The Presidential Address
Dec. 19th, 2005 04:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenI was looking forward to the analysis, but there's not much I've found thus far. Mostly, I wanted to get a verification of his numbers used in the speech. As ever, the politicians and their spinners use numbers to hide the reality of a situation. When Bush says so-and-so many battalions of Iraqis are able to 'take the lead,' the definition encompasses those that are able to do so with American troop support. That is not indepedence yet, Mister Prez.
There's also the "7 in 10 Iraqis say they are a-ok and 2/3 are thinking there's a bright future ahead." This is verbatim from a news poll....a news poll that also mentions 54% of Iraqis thinking they were better off with Saddam; 50% saying the US had no right to invade in the first place; and (coincidence? I think not...) 2/3 who are opposed to continue troop presence in their country. You pick and choose the numbers you want, you can tell a story you think the voters want to hear.
There is some speculation that Bush will drop some good-news bombshell in 2006, probably with the State of the Union. After last night, I'm not sure I can stomach two hours of that man. He really annoys the ever-living piss out of me. He's smug when he has no right to be, or at least he appears smug--does anyone else notice how he always seems to be fighting a smile when his lips naturally turn down at the corners? What's up with that?
Oh yeah, his speech really pissed off my roomie. She objects to being told that because she doesn't support Bush that she must therefore think we have to leave Iraq. I wonder why?
In case you want it, the text of the speech (interspersed with a recap of our comments last night) is below the LJ cut. STupid Bush, cutting into my Family Guy time!
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Three days ago, in large numbers, Iraqis went to the polls to choose their own leaders -- a landmark day in the history of liberty. In the coming weeks, the ballots will be counted, a new government formed, and a people who suffered in tyranny for so long will become full members of the free world. (Okay, is it just me, or is this about the fourth or fifth time they've voted or what? I swear, if I see another Iraqi with a purple fucking finger, I'm gonna hurl.)
This election will not mean the end of violence. But it is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East. And this vote -- 6,000 miles away, in a vital region of the world -- means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror. (Right, because those people fighting us and keeping us in Iraq, they're just mirages, really. And they're not Iraqi, no sir.)
All who had a part in this achievement -- Iraqis, and Americans and our coalition partners -- can be proud. Yet our work is not done. There is more testing and sacrifice before us. I know many Americans have questions about the cost and direction of this war. So tonight I want to talk to you about how far we have come in Iraq, and the path that lies ahead. (Read: I am going to say the 17-minute verbal equivalent up a 'thumbs up' and not give any more detail than you would have gotten from that gesture.)
From this office, nearly three years ago, I announced the start of military operations in Iraq. Our coalition confronted a regime that defied United Nations Security Council resolutions, violated a cease-fire agreement, sponsored terrorism, and possessed, we believed, weapons of mass destruction. After the swift fall of Baghdad, we found mass graves filled by a dictator; we found some capacity to restart programs to produce weapons of mass destruction, but we did not find those weapons. (Hate to say I told you sooooooooo...Lisa: And never mind that we have the WMDs and the capability to make more and a guy in charge who doesn't listen to his critics, we're the good guys!)
It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. (Read: Us and Britain, but that's only because we told Britain to tell us that he did, so just us, basically.) But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. (Notice how I am still not apologizing for being wrong and getting thousands killed as a result.) Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
He was given an ultimatum -- and he made his choice for war. And the result of that war was to rid a -- the world of a murderous dictator who menaced his people, invaded his neighbors, and declared America to be his enemy. (What an ingrate! We put him in charge in the 80s to scare Iran, and this is the thanks we get? On a side note, how awesome is it that this transcript included that verbal fumble?) Saddam Hussein, captured and jailed, is still the same raging tyrant -- only now without a throne. His power to harm a single man, woman, or child is gone forever. And the world is better for it. (Half of his country disagrees. Does that tell you how 'well' the war effort is going--that an awful, abusive, clearly power-hungry tyrant is preferable to US intervention?)
Since the removal of Saddam, this war, like other wars in our history, has been difficult. The mission of American troops in urban raids and desert patrols, fighting Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists, has brought danger and suffering and loss. This loss has caused sorrow for our whole nation -- and it has led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we're solving.
That is an important question, (And I might dance around it, but I sure as heck am not going to answer it) and the answer depends on your view of the war on terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone. (This is, of course, a very clever bit of doubletalk. You cannot agree that that is so, and yet would terrorists hate us if we stopped interfering in the middle east? It's very tempting to say yes, and, to a degree, they might. Our arrogance is half their problem with us. On the other hand, we'd be abandoning our ally, Israel, to the wolves. Some might have a problem with that.)
