Bush addresses the nation on Iraq policy

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Well I watched the whole thing and I am somewhat surprised no one has a thread open yet.

Link--http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...hzl0PqlE1z8E0nMTSs0NUE

Personally I think GWB did a very effective job of putting the best possible spin on it. The big danger I see is that events could prove GWB very wrong very fast.

I also think the democratic rebuttal was not as effective as it could have been. And did not hit GWB hard enough on his diplomatic failures. And hence failed to force the debate into a matter of choices.

But this thread shouldn't be about me, so I open the floor for impressions and opinions.
 

Cuda1447

Lifer
Jul 26, 2002
11,757
0
71
Why does it have to be a democratic rebuttal? It was planned. Regardless of what Bush says there will be a rebuttal. That points to the fact that the rebuttal isn't based on what he said, but rather his party.


I hate bi-partisan politics.
 

randym431

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2003
1,270
1
0
Well I watched the whole thing and I am somewhat surprised no one has a thread open yet.

Tonight was the night to wash the cat.

Besides, Bush is living in his own little pretend world.
Most of us left it long ago.
And a few smart ones were never in it...
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,452
6,878
136
lemon law, i agree on all points you posted, except i could not watch the whole thing.

i can look at or hear dubyuh for all of ten seconds and i start grinding my teeth listening to his never-ending trail of lies and spin whilst trying to look at that permanent close-eyed grimacing sneer that he wears so "well" and then i have to start looking for some other talking head to listen to on another channel.

he is not an honest man; therefore, worthless.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: tweaker2
lemon law, i agree on all points you posted, except i could not watch the whole thing.

i can look at or hear dubyuh for all of ten seconds and i start grinding my teeth listening to his never-ending trail of lies and spin whilst trying to look at that permanent close-eyed grimacing sneer that he wears so "well" and then i have to start looking for some other talking head to listen to on another channel.

he is not an honest man; therefore, worthless.

Then why does he still have so many supporters and what does that say about them???
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: tweaker2
lemon law, i agree on all points you posted, except i could not watch the whole thing.

i can look at or hear dubyuh for all of ten seconds and i start grinding my teeth listening to his never-ending trail of lies and spin whilst trying to look at that permanent close-eyed grimacing sneer that he wears so "well" and then i have to start looking for some other talking head to listen to on another channel.

he is not an honest man; therefore, worthless.

Then why does he still have so many supporters and what does that say about them???
That they are stupid.

 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
I think my favorite spin out of this whole debacle is that we are winning and we can start to bring some troops home in July.

Newsflash we've known for many months regardless of the situation that we would have to start withdrawing some troops in April or their tours would have to be extended past 15 months.

Also, giving a timetable only emboldens the terrorists, right?

Weak sauce George.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: ayabe
I think my favorite spin out of this whole debacle is that we are winning and we can start to bring some troops home in July.

Newsflash we've known for many months regardless of the situation that we would have to start withdrawing some troops in April or their tours would have to be extended past 15 months.

Also, giving a timetable only emboldens the terrorists, right?

Weak sauce George.
You are talking about the people who make the rules. If they needed to change those rules and extend tours of duty because they felt the troops were necessary then they would do that very thing. The fact that they aren't tells you what you really need to know but somehow that's being overlooked because so many in here seem to despise the fact that there's progress in Iraq. Maybe it calms their nerves just to spin it and deny it instead?
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
That they are stupid.

Typical left-wing ad hominem...

The debate over GWB and "honest" will never end. I happen to believe the guy has the best of intentions and I applaud him for sticking to his guns, despite the barrage of daily attacks and low poll numbers. The right thing isn't always popular.

For future reference, labeling anyone you disagree with as "stupid" pretty much ends any chance of a logical debate or discussion. Of course, many here don't really care.

 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: ayabe
I think my favorite spin out of this whole debacle is that we are winning and we can start to bring some troops home in July.

Newsflash we've known for many months regardless of the situation that we would have to start withdrawing some troops in April or their tours would have to be extended past 15 months.

Also, giving a timetable only emboldens the terrorists, right?

Weak sauce George.
You are talking about the people who make the rules. If they needed to change those rules and extend tours of duty because they felt the troops were necessary then they would do that very thing. The fact that they aren't tells you what you really need to know but somehow that's being overlooked because so many in here seem to despise the fact that there's progress in Iraq. Maybe it calms their nerves just to spin it and deny it instead?

