|
|
Monday, May 24, 2004
|
|
"I KNOW IT'S BAD TIME TO SAY THIS WHEN MY FACE IS ALL SCRATCHED UP, BUT WE GOTTA KEEP UP THE FIGHT"
All right, he actually didn't look like that. The president was slathered in make-up. But he was handsome and tanned looking, kinda like George Hamilton. The president took a little spill on his bicycle on Saturday. Of course, Kerry who has fallen off of a bicycle and a fucking ski-slope in the last two months, made a douchey comment in front of television cameras. He asked, "Did the training wheels fall off?" Kerry's campaign later stated the douchey coment was "off the record" and inserted this one instead,"I hope he's OK. I didn't know the president rode a bike."
Bush can be a reasonably funny and endearing cat when he wants to be. He should have made light of the tumble. If he had a joke writer (like I dunno...me, he's already had one Canadian writer, David Frum, on staff), he'd say something like this,
"My fellow Americans, this was nothing serious. It was just another battle in my War on Gravity. Wolfowitz said the pavement would welcome me as a liberator. Why do I keep falling for that line?"
Of course, that would be bad politics. joking about Wars on Stuff when you have boys and girls getting blown to pieces in places with strange names is unwise. George W. Bush is a high underestimated politican. I know the last two months doesn't make it seem that way, but the fact that everything has seemingly gone to shit and the president trails by ONE point, is testament to some pretty awesome political skills.
Nonetheless, things have been pretty bad of late. One of Iraq's revolving interim presidents was assassinated last week. More and more American soldiers are being killed in Iraq (someone very dear to me is at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C interviewing some survivors this week and what she's seen is chilling.)Everyone has by now seen the Nicholas Berg execution video. And the Abu Ghraib prison abuse story isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
So, the president did what preidents often do when things don't look so good. He went on television. Actually, this is the third time in the last few months he's done this; the first time on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, then at a prime time news conference. The problem with those settings is that people talk back. This president (and to be fair, his predecessor had the same problem) doesn't excel under those circumstances. But he is really good with lots of screaming soldiers surrounding him. The best Kerry can do is a bunch of fat, old white guys who haven't fought anything more challenging than the bathroom scale since 1970 (okay, that's cruel and unnecessary. But I like the flow of the sentence. Maybe I'll edit it out, maybe I won't.)
Other than a few flubs in pronounciation, he does well in prepared speeches. I'm hoping against hope that one day he fucks up and refers to 9/11 as, "the horror that befell our nation on November 9, 2001."
The speech was pretty much news-free. Since it seems like I've been playing on this goddamn blog all day and none of you rat bastards has commented, I'm not doing the whole speech, just the highlights. The speech, in its entirety can be read here.
Thank you all. Thank you and good evening. I'm honored to visit the Army War College. Generations of officers have come here to study the strategies and history of warfare. I've come here tonight to report to all Americans, and to the Iraqi people, on the strategy our nation is pursuing in Iraq and the specific steps we're taking to achieve our goals.
There is one? Okay, good. I think I'm not the only one who was starting to get a little worried.
The actions of our enemies over the last few weeks have been brutal, calculating and instructive. We've seen a car bombing take the life of a 61-year-old Iraqi named Izzadine Saleem, who was serving as president of the governing council. This crime shows our enemy's intention to prevent Iraqi self-government, even if that means killing a lifelong Iraqi patriot and a faithful Muslim.
Mr. Saleem was assassinated by terrorists seeking the return of tyranny and the death of democracy.
I'll assume for a moment that Iraq will, in fact, ultimately be a democracy (which is by no means assured.) The Middle East breeds crazy bastards like bunnies. Crazy bastards has a nasty tradition of doing violent stuff. Assassination has a long and storied history in Iraq in particular. Even if things go off without a hitch, you will continue seeing bombings like this from time to time.