This is not the threat I see. I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims -- a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed. (Please compare and contrast this to the current state of affairs in the US: books mentioning gays or evolution are being challenged and, in some cases, removed from classrooms; women's reproductive rights are being progressively eroded on the state level and may destroyed at the federal level with the current Supreme Court; any media outlet that dared to question the Bush Administration was branded as 'liberal' media, press passes for known Bush antogonistic reporters were revoked, and fake reporters were hired to promote Bush propaganda using federal funds. Yes, this is completely un-American, but enough about us, we were talking about the oooooooh, eeeeeeeeeevil regimes abroad!) Terrorist operatives conduct their campaign of murder with a set of declared and specific goals -- to de-moralize free nations, to drive us out of the Middle East, to spread an empire of fear across that region, and to wage a perpetual war against America and our friends. These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield -- and they seek to attack us wherever they can. This has attracted al Qaeda to Iraq, where they are attempting to frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat. (You just know Al Qaeda doesn't even have to hide themselves in Iraq; it's such a mish-mash of chaos, they can probably hold regular meetings, like boy/girl scouts for terrorists. And wow, did he just admit they were attracted to Iraq after we got there, THUS INVALIDATING THE IRAQ-AL QAEDA CONNECTION THEY FORGED TO MAKE THIS WAR HAPPEN!? Oh, he never says, so maybe not.)
At this point, I'd like to take a break and mention the following things:
--Bush has not yet mentioned, nor will he, what, if anything, he is doing to track down the real perpetrators of the 9/11, 3/11, and 7/7 terrorist attacks.
--He has not described the methods that have been increasingly questioned by reasonable people to get the intelligence/results he wants in Iraq
--He has not referred, nor will he, to any of the following: Abu Gharib, Guantanamo Bay, the NSA wire taps without warrants, or even Osama bin Laden.
The terrorists do not merely object to American actions in Iraq and elsewhere, they object to our deepest values and our way of life. And if we were not fighting them in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Southeast Asia, and in other places, the terrorists would not be peaceful citizens, they would be on the offense, and headed our way.
September the 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, (Which does not explain Republican nonchalance regarding global warming, rising numbers of our own citizens without health care coverage, the growing gap between rich and poor and the vanishing middle class, or the dwindling numbers of jobs available in this country for skilled workers) and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them. (The first of many assumptions that Americans are, on the whole, more ignorant than their President. This is not so. No one in their right or wrong mind makes an assumption as stupid as that. If they only attacked us when we attacked them, they would enemy soldiers/combatants/forces, not terrorists. Terrorists by definition use the threat of lethal, UNPROVOKED attack to scare others into giving them what they want. Your condescention to us has not gone unnoticed, Mr. Bush.) On that day, we were not in Iraq, we were not in Afghanistan, but the terrorists attacked us anyway -- and killed nearly 3,000 men, women, and children in our own country. My conviction comes down to this: We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. (Despite data that says we do, you keep insisting this. Newsflash: when we attack a sovereign nation with ways alien--for the most part--from our own, in the name of fighting terrorism, we do, in fact, create terrorists out of citizens who previously never even bothered about us.) We invite terrorism by ignoring them. (This may be the first--and last--thing we agree on.) And we will defeat the terrorists by capturing and killing them abroad, removing their safe havens, and strengthening new allies like Iraq and Afghanistan in the fight we share.
The work in Iraq has been especially difficult -- more difficult than we expected. (CORRECTION: More difficult than YOU expected. We'll forgive you for that because, aside from your first Secretary of State, neither you nor any one you look to for recommendations on the war outside of the Pentagon has had any military experience. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with war should have known better than to assume it was the cakewalk you expected. Then again, anyone with half a brain should have realized you were a lying sonuvabitch with that "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" bullshit.) Reconstruction efforts and the training of Iraqi security forces started more slowly than we hoped. We continue to see violence and suffering, caused by an enemy that is determined and brutal, unconstrained by conscience or the rules of war. (There is no friendly fire, no bombs accidentally dropped on civilian locations. The Red Cross has never heard of any of those things, nope.)
Some look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that the war is lost, (Lisa: YOU TOLD US THE WAR WAS OVER!!!) and not worth another dime or another day. I don't believe that. Our military commanders do not believe that. Our troops in the field, who bear the burden and make the sacrifice, do not believe that America has lost. And not even the terrorists believe it. We know from their own communications that they feel a tightening noose, and fear the rise of a democratic Iraq.
