Bush’s speech and first reactions

I just watched the President’s speech. The content had just about all been strategically “leaked” to various media before hand, so there wasn’t much new to hear. (I’m just waiting for the White House to put the text up on their website.)
Bush looked nervous, and as if he was trying too hard to be “sincere.” At points, he had a very high blink rate.
Afterwards, I saw Sen. Dick Durbin, Democratic of Illinois, who’s the Assistant Majority Leader of the Senate, give the Dems’ response. He looked much more self-confident, and confident that he understood what he was talking about… And what he talked about was the need for a “responsible disengagement.”
Now, I’m just listening to our new Senator from here in Virginia Jim Webb (Dem.) He started a little unconvincing but has become stronger. He just stated very forcefully “We have to recognize there will never be a true peace in Iraq so long as there are American combat troops on the streets of the country.” He also said he would not vote any more money for reconstruction in Iraq so long as the problems in New Orleans haven’t been properly addressed.
Webb is also speaking v. strongly to the need to have a regional diplomatic approach.
… Now, they’ve gone to having two very old white “security guys” talking about it: Retired assistant commandant of the Marine Corps Bernard Trainor and long-time-ago head of the National Security Agency Bill Odom. Both are strongly dismissive of the Prez’s approach. I just heard Odom talking about how it’s time for the US to go back to pursuing stability in the region… Also, he said that announcing a plan for the orderly withdrawal of the US troops would catalyze the neighbors into cooperating on a regional stabilization plan… which I tend to agree with.
Trainor and Webb both said things that looked like Iraqi PM Maliki was being set up for failure by the Prez’s plan. (Webb looked as though he in effect supported that part of the approach; Trainor as if he was worried by it.)
There was also a republican senator, John Thune of S. Dakota, and a rightwing NYT columnist called David Brooks talking. brooks expressed some quite strong criticisms of Bush’s plan, and even Thune expressed so,me reservations about parts of it– though overall, he was supportive.
Well, still no text on the White House site. I’ll post this. You can all carry on the discussion.

    Update, Thurs. a.m. It’s been pointed out to me that the term “very old white ‘security guys'” is ageist and racist. After a moment’s reflection, I quite agree, and apologize for having used it. The age and skin color of these two people is not material. I guess what I was trying to convey by “very old” was rather that these are two very experienced people. Moreover, they’re people of fairly conservative mien. It is better to describe them as something like “paleo-conservatives who are experienced strategic analysts.”
    It is particularly important, right now, not to demean the paleocons, who are playing an important role in undermining the political support for the military adventurism of their “neo” contenders for the conservative mantle. Also, as I’ve noted previously, many paleocons have contributed important and original insights to the national discussion over Iraq.
    Finally, here is the text of the speech from the White House. And here are some Power Point slides titled “Highlights of the Iraq Strategy Review” that were apparently released to the media by White House staffers sometime before Bush made the speech.

26 thoughts on “Bush’s speech and first reactions”

  2. There was a very significant part of the speech that Keith Olbermann (MSNBC) jumped on: Bush’s threats against Iran and Syria that seemed completely out of place in the speech. I think this is the most important thing for influential people such as you to seize upon. I doubt we’ll be able to stop the escalation in Iraq, but we may be able to stop a war with Iran. I’m about to write Senator Webb to urge him to introduce a Senate bill or amendment mandating that no funds may be spent for an American attack on Iran (or Syria) without prior Congressional approval. I think he is one of the few Senators who might actually do such a thing, and I urge others to do the same.
    The threat is very real.

  3. “rightwing NYT columnist called David Brooks”
    David Brooks is what USED to be rightwing. Now he’s middle of the road. Actually, the guy is pretty intelligent and not a total ideologue. I often agree with about the first 2/3 of his columns, but then he always loses me at the end.