We've also seen images of a young American facing decapitation. This vile display shows a contempt for all the rules of warfare and all the bounds of civilized behavior. It reveals a fanaticism that was not caused by any action of ours and would not be appeased by any concession.
We suspect that the man with the knife was an Al Qaida associate named Zarqawi. He and other terrorists know that Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror, and we must understand that as well.
On the last part, I agree wholehartedly with the president. Iraq is now, like it or not, the front line on the War on Terror. The vaccum left by Saddam is quickly being filled by terrorist elements. I would posit that this is a good thing. Far better they be fought in Baghdad than New York. And the 82nd Airborne is better qualified to do the fighting than, say, the staff at the Kinko's down the street. But the Nick Berg video should be a newsflash, these fuckers are deadly serious.
The return of tyranny to Iraq would be an unprecedented terrorist victory and a cause for killers to rejoice. It would also embolden the terrorists, leading to more bombings, more beheadings and more murders of the innocent around the world.
The rise of a free and self-governing Iraq will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow ideology and give momentum to reformers across the region.
This will be a decisive blow to terrorism at the heart of its power and a victory for the security of America and the civilized world.
Here, I disagree. The terrorists aren't interested in tyranny. Tyrannies are usually bad business for out of control psychopaths. Saddam Hussein liked his terrorists firmly under control. This is why al-Qaeda wasn't very fond of him, either.
The terrorists are interested in two things and only two things, complete anarchy (where people like bin Laden flourish) and to push and see how much America can take before it bails, like in Lebanon or Somalia. This is high stakes poker on a bunch of different levels.
The swift removal of Saddam Hussein's regime last spring had an unintended affect. Instead of being killed or captured on the battlefield, some of Saddam's elite guards shed their uniforms and melted into the civilian population.
Actually, the exact same thing happened in '91 war. It should have been planned for.
These elements of Saddam's repressive regime and secret police have reorganized, rearmed and adopted sophisticated terrorist tactics. They've linked up with foreign fighters and terrorists. In a few cities, extremists have tried to sow chaos and seize regional power for themselves.
These groups and individuals have conflicting ambitions, but they share a goal. They hope to wear out the patience of Americans, our coalition and Iraqis before the arrival of effective self-government and before Iraqis have the capability to defend their freedom.
This couldn't have been completely prevented, but it should have also been planned for. Breaking up the Iraqi military, most of whom are shi'a and loathed Saddam, and domestic police forces was monumentally stupid. Firstly, it took away the livlihoods of tens of thousands of people. Secondly, with the paucity of American forces there, it made border control non-existant. Guess who came a-calling? Thirdly, having Iraqi forces - particularly in the cities - would have given the occupation more of a local face and may have saved some American servicemen. There was a giant rush for a war that most people expected to last ten minutes and virtually no planning for a peace that should last decades.
Iraq now faces a critical moment. As the Iraqi people move closer to governing themselves, the terrorists are likely to become more active and more brutal.
This is called massaging the story. When there are other major attacks (and they will come), the president can say, on the campaign trail, "Well, I warned you this was going to happen."
Helping construct a stable democracy after decades of dictatorship is a massive undertaking. Yet we have a great advantage. Whenever people are given a choice in the matter, they prefer lives of freedom to lives of fear.
Our enemies in Iraq are good at filling hospitals, but they don't build any. They can incite men to murder and suicide, but they cannot inspire men to live in hope and add to the progress of their country. The terrorists only influence is violence and their only agenda is death.
Our agenda, in contrast, is freedom and independence, security and prosperity for the Iraqi people.
This makes the American agenda far more difficult to accomplish than that of the insurgents. Building things is time consuming and difficult, blowing it up is easy. Watching the fruits of your labor explode is frustrating. This is the larger strategy of the terrorists.
And by removing a source of terrorist violence and instability in the Middle East, we also make our own country more secure.
That's a highly debateable point. I think it's true, but by no means is it assured. In fact, the reverse could be true, and terrorist forces flood Iraq for years, keeping US forces pinned down there and unable to respond anywhere else.
