When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together, and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.
But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq  particularly in Baghdad  overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made.
For starters, it was surprising to hear the President admit so frequently last evening that some of his strategies and execution of those strategies regarding the War in Iraq were flawed on several levels. Unfortunately, it took a political defeat rather than the deaths of thousands of Americans to achieve that basic threshold of honesty in public policy formation.
The above admission was also the first of several examples that clearly illustrate how wrong our national security team’s analysis of the situation on the ground in Iraq really was.
” Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq’s elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis.”
This passage is nothing more than pure administration spin/propaganda. Sunnis didn’t start killing Shi’ites and Kurds because an election was held. These groups have hated each other for thousands of years with constant waves of violence and killing. Besides, if the Shi’ites are so innocent, why are they so ardently supported by radical clerics and terrorist organizations?
“Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do.”
Does this include the torture of Iraqis in Abu Ghraib or does the “few bad apples” theory of justice still apply?
Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
Remember this line when jittery congressional Republicans try to pin the blame of future failure in Iraq on the Democrats.
“…we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq.”
Hasn’t the administration been toting democratic elections as the elixir of freedom for several years now?
“Radical Islamic extremists would grow  would  would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions.”
Therefore it would behoove the administration to start advocating for policies besides more domestic drilling that would reduce our painful and costly addiction to foreign oil. But, considering the former careers of certain members of our executive branch and campaign contributions to the same political party, don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen. The Vice President has lobbied the Supreme Court, comprised with his sometime hunting buddy Justice Antonin Scalia, to withhold energy policy meeting notes as executive privilege. Leaving aside the fact that this administration has radically reintrepreted what does and what does not fall under confidential (usually composed entirely of previously publicly available information), our addiction to oil has us funding both sides of this war.
“On Sept. 11, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities.”
15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, a nondemocratically elected regime that we conveniently tolerate against Bush’s own foreign policy doctrines, yet we redact documents that fault the Saudis and give them free passes to fund terrorists with weapons and financial resources.
How about paying more attention to Afghanistan where the Taliban are gaining strength quickly and the opium trade is thriving?
“Only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people.”
Than why are we sending 21,500 more American troops there?
“Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.”
We failed to secure Baghdad? Than, what was all that Mission Accomplished aircraft carrier nonsense? Besides, wasn’t it Rumsfeld’s brilliant strategy that less is more when it came to American troops? Good thing it only took Bush a few years to see through the flaws of that plan. And, what restrictions are we talking about here? Not torturing detainees? Anyone else having a problem with all of this revisionist history?
“Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.”
Yeah, the new military commanders that Bush recently installed because the old ones finally spoke up about the administration’s failed strategies.
“These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations  conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.”
Remember how much flack Kerry got for suggesting that we treat this war as a law enforcement operation? Is the above plan not standard operating procedure for law enforcers? Ahh, but Kerry through away his Vietnam medals in the 1970s so we could not take anything he said too seriously now because he, like former Georgia Senator and triple amputee Max Cleland are clearly anti-American.
Bush’s speech was an insult and an outrage, and sets a new standard for chutzpah.
After four years of monumental waste, mind-boggling incompetence and disastrous decisions – not to mention the thousands killed and maimed – all of which Bush acknowledges were HIS mistakes, by what twisted logic does �The Decider� think the American people can and should go along with his latest decision?
He long ago forfeited his credibility as a leader capable of understanding the situation in Iraq and making rational judgments about America’s course of action. Instead, he has behaved like a spoiled child who must have his own way, who insists that he can’t be wrong, and who acts against the advice of the Iraq Study Group, the Generals on the ground, and most outrageously, against the will of the American people.
That last insult is more typical of a dictatorship, not a democracy, and it’s why I believe Bush is not only delusional but psychologically damaged, and therefore unfit to be president.
I take no pleasure in bashing this sorry man, but he has already dragged us into a horrible mess in Iraq, and seems determined to make matters worse by upping the stakes rather than ending this tragic and costly misadventure.
Congress must use every tool at its disposal to prevent this escalation of a failed Iraq war and to bring it to a swift end before more lives are lost.
Bush’s “new strategy� (really just a change in tactics!) is based on the hope that the Iraqi government will be willing and able to resolve the political differences that are at the heart of the country’s strife.
There is not a shred of evidence to support his confidence in the al-Maliki government.
And considering the lives already lost, and the potential for more of the same if the escalation takes place, “hope� is not a viable strategy.
It is time to end this madness NOW!
“How about paying more attention to Afghanistan…?”
Absolutely. Ask the troops in Afghanistan if they’re looking for Bin Laden.
The answer is a resounding no.
Terrorists in Iraq weren’t a problem until U.S. resources were diverted there.
Too bad this administration will never be hauled before a real World Court.
I’m betting that it will have to account for itself before the Universal Supreme Court of Spiritual Justice..
Less rank indignation and more constructive criticism would lend weight to opposition points of views This kind of posturing from those who proport to know better is the kind of thing one can expect from politicos when they have nothing to offer,seek the limelight to foster their political agendas, and are convinced that this is the kind of thing that sways public opinion.
The worst case scenario is the rise of a fundamentalist Islamic state in what is now Iraq and all that might portend for western society. So far, the nay sayers have had nothing to offer with respect to that possibility.