No, they can't extend the tours any further or there's going to be a mass exodus of experienced NCO's and the people we really need to keep the Army going. There comes a point where no amount of financial incentive is going to keep some of these guys going, it's just too long, with not enough recovery time at home. Unless they really want to cripple the Army and Marines for the next 20 years this is it - or a draft. Neither is really possible.

You speak of progress, what meaningful progress has been made? We have made a deal with the devil in Anbar and by doing so have undermined the Iraqi governments' sovereignty, the very thing most crucial to us getting out.

Basra and the south has been abandoned to Iran.

Political progress is still a non-starter, meanwhile we are working behind the scenes to pull a peaceful coup and get Mailiki out of there. Way to legitimize the government that we created by destroying it. We pulled this same BS in Vietnam and the end result is going to be same.

So on the whole are things better now than they were 4 years ago?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
I saw the speech... it was basically the exact same things he's been saying for the past year. nothing new, at least it didn't preempt any worthwhile tv.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: ayabe
I think my favorite spin out of this whole debacle is that we are winning and we can start to bring some troops home in July.

Newsflash we've known for many months regardless of the situation that we would have to start withdrawing some troops in April or their tours would have to be extended past 15 months.

Also, giving a timetable only emboldens the terrorists, right?

Weak sauce George.
You are talking about the people who make the rules. If they needed to change those rules and extend tours of duty because they felt the troops were necessary then they would do that very thing. The fact that they aren't tells you what you really need to know but somehow that's being overlooked because so many in here seem to despise the fact that there's progress in Iraq. Maybe it calms their nerves just to spin it and deny it instead?

No, they can't extend the tours any further or there's going to be a mass exodus of experienced NCO's and the people we really need to keep the Army going. There comes a point where no amount of financial incentive is going to keep some of these guys going, it's just too long, with not enough recovery time at home. Unless they really want to cripple the Army and Marines for the next 20 years this is it - or a draft. Neither is really possible.
Yes, they can extend the tours. Your response is not about can or cannot, it's about want. Would they want to extend tours? Of course not as it would have repercussions. Could they do it anyway? Damn skippy they could.

You speak of progress, what meaningful progress has been made? We have made a deal with the devil in Anbar and by doing so have undermined the Iraqi governments' sovereignty, the very thing most crucial to us getting out.
Do you realize that many of the men fighting in Anbar are now part of the Iraqi military and security forces? 20,000 of them. This has been done to ensure that they don't become a force to themselves and also to embue them with some nationalism and patriotism over what they are doing. It's a rather clever strategy, imo.

Basra and the south has been abandoned to Iran.
Basra and the south have been abandoned to Shiite militias. Unfortunately we have people here in the West promoting the simplistic equation that Iran is Shiite so the Shiite militias in Iraq must be aligned with them. Shiite + Shiite = automatic buddies for life. That neglects history though and the fact that many Iraqis, including Shiites, still seethe over the Iran/Iraq war and despise the Iranians because of it. While Iran may have some pull over certain Shiite figures, notice how even Sadr won't publicly admit to his alliance with Iran. Ever wonder why that is? It because if he did so he'd suffer a mighty backlash from the Iraqis.

Political progress is still a non-starter, meanwhile we are working behind the scenes to pull a peaceful coup and get Mailiki out of there. Way to legitimize the government that we created by destroying it. We pulled this same BS in Vietnam and the end result is going to be same.

So on the whole are things better now than they were 4 years ago?
I believe I posted a poll recently that shows Iraqis believe it to be better without Saddam in power. Ultimately the determination is up to them. Now that we are finally getting some control of the security situation we can move forward on reconstruction. Once Iraqis begin seeing some of the comforts of life returning I think you'll see even a further improvement in their attitudes and they can actually turn their attention to politics instead of wondering if they'll have to spend another hot, sweaty night trying to get to sleep.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Regarding the reality dictate that troop cuts are going to be forced anyway TLC writes---You are talking about the people who make the rules. If they needed to change those rules and extend tours of duty because they felt the troops were necessary then they would do that very thing. The fact that they aren't tells you what you really need to know but somehow that's being overlooked because so many in here seem to despise the fact that there's progress in Iraq. Maybe it calms their nerves just to spin it and deny it instead?

Actually the constitutional responsibility to set such rules on extensions on tours of duty rests with congress and not the executive. And that has been demonstrated on other threads.

