The President's Speech Thread.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Post all your thoughts on the president's speech tonite.
Personally I think that the speech will be the same formulaic speech as usual.
9/11+ sADDAM+ GWOT+ America Good+ Right Wing stuf...etc etc.

[terpkristin]

I plan on watching either "The Incredibles" or "I, Robot."

I don't need to hear more lies from this fucking moron. I get enough of it on the national news. Beyond that, I almost never watch these things live because no TV commentator can seem to resist the urge to plug their opinion. I'd much rather read the transcript and take on my own what I'm being told. I'm not one of those brain-dead Americans who needs to be told what I'm hearing or seeing.

/tk

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

It seems like he's been hiding since the beginning of the year. I really havent heard him say anything about Iraq and GWOT. Its all been Social security this and that.
It pisses me off that we are at war and it seems that the White House is in its own dream world.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Start of Liberty, Hope Waron Terror....Osama...I've heard this stuff before. Time to tune off.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by terpkristin

I plan on watching either "The Incredibles" or "I, Robot."

I don't need to hear more lies from this fucking moron. I get enough of it on the national news. Beyond that, I almost never watch these things live because no TV commentator can seem to resist the urge to plug their opinion. I'd much rather read the transcript and take on my own what I'm being told. I'm not one of those brain-dead Americans who needs to be told what I'm hearing or seeing.

/tk

well-put TK. well-put

[NoMyths]

More than 2,000 members of Iraq's security forces have been killed? That's something I wasn't aware of.

[miked]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

More than 2,000 members of Iraq's security forces have been killed? That's something I wasn't aware of.

Not to be insensitive, this is an honest question, but does that include all the people who are killed standing in line for security/police jobs? It seems as though every day a bomber goes to a police line or something and kills 20+.

[Dutch]

I thought President Bush did a great job. I'm very proud of him and grateful that he is our President.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I thought President Bush did a great job. I'm very proud of him and grateful that he is our President.

What a SHOCKING post from Dutch! Shocked, I tell you!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What a SHOCKING post from Dutch! Shocked, I tell you!

I wasn't being mean-spirited about it.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I thought President Bush did a great job. I'm very proud of him and grateful that he is our President.

Thank you very much.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I wasn't being mean-spirited about it.

What, do you think your reputation on this site is in being mean spirited?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What, do you think your reputation on this site is in being mean spirited?

I do think I'm perceived as mean-spirited.

[flere-imsaho]

I didn't watch it. I'm not interested in watching a draft dodger try to explain away the lies he used to send young men and women off to their death in war.

[flere-imsaho]

Gotta like this, though:

ABC's Terry Moran just reported that the only time Bush got applause was in the middle of his speech when a White House advance team member started clapping all on their own in order to cajole the soldiers into clapping, which they dutifully did.

So even the applause was fake.

References to "September 11?: 5

References to "weapons of mass destruction": 0

References to "freedom": 21

References to "exit strategy": 0

References to "Saddam Hussein": 2

References to "Osama Bin Laden": 2

References to "a mistake": 1 (setting a timetable for withdrawal)

References to "mission": 11

References to "mission accomplished": 0

[flere-imsaho]

Democratic Senate Minority Leader Reid:

"Tonight's address offered the President an excellent opportunity to level with the American people about the current situation in Iraq, put forth a path for success, and provide the means to assess our progress. Unfortunately he fell short on all counts.

"There is a growing feeling among the American people that the President's Iraq policy is adrift, disconnected from the reality on the ground and in need of major mid-course corrections. "Staying the course," as the President advocates, is neither sustainable nor likely to lead to the success we all seek.

"The President's numerous references to September 11th did not provide a way forward in Iraq, they only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and Al Qaeda remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America.

"Democrats stand united and committed to seeing that we achieve success in Iraq and provide our troops, their families, and our veterans everything they need and deserve for their sacrifices for our nation. The stakes are too high, and failure in Iraq cannot be an option. Success is only possible if the President significantly alters his current course. That requires the President to work with Congress and finally begin to speak openly and honestly with our troops and the American people about the difficult road ahead.

"Our troops and their families deserve no less."

[NoMyths]

Not to mention the fact that in an era with far better technology and ability it's now taken us longer to bring Bin Laden to justice after September 11th than it did for us to bring Germany, Italy, and Japan to justice after Pearl Harbor.

[JW]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Gotta like this, though:

The soldiers had been ordered not to yell or applaud. Otherwise, you would have heard a lot more. Simple as that.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JW

The soldiers had been ordered not to yell or applaud. Otherwise, you would have heard a lot more. Simple as that.

Proof?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Bush

Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis — who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops — who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy — who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed — and not a day longer.

This is the main reason I am glad Bush is the president right now - and not someone like Reid who says:

There is a growing feeling among the American people that the President's Iraq policy is adrift, disconnected from the reality on the ground and in need of major mid-course corrections. "Staying the course," as the President advocates, is neither sustainable nor likely to lead to the success we all seek.