The terrorists will continue to have the coward's power to plant roadside bombs and recruit suicide bombers. And you will continue to see the grim results on the evening news. This proves that the war is difficult -- it doesn't mean that we are losing. (No, but it doesn't prove that we're winning just because you say we are.) Behind the images of chaos that terrorists create for the cameras, we are making steady gains with a clear objective in view. (Lisa: "Oh, it's all the media's fault! I get it! Stupid negative press!" Yes, because focusing on horror and scaring people is the sole right of the government alone.)
America, our coalition, and Iraqi leaders are working toward the same goal -- a democratic Iraq that can defend itself, that will never again be a safe haven for terrorists, and that will serve as a model of freedom for the Middle East.
We have put in place a strategy to achieve this goal -- a strategy I've been discussing in detail over the last few weeks. This plan has three critical elements. (By strategy, he means 'business as usual;' by elements, he means 'sheer will, stubbornness, and unflagging pride that he knows better than anyone else, bar none.')
First, our coalition will remain on the offense -- finding and clearing out the enemy, transferring control of more territory to Iraqi units, and building up the Iraqi security forces so they can increasingly lead the fight. At this time last year, there were only a handful of Iraqi army and police battalions ready for combat. Now, there are more than 125 Iraqi combat battalions fighting the enemy, more than 50 are taking the lead, and we have transferred more than a dozen military bases to Iraqi control. (Translation: We're killing a lot of people. We're not sure if they're the bad ones, but we're going to keep doing it. Afterward, we're going to put the hastily assembled police force we built in charge and pretend it's their fault when they can't keep order without our guns and manpower.)
Second, we're helping the Iraqi government establish the institutions of a unified and lasting democracy, in which all of Iraq's people are included and represented. Here also, the news is encouraging. Three days ago, more than 10 million Iraqis went to the polls -- including many Sunni Iraqis who had boycotted national elections last January. Iraqis of every background are recognizing that democracy is the future of the country they love -- and they want their voices heard. One Iraqi, after dipping his finger in the purple ink as he cast his ballot, stuck his finger in the air and said: "This is a thorn in the eyes of the terrorists." Another voter was asked, "Are you Sunni or Shia?" And he responded, "I am Iraqi." (I won't mock these stories--they should be proud of getting to vote. It's more than some minorities in our country can claim, thanks to the Republicans publishing signs in disadvantaged/minority neighborhoods with incorrect ballot dates or throwing out 'felon' votes from legit citizens. On the other hand, I was rolling my eyes three whole seconds before Bush got to the ever-so-predictable coda to that last part.)
Third, after a number of setbacks, our coalition is moving forward with a reconstruction plan to revive Iraq's economy and infrastructure -- and to give Iraqis confidence that a free life will be a better life. Today in Iraq, seven in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve even more in the year ahead. Despite the violence, Iraqis are optimistic -- and that optimism is justified. (No one told him they're optimistic because they think his home country is about to revolt and throw him out of power, did they?)
In all three aspects of our strategy -- security, democracy, and reconstruction -- we have learned from our experiences, and fixed what has not worked. (Except for the not-torturing people thing. Oh, and the not punishing-the-generals-who-let-torture-happen thing. Yeah, and don't forget the underarming and undertraining of our reservists.) We will continue to listen to honest criticism, (Lisa: "Continue? When has he ever listened to criticism? He's only aware of it now because his handlers let things get out of control!") and make every change that will help us complete the mission. Yet there is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right. (The difference is the former exist in more numbers but the Republicans focus all the attention on the latter so they can say that those are the only ones who do exist and so they can paint both as equally unpatriotic.)
Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. (I wouldn't be defeatist if I had your kind of oil money, or your cushy benefits, Mr. Bush. And please refrain from pot-calling-kettle-black phrases where you chide other people for being partisan hacks.) For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. (Lisa: "He's blaming the media again for not loving him anymore.") For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq, we are winning the war in Iraq. (Lisa: "The war you said was over? That war?" Me: "Now, Lisa, he's still fighting the 'War on Terror.' And that never ends. He can excuse himself that way." Lisa: ::grinding of teeth:: )
It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. We would abandon our Iraqi friends and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word. (Translation: If you don't agree with me, you're with them. I've always said it, only I'm not allowed to say it like that any more. It tests poorly.) We would undermine the morale of our troops by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. We would cause the tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve, and tighten their repressive grip. We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us (Who, impotent, weapons-lite Saddam aside, weren't there before we were) and the global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever before. To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor, and I will not allow it. (If you're keeping track and you're opposed to the war, so far the President of the United States has talked down to you, patronized you, accused you of being short-sighted, and considered you anti-American and defeatist. He would now like to add that you are against our troops--no matter what the magnet on your SUV says--and are reckless and stupid for not allowing him to wantonly wage war on mistaken intelligence. Just, you know, FYI.)