And if GWB tries to extent tours of engagements congress probably will explicitly stop GWB if they don't restrict him beforehand. What is GWB going to claim? The congress is not protecting our troops?

So in a sense, the TLC argument is weak sauce also. The illusion is that the President can infinitely keep doubling his bet every time he loses. If the promised progress of the surge shows a sudden backslide, it may be curtains for GWB as the decider. And its very likely that congress will do what is required.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Skoorb
That they are stupid.

Typical left-wing ad hominem...

The debate over GWB and "honest" will never end. I happen to believe the guy has the best of intentions and I applaud him for sticking to his guns, despite the barrage of daily attacks and low poll numbers. The right thing isn't always popular.

For future reference, labeling anyone you disagree with as "stupid" pretty much ends any chance of a logical debate or discussion. Of course, many here don't really care.

I understand what you're saying, having a leader who is willing to see his vision out, regardless of the opposition is certainly an admirable quality in some cases. I also concede that Bush is the only one with a plan right now in Iraq. Everyone else crowds around and says how wrong his plan is, but nobody has any alternative (more or less viable).

The problem, in my opinion, is that the 'stick to the plan' mentality has gone too far. If you're plan is to drive a car across the country, and the brakes fail during the first six hours of your trip, you're going to reevaluate the plan and probably make a few changes. I'm not saying the US has engaged in anything as stupid as driving a car across a country with no brakes, but there is certainly cause for alarm as we close on year six (five?) of the invasion / liberation.

It's also difficult because it seems that our mission is so undefined. Originally, we wanted to remove WMDs and topple a dictator. We didn't find WMDs (but, according to Mossad and IDF intelligence they were moved) and now we've toppled the dictator. What now? It's encouraging to see that the surge has had a positive effect - but we need to be focusing on developing an Iraqi government that can effectively manage and control the country. Our solution is no longer a military one, but also a political one and, for that, we need to rely on Iraqis - who, until this point, have been unreliable at best.

Did Bush lie to the US population? I'm not so sure. There is evidence WMDs were in Iraq. Has he led us into a situation he doesn't know how to get out of? Definitely. Is he being relatively dishonest about the situation in Iraq? I think so. Using Blackwater and other private security firms has masked the number of US deaths in the country. The 'real' totals in the war - contractors killed and soldiers / contractors injured tell us a much different story about the situation on the ground.

Beau
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yes, they can extend the tours. Your response is not about can or cannot, it's about want. Would they want to extend tours? Of course not as it would have repercussions. Could they do it anyway? Damn skippy they could.

It is politically impossible. Bush is trying to hold the waffling R's in line and any tip in that direction and they will bail otherwise they will be slaughtered in the elections. Just because hecan doesn't mean he can if you catch my drift.
Do you realize that many of the men fighting in Anbar are now part of the Iraqi military and security forces? 20,000 of them. This has been done to ensure that they don't become a force to themselves and also to embue them with some nationalism and patriotism over what they are doing. It's a rather clever strategy, imo.

This is no different than what we have been doing all along, taking militias and giving them a uniform. The results thus far have been abysmal with this policy and the end result is that people trust the Iraqi Army and police even less; by day they are patrolling the streets and by night they are drilling holes in peoples heads, still wearing their uniforms and using police vehicles. The result here would be the same if we started handing out automatic weapons to gangs in LA.

Basra and the south have been abandoned to Shiite militias. Unfortunately we have people here in the West promoting the simplistic equation that Iran is Shiite so the Shiite militias in Iraq must be aligned with them. Shiite + Shiite = automatic buddies for life. That neglects history though and the fact that many Iraqis, including Shiites, still seethe over the Iran/Iraq war and despise the Iranians because of it. While Iran may have some pull over certain Shiite figures, notice how even Sadr won't publicly admit to his alliance with Iran. Ever wonder why that is? It because if he did so he'd suffer a mighty backlash from the Iraqis.

It's not simplistic it's a reality. But if you don't want to admit that, then that's fine. Regardless, allowing Basra to decay in this way and turning our back while Sharia law is being instituted in some places is pretty much the antithesis of the WoT as it has been outlined for us. Iranian influence is the strongest in the south and we and the Brits have abandoned the area. Which for the first couple years of the war was relatively stable and heralded as a model for the rest of the country.

