they understand that war is serious business, and not something to enter into casually.
I guess I'm not yet convinced that things are "turning around" but I'll try to maintain cautious optimism. I'd be happy if we won, but I don't really even know how to define a win anymore. A military victory has already been won, but the military can't defeat terrorism as a whole...there's just no such thing. So, what's our actual goal?
I just feel like we've got a government living in a dreamworld, and unable to face reality. There are so many points where things could have been improved if we'd faced reality from the start.
2,500 words, First Gulf War and aftermath. Focus on long-term American military presence in the Gulf area, consequences for the region, primary sources only. We particularly want to see your analysis of Bush's speech immediately post-9/11, and how it should be seen in terms of the events of the previous decade. As always, send it in and we'll think about turning your account back on.
Should have done this a while ago, but honestly? You were given slack because of the entire Ron Paul thing. Well, live and learn.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
A pop quiz:
You are the President of the United States. Foreign terrorists have just killed 3,000 American citizens in a series of attacks involving hijacked airplanes.
To make matters worse, weaponized anthrax is appearing at an increasing number of sites, including the U.S. Capitol. No one is sure where it is coming from, or how much of it is on the way. If there are even 100 envelopes of it, the Postal Service, FedEx, and UPS will be shut down for an indeterminate length of time, bringing large chunks of the economy to a screeching halt. If there are tons of it, we could be looking at a million dead. All we know for sure is that the airplane hijackers were looking at crop dusting aircraft.
We also know that Saddam Hussein has a very sophisticated biological weapons program, and that he has experimented with anthrax.
In 100 words or less, tell us what you would do next.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
You insult everyone on RS because we don't drink your kool-aid
Here are the reasons you are a moron.
1) Bush does have military experience.
2) In one of his first speeches (shortly after 911) he told the nation that this would be a long difficult war, fought on many fronts and would take decades. Did we not fight WWII on many fronts? This is the USA for hell sakes.
3)You support RonPaul!!!!
The guy's gone.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Whether or not Iraq was "necessary" is certainly debatable. Knowing what we know now that he didn't have stockpiles of weapons and all that, I doubt I would support an invasion.
I am also not one of those who thinks Bush lied or misled us intentionally into war with Iraq. Even if he did it still wouldn't change the fact that we have to fix what we broke.
The fact is we ARE in Iraq and now we have to do whatever it takes to win.
Personally, I think it would have made the world a much safer place to topple the Mullahs in Iran rather than Saddam. However, I have a feeling we have some JDAMS being shined up at this very moment for just such a purpose.
the US post 911.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
"In the real world even RS readers and writers can’t swallow that one with a straight face."
"The longer you [redacted] by pretending this President knows what he is doing, the longer it will be until we begin to solve the Iraq problem President Bush has created."
I await with some interest your explanation of why I should give you a chance to make amends for your immature behavior here. Not to mention your formal apology to the board for it. That'll happen in your next post, and this is one time where I'm not going to accept the polite fiction that somebody simply didn't see the warning.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Interesting as it is, most people are willing to see many sides of an issue.
But anyway, I would say that the death of Abdul Sattar Abu Risha was definitely terrible news and I was wondering how tough it was for Bush to go ahead with the speech knowing that. One thing about AQI is that they aren't dumb, they were putting their energy toward that killing this guy for A REASON. Kind of tells you how effective it is when these guys stop killing US troops and go after AQI. Or I guess they could have a populace that cowers and suffers and kills US troops, maybe that would be better? It's hard to admit that someone like this guy cooperating with the US is good, but I understand that saying some fragile thread of light where things have been so bad doesn't seem like much to many people.
One has to give tribute to this man for facing down the evil AQI and you are right that it is truly a tragedy that they were able to make good the threat on his life.
Abu Risha was killed by the same terrorists that he had supported up until a few months ago. And his deputy has already publicly sworn to carry on the fight against AQ. His assassination was a move of desperation. Of course, we wouldn't expect someone like teemn to actually analyze the situation, they merely see it as one more reason to hate Bush.
The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.