We're approaching a new year, and there are certain things all Americans can expect to see. We will see more sacrifice -- from our military, their families, and the Iraqi people. We will see a concerted effort to improve Iraqi police forces and fight corruption. We will see the Iraqi military gaining strength and confidence, and the democratic process moving forward. As these achievements come, it should require fewer American troops to accomplish our mission. I will make decisions on troop levels based on the progress we see on the ground and the advice of our military leaders -- not based on artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington. Our forces in Iraq are on the road to victory -- and that is the road that will take them home. (That almost made sense, making military decisions based on the sphere of war. Except that his promise to do so is complete horseshit)
In the months ahead, all Americans will have a part in the success of this war. Members of Congress will need to provide resources for our military. (Social welfare out, military spending in. Essentially: VOTE REPUBLICAN) Our men and women in uniform, who have done so much already, will continue their brave and urgent work. And tonight, I ask all of you listening to carefully consider the stakes of this war, to realize how far we have come and the good we are doing, and to have patience in this difficult, noble, and necessary cause. (Translation: My party is going to hurt for my mistakes, but they're really swell guys, really, so please please please oh please vote for them in the midterm elections and let me continue to have the power to push through whatever I want through the legislature. Checks and balances are for the weak!)
I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, (When my mommy and daddy and Rummy would let me) and I know how deeply it is felt. (Lisa: "This is the part where he says, 'I'm the President. Fuck you.'") Yet now there are only two options before our country -- victory or defeat. And the need for victory is larger than any president or political party, (But you still need to vote and support me because I said so.) because the security of our people is in the balance. I don't expect you to support everything I do, but tonight I have a request: Do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom. (At this point, Lisa pretty much exploded. I don't blame her. She's a smart cookie, and she'd been forced to hear she was dumb for distrusting a cheerleading, school-failing, business-ruining idiot. "If you're against me, you're defeatist and wrong. Why doesn't he just say that!?")
Americans can expect some things of me, as well. (Thus far in the speech, we were pleasantly surprised we could expect mostly proper English from him. Sadly, the ability to memorize ahead of a live speech remains out of his grasp.) My most solemn responsibility is to protect our nation, and that requires me to make some tough decisions. I see the consequences of those decisions when I meet wounded servicemen and women who cannot leave their hospital beds, but summon the strength to look me in the eye and say they would do it all over again. (Me: If they said they'd do it all over again, how is that at all checking your hubris and allowing you to see the consequences? They're telling you, according to you, that you did right. Telling you "Good Job" doesn't count as a consequence). I see the consequences when I talk to parents who miss a child so much -- but tell me he loved being a soldier, he believed in his mission, and, Mr. President, finish the job. (Then why don't you talk to the nice lady waiting outside your ranch in Texas? Why don't you, instead of bullying the local government there into forbidding people to camp out near your place, do what little she has asked of you and talk to her?)
I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss -- and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly. I know this war is controversial -- yet being your President requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences. (Lisa: "Why does he assume we don't know that? Why does he think that we have to be told that being in charge means he makes the decisions?" Me: "Just because he said he had a 'mandate' with the last election doesn't mean that he knew what it meant.") And I have never been more certain that America's actions in Iraq are essential to the security of our citizens, and will lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren. (Provided, of course, we don't run the country into the ground, burn through the ozone and fry before then.)
Next week, Americans will gather to celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah. Many families will be praying for loved ones spending this season far from home -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other dangerous places. Our nation joins in those prayers. We pray for the safety and strength of our troops. We trust, with them, in a love that conquers all fear, in a light that reaches the darkest corners of the Earth. And we remember the words of the Christmas carol, written during the Civil War: "God is not dead, nor [does] He sleep; the Wrong shall fail, the Right prevail, with peace on Earth, goodwill to men."(I will not rant about the throwing in of Christianity into all that we ought to do to support our troops. I will not, I will not, IwillnotIwillnotIwillnot...)
Thank you, and good night.
And I'm spent.
There's also the "7 in 10 Iraqis say they are a-ok and 2/3 are thinking there's a bright future ahead." This is verbatim from a news poll....a news poll that also mentions 54% of Iraqis thinking they were better off with Saddam; 50% saying the US had no right to invade in the first place; and (coincidence? I think not...) 2/3 who are opposed to continue troop presence in their country. You pick and choose the numbers you want, you can tell a story you think the voters want to hear.