I believe I posted a poll recently that shows Iraqis believe it to be better without Saddam in power. Ultimately the determination is up to them. Now that we are finally getting some control of the security situation we can move forward on reconstruction. Once Iraqis begin seeing some of the comforts of life returning I think you'll see even a further improvement in their attitudes and they can actually turn their attention to politics instead of wondering if they'll have to spend another hot, sweaty night trying to get to sleep.

I'm not even talking about the pre-war, 4 years ago is after the invasion. The situation on the ground is basically the same now as it was then, an improvement from say 6 months ago but after 4 years of hard fighting, elections, billions of dollars, thousands of lives, millions of displaced people, we've come in a big circle.

I haven't seen any reports of electricity improving in Baghdad, many people are still afraid to leave their homes. Most Iraqi's sanction attacks on our troops as OK, Iraq will not be an "ally", Iran is now the big dog in the ME, and even the Saudi's hate us.

This is the reality and Bush's speech lastnight was the worst he has ever made, every statement was either a complete distortion or an outright lie.

 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Regarding the reality dictate that troop cuts are going to be forced anyway TLC writes---You are talking about the people who make the rules. If they needed to change those rules and extend tours of duty because they felt the troops were necessary then they would do that very thing. The fact that they aren't tells you what you really need to know but somehow that's being overlooked because so many in here seem to despise the fact that there's progress in Iraq. Maybe it calms their nerves just to spin it and deny it instead?

Actually the constitutional responsibility to set such rules on extensions on tours of duty rests with congress and not the executive. And that has been demonstrated on other threads.

And if GWB tries to extent tours of engagements congress probably will explicitly stop GWB if they don't restrict him beforehand. What is GWB going to claim? The congress is not protecting our troops?

So in a sense, the TLC argument is weak sauce also. The illusion is that the President can infinitely keep doubling his bet every time he loses. If the promised progress of the surge shows a sudden backslide, it may be curtains for GWB as the decider. And its very likely that congress will do what is required.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/for...stitution-time-for.php

The Dept. of Defense determines tours of duty and extensions, and the President has control over force strength during a conflict.

Yes, Congress could act if they felt the need but I think the Democrats in Congress are a bit gunshy right now over messing with anything military. As recent polls have shown the public overwhelmingly believes it should be the generals who determine what we do in Iraq. It's those generals who make the rules about tours of duty and extensions and they can change the rules if they feel the need.

So let's stop with the pretense that the only reason Bush is bringing these guys home is because he MUST. That's just FUD and isn't based in reality. It's just a lame attempt to rob Bush of even a small victory. You guys whine incessantly about bring the troops home and when we finally do you still whine. Is it that there's no pleasing you or is a minmum daily allotment of pessimism required for ya'll to function for the day?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,285
6,026
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Regarding the reality dictate that troop cuts are going to be forced anyway TLC writes---You are talking about the people who make the rules. If they needed to change those rules and extend tours of duty because they felt the troops were necessary then they would do that very thing. The fact that they aren't tells you what you really need to know but somehow that's being overlooked because so many in here seem to despise the fact that there's progress in Iraq. Maybe it calms their nerves just to spin it and deny it instead?

Actually the constitutional responsibility to set such rules on extensions on tours of duty rests with congress and not the executive. And that has been demonstrated on other threads.

And if GWB tries to extent tours of engagements congress probably will explicitly stop GWB if they don't restrict him beforehand. What is GWB going to claim? The congress is not protecting our troops?

So in a sense, the TLC argument is weak sauce also. The illusion is that the President can infinitely keep doubling his bet every time he loses. If the promised progress of the surge shows a sudden backslide, it may be curtains for GWB as the decider. And its very likely that congress will do what is required.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/for...stitution-time-for.php

The Dept. of Defense determines tours of duty and extensions, and the President has control over force strength during a conflict.

Yes, Congress could act if they felt the need but I think the Democrats in Congress are a bit gunshy right now over messing with anything military. As recent polls have shown the public overwhelmingly believes it should be the generals who determine what we do in Iraq. It's those generals who make the rules about tours of duty and extensions and they can change the rules if they feel the need.

So let's stop with the pretense that the only reason Bush is bringing these guys home is because he MUST. That's just FUD and isn't based in reality. It's just a lame attempt to rob Bush of even a small victory. You guys whine incessantly about bring the troops home and when we finally do you still whine. Is it that there's no pleasing you or is a minmum daily allotment of pessimism required for ya'll to function for the day?