  4. Whenever I hear our erstwhile Congressional representatives moaning like Bloviatin’ Joe Biden that they can do nothing about a berserk president careening out of control on his way to Armageddon, I think of this poem I wrote two years ago that I could just as well have written yesterday. Hence, “America the Dutiful,” which I offer with deepest apologies to the memory of my friends and high school classmates who perished in Southeast Asia only so that I could live to see their countrymen discard without a whimper the treasure that they thought they had bequeathed to us through the sacrifice of their own young lives:
    http://themisfortuneteller.blogspot.com/2007/01/america-dutiful.html
    Now I know why the civil war veteran Ambrose Bierce wrote in his Devil’s Dictionary:
    “Patriot. n. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.”
    “Patriotism. n. Combustible rubbish ready to the torch of any man ambitious to illuminate his name.”
    I’d say that I can’t believe what I see happening right now; but since I’ve already seen it before, I guess that rules out denial as a psychological defense mechanism. My, what the self-styled “patriots” have made of “patriotism” — again.

  5. These are the only lines of the speech that will be remembered in 6 months. All the other gobbledygook about Baghdad’s 9 districts and 18 brigades, and billions more to embezzle in the name of reconstruction, will be forgotten. Anyone who has sat at a poker table has heard this many times from the guy who keeps losing: “Double, or nothing!”
    “… stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”
    “We’re also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.”
    “We will use America’s full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that …”

  6. Michael,
    Since you are doing definitions, I thought you’d like this. One of the APA definitions of delusion is “A fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual facts, despite irrefutable and widely accepted logical evidence to the contrary”. Sound familiar?
    Cheers

  8. “We’re also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq”
    I always love to hear this kind of concern about the security of Iraq coming from the president who launched a massively violent, deadly and destructive war of pure aggression that has resulted in a four-year (and counting) even more massively violent, deadly and destructive occupation. How long will it be before we start hearing about how he will also take steps to protect Iraq’s sovereignty?

  10. “. Dick Durbin, Democratic of Illinois, who’s the Assistant Majority Leader of the Senate, …….. the need for a “responsible disengagement.” ”
    “Retired assistant commandant of the Marine Corps Bernard Trainor and long-time-ago head of the National Security Agency Bill Odom. Both are strongly dismissive of the Prez’s approach”
    “There was also a republican senator, John Thune of S. Dakota, and a rightwing NYT columnist called David Brooks talking. brooks expressed some quite strong criticisms of Bush’s plan, and even Thune expressed so,me reservations about parts of it”
    In the UK Telegraph (generally a warmongering rag these days, and currently making a serious push to encourage a confrontation with Iran) today, their US correspondent Toby Harnden summarised US press response as follows:
    “Leading American newspapers were distinctly cool about the speech.
    “It envisions new missions and dangers for U.S. troops and counts on unprecedented military and political steps by the Iraqi government,” said today’s Washington Post. “The plan is likely to cause a spike in U.S. casualties, while the chances that it will stabilise Iraq are far lower.”
    The New York Times was even less convinced.
    “Americans needed to hear a clear plan to extricate United States troops from the disaster that Mr. Bush created,” it stated caustically. “What they got was more gauzy talk of victory in the war on terrorism and of creating a “young democracy” in Iraq. In other words, a way for this president to run out the clock and leave his mess for the next one.””
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=LCNK234L1BCGBQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/01/11/wiraq111.xml
    As a foreign observer of US politics, I am reminded of a piece by John Walsh in Counterpunch last week:
    Clash of the Elites (Beltway Insiders Versus Neo-Cons)
    http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh01052007.html
    “A titanic power struggle is being waged within the policy elite or power elite, or more simply the U.S. ruling class. The clash is taking place over the war on Iraq, U.S. policy toward Israel–and ultimately over the best way to run the U.S. empire.”
    I imagine remarkable things could happen very quickly in Washington if and when this struggle gets resolved (resignations, impeachments, abrupt policy changes).
    One would imagine that any change in Washington can only be for the better, but then again that’s what I thought when Clinton was in power….

  11. Perhaps it is worth restating that 21,500 is not merely not much of a surge, but also one can ask whether it is a surge at all. The number will only bring the total of US troops in Iraq back up to the same figure as were there during the Iraqi elections in 2005.
    See the graph in:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-2541498,00.html
    It could be true that there will be a higher proportion of combat troops in the 160,000 than there were in 2005. The proportion of combat troops is of course in fact very low (somebody has the figures?), and small changes can make quite a difference.
    So is the real meaning of the speech simply the announcement of a new campaign to clear Baghdad, and a violent policy towards the militias?