There is some speculation that Bush will drop some good-news bombshell in 2006, probably with the State of the Union. After last night, I'm not sure I can stomach two hours of that man. He really annoys the ever-living piss out of me. He's smug when he has no right to be, or at least he appears smug--does anyone else notice how he always seems to be fighting a smile when his lips naturally turn down at the corners? What's up with that?
Oh yeah, his speech really pissed off my roomie. She objects to being told that because she doesn't support Bush that she must therefore think we have to leave Iraq. I wonder why?
In case you want it, the text of the speech (interspersed with a recap of our comments last night) is below the LJ cut. STupid Bush, cutting into my Family Guy time!
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Three days ago, in large numbers, Iraqis went to the polls to choose their own leaders -- a landmark day in the history of liberty. In the coming weeks, the ballots will be counted, a new government formed, and a people who suffered in tyranny for so long will become full members of the free world. (Okay, is it just me, or is this about the fourth or fifth time they've voted or what? I swear, if I see another Iraqi with a purple fucking finger, I'm gonna hurl.)
This election will not mean the end of violence. But it is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East. And this vote -- 6,000 miles away, in a vital region of the world -- means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror. (Right, because those people fighting us and keeping us in Iraq, they're just mirages, really. And they're not Iraqi, no sir.)
All who had a part in this achievement -- Iraqis, and Americans and our coalition partners -- can be proud. Yet our work is not done. There is more testing and sacrifice before us. I know many Americans have questions about the cost and direction of this war. So tonight I want to talk to you about how far we have come in Iraq, and the path that lies ahead. (Read: I am going to say the 17-minute verbal equivalent up a 'thumbs up' and not give any more detail than you would have gotten from that gesture.)
From this office, nearly three years ago, I announced the start of military operations in Iraq. Our coalition confronted a regime that defied United Nations Security Council resolutions, violated a cease-fire agreement, sponsored terrorism, and possessed, we believed, weapons of mass destruction. After the swift fall of Baghdad, we found mass graves filled by a dictator; we found some capacity to restart programs to produce weapons of mass destruction, but we did not find those weapons. (Hate to say I told you sooooooooo...Lisa: And never mind that we have the WMDs and the capability to make more and a guy in charge who doesn't listen to his critics, we're the good guys!)
It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. (Read: Us and Britain, but that's only because we told Britain to tell us that he did, so just us, basically.) But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. (Notice how I am still not apologizing for being wrong and getting thousands killed as a result.) Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
He was given an ultimatum -- and he made his choice for war. And the result of that war was to rid a -- the world of a murderous dictator who menaced his people, invaded his neighbors, and declared America to be his enemy. (What an ingrate! We put him in charge in the 80s to scare Iran, and this is the thanks we get? On a side note, how awesome is it that this transcript included that verbal fumble?) Saddam Hussein, captured and jailed, is still the same raging tyrant -- only now without a throne. His power to harm a single man, woman, or child is gone forever. And the world is better for it. (Half of his country disagrees. Does that tell you how 'well' the war effort is going--that an awful, abusive, clearly power-hungry tyrant is preferable to US intervention?)
Since the removal of Saddam, this war, like other wars in our history, has been difficult. The mission of American troops in urban raids and desert patrols, fighting Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists, has brought danger and suffering and loss. This loss has caused sorrow for our whole nation -- and it has led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we're solving.
That is an important question, (And I might dance around it, but I sure as heck am not going to answer it) and the answer depends on your view of the war on terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone. (This is, of course, a very clever bit of doubletalk. You cannot agree that that is so, and yet would terrorists hate us if we stopped interfering in the middle east? It's very tempting to say yes, and, to a degree, they might. Our arrogance is half their problem with us. On the other hand, we'd be abandoning our ally, Israel, to the wolves. Some might have a problem with that.)
