Bush's speech tonight

Because you're using big words and he doesn't have a dictionary on hand.

 

Bin Laden must have photos.

Anyone else have any theories as to why he hasn't been captured yet?

As long as those male children aren't gay, then everything is fine. I don't get it. Gay people can shoot a gun or fly a plane, can't they? And women can too, can't they? If we really need people to fight, why are we shutting our doors to gays and women?

There WAS actually a time when women weren't allowed in the military. Instead, they stayed at home and grew "victory gardens". This time was called WWI and WWII.

 

More of the same, I wish Bush would just come out and say, If you don't support my follie in Iraq than you don't support the troops, and if you don't support the troops your a commie or traitor. At least he would say what most of his base believes.

 

Yep...Yep...but he is not the troops. He is the command-in-chief of the troops. And he screwed the troops up big time in Iraq.

 

Since politicians should be held to account, I thought I would go back a bit to the first debate in September 2003 to see how we are doing:

LEHRER: Speaking of your plan, new question, Senator Kerry. Two minutes.

Can you give us specifics, in terms of a scenario, time lines, et cetera, for ending major U.S. military involvement in Iraq?

KERRY: The time line that I've set out -- and again, I want to correct the president, because he's misled again this evening on what I've said. I didn't say I would bring troops out in six months. I said, if we do the things that I've set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months.

And I think a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn't have long-term designs on it.

As I understand it, we're building some 14 military bases there now, and some people say they've got a rather permanent concept to them.

When you guard the oil ministry, but you don't guard the nuclear facilities, the message to a lot of people is maybe, "Wow, maybe they're interested in our oil."

Now, the problem is that they didn't think these things through properly. And these are the things you have to think through.

What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders.

You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But you've also got to show that you are prepared to bring the rest of the world in and share the stakes.

I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq.

And our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there with a minimal amount you need for training and logistics as we do in some other countries in the world after a war to be able to sustain the peace.

But that's how we're going to win the peace, by rapidly training the Iraqis themselves.

Even the administration has admitted they haven't done the training, because they came back to Congress a few weeks ago and asked for a complete reprogramming of the money.

Now what greater admission is there, 16 months afterwards. "Oops, we haven't done the job. We have to start to spend the money now. Will you guys give us permission to shift it over into training?"

LEHRER: Ninety seconds.

BUSH: There are 100,000 troops trained, police, guard, special units, border patrol. There's going to be 125,000 trained by the end of this year. Yes, we're getting the job done. It's hard work. Everybody knows it's hard work, because there's a determined enemy that's trying to defeat us.

Does anyone really believe that there are 100,000 or 125,000 trained Iraqis defending their country?

Last night, he claimed 160,000. How can this be? That would mean that Iraqi security forces significantly outnumber US Forces now, correct?

He also spoke at length about foreign fighters streaming into Iraq. Read Kerry's answer to the question above, and tell me that he didn't have a more accurate picture of what was going on and how we were eventually going to get out.

 

Last nights speech to me was nothing more than a 30 minute television infomercial purchased by the Executive Branch to shore up its base and try to turn the tide of public opinion. Nothing new was shared, no new vision was given, simply more of the same, ad nauseum.

Explain this to me. How is Bush supporting the troops when he is not even able to clearly articulate a strategy for their success in Iraq, relying instead on disingenuous allusions to 9/11 and a repetitive "we are prevailing" description of events?

He ended with a call to recruitment to the armed forces, but to me, it was a very interesting statement.

As an evangelical Christian, Mr. President, I think your Lord and Savior disagrees with you.

Bottom line to me, Bush sees no clear distinction between war and allegiance to our country, and the Christian faith that he claims guides him and gives him strength.

 

I didn't see any passion in his speech. He's like reciting something boring from the White House speech writers.

He probably didn't believe what he was reading either. Who knows what Karl Rove did to him.

 

I doubt the numbers are accurate (this guy is coached by Karl Rove, one must check facts EVERY time he says something based on numerical data)

But if they were, i'd like to find the definition of "trained Iraqis".. Because to me, it would look as if they are not well trained enough to protect themselves yet... Recall reading an article on how the Pentagon had gone for "quantity rather than quality" and that our US troops were not all that happy about the results/performance of said trainees so far....

 

I support the troops to the extent that I don't want to see a single other American (or Iraqi) killed or maimed. I also support their efforts to bring peace and stability to that troubled land.

Beyond that, its also time for the troops to stand up and **************** on BushCo. BushCo has put them in harms way; BushCo lied about the reasons to go to war; BushCo is responsible for the sad state of affairs at the VA. If the troops want to keep drinking BushCo's kook-aid, that's their choice. They can opt to continue being killed and maimed, and supporting the war - despite the fact that Dubya lied to the American public about the Iraq link to the war on terror.

This may piss off some folks, but we need a military that is more than just a bunch of sycophants for BushCo.