  12. John C
    You commnetedon another post
    We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.”
    IMHO, this is a declaration of war on Iran. Other opinions?
    this in itself is not an act of war.
    However troops entering diplomatic and consular premises is moving very much in that direction.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6251167.stm
    (if you go sweet suffering F***! when you read it you are not alone)
    I think it is the Vienna convention that defines the rights and obligations of states regarding diplomatic premises, but my knwledge on international law is sketchy in places.

  13. I’ve been trying to highlight the threat to Iran ever since I first wrote at this blog last year that the US was considering an attack. Then I was told that this threat was nonsensical. Then came Lebanon and the attempt by Israel to do away with those ketyusha rockets and neutralize Hizbullah.
    I got tired of sounding like Cassandra. Then Bush assigned an admiral to head up Centcom. While dealing with other issues, I haven’t had time to document the signs that Bush-Cheney indeed have their sights set on Iran.
    Glenn Greenwald has done an excellent job of binding together the tell-tale signs of an impending escalation of threats towards Iran. What Greenwald leaves out is the strategy. These actions that he documents–I believe–are meant to create conditions in which Iran is meant to do something that will “justify” a US attack.

  14. troops entering diplomatic and consular premises is moving very much in that direction…[an act of war]… I think it is the Vienna convention that defines the rights and obligations of states regarding diplomatic premises…
    seem to recall there was such a situation in Teheran in 1979…your thoughts?

  15. Hi Truesdell Happy New Year
    Indeed. didn’t a bunch of Admirals get sacked for leaving helicopters and C130s in flames all over the Iranian desert.
    Of course it was students in Teheran in 1979. This time it was uniformed troops which are more difficult to explain away.

  16. The wording of the Appeal for Redress is short and simple. It is patriotic and respectful in tone.
    As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq . Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home.

  18. “Asked by a reporter if there would be more raids like the one this morning, the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, speaking alongside General Pace, said the United States has warned Syria and Iran not to destabilize the Iraqi government.
    “But we leave to those who deal with issues of force protection how these raids are going to be taken out,” she said. “I think you’ve got an indication of that in what has been happening, which is, the networks are identified, they are identified through good intelligence. They are then acted upon.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/world/middleeast/11cnd-raid.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

  20. Of course it was students in Teheran in 1979. This time it was uniformed troops which are more difficult to explain away.
    ah, distinctions.
    Do you think that the number of Iranian diplomatic hostages will be comparable? Do you think that their confinement period will be comparable. Do you think that surrounding conditions in Teheran in 1979 were comparable to Iraq in 2007?
    and, yes, a very happy and peaceful New Year to you too…and to all my fellow posters.

  21. “seem to recall there was such a situation in Teheran in 1979…”
    Really? Foreign troops occupying sovereign Iran by force actually raided the embassy of a third country? Wow! How did they get away with THAT?!

  23. “It is particularly important, right now, not to demean the paleocons, who are playing an important role in undermining the political support for the military adventurism of their “neo” contenders for the conservative mantle. Also, as I’ve noted previously, many paleocons have contributed important and original insights to the national discussion over Iraq.
    ”
    Actually, the world owes a big apology to the paleocons, in my opinion.
    The only philosophy, aside from pukka pacifism, that can really reduce warfare is non-intervention – the paleocons’ default position on international affairs. It is wilfully and disingenuously mischaracterised as “isolationism” by its oppponents. If it were more influential there would be much less warfare.
    The left wages aggressive war for supposedly “humanitarian” or politically “enlightened” purposes, the non-paleo right wages war for national or cultural supremacist purposes, or out of paranoia. The establishment is happy to reap the benefits of any successful war, as long as its own position is not threatened. All three groups are routinely manipulated into wars by interested parties who frame the cause so as to appeal to them.
    The best possible world, in my personal opinion, would be one in which the default popular position is non-intervention, and politicians and others who try to agitate for elective warfare are regarded with the greatest suspicion.
    Better hope for a resurgence of paleoconservatism, if you want war reserved for genuinely defensive purposes (and that doesn’t mean Bush’s mendacious doctrine of supposedly preventive war, either).

  26. How about giving a speeding ticket to the Mogamigawa’s captain? After all, he was turning faster than customary, and endangering lives; that constitutes reckless sailing.

Comments are closed.