This is not the threat I see. I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims -- a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed. (Please compare and contrast this to the current state of affairs in the US: books mentioning gays or evolution are being challenged and, in some cases, removed from classrooms; women's reproductive rights are being progressively eroded on the state level and may destroyed at the federal level with the current Supreme Court; any media outlet that dared to question the Bush Administration was branded as 'liberal' media, press passes for known Bush antogonistic reporters were revoked, and fake reporters were hired to promote Bush propaganda using federal funds. Yes, this is completely un-American, but enough about us, we were talking about the oooooooh, eeeeeeeeeevil regimes abroad!) Terrorist operatives conduct their campaign of murder with a set of declared and specific goals -- to de-moralize free nations, to drive us out of the Middle East, to spread an empire of fear across that region, and to wage a perpetual war against America and our friends. These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield -- and they seek to attack us wherever they can. This has attracted al Qaeda to Iraq, where they are attempting to frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat. (You just know Al Qaeda doesn't even have to hide themselves in Iraq; it's such a mish-mash of chaos, they can probably hold regular meetings, like boy/girl scouts for terrorists. And wow, did he just admit they were attracted to Iraq after we got there, THUS INVALIDATING THE IRAQ-AL QAEDA CONNECTION THEY FORGED TO MAKE THIS WAR HAPPEN!? Oh, he never says, so maybe not.)
At this point, I'd like to take a break and mention the following things:
--Bush has not yet mentioned, nor will he, what, if anything, he is doing to track down the real perpetrators of the 9/11, 3/11, and 7/7 terrorist attacks.
--He has not described the methods that have been increasingly questioned by reasonable people to get the intelligence/results he wants in Iraq
--He has not referred, nor will he, to any of the following: Abu Gharib, Guantanamo Bay, the NSA wire taps without warrants, or even Osama bin Laden.
The terrorists do not merely object to American actions in Iraq and elsewhere, they object to our deepest values and our way of life. And if we were not fighting them in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Southeast Asia, and in other places, the terrorists would not be peaceful citizens, they would be on the offense, and headed our way.
September the 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, (Which does not explain Republican nonchalance regarding global warming, rising numbers of our own citizens without health care coverage, the growing gap between rich and poor and the vanishing middle class, or the dwindling numbers of jobs available in this country for skilled workers) and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them. (The first of many assumptions that Americans are, on the whole, more ignorant than their President. This is not so. No one in their right or wrong mind makes an assumption as stupid as that. If they only attacked us when we attacked them, they would enemy soldiers/combatants/forces, not terrorists. Terrorists by definition use the threat of lethal, UNPROVOKED attack to scare others into giving them what they want. Your condescention to us has not gone unnoticed, Mr. Bush.) On that day, we were not in Iraq, we were not in Afghanistan, but the terrorists attacked us anyway -- and killed nearly 3,000 men, women, and children in our own country. My conviction comes down to this: We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. (Despite data that says we do, you keep insisting this. Newsflash: when we attack a sovereign nation with ways alien--for the most part--from our own, in the name of fighting terrorism, we do, in fact, create terrorists out of citizens who previously never even bothered about us.) We invite terrorism by ignoring them. (This may be the first--and last--thing we agree on.) And we will defeat the terrorists by capturing and killing them abroad, removing their safe havens, and strengthening new allies like Iraq and Afghanistan in the fight we share.
The work in Iraq has been especially difficult -- more difficult than we expected. (CORRECTION: More difficult than YOU expected. We'll forgive you for that because, aside from your first Secretary of State, neither you nor any one you look to for recommendations on the war outside of the Pentagon has had any military experience. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with war should have known better than to assume it was the cakewalk you expected. Then again, anyone with half a brain should have realized you were a lying sonuvabitch with that "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" bullshit.) Reconstruction efforts and the training of Iraqi security forces started more slowly than we hoped. We continue to see violence and suffering, caused by an enemy that is determined and brutal, unconstrained by conscience or the rules of war. (There is no friendly fire, no bombs accidentally dropped on civilian locations. The Red Cross has never heard of any of those things, nope.)
Some look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that the war is lost, (Lisa: YOU TOLD US THE WAR WAS OVER!!!) and not worth another dime or another day. I don't believe that. Our military commanders do not believe that. Our troops in the field, who bear the burden and make the sacrifice, do not believe that America has lost. And not even the terrorists believe it. We know from their own communications that they feel a tightening noose, and fear the rise of a democratic Iraq.
The terrorists will continue to have the coward's power to plant roadside bombs and recruit suicide bombers. And you will continue to see the grim results on the evening news. This proves that the war is difficult -- it doesn't mean that we are losing. (No, but it doesn't prove that we're winning just because you say we are.) Behind the images of chaos that terrorists create for the cameras, we are making steady gains with a clear objective in view. (Lisa: "Oh, it's all the media's fault! I get it! Stupid negative press!" Yes, because focusing on horror and scaring people is the sole right of the government alone.)
America, our coalition, and Iraqi leaders are working toward the same goal -- a democratic Iraq that can defend itself, that will never again be a safe haven for terrorists, and that will serve as a model of freedom for the Middle East.