Yeah, let's say our current effort in Iraq isn't sustainable to a group of Iraqis that were slaughtered mercilessly by the Iraq regime in the early 90s after the US cut and ran back then. That's a great way to encourage support and courage by the Iraqis to start handling more of the security burden

Can anyone actually articulate the policy Harry Reid would like to see implemented regarding Iraq? It's all fine and dandy to talk about "major mid-course corrections" in a broad and general sense. But, what does he mean? Put more US troops in there when the generals haven't asked for them? Pull out more US troops when there are still security issues? Set a date for withdraw so that the insurgents can hide out until then? What, exactly, is Reid advocating the US do?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Arles

This is the main reason I am glad Bush is the president right now - and not someone like Reid who says:

Yeah, let's say our current effort in Iraq isn't sustainable to a group of Iraqis that were slaughtered mercilessly by the Iraq regime in the early 90s after the US cut and ran back then. That's a great way to encourage support and courage by the Iraqis to start handling more of the security burden

Can anyone actually articulate the policy Harry Reid would like to see implemented regarding Iraq? It's all fine and dandy to talk about "major mid-course corrections" in a broad and general sense. But, what does he mean? Put more US troops in there when the generals haven't asked for them? Pull out more US troops when there are still security issues? Set a date for withdraw so that the insurgents can hide out until then? What, exactly, is Reid advocating the US do?

It's not Harry Reid's job to give W and his team ways to solve the mess they created.

And no, I'm not a liberal or a Democrat. Just growing tired of this President and the constant b.s. he's feeding the American people.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

It's not Harry Reid's job to give W and his team ways to solve the mess they created.

And no, I'm not a liberal or a Democrat. Just growing tired of this President and the constant b.s. he's feeding the American people.

I don't really mind the criticism against Bush - as much of it is deserved. But I do get aggitated when all this criticism comes up with no alternatives to how the president is handling it. If you want to rip Bush for WMD, Iraqi-Al Qaeda links, bad Intel on other issues - fine. But if you are going to rip the way he is handling the war then please atleast offer a semblence of an alternative to how Bush is running the war.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Proof?

It was stated on the FoxNews broadcast that unlike most Troop visits, the President did not want the speech to be a troop rally and asked that applause be withheld.

In the moment when the applause could not be held back, I found it a very powerful moment in the speech.

Here's is what lead up to the first applause.

We have more work to do, and there will be tough moments that test America's resolve. We are fighting against men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons who are capable of any atrocity. They wear no uniform; they respect no laws of warfare or morality. They take innocent lives to create chaos for the cameras. They are trying to shake our will in Iraq just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001. They will fail. The terrorists do not understand America. The American people do not falter under threat and we will not allow our future to be determined by car bombers and assassins.

America and our friends are in a conflict that demands much of us. It demands the courage of our fighting men and women, it demands the steadfastness of our allies and it demands the perseverance of our citizens. We accept these burdens because we know what is at stake. We fight today because Iraq now carries the hope of freedom in a vital region of the world, and the rise of democracy will be the ultimate triumph over radicalism and terror. And we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there, we will fight them across the world and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Just growing tired of this President and the constant b.s. he's feeding the American people.

Originally Posted by Chemical Soldier

It seems like he's been hiding since the beginning of the year. I really havent heard him say anything about Iraq and GWOT. Its all been Social security this and that.

???

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Arles

I don't really mind the criticism against Bush - as much of it is deserved. But I do get aggitated when all this criticism comes up with no alternatives to how the president is handling it. If you want to rip Bush for WMD, Iraqi-Al Qaeda links, bad Intel on other issues - fine. But if you are going to rip the way he is handling the war then please atleast offer a semblence of an alternative to how Bush is running the war.

I agree with you that part and parcel of the Democrats have done nothing other than say "Oh, he's not doing x or y" but they really never offer any alternatives or at least, ones that are really viable or have any traction.

They just cry a lot about how horrible the President is and spew lots of hyperbole about how he's a war criminal and a racist - as well as the GOP - but don't seem to give much in the way of their own crediblity other than pandering.

It's gotten old on both sides, for sure.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Arles

I don't really mind the criticism against Bush - as much of it is deserved. But I do get aggitated when all this criticism comes up with no alternatives to how the president is handling it. If you want to rip Bush for WMD, Iraqi-Al Qaeda links, bad Intel on other issues - fine. But if you are going to rip the way he is handling the war then please atleast offer a semblence of an alternative to how Bush is running the war.

I think the big problem that people are seeing is that there doesn't seem to be any plan at all. Nothing in the speech really laid out any kind of plan or framework, other than a generic "the bad guys are going to continue to pay the price for 9/11".

Any kind of concrete details about plans going forward are what I think many people would like to see at this point. It seems like this is a project without a project manager, and any resources devoted to the situation are disappearing down a black hole.

I think most people can and would have appreciated a 3 to 5 year plan laid out with certain milestones and checkpoints along the way. As with any kind of project, dates and goals can be revisited and changed if the conditions dictate, and an explanation of why the change was necessary.

Nothing new was given in the speech to make people feel any better about the situation and where it is headed, which is a growing concern for more than 60% of the US population.

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by Arles

I don't really mind the criticism against Bush - as much of it is deserved. But I do get aggitated when all this criticism comes up with no alternatives to how the president is handling it. If you want to rip Bush for WMD, Iraqi-Al Qaeda links, bad Intel on other issues - fine. But if you are going to rip the way he is handling the war then please atleast offer a semblence of an alternative to how Bush is running the war.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! You are now my favorite FOFC'er...well, except for radii of course I get very tired of people saying "I hate bush", "Bush is an idiot", "Bush is a fucking moron", but not saying a) why they think that or b) what they would do differently or c) how they would have handled the country post 9-11 any differently.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

Can anyone actually articulate the policy Harry Reid would like to see implemented regarding Iraq? It's all fine and dandy to talk about "major mid-course corrections" in a broad and general sense. But, what does he mean? Put more US troops in there when the generals haven't asked for them? Pull out more US troops when there are still security issues? Set a date for withdraw so that the insurgents can hide out until then? What, exactly, is Reid advocating the US do?