I believe for all your technical correctness you are wrong. Generals can command an army to continue firing empty weapons, but when they are empty they are empty. The army has run out of time to extend tours and they can't extend them even if they can because there are political and emotional realities and endurance limitations to an army just as there is a limit to ammo in a gun. The neocons, and their easy dream of a New American Century have squandered their psychotic visions and dreams. The jig is up and the troops must leave. It is the will of the American people.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So let's stop with the pretense that the only reason Bush is bringing these guys home is because he MUST. That's just FUD and isn't based in reality. It's just a lame attempt to rob Bush of even a small victory. You guys whine incessantly about bring the troops home and when we finally do you still whine. Is it that there's no pleasing you or is a minmum daily allotment of pessimism required for ya'll to function for the day?

No the issue is that he isn't doing this because things are going so well, it's because he has to regardless of the status of things on ground. If you think the R's are going to continue to block the D's from cutting off funding at their own peril you are delusional. They will jump ship. I reiterate that extending tours to keep the current troop levels is politically impossible. Your failure to acknowledge this is just you being stubborn, it only takes a handful of defections and the D's will have their way.

I do take exception to the extreme level of intellectual dishonesty being presented by the President here. Just two months ago giving timetables was aiding Al-Qaeda, now timetables are awesome because "We're kicking ass." The truth is that overall the situation is the same and the arguments war supporters used to trump withdrawal two months ago are still valid.

 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Regarding the reality dictate that troop cuts are going to be forced anyway TLC writes---You are talking about the people who make the rules. If they needed to change those rules and extend tours of duty because they felt the troops were necessary then they would do that very thing. The fact that they aren't tells you what you really need to know but somehow that's being overlooked because so many in here seem to despise the fact that there's progress in Iraq. Maybe it calms their nerves just to spin it and deny it instead?

Actually the constitutional responsibility to set such rules on extensions on tours of duty rests with congress and not the executive. And that has been demonstrated on other threads.

And if GWB tries to extent tours of engagements congress probably will explicitly stop GWB if they don't restrict him beforehand. What is GWB going to claim? The congress is not protecting our troops?

So in a sense, the TLC argument is weak sauce also. The illusion is that the President can infinitely keep doubling his bet every time he loses. If the promised progress of the surge shows a sudden backslide, it may be curtains for GWB as the decider. And its very likely that congress will do what is required.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/for...stitution-time-for.php

The Dept. of Defense determines tours of duty and extensions, and the President has control over force strength during a conflict.

Yes, Congress could act if they felt the need but I think the Democrats in Congress are a bit gunshy right now over messing with anything military. As recent polls have shown the public overwhelmingly believes it should be the generals who determine what we do in Iraq. It's those generals who make the rules about tours of duty and extensions and they can change the rules if they feel the need.

So let's stop with the pretense that the only reason Bush is bringing these guys home is because he MUST. That's just FUD and isn't based in reality. It's just a lame attempt to rob Bush of even a small victory. You guys whine incessantly about bring the troops home and when we finally do you still whine. Is it that there's no pleasing you or is a minmum daily allotment of pessimism required for ya'll to function for the day?

I believe for all your technical correctness you are wrong. Generals can command an army to continue firing empty weapons, but when they are empty they are empty. The army has run out of time to extend tours and they can't extend them even if they can because there are political and emotional realities and endurance limitations to an army just as there is a limit to ammo in a gun. The neocons, and their easy dream of a New American Century have squandered their psychotic visions and dreams. The jig is up and the troops must leave. It is the will of the American people.
I'm right, technically, yet I'm wrong because the outraged American people will rise up en mass and force the evil Bushie to recind any changes, so says Moonie. Amazing predictive powers you have. Good thing we don't have to worry about that, huh?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So let's stop with the pretense that the only reason Bush is bringing these guys home is because he MUST. That's just FUD and isn't based in reality. It's just a lame attempt to rob Bush of even a small victory. You guys whine incessantly about bring the troops home and when we finally do you still whine. Is it that there's no pleasing you or is a minmum daily allotment of pessimism required for ya'll to function for the day?

No the issue is that he isn't doing this because things are going so well, it's because he has to regardless of the status of things on ground. If you think the R's are going to continue to block the D's from cutting off funding at their own peril you are delusional. They will jump ship. I reiterate that extending tours to keep the current troop levels is politically impossible. Your failure to acknowledge this is just you being stubborn, it only takes a handful of defections and the D's will have their way.