Winning won't make the place peaches and cream but losing will put the closest thing to satans representatives on earth in charge.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
testimony from Petraeus and Crocker (each an ornament to his profession) and now followed up by the President , plain-spoken, straightforward and passionate.
In his speech, the President delivered the main point: that our troops are coming home based on "return on success", that is, following and contingent upon battlefield victory.
Previous generations of Americans understood that the war --any war -- would be over, and they would return to their families, AFTER they had secured battlefield victory.
Until this week, the Democrats have dominated the debate on the war, with their peculiar insistence that troop withdrawals can only take place in a context of defeat and surrender.
This week, beginning with the brilliant testimony by Petraeus and Crocker -- who together laid out a compelling picture of a possible victory in Iraq -- and ending with the President ably and confidently backing up his General, the details of that victory are coming into view.
The Democrats are now in the odd position of decrying troop cuts and victory, so wedded are they to their fantasies of American defeat. Will the people follow them?
Don't know if President Bush needed to release that information at this time, but it should come as no surprise that in the end, an American force will be stationed somewhere in Iraq. Probably in the North.
We pulled out of Saudi Arabia and Germany, we need a base near Europe and Russia, Iraq (and probably Afghanistan, at some point in the future) will have to do.
R.J.
President Bush in this speech hit the nail on the head and drove it home. In my judgment, he is leading us in the direction that is good for the American people and the Arab people.
Reed and the Dem's don't understand reality. What they are advocating is that Iraqis are beyond help and not worth helping. Leave them to death at the hands of al Qaeda, murderous chaos by Iran and ethno-sectarian genocide. They ignore the reality that counter-terrorism cannot be conducted effectively by special forces alone. They conceal the reality that our withdrawal and the consequent chaos will be a tremendous encouraging win for al Qaeda.
Bush is striving to win and has presently turned the tide. Most of the dems are undermining him out of commitment to their foregone conclusion that we cannot win. The dems are the Wormtongue. John E.
...with me was the "long-term committment" he outlined. That's not what Americans want to hear. That's not the kind of bomb you want to drop on Congress and the American people right before a military funding fight.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Remember when Murtha wanted to "redeploy" the troops to Okinawa? How long do you figure we've had troops in Okinawa?
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Then one will begin to believe that the only place in the world our forces are is Iraq. We would also forget how many servicemen and women are in many countries across the world. Virtually all of these places are OsamaBL-free, to boot. You are right that Americans do not want to talk about it, but the net effect of being out of Iraq in so-many-months is something we'd also rather not think about. And believe me, I know soldiers I'd much rather see home with their families.
....we have troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc....lots of em' at that. I just feel like permanent U.S. troops in the middle east is a whole different ballgame given the cultural/socio/religous differences.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
first inning. The old ballgame gave us 911.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
in his recent report to Congress, which, though seized upon and exploited by antiwar Dems to try to prove that we could not sustain a force the size of the surge for any length of time, was nonetheless extremely nuanced and informative.
One of his recommendations was that we regularize the relationship with Iraq by signing what is called, I think, a Statement of Forces with Iraq (similar to agreements we have with Germany, Korea, etc) for permanent bases and fairly large troop presence. Meaning we have troops there for an extended period of time, not just during conflict, but in peacetime, the Iraqi flag flies together with US flag, etc. Not sure if this requires Senate confirmtion, ie if it is a treaty, or can be negotiated by the Pentagon, or needs to be under some kind of rubric like NATO. The American people have understood these troop presences over time as necessary, eg during the Cold War, as Germany was a flashpoint then and Iraq is now. This would go a long way toward public acceptance of our presence there.
In other words, not an occuption as the Dems call it, but an alliance. Very different.
...given that most people are ready for some sort of endgame. This seems like now it is something with no end in sight. I'm not really sure if permanent U.S. troops on middle eastern soil will fly over well either. CNN had a long segment about what an insane idea this is - then again maybe I've just fallen victim to the media bubble. I hope it's the latter.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I liked how he framed this: We are in Iraq defending the sovereign of an ally.