 

I understand what you are saying, however the military is under the command of the Commander in Chief. What are you advocating? If the Militay refues to follow those orders, then is it a coup?

 

Then what happens if it's your guy in power and a war you agree with, but the troops dont

Is it ok to stand up then ?

You are on a dangerously slippery slope

 

We've all seen what happens to those who speak the truth to BushCo.

 

Hey, I actually agree with this.

The answer is to change the civilian head of the military, and the people voted for the status quo. The military at all levels follow orders from that civilian top down, so it is not even acceptable for a member of the joint chiefs to question the president once a decision has been made even if they argued against the policy pre-decision.

 

Okay - some good, reasoned responses. My thought is the military is pretty overwhelmingly republican - and apparently voted so in November. I just think the military had an opportunity to make a statement - at the polling booth.

I also think that more generals ought to be coming forward - and telling the truth to the public. Its their troops that are getting killed and maimed. Yes, its career suicide, but I wonder how the generals can sleep at night.

 

But they did make that statement at the polling booth

They chose to cast their votes in most cases to re-elect the President

And I would say the military is overwhelmingly conservative, not solely Republican. It's just the Republican party for the most part has the same ideals as they do

 

The thing to look for is statements from ret. generals.

I saw Norman Schwartzkopf a few months back saying that abu ghraib set us back 20 years.

Barry McCaffrey was on Countdown the other night pointing out that we were losing a battallion a month and basically ripped Rumsfeld saying that he was not credible any more.

These are people who supported the war in Iraq, but that are becoming increasingly critical of the execution of the war.

 

Me too! But in truth, that is why troops are over there, to prevent another 09/11/01 so that Americans never again have to be killed by terrorism!

I doubt this highly... Iraqis have suffered much more than we, and their loss is much more dear than ours... Therefore we must stand by them until the end; until they are able to find true peace in their ravaged land. Let the military determine how to win the war... so far they support the Administration's goals and the Administration's war plan... it only seems that liberals want to pull the troops!

Don't you get tired of rambling this bit of fiction? Wouls you rather have the front on the terror war be New York City? Kansas? Washington, D.C.? as opposed to Iraq? Nobody lied! Terrorists did strike on 09/11/01... we are fighting them now! We are winning.

The military does stand up... they tell the President how many troops are necessary and why we need to be resolute. These facts are honored by our Commander-in-Chief, who gives the military what they need and the long-term support. Unknowing civilians however, who just wish to cut and run, and ignore the sacrifice made my our Armed Forces and ignore the sacrifice made by Iraqis, are not given the leading role in Iraq... teh Armed Forces are winning this war... give them time to win!

 

There's a meme going around some lefty blogs that some time within the next 2 years, at the most, the army is going to have to choose between serving Bush and saving itself as a strong institution. And they'll surely choose the latter. The idea being that as guys face their 3rd tour, some of them won't re-up, recruiting is down, and standards for recruits is down. And morale is getting sucky. So, the generals and the top colonels are gonna say to themselves, we don't want the crap army of the mid-late 70s again.

Now, I'm not vouching for that. But it's clearly a realistic scenario.

It wouldn't have to be a coup...they could just start writing pessimistic reports and then leaking them, some guys near retirement could publicly ask for more boots in Iraq, etc. Bush would be screwed.

 

The following should become cultural (if not legal) norms, in order to minimize some problems and reduce some of the inherent conflicts between allowing democratic accountability on the one hand, and yet having an effective military which follows its chain of command.

1) The military is as an institution which is supposed to serve the President's foreign policy agenda, but should be encouraged to do so without trying to influence or affect the political debates either way. Indeed, once you sign up for the military, you should be seen as waiving your political rights until conclusion of your service, except on election day.

In this connection, any attempt by the president or others to try to use active duty military personnel to make any political messages to the wider public should be viewed in negative light. Similarly, any attempt to use military personel to deliver dissenting opinions should also be discouraged.

2) In conjuction with the above, but not if the military itself is trying to get involved in political debates, the public should always in act in a manner that shows its respect for military personnel who carry out lawful orders. If the policy being implmented is wrong, the blame is entirely with the policy-makers and that in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by miilitary personnel. If military personnel return from an unpopular war, so long as they have done their part of the job well, they should receive the same level of support and commendation as if they were returning from a popular war. The support should be for their willingness to serve, not for the policies they were serving per se.

 

McLellan.

 

This comedy gold is why ITN isn't on my ignore list.

 

The idea of military brass making decisions contrary to the orders of the civilian commander in chief makes me feel naseous.

The military HAS to follow the orders of the civilian leadership, not matter how much the top brass might disagree with those orders. The ONLY way a general or admiral should EVER publicly express views contrary to the POTUS or the SECDEF is to resign his commission and do it after that.

 

Good post - thanks.