We have put in place a strategy to achieve this goal -- a strategy I've been discussing in detail over the last few weeks. This plan has three critical elements. (By strategy, he means 'business as usual;' by elements, he means 'sheer will, stubbornness, and unflagging pride that he knows better than anyone else, bar none.')
First, our coalition will remain on the offense -- finding and clearing out the enemy, transferring control of more territory to Iraqi units, and building up the Iraqi security forces so they can increasingly lead the fight. At this time last year, there were only a handful of Iraqi army and police battalions ready for combat. Now, there are more than 125 Iraqi combat battalions fighting the enemy, more than 50 are taking the lead, and we have transferred more than a dozen military bases to Iraqi control. (Translation: We're killing a lot of people. We're not sure if they're the bad ones, but we're going to keep doing it. Afterward, we're going to put the hastily assembled police force we built in charge and pretend it's their fault when they can't keep order without our guns and manpower.)
Second, we're helping the Iraqi government establish the institutions of a unified and lasting democracy, in which all of Iraq's people are included and represented. Here also, the news is encouraging. Three days ago, more than 10 million Iraqis went to the polls -- including many Sunni Iraqis who had boycotted national elections last January. Iraqis of every background are recognizing that democracy is the future of the country they love -- and they want their voices heard. One Iraqi, after dipping his finger in the purple ink as he cast his ballot, stuck his finger in the air and said: "This is a thorn in the eyes of the terrorists." Another voter was asked, "Are you Sunni or Shia?" And he responded, "I am Iraqi." (I won't mock these stories--they should be proud of getting to vote. It's more than some minorities in our country can claim, thanks to the Republicans publishing signs in disadvantaged/minority neighborhoods with incorrect ballot dates or throwing out 'felon' votes from legit citizens. On the other hand, I was rolling my eyes three whole seconds before Bush got to the ever-so-predictable coda to that last part.)
Third, after a number of setbacks, our coalition is moving forward with a reconstruction plan to revive Iraq's economy and infrastructure -- and to give Iraqis confidence that a free life will be a better life. Today in Iraq, seven in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve even more in the year ahead. Despite the violence, Iraqis are optimistic -- and that optimism is justified. (No one told him they're optimistic because they think his home country is about to revolt and throw him out of power, did they?)
In all three aspects of our strategy -- security, democracy, and reconstruction -- we have learned from our experiences, and fixed what has not worked. (Except for the not-torturing people thing. Oh, and the not punishing-the-generals-who-let-torture-happen thing. Yeah, and don't forget the underarming and undertraining of our reservists.) We will continue to listen to honest criticism, (Lisa: "Continue? When has he ever listened to criticism? He's only aware of it now because his handlers let things get out of control!") and make every change that will help us complete the mission. Yet there is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right. (The difference is the former exist in more numbers but the Republicans focus all the attention on the latter so they can say that those are the only ones who do exist and so they can paint both as equally unpatriotic.)
Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. (I wouldn't be defeatist if I had your kind of oil money, or your cushy benefits, Mr. Bush. And please refrain from pot-calling-kettle-black phrases where you chide other people for being partisan hacks.) For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. (Lisa: "He's blaming the media again for not loving him anymore.") For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq, we are winning the war in Iraq. (Lisa: "The war you said was over? That war?" Me: "Now, Lisa, he's still fighting the 'War on Terror.' And that never ends. He can excuse himself that way." Lisa: ::grinding of teeth:: )
It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. We would abandon our Iraqi friends and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word. (Translation: If you don't agree with me, you're with them. I've always said it, only I'm not allowed to say it like that any more. It tests poorly.) We would undermine the morale of our troops by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. We would cause the tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve, and tighten their repressive grip. We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us (Who, impotent, weapons-lite Saddam aside, weren't there before we were) and the global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever before. To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor, and I will not allow it. (If you're keeping track and you're opposed to the war, so far the President of the United States has talked down to you, patronized you, accused you of being short-sighted, and considered you anti-American and defeatist. He would now like to add that you are against our troops--no matter what the magnet on your SUV says--and are reckless and stupid for not allowing him to wantonly wage war on mistaken intelligence. Just, you know, FYI.)