I do take exception to the extreme level of intellectual dishonesty being presented by the President here. Just two months ago giving timetables was aiding Al-Qaeda, now timetables are awesome because "We're kicking ass." The truth is that overall the situation is the same and the arguments war supporters used to trump withdrawal two months ago are still valid.
You think the R's are blocking the D's from cutting off funding? It's the D's blocking that from happening because they know doing such a thing would be pure political death for them. Their little dog & pony show back in the Spring was nothing more than a hat tip to their fringe supporters who demanded we bring home the troops immediately. It was some wonderfully theatrical fist shaking that they never had any real intention of following through on. But it's all about the show for the D's.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The neocons, and their easy dream of a New American Century have squandered their psychotic visions and dreams.

The jig is up and the troops must leave.

It is the will of the American people.

The American people may have the will but certainly have zero control of our rogue corrupt Government.

Damn, I never thought I would say something so vile and sad about the U.S. in my lifetime.

:(

rose.gif
for what was my once proud and mighty Country.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
I thought this was worth a copy 'n paste job, from WaPo:

FACT CHECK

The President Asserted Progress on Security and Political Issues. Recent Reports Weren't Often So Upbeat.

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 14, 2007; Page A06

In his speech last night, President Bush made a case for progress in Iraq by citing facts and statistics that at times contradicted recent government reports or his own words.

For instance, Bush asserted that "Iraq's national leaders are getting some things done," such as "sharing oil revenues with the provinces" and allowing "former Baathists to rejoin Iraq's military or receive government pensions."

Yet his statement ignored the fact that U.S. officials have been frustrated that none of those actions have been enshrined into law -- and that reports from Baghdad this week indicated that a potential deal on sharing oil revenue is collapsing.

In a radio address to the nation less than a month ago, the president himself complained that the Iraqi government was failing to address these issues. "Unfortunately, political progress at the national level has not matched the pace of progress at the local level," Bush said on Aug. 18. "The Iraqi government in Baghdad has many important measures left to address, such as reforming the de-Baathification laws, organizing provincial elections and passing a law to formalize the sharing of oil revenues."

Bush also asserted that Baqubah, the capital of Diyala province, was once an al-Qaeda stronghold but that "today, Baqubah is cleared." But in a meeting with reporters on Aug. 27, the head of the State Department team in Diyala said the security situation was not stable, hampering access to food and energy, though he acknowledged that commerce was returning to Baqubah.

"Everything is based around security; if we have security, then we can bring in agencies like USAID," John Melvin Jones said, referring to the U.S. Agency for International Development. "It's going to take a while before the security situation gets stable enough so that you can have a lot of these other agencies involved."

Bush also thanked "the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq." But the State Department's most recent weekly report on Iraq said there are 25 countries supplying 11,685 troops -- about 7 percent of the size of the U.S. forces.


At one point, the president cited a recent report by a commission headed by retired Marine Gen. James Jones, saying that "the Iraqi army is becoming more capable, although there is still a great deal of work to be done to improve the national police."

But the report said Iraq's army will be unable to take over internal security from U.S. forces in the next 12 to 18 months and "cannot yet meaningfully contribute to denying terrorists safe haven." It also described the 25,000-member national police force as riddled with sectarianism and corruption, and it recommended that it be disbanded.

The commission also recommended that U.S. troops in Iraq be "retasked" in early 2008 to protect critical infrastructure and guard against border threats from Iran and Syria, while gradually turning responsibility for security over to Iraqi forces despite their deficiencies -- advice the president did not follow in last night's speech.

The president also painted a relatively favorable picture of Baghdad, saying that a year ago much of it "was under siege" but that today "ordinary life is beginning to return." He did not mention that much of the once-heterogeneous city has been divided into Shiite and Sunni enclaves.

The president also said that groups of "Iranian-backed militants" are "being broken up, and many of their leaders are being captured or killed." In congressional testimony this week, Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker emphasized that Iran poses a looming menace in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...3/AR2007091302710.html
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The neocons, and their easy dream of a New American Century have squandered their psychotic visions and dreams.

The jig is up and the troops must leave.

It is the will of the American people.

The American people may have the will but certainly have zero control of our rogue corrupt Government.

Damn, I never thought I would say something so vile and sad about the U.S. in my lifetime.

:(

rose.gif
for what was my once proud and mighty Country.
Yep. They have so little control that they voted Bush back into office again in '04.

It's amazing how out of touch with reality some of the people in this place are.