And what is your solution? The status quo? That obviously is not working. I hate, hate, hate pulling out the V-word, but if the answer is do the same thing because there is no other option, I can't see anything other than a Vietnam-like quagmire. If you blame Reid for having no plan, I blame Bush for not really having one either. Stay with the status quo isn't a plan.

Just saying things are going to get better if we do exactly what we are doing now is not convincing.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cartman

I think the big problem that people are seeing is that there doesn't seem to be any plan at all.

Bingo. Do what we are doing right now for the foreseeable future is not a plan.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

It was stated on the FoxNews broadcast that unlike most Troop visits, the President did not want the speech to be a troop rally and asked that applause be withheld.

So why did the White House advance team try to instigate some applause?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

In the moment when the applause could not be held back, I found it a very powerful moment in the speech.

The Army is in desperate need of experienced soldiers, Dutch. If you feel that strongly, I encourage you to re-enlist.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

Can anyone actually articulate the policy George Bush would like to see implemented regarding Iraq? It's all fine and dandy to talk about "staying the course" in a broad and general sense. But, what does he mean? Put more US troops in there when the generals haven't asked for them? Pull out more US troops when there are still security issues? Avoid setting a date for withdraw? What, exactly, is Bush advocating the US do?

Fixed that for you.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So why did the White House advance team try to instigate some applause?

Im a leaning lefty and even with me your credibility is shot....


Olie, I was for the war, still am and am deeply disappointed by W. Simply because I feel deceived. How would I have handled post 9/11 differently. I wouldnt have included the "axis of evil" part of the SOTU address. I wouldve gone after Osama 100% without holding anything back EVER. I wouldve pressured the UN to put pressure on Saddam. I wouldve initiated the Oil-for-food scandal investigations long before we invaded Iraq and ended diplomacy. I wouldve not said mission accomplished after the war was over. I would make sure that Gonzalez is publicly rebuked when the memo came out about Geneva. I wouldve opened Gitmo to the Red Cross immediately. I wouldve told Pakistan to go into the border region immediately or we will. I wouldve ended NAFTA. I wouldve signed Kyoto. I wouldve been open to the 9/11 commission immediately. I wouldve put Ashcroft all over the person who leaked the CIA agent's name and pressed the maximmum charges possible. I wouldve gone into Iraq when we recover sufficiently from Afghanistan (considering the above doesnt work in getting Saddam out of power) based solely on his guilt of Crimes against humanity. I wouldve sent a few brigades along with NATO troops to Sudan and not shook (admin) that leader's hand at that event. I would make sure that Cheney and Rumsfeld are on the same page. Iw ouldve made sure that the Pentagon did everything above board when dealing with halliburton. I wouldve been damned sure that every single troop brigade and battalion had every bit of ammo and protection before going to Iraq. I wouldve made sure that the post Iraq war planning was as important as the pre iraq war planning. I would not have said anything about terri schiavo. I wouldve pressured Delay to resign. I wouldve continued to put pressure on Kim Jong Il (in the press especially because Il is an ego pig who watches his press incessantly). I would not negotiate with the terrorists in Iraq, I would send MORE troops to IRAQ (keeping the fight there means the terrorists cant come here [in droves]). I would let expire the tax breaks (this is a time of war) and I would increase funding to the VA, veteran benefits, R&D in the military and the GI BILL funding. I would rotate the troops on shorter spurts and I would continue to try to boost morale here and there.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

Thank you, thank you, thank you! You are now my favorite FOFC'er...well, except for radii of course I get very tired of people saying "I hate bush", "Bush is an idiot", "Bush is a fucking moron", but not saying a) why they think that or b) what they would do differently or c) how they would have handled the country post 9-11 any differently.

WHAT?!?! If you're just talking about folks on this board, I reccommend you try doing a search on the word "Bush" and actually take them time to read some of these posts. Or, if you're talking about "people" in general just Google "Bush is an idiot." You'll find plenty of reasons why people think that (they are fucking legion), what people would do differenty, or how people would have handled the country post 9-11 differently. The most obvious response to that last one is "NOT START A WAR IN IRAQ WHILE THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN IS STILL GOING ON."

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And what is your solution? The status quo? That obviously is not working.

What makes you think it isn't working? The Sunnis just agreed to joined in with the Shiites on the writing of the Iraqi constitution - which is a landmark accomplishment. They've already had the first elections, are on track to finish the consitution on schedule and are on track to have elections in December.

I think there's some valid criticism on aspects of how Bush has handled the war, but the process seems to be progressing at a decent pace given the drastic change their people are undergoing.

I hate, hate, hate pulling out the V-word, but if the answer is do the same thing because there is no other option, I can't see anything other than a Vietnam-like quagmire. If you blame Reid for having no plan, I blame Bush for not really having one either. Stay with the status quo isn't a plan.

So, then there's no solution? We can't stay... We can't leave... The current plan doesn't work, but there isn't one any better out there either...

Is this really your stance on Iraq?

