(I am going to do this in parts).
The NYT has the text of the speech as prepared here: Text of the President’s Address.
Some comments from me interspersed within some of the text of the speech.
From the third paragraph:
In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq’s government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home. If Iraq’s young democracy can turn back these enemies, it will mean a more hopeful Middle East and a more secure America. This ally has placed its trust in the United States. And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours.
This paragraph underscores part of my problem with the speech and with the President’s ongoing approach to this situation. First, one reading/hearing this paragraph would get the impression that the violence and problems in Iraq are all about terrorists and extremists (which translates into a finger pointed at al Qaeda) and ignores (or, at least obfuscates) the fact that much of the violence has been, and will continue to be, about sectarian splits in Iraqi society. Second, it is wholly disingenuous to assert that Iraq has a “young democracy” when, in fact, there is no functional state in Iraq at the moment.
The next paragraph:
Eight months ago, we adopted a new strategy to meet that objective, including a surge in U.S. forces that reached full strength in June. This week, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress about how that strategy is progressing. In their testimony, these men made clear that our challenge in Iraq is formidable. Yet they concluded that conditions in Iraq are improving, that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy, and that the troop surge is working.
The problem is that this focuses solely on security gains, and wholly ignores that the point of the surge was to allow the Iraqis the time needed for political reconciliation and state building. However, that hasn’t happened. As such, it is difficult to take this assessment seriously, as it clearly ignores the original reason for the surge in the first place. It is classic goal-post moving for political purposes.
Sphere: Related Content
September 14th, 2007 at 10:55 am
[...] Other Opinions from Across the Political Spectrum: Washington Post, Captain’s Quarters, The Newshoggers, On Deadline, Associated Press, Don Surber, Jules Crittenden, Shakespeare’s Sister, Guardian, The Politico, At-Largely, Flopping Aces, Yahoo! News, CNN, About.com U.S. Politics, Truthdig, Obama’08, The Gavel, AlterNet.org, ABCNEWS, Pottersville, Fox News, Salon, Hot Air, Democrats.senate.gov, DownWithTyranny!, The Van Der Galiën Gazette, The Moderate Voice, Los Angeles Times, Right Wing Nut House, The Democratic Daily, PoliBlog (TM), Taylor Marsh, The Reaction and Comments From Left Field [...]
September 14th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
It is classic goal-post moving for political purposes.
Or, more aptly, indicative of the quarterback taking a knee in order to run out the clock at the end of the game. Of course, usually it is the WINNING team that does that–not the losing team embodied by Bush.
Winning quarterbacks usually make serious attempts to gain ground on the opposition. Bush shows no such fortitude.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:23 am
[...] Via the CSM, we get a piece that fits into why I keep harping on the notion that we need a realistic assessment of the situation from Iraq and why it is hard to take President Bush’s rosy assessments seriously: Basra: After the British the violence and fear in Basra takes place mostly outside the sphere of Sunni-Shiite killings. Al Qaeda is not a factor. Basra is a predominately Shiite city, yet it is still imbued with fear of kidnappings, assassinations, and being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. This instability reveals that the violence in Iraq is not only sectarian or the result of insurgent activity, but is also caused by deep-seated political and tribal rivalries and an intense scramble for power. [...]