WaPo Slams Speech

[XOKCowboy]

Thanks to AmericaBlog for this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR2005062801525.html

PRESIDENT BUSH sought last night to bolster slipping public support for the war in Iraq by connecting it, once again, to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and to the war against terrorism. That connection is not spurious, even if Saddam Hussein was not a collaborator of al Qaeda: Clearly Iraq is now a prime battlefield for Islamic extremists, and success or failure there will do much to determine the outcome of the larger struggle against them. But Mr. Bush didn't explain how a war meant to remove a tyrant believed to wield weapons of mass destruction turned into a fight against Muslim militants, a transformation caused in part by his administration's many errors since Saddam Hussein's defeat more than two years ago. The president also didn't speak candidly enough about the primary mission the United States now has in Iraq, which is not "hunting down the terrorists" but constructing a stable government in spite of Iraq's sectarian divisions and violent resistance from the former ruling elite. It's harder to explain why Americans should die in such a complex and ambitious enterprise than in a fight with international terrorists, but that is the case Mr. Bush most needs to make.

When he did turn to Iraq's reconstruction Mr. Bush mostly described the bright side of a very mixed picture. While acknowledging that "our progress has been uneven," his dominant theme was success: in training Iraqi security forces, holding elections and promoting political accord. The progress he described is genuine, as is the reality that the United States has no reasonable alternative to continuing to support the construction of a representative Iraqi government. Mr. Bush rightly argued that a deadline for withdrawal would be a "serious mistake."


Once again, however, the president missed an opportunity to fully level with Americans, even though some of the hard truths he elided have been spelled out by his aides and senior military commanders. The insurgency, they have said, is not growing weaker; most likely, said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, it will never be defeated by American troops, and it will continue for many more years. Iraqi troops probably will not be ready to take over from U.S. units for several years, at least. For now, the combined U.S.-Iraqi force is nowhere near large enough to hold territory taken from the insurgents or to secure the country's borders. Yet Army and Marine units are being pressed into their third tours of duty, even as recruitment of fresh soldiers at home lags badly.

Mr. Bush's account of his strategy for Iraq, which has remained virtually unchanged in the past year, doesn't answer the worrying questions raised by these facts. How will the insurgency be contained during the considerable time it will take to prepare Iraqi troops? How will the Army and Marines manage years more of heavy deployments while addressing their recruitment problems? And how will continued heavy spending on the war affect the federal budget and domestic priorities? The president's evasion of the hardest facts about Iraq is coupled with a reluctance to candidly describe the likely price of success -- though Mr. Bush did make an appeal last night for military service.

-more-

[aquart]

1. That's a slam?

George won't even notice that tap on his wrist.

[neuvocat]

2. This is a striking line:

"It's harder to explain why Americans should die in such a complex and ambitious enterprise than in a fight with international terrorists, but that is the case Mr. Bush most needs to make."

Indeed.

[Erika]

4. I think those making the decision as to enlist or reinlist

hold the key. There can't be a war if no one shows up. Right now it's not looking good for Bush.

[ailsagirl]

3. Makes me wonder if any of the media-- apart from Faux-- liked

what they saw/heard.

This is encouraging though I'm not holding my breath.

Time will tell

[scottxyz]

5. Maybe I've been spoiled by reading too many great writers on the web...

...but this editorial seems to be VERY badly written.

It's wordy and inflated - but not in a good, James Wolcott sort of way.

"not spurious - even if Saddam was not" - Kind of a triple negative (since 'spurious' is kind of a negative word - and also one which hardly anyone understands - like 'feckless' - so why even use it?) Reword: "may have some truth to it"

"the truths he elided" - How much you wanna bet a significant chunk of readers will read this as "the truths he elucidated"? Reword: "the truths he LEFT OUT".

"Mr. Bush's account of his strategy for Iraq, which has remained virtually unchanged" - Pardon me, your modifier is dangling. What hasn't remained unchanged, Mr. Bush's strategy, or his account of his strategy?

"the likely price of success" - Assuming there will even BE a success.

"The insurgency, they {Bush's aides} said, is not growing weaker; most likely, said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, it will never be defeated by American troops, and it will continue for many more years." - Cheney says the insurgency is "in its last throes". So who's right - Cheney or Rumsfeld? And why doesn't WaPo mention this glaring contradiction within the Administration?

The days of being demure are over, WaPo. The NYT shows you how it's done:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3974510&mesg_id=3974510

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. Mr. Bush, Mr. Bush, Mr. Bush.

Noticed that the NYT oped also referred to him as "Mr. Bush"....interesting.

[KharmaTrain]

7. This Is Like Waking Up The Dead

So the WAPO finally realized all of this? They've come to the ultimate conclusions that the invasion wasn't the great "defense against terror" they once tauted it to be? So pre-emptive action doesn't always end in being greeted as liberators...well knock me over with a feather.

Yes, this editorial was lofty Beltway-speak, but the fact it came out so quickly and was negative is a postive in itself. It still softballs this arrogant asshole for his obvious lack of real compassion or candor and attempts to grade his speeches on a "bell curve"...so even a C speech is trumped as a "home run". Guess this one must have been an F...or Incomplete.

The real fall-out will be from the television ratings. If they're high and there's not a surge in the monkey-boy's numbers, this regime and its enablers are in trouble. That not only means the sale wasn't made, but that people are now rejecting the deal. This is where Democrats have to step up with patience, compassion and a focused message.

[CatWoman]

8. check out NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/opinion/29wed1.html?o...

President Bush's Speech About Iraq

Published: June 29, 2005

President Bush told the nation last night that the war in Iraq was difficult but winnable. Only the first is clearly true. Despite buoyant cheerleading by administration officials, the military situation is at best unimproved. The Iraqi Army, despite Mr. Bush's optimistic descriptions, shows no signs of being able to control the country without American help for years to come. There are not enough American soldiers to carry out the job they have been sent to do, yet the strain of maintaining even this inadequate force is taking a terrible toll on the ability of the United States to defend its security on other fronts around the world.

We did not expect Mr. Bush would apologize for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war, or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation. But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks. We had hoped that he would seize the moment to tell the nation how he will define victory, and to give Americans a specific sense of how he intends to reach that goal - beyond repeating the same wishful scenario that he has been describing since the invasion.

Sadly, Mr. Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking. He told the nation, again and again, that a stable and democratic Iraq would be worth American sacrifices, while the nation was wondering whether American sacrifices could actually produce a stable and democratic Iraq.

Given the way this war was planned and executed, the president does not have any good options available, and if American forces were withdrawn, Iraq would probably sink into a civil war that would create large stretches of no man's land where private militias and stateless terrorists could operate with impunity. But if Mr. Bush is intent on staying the course, it will take years before the Iraqi government and its military are able to stand on their own. Most important of all - despite his lofty assurance last night that in the end the insurgents "cannot stop the advance of freedom" - all those years of effort and suffering could still end with the Iraqis turning on each other, or deciding that the American troops were the ultimate enemy after all. The critical challenge is to gauge, with a clear head, exactly when and if the tipping point arrives and the American presence is only making a terrible situation worse.