Just saying things are going to get better if we do exactly what we are doing now is not convincing.

That's fine. I hope people are somewhat skeptical of our efforts in Iraq. But that doesn't change the fact that progress on getting a government setup is being made at a very quick pace. And, again, if people do not like the "status quo", they need to have some sort of alternative. Otherwise, what's the point?

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Not to mention the fact that in an era with far better technology and ability it's now taken us longer to bring Bin Laden to justice after September 11th than it did for us to bring Germany, Italy, and Japan to justice after Pearl Harbor.

Clearly the comments of a werewolf.

It's a little harder to find one guy in the mountains than a couple of million guys right in front of you.

[Easy Mac]

I just watched Coach Carter, Samuel L. Jackson could so kick Bin Laden's ass.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I thought President Bush did a great job. I'm very proud of him and grateful that he is our President.

And here you see the reason for the speech. Nothing new was announced, and the only occasion meriting a prime time speech was dismal poll numbers. All of the lines are hackneyed by now, this speech could have just as easily been given last year. But, damn if Dutch and Arles don't just eat it up. He'll probably pick up a few points, until a month or two goes by and 40 or 50 more American soldiers are dead.

[JW]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Proof?

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/washin...ist=washington

Excerpt:

The audience of 750 soldiers and airmen in dress uniform listened mostly quietly — as they were asked to do to reflect the somber nature of the speech — only breaking into applause when Bush vowed that the United States "will stay in the fight until the fight is won."

This was also reported on both CNN and Fox News at least once. And 'asked' in military parlance generally means 'told.'

Had they not been told to remain silent, there would have been much more applause from this particular audience. Sorry about that.

As for the report that Bush staffers instigated the only applause, I don't doubt that at all. In presidential politics, few things are spontaneous. After all, I am sure that there are those who were trying to find in the silence, disatisfaction with Bush's speech.

However, in watching the speech, you will find that Bush was not surprised by the lack of applause. He expected it and probably wanted it. He obviously wanted a serious, sober atmosphere, without the cheering and applause. In fact, I would bet the staffers acted without orders when they instigated the applause.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The Army is in desperate need of experienced soldiers, Dutch. If you feel that strongly, I encourage you to re-enlist.

Within the next year, I promise you that will be done.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

And here you see the reason for the speech. Nothing new was announced, and the only occasion meriting a prime time speech was dismal poll numbers. All of the lines are hackneyed by now, this speech could have just as easily been given last year. But, damn if Dutch and Arles don't just eat it up. He'll probably pick up a few points, until a month or two goes by and 40 or 50 more American soldiers are dead.

Our passion and faith in our government really pains you. That truly saddens me.

This section here answers some of the accomplishments of the military and political process and also looks toward the future a bit.

You should probably skim over it. It's not the nuts and bolts you are looking for, but what President's Speech is? This is the 10,000 foot view and that his job to explain that. That's always been the responsability of the President. If you want more detail, watch C-SPAN's Pentagon coverage. The reporters there ask the generals some tough questions and they are all answered.

A little over a year ago, I spoke to the nation and described our coalition's goal in Iraq. I said that America's mission in Iraq is to defeat an enemy and give strength to a friend, a free, representative government that is an ally in the war on terror and a beacon of hope in a part of the world that is desperate for reform. I outlined the steps we would take to achieve this goal: We would hand authority over to a sovereign Iraqi government; we would help Iraqis hold free elections by January 2005; we would continue helping Iraqis rebuild their nation's infrastructure and economy; we would encourage more international support for Iraq's democratic transition; and we would enable Iraqis to take increasing responsibility for their own security and stability.

In the past year, we have made significant progress: One year ago today, we restored sovereignty to the Iraqi people.

In January 2005, more than 8 million Iraqi men and women voted in elections that were free and fair and took place on time.

We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard and rebuilding while at war is even harder. Our progress has been uneven but progress is being made. We are improving roads and schools and health clinics and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.

In the past year, the international community has stepped forward with vital assistance. Some 30 nations have troops in Iraq, and many others are contributing nonmilitary assistance. The United Nations is in Iraq to help Iraqis write a constitution and conduct their next elections. Thus far, some 40 countries and three international organizations have pledged about 34 billion dollars in assistance for Iraqi reconstruction. More than 80 countries and international organizations recently came together in Brussels to coordinate their efforts to help Iraqis provide for their security and rebuild their country. And next month, donor countries will meet in Jordan to support Iraqi reconstruction.

Whatever our differences in the past, the world understands that success in Iraq is critical to the security of all our nations. As German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said at the White House yesterday, "There can be no question a stable and democratic Iraq is in the vested interest of not just Germany, but also Europe."

Finally, we have continued our efforts to equip and train Iraqi security forces. We have made gains in both the number and quality of those forces. Today Iraq has more than 160,000 security forces trained and equipped for a variety of missions. Iraqi forces have fought bravely helping to capture terrorists and insurgents in Najaf, Samarra, Fallujah and Mosul. And in the past month, Iraqi forces have led a major anti-terrorist campaign in Baghdad called Operation Lightning, which has led to the capture of hundreds of suspected insurgents. Like free people everywhere, Iraqis want to be defended by their own countrymen, and we are helping Iraqis assume those duties.

The progress in the past year has been significant and we have a clear path forward. To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents. To complete the mission, we will prevent al-Qaida and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban — a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends. And the best way to complete the mission is to help Iraqis build a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.