We're approaching a new year, and there are certain things all Americans can expect to see. We will see more sacrifice -- from our military, their families, and the Iraqi people. We will see a concerted effort to improve Iraqi police forces and fight corruption. We will see the Iraqi military gaining strength and confidence, and the democratic process moving forward. As these achievements come, it should require fewer American troops to accomplish our mission. I will make decisions on troop levels based on the progress we see on the ground and the advice of our military leaders -- not based on artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington. Our forces in Iraq are on the road to victory -- and that is the road that will take them home. (That almost made sense, making military decisions based on the sphere of war. Except that his promise to do so is complete horseshit)
In the months ahead, all Americans will have a part in the success of this war. Members of Congress will need to provide resources for our military. (Social welfare out, military spending in. Essentially: VOTE REPUBLICAN) Our men and women in uniform, who have done so much already, will continue their brave and urgent work. And tonight, I ask all of you listening to carefully consider the stakes of this war, to realize how far we have come and the good we are doing, and to have patience in this difficult, noble, and necessary cause. (Translation: My party is going to hurt for my mistakes, but they're really swell guys, really, so please please please oh please vote for them in the midterm elections and let me continue to have the power to push through whatever I want through the legislature. Checks and balances are for the weak!)
I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, (When my mommy and daddy and Rummy would let me) and I know how deeply it is felt. (Lisa: "This is the part where he says, 'I'm the President. Fuck you.'") Yet now there are only two options before our country -- victory or defeat. And the need for victory is larger than any president or political party, (But you still need to vote and support me because I said so.) because the security of our people is in the balance. I don't expect you to support everything I do, but tonight I have a request: Do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom. (At this point, Lisa pretty much exploded. I don't blame her. She's a smart cookie, and she'd been forced to hear she was dumb for distrusting a cheerleading, school-failing, business-ruining idiot. "If you're against me, you're defeatist and wrong. Why doesn't he just say that!?")
Americans can expect some things of me, as well. (Thus far in the speech, we were pleasantly surprised we could expect mostly proper English from him. Sadly, the ability to memorize ahead of a live speech remains out of his grasp.) My most solemn responsibility is to protect our nation, and that requires me to make some tough decisions. I see the consequences of those decisions when I meet wounded servicemen and women who cannot leave their hospital beds, but summon the strength to look me in the eye and say they would do it all over again. (Me: If they said they'd do it all over again, how is that at all checking your hubris and allowing you to see the consequences? They're telling you, according to you, that you did right. Telling you "Good Job" doesn't count as a consequence). I see the consequences when I talk to parents who miss a child so much -- but tell me he loved being a soldier, he believed in his mission, and, Mr. President, finish the job. (Then why don't you talk to the nice lady waiting outside your ranch in Texas? Why don't you, instead of bullying the local government there into forbidding people to camp out near your place, do what little she has asked of you and talk to her?)
I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss -- and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly. I know this war is controversial -- yet being your President requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences. (Lisa: "Why does he assume we don't know that? Why does he think that we have to be told that being in charge means he makes the decisions?" Me: "Just because he said he had a 'mandate' with the last election doesn't mean that he knew what it meant.") And I have never been more certain that America's actions in Iraq are essential to the security of our citizens, and will lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren. (Provided, of course, we don't run the country into the ground, burn through the ozone and fry before then.)
Next week, Americans will gather to celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah. Many families will be praying for loved ones spending this season far from home -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other dangerous places. Our nation joins in those prayers. We pray for the safety and strength of our troops. We trust, with them, in a love that conquers all fear, in a light that reaches the darkest corners of the Earth. And we remember the words of the Christmas carol, written during the Civil War: "God is not dead, nor [does] He sleep; the Wrong shall fail, the Right prevail, with peace on Earth, goodwill to men."(I will not rant about the throwing in of Christianity into all that we ought to do to support our troops. I will not, I will not, IwillnotIwillnotIwillnot...)
Thank you, and good night.
And I'm spent.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-19 10:15 pm (UTC)My dear, this is why the Gods created cable TV and books.
Just keep the mantra up: "He can't be elected again, he can't be elected again, he can't be..."
And NOBODY say anything about an amendment!!!
no subject
Date: 2005-12-20 04:49 am (UTC)Anyway, hearing this all last night I was struck...
"Another voter was asked, 'Are you Sunni or Shia?' And he responded, '[I don't know which group your group is trying to kill, so how's about I just say] I am Iraqi.'"
Meanwhile he just keeps suffering from the same misunderstanding of how terrorism works -- of how the world works -- that he always did, and I wish to G_D that I'd get the chance to debate him onstage in front of the American people. As, no doubt, do we all.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-20 04:05 pm (UTC)If Bush debated the Tick, I think the Tick could actually win. I say the Tick because he's prone to using such aggrandized, obscure terms to describe everything as Bush is.If Bush started to yell "SPOON!" when going to war, we'd probably support him more. Or not, I can't think, I'm exhausted.