About one thing, at least! Here are the first two lines from last night's speech:
"In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people. We are now at such a moment."
Of course if you go any further into the speech I disagree with him on just about everything else. Take, for example, the very next 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.
The problem here is that extremists aren't working to topple Iraq's government. Some of them are, sure, but even our own government admits they are a tiny minority. The majority are actually fighting to control Iraq's government. And that makes for a world of difference, particularly because it calls into question Bush's conclusion. Those who threaten the future of the Iraqi government threaten the future of America? Really? Seriously? The struggle for control of Iraq is an existential threat to American civilization? I've heard of oversimplifications, but this really is ridiculous.
Fortunately, even the pro-war NYT seems to understand this:
The White House insisted that President Bush had consulted intensively with his generals and adapted to changing circumstances. But no amount of smoke could obscure the truth: Mr. Bush has no strategy to end his disastrous war and no strategy for containing the chaos he unleashed.
Last night’s speech could have been given any day in the last four years — and was delivered a half-dozen times already. Despite Mr. Bush’s claim that he was offering a way for all Americans to “come together” on Iraq, he offered the same divisive policies — repackaged this time with the Orwellian slogan “return on success.”Mr. Bush’s claim that things were going so well in Iraq that he could “accept” his generals’ recommendation for a “drawdown” of forces was a carnival barker’s come-on. The Army cannot sustain the 30,000 extra troops Mr. Bush sent to Iraq beyond mid-2008 without serious damage to its fighting ability. From the start, the president said that the increase would be temporary. That’s why he called it a “surge.”
...Mr. Bush was clear last night — as he was when he addressed the nation in January, September of last year, the December before that and in April 2004 — that his only real plan is to confuse enough Americans and cow enough members of Congress to let him muddle along and saddle his successor with this war that should never have been started.
Fred Kaplan, Hilzoy, and Publius have much more for those who so desire.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