So our strategy going forward has both a military track and a political track.

The principal task of our military is to find and defeat the terrorists and that is why we are on the offense. And as we pursue the terrorists, our military is helping to train Iraqi security forces so that they can defend their people and fight the enemy on their own. Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.

We have made progress but we have a lot more work to do. Today Iraqi security forces are at different levels of readiness. Some are capable of taking on the terrorists and insurgents by themselves. A larger number can plan and execute anti-terrorist operations with coalition support. The rest are forming and not yet ready to participate fully in security operations. Our task is to make the Iraqi units fully capable and independent. We are building up Iraqi security forces as quickly as possible, so they can assume the lead in defeating the terrorists and insurgents.

Our coalition is devoting considerable resources and manpower to this critical task. Thousands of coalition troops are involved in the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. NATO is establishing a military academy near Baghdad to train the next generation of Iraqi military leaders, and 17 nations are contributing troops to the NATO training mission. Iraqi army and police are being trained by personnel from Italy, Germany, Ukraine, Turkey, Poland, Romania, Australia and the United Kingdom. Today dozens of nations are working toward a common objective: an Iraq that can defend itself, defeat its enemies and secure its freedom.

To further prepare Iraqi forces to fight the enemy on their own, we are taking three new steps:

First, we are partnering coalition units with Iraqi units. These coalition-Iraqi teams are conducting operations together in the field. These combined operations are giving Iraqis a chance to experience how the most professional armed forces in the world operate in combat.

Second, we are embedding coalition "transition teams" inside Iraqi units. These teams are made up of coalition officers and noncommissioned officers who live, work and fight together with their Iraqi comrades. Under U.S. command, they are providing battlefield advice and assistance to Iraqi forces during combat operations. Between battles, they are assisting the Iraqis with important skills such as urban combat and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance techniques.

Third, we are working with the Iraqi Ministries of Interior and Defense to improve their capabilities to coordinate anti-terrorist operations. We are helping them develop command and control structures. We are also providing them with civilian and military leadership training, so Iraq's new leaders can more effectively manage their forces in the fight against terror.

The new Iraqi security forces are proving their courage every day. More than 2,000 members of the Iraqi security forces have given their lives in the line of duty. Thousands more have stepped forward and are now in training to serve their nation. With each engagement, Iraqi soldiers grow more battle-hardened and their officers grow more experienced. We have learned that Iraqis are courageous and that they need additional skills. That is why a major part of our mission is to train them so they can do the fighting and our troops can come home.

I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I. Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed and not a day longer.

Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don't you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are in fact working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders.

The other critical element of our strategy is to help ensure that the hopes Iraqis expressed at the polls in January are translated into a secure democracy. The Iraqi people are emerging from decades of tyranny and oppression. Under the regime of Saddam Hussein, the Shia and Kurds were brutally oppressed and the vast majority of Sunni Arabs were also denied their basic rights, while senior regime officials enjoyed the privileges of unchecked power. The challenge facing Iraqis today is to put this past behind them and come together to build a new Iraq that includes all its people.

They are doing that by building the institutions of a free society, a society based on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and equal justice under law. The Iraqis have held free elections and established a transitional national assembly. The next step is to write a good constitution that enshrines these freedoms in permanent law. The assembly plans to expand its constitutional drafting committee to include more Sunni Arabs. Many Sunnis who opposed the January elections are now taking part in the democratic process, and that is essential to Iraq's future.

After a constitution is written, the Iraqi people will have a chance to vote on it. If approved, Iraqis will go to the polls again to elect a new government under their new, permanent constitution. By taking these critical steps and meeting their deadlines, Iraqis will bind their multiethnic society together in a democracy that respects the will of the majority and protects minority rights.

As Iraqis grow confident that the democratic progress they are making is real and permanent, more will join the political process. And as Iraqis see that their military can protect them, more will step forward with vital intelligence to help defeat the enemies of a free Iraq. The combination of political and military reform will lay a solid foundation for a free and stable Iraq.

As Iraqis make progress toward a free society, the effects are being felt beyond Iraq's borders. Before our coalition liberated Iraq, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons. Today the leader of Libya has given up his chemical and nuclear weapons programs. Across the broader Middle East, people are claiming their freedom. In the last few months, we have witnessed elections in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon. These elections are inspiring democratic reformers in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Our strategy to defend ourselves and spread freedom is working. The rise of freedom in this vital region will eliminate the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder and make our nation safer.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

What makes you think it isn't working? The Sunnis just agreed to joined in with the Shiites on the writing of the Iraqi constitution - which is a landmark accomplishment. They've already had the first elections, are on track to finish the consitution on schedule and are on track to have elections in December.

And what snag will come up so that those elections have to be postponed. This Constitution was supposed to have been done a while ago. The problem is agreeing to work on the Constitution isn't the same as actually finishing one. There are very large fractures in Iraq and they will not be solved soon, not even by a new Constitution and elections, whenever. There is no end in sight to the insurgency. We say we are progressing and then the next day, another large attack.

How can any government function, even in the best cast scenario of a Constitution and elections, if it can't put down an extremely large rebellion? It's a recipe for disaster.

And what happens if the the Iraqis elect fundamentalist Muslims? That fear has not been properly addressed, IMO. Turkey has had to ban Muslim parties to prevent that. What are we going to do in Iraq?