Our coalition has a clear goal, understood by all: to see the Iraqi people in charge of Iraq for the first time in generations.
America's task in Iraq is not only to defeat an enemy, it is to give strength to a friend -- a free, representative government that serves its people and fights on their behalf.
And the sooner this goal is achieved, the sooner our job will be done.
This is dangerously and deliberately misleading. No matter who wins in November, if they are halfway responsible they know that America is going to have to in Iraq for years to come. The Iraqi army is not going to rebuild and train itself. Until it does, America gets that job. This is still a nasty neighbourhood, and there are several countries that hold grudges against Iraq or would like some of its territory. Plus the fact that everybody inside the country hates one another. The "job" will not be done anytime soon. Even if things go well, the US will be there for between five and ten years.
The first of these steps will occur next month, when our coalition will transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens who will prepare the way for national elections.
On June 30th, the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist and will not be replaced. The occupation will end and Iraqis will govern their own affairs.
America's ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, will present his credentials to the new president of Iraq. Our embassy in Baghdad will have the same purpose as any other American embassy: to assure good relations with a sovereign nation.
The problem here is obvious; no one yet knows who power is being transfered to. I'll point out how this problematic in more detail. America has been a fully functioning democracy for about 225 years now. Do you know how long a presidential transition takes? 11 weeks. And that's just to get the president and most of his cabinet in office. President Bush STILL has vacant sub-cabinet posts and this is true of every administration. Today is May 24. June 30 is less than five weeks away and Iraq has had NO experience in democracy in its 4000 year history. Oh, and buy the way, no one currently has any idea at all who will be named. How well do you think this will go.
The larger issue here is that the transfer date was an artificial creation designed for domestic political purposes. June 30th has some significance here. It might just have something to do with John Kerry (maybe accepting the Democratic nominiation in Boston on July 30. Having a "sovereign" Iraq by then is supposed to neutalize a campaign issue.
In addition to a president, two vice presidents and a prime minister, 26 Iraqi ministers will oversee government departments from health to justice to defense. This new government will be advised by a national council which will be chosen in July by Iraqis representing their country's diversity.
This interim government will exercise full sovereignty until national elections are held.
Let's assume for just a minute that this, too, goes without a hitch. What happens if the government gets a stupid independent streak and tells the Ambassador that they want US forces to go home. Sane people know it will be years before Iraq will be able to defend itself from within and without its borders unassisted. But it raises some interesting questions, like, "just how sovereign is full sovereignty?"
Many of Iraq's cities and towns now have elected town councils and city governments, and beyond the violence a civil society is emerging.
The June 30th transfer of sovereignty is an essential commitment of our strategy.
Iraq and elections are important. Important even to a certain American president's election.
Iraqis are proud people who resent foreign control of their affairs, just as we would. After decades under the tyrant, they are also reluctant to trust authority.
By keeping our promise on June 30th, the coalition will demonstrate that we have no interest in occupation. And full sovereignty will give Iraqis a direct interest in the success of their own government.
This is also flawed logic. They don't like foreigners with guns telling them what to do. But on June 31, there will still be thousands of foreigners with guns telling Iraqis what to do. This will reinforce trust how?
The second step in the plan for Iraqi democracy is to help establish the stability and security that democracy requires.
Coalition forces and the Iraqi people have the same enemies: the terrorists, illegal militia and Saddam loyalists who stand between the Iraqi people and their future as a free nation.
Working as allies, we will defend Iraq and defeat these enemies.
America will provide forces and support necessary for achieving these goals.
Our commanders had estimated that a troop level below 115,000 would be sufficient at this point in the conflict. Given the recent increase in violence, we will maintain our troop level at the current 138,000 as long as necessary.
This has required extended duty for the 1st Armored Division and the 2nd Light Cavalry Regiment -- 20,000 men and women who were scheduled to leave Iraq in April. Our nation appreciates their hard work and sacrifice, and they