So, then there's no solution? We can't stay... We can't leave... The current plan doesn't work, but there isn't one any better out there either...

Is this really your stance on Iraq?

More and more it looks like any choice made on Iraq will be bad. We'll have to pick the lesser of two evils, but make no mistake, it will be an evil.

If we are going to stay, we need more troops there, that is for sure. The generals in public say they don't need them because they don't what to criticise their boss, but I'm sure they'd love to have more boots on the ground. Unfortunetly, recruiting is down big time because people don't agree with this war. If we leave now, things may totally implode. The choices are all bad, but we have to have some sort of long term goal other than 'do the same thing'!

I mean when will Iraq be stable enough that they won't totally depend on the US for defense? There needs to be a plan in place so that the US's deployment strategy isn't stay in Iraq for God knows how long.

That's fine. I hope people are somewhat skeptical of our efforts in Iraq. But that doesn't change the fact that progress on getting a government setup is being made at a very quick pace. And, again, if people do not like the "status quo", they need to have some sort of alternative. Otherwise, what's the point?

The point is that people are pissed about the choices, or lack thereof, that are being made. It is enough to be pissed at the status quo. The American people were pissed as the status quo in Vietnam. They didn't offer many alternatives, but it was enough that they thought the entire thing was a clusterfuck. This ain't working, give someone else a try. I think that's good enough of an opinion or 'alternative'.

What, did you really think FDR had his "New Deal" in mind when he ran against Hoover for President? People were pissed with the status quo of the Depression and said that isn't working. We'll entrust someone else and maybe he can come up with something to fix it.

Perhaps in the end, we'll simply have to pull out in great numbers. If people don't support the thing and don't see how we can 'win', then how can we stay with the numbers we have on the ground now?

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Proof?

It wasnt a rally at all it was a presidential speech and NBC News has reported that they have been ordered not to be HooaH. Also if you notice they were all in Class A Uniforms and had to be quiet.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Im a leaning lefty and even with me your credibility is shot....


Olie, I was for the war, still am and am deeply disappointed by W. Simply because I feel deceived. How would I have handled post 9/11 differently. I wouldnt have included the "axis of evil" part of the SOTU address. I wouldve gone after Osama 100% without holding anything back EVER. I wouldve pressured the UN to put pressure on Saddam. I wouldve initiated the Oil-for-food scandal investigations long before we invaded Iraq and ended diplomacy. I wouldve not said mission accomplished after the war was over. I would make sure that Gonzalez is publicly rebuked when the memo came out about Geneva. I wouldve opened Gitmo to the Red Cross immediately. I wouldve told Pakistan to go into the border region immediately or we will. I wouldve ended NAFTA. I wouldve signed Kyoto. I wouldve been open to the 9/11 commission immediately. I wouldve put Ashcroft all over the person who leaked the CIA agent's name and pressed the maximmum charges possible. I wouldve gone into Iraq when we recover sufficiently from Afghanistan (considering the above doesnt work in getting Saddam out of power) based solely on his guilt of Crimes against humanity. I wouldve sent a few brigades along with NATO troops to Sudan and not shook (admin) that leader's hand at that event. I would make sure that Cheney and Rumsfeld are on the same page. Iw ouldve made sure that the Pentagon did everything above board when dealing with halliburton. I wouldve been damned sure that every single troop brigade and battalion had every bit of ammo and protection before going to Iraq. I wouldve made sure that the post Iraq war planning was as important as the pre iraq war planning. I would not have said anything about terri schiavo. I wouldve pressured Delay to resign. I wouldve continued to put pressure on Kim Jong Il (in the press especially because Il is an ego pig who watches his press incessantly). I would not negotiate with the terrorists in Iraq, I would send MORE troops to IRAQ (keeping the fight there means the terrorists cant come here [in droves]). I would let expire the tax breaks (this is a time of war) and I would increase funding to the VA, veteran benefits, R&D in the military and the GI BILL funding. I would rotate the troops on shorter spurts and I would continue to try to boost morale here and there.

Bingo! I would have prefered a 250,00 man task force in and around The Afghan frontier to tighten the noose.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Our passion and faith in our government really pains you.

Correct, I have never been a fan of nationalism.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And what snag will come up so that those elections have to be postponed. This Constitution was supposed to have been done a while ago. The problem is agreeing to work on the Constitution isn't the same as actually finishing one. There are very large fractures in Iraq and they will not be solved soon, not even by a new Constitution and elections, whenever. There is no end in sight to the insurgency. We say we are progressing and then the next day, another large attack.

People said the same about the last elections - and they went through fairly smoothly. It's not going to be easy, but it certainly is doable to get Iraq on the path for self-sufficiency.

How can any government function, even in the best cast scenario of a Constitution and elections, if it can't put down an extremely large rebellion? It's a recipe for disaster.

This is more foreign fighters taking pot shots at US and Iraq forces. Iraq's a big country and removing all the insurgents is a tough job. Still, it's not like there are riots in the streets by Iraqis or civil unrest throughout the country. As long as the Iraqis keep trending more and more towards this new government, the insurgency will start to die out. The US could also do a better job on the Syrian border.

And what happens if the the Iraqis elect fundamentalist Muslims? That fear has not been properly addressed, IMO.

Because it's always a possibility. But, they didn't do so in their first set of elections and don't seem to be promoting any Baathists or fundamentalists for the December election. So, this fear is becoming more and more of a longshot. The people elected may not be Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, but they won't be Bin Laden or Zirquawi either.

More and more it looks like any choice made on Iraq will be bad. We'll have to pick the lesser of two evils, but make no mistake, it will be an evil.

I don't think the situation is that dire. It's certainly still difficult, but the progress made with both the Sunnis and Shiites, not to mention the fact that the insurgency is becoming more foreign based and less Iraqi-based. There's going to be a point where the Iraqi government will be represented by enough elected Iraqis that the insurgents will start becoming serious nuisances to all Iraqis. Right now, much of the power still rests with the US and the Iraqis aren't running the show.

If we are going to stay, we need more troops there, that is for sure. The generals in public say they don't need them because they don't what to criticise their boss

Yeah, that's how generals act. Bush asks them in private meetings if they want more troops on the ground. They do, but don't want to piss him off so they leave an inferior fighting force out there as to not piss off the president.

Perhaps, the generals don't want more troops because more troops isn't the answer...

Unfortunetly, recruiting is down big time because people don't agree with this war. If we leave now, things may totally implode. The choices are all bad, but we have to have some sort of long term goal other than 'do the same thing'!

I don't think more troops will help all that much. It's not like this insurgency is a bunch of Iraqis with torches storming Baghdad. It's small 5-10 man groups making targeted attacks on civilians and (mostly Iraqi) security targets. More US troops doesn't help that. What we need is more Iraqis being trained and sent out to help find these insurgents and fewer kids from Oklahoma trying to determine which 2 of the 10 guys that all look the same to them are insurgents. And, this training of Iraqis is Bush's main goal and it's been progressing a little better (after a slow start in 04).

I mean when will Iraq be stable enough that they won't totally depend on the US for defense? There needs to be a plan in place so that the US's deployment strategy isn't stay in Iraq for God knows how long.

It all depends on when Iraqis get to a point of being able to defend themselves. That could take 6 months, a year or multiple years. Setting some arbritrary date right now won't change that. I think that we will start pulling troops out in early 06, but I don't think we should say that (even if it is true). Any sort of time-limit gives the insurgents a goal to hold out for.

The point is that people are pissed about the choices, or lack thereof, that are being made. It is enough to be pissed at the status quo. The American people were pissed as the status quo in Vietnam. They didn't offer many alternatives, but it was enough that they thought the entire thing was a clusterfuck. This ain't working, give someone else a try. I think that's good enough of an opinion or 'alternative'.

Vietnam was a clusterfuck because it was an impossible war to get a handle on. Elections, constitutions, interim governments and the ouster of the regime was never even broached as an option, let alone accomplished. The situation in Iraq has more in common with the US in the 1700s than Vietnam.

Perhaps in the end, we'll simply have to pull out in great numbers. If people don't support the thing and don't see how we can 'win', then how can we stay with the numbers we have on the ground now?

I think all we need is a little resolve to continue training Iraqis and helping them setup their government over the next year or two. I don't know that we will be able to pull out after that, but I think we will atleast have a better idea of what we are dealing with and whether or not the Iraqis can start taking control over major portions of Iraq's security. I think they will, but time will tell.

I'm not thrilled to see US soliders and Iraqis dying over there, but I think the benefits of a legitimate "friend" to the US in the Middle East (outside of Israel) will do great damage to long term terrorism in the Middle East.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Correct, I have never been a fan of nationalism.

Well, let's all thank God you weren't born in Iran.

[ISiddiqui]

This is more foreign fighters taking pot shots at US and Iraq forces. Iraq's a big country and removing all the insurgents is a tough job. Still, it's not like there are riots in the streets by Iraqis or civil unrest throughout the country. As long as the Iraqis keep trending more and more towards this new government, the insurgency will start to die out. The US could also do a better job on the Syrian border.

Doubt this greatly. It is still a large number of Iraqis here. It is easy to blame this on 'foriegn troops', but a substantial part of this insurgency are Iraqi nationalists (non fundies). There is violence daily. Hell, if it is only foriegn troops, there are a Hell of a lot of foriegn troops in the area, who have support of the populace (allowing them to carry out their actions).

If it is going so well, why are the poll numbers in support of the war so damned low? People have lost faith in the war, seen the lies, realized progress is slow to non-existant.

Because it's always a possibility. But, they didn't do so in their first set of elections and don't seem to be promoting any Baathists or fundamentalists for the December election.

Large blocks of Iraqi groups boycotted the elections. IF the government starts to succeed, you can see those groups re-enter the fray. Remember, the most popular Iraqi leader is Sistani. Not exactly a secular man.

It's certainly still difficult, but the progress made with both the Sunnis and Shiites

Until a controversy arises that splits the groups again and then they have to start from ground zero.

Perhaps, the generals don't want more troops because more troops isn't the answer...

You have a nation-wide insurgency and generals are turning away more troops?!

Please. There is a reason that the army is asking for more troops, but recruiters are having a crisis even meeting the old totals. Why did it take so long for National Guardsmen to get back home if so many troops weren't needed?

How many times do we hear the army has a hold on the insurgency when an even bigger attack occurs?

What we need is more Iraqis being trained and sent out to help find these insurgents and fewer kids from Oklahoma trying to determine which 2 of the 10 guys that all look the same to them are insurgents. And, this training of Iraqis is Bush's main goal and it's been progressing a little better

The key word is little. They are still entirely unable to deal with anything and won't be for years. Are we prepared to stay until they can show competance? Furthermore if it was so easy for Iraqi troops to identify insurgents from general populace, don't you think attacks would have gone down as more people join the Iraqi force they are trying to build?

It all depends on when Iraqis get to a point of being able to defend themselves. That could take 6 months, a year or multiple years. Setting some arbritrary date right now won't change that. I think that we will start pulling troops out in early 06, but I don't think we should say that (even if it is true). Any sort of time-limit gives the insurgents a goal to hold out for.

It'll be multiple years. Are we prepared to keep the same troop numbers in there for 5-10 years or so? As for giving the insurgents a 'goal', don't you think they realize the US isn't going to be there forever? Furthermore, the nationalists' main goal is getting us out, really.

The situation in Iraq has more in common with the US in the 1700s than Vietnam.

Only if we are the British in the early 1700s. Or in the late 1700s, if France stayed on after the war and was the one leading us around.

I think all we need is a little resolve to continue training Iraqis and helping them setup their government over the next year or two. I don't know that we will be able to pull out after that, but I think we will atleast have a better idea of what we are dealing with and whether or not the Iraqis can start taking control over major portions of Iraq's security. I think they will, but time will tell.

Time will tell? That's the problem! How many times have we heard when X happens things will get better, when Y happens things will go good. But it doesn't happen the way we think and the rosy projections are dashed. We were supposed to have a better idea after the original elections, but we still got no clue.

I think the benefits of a legitimate "friend" to the US in the Middle East (outside of Israel) will do great damage to long term terrorism in the Middle East.

I'm not sure about 'friend', and the longer we stay, the more the population may simply turn on us. Great numbers want us to leave already and let them run themselves (ie, Sistani's flock).

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

There is violence daily. Hell, if it is only foriegn troops, there are a Hell of a lot of foriegn troops in the area

According to John Abizaid, there are more foreign fighters making up the insurgency.

who have support of the populace (allowing them to carry out their actions).

More like fear by the populace of being killed. There have been instances where families have slaughtered by insurgent groups when they have turned in enemy fighters. That does a lot to quell the Intel we get.

If it is going so well, why are the poll numbers in support of the war so damned low? People have lost faith in the war, seen the lies, realized progress is slow to non-existant.

Because people are tiring of it. Everyday they are told about new attacks and more deaths in Iraq - that takes a toll. We also haven't been attacked by terrorists in over three years. The fear of terrorism is becoming less and less of an issue to average Americans - so it makes sense that support this war would wane.

Large blocks of Iraqi groups boycotted the elections.

The same groups that agreed last week to join the creation process for the constitution.

You have a nation-wide insurgency and generals are turning away more troops?!

Look at the nature of these attacks. They are successful because they are quick hits and hide. Intelligence (from Iraqis) is what it needed to stop them, not more troops to act as additional standing targets.

Please. There is a reason that the army is asking for more troops, but recruiters are having a crisis even meeting the old totals.

Yeah, it's because we have a couple hundred thousand troops in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we need more there. It just means we need more people to replace what they were doing before the war.

Why did it take so long for National Guardsmen to get back home if so many troops weren't needed?

I am not following your argument. I'm not saying a lot of troops aren't needed in Iraq. Heck, we have a lot there now. What I am saying is that it makes sense to me to hear generals say more troops on ground in Iraq won't solve the insurgency issue. The problem isn't that we don't have enough troops to do missions to kill insurgents. The problem is we don't have enough intel on the location of the insurgents with which to send out troops on missions.

The key word is little. They are still entirely unable to deal with anything and won't be for years. Are we prepared to stay until they can show competance?

I think so. They've only been in serious training for a little over a year. I think it's reasonable to expect this process to take a little longer.

Furthermore if it was so easy for Iraqi troops to identify insurgents from general populace, don't you think attacks would have gone down as more people join the Iraqi force they are trying to build?

Not necessarily. More Iraqi troops means more targets. I think it is starting to limit where the insurgents can hide out, but that won't necessarily translate to fewer attacks.

It'll be multiple years. Are we prepared to keep the same troop numbers in there for 5-10 years or so?

Why don't we agree to do it for another 2 years then re-evaluate our progress instead of panicking when we haven't seen what the Iraqis can handle.

As for giving the insurgents a 'goal', don't you think they realize the US isn't going to be there forever?

But realizing we won't be there forever is not the same as knowing we will be out on March 10, 2006 or some such date. Numerous years is a long time to wait, 2006 isn't.

Time will tell? That's the problem! How many times have we heard when X happens things will get better, when Y happens things will go good. But it doesn't happen the way we think and the rosy projections are dashed. We were supposed to have a better idea after the original elections, but we still got no clue.

We have hit every major benchmark in the past year (including elections) and are on pace for the constitution and elections in December. All this stuff needs to happen (as well as the buildup of Iraqi forces) before we will know where we really are and how much Iraqis are willing to take over.

Right now, we run the show and Iraqis are dying under our leadership. It makes sense that there is some concern over the US presence. We'll see how that changes when Iraqis have their own laws, government and political system and we are the "France in the 1700s" just helping out. There's good chance things will change then.

[sovereignstar]

I don't think the word 'president' should be capitalized unless it precedes his actual name.

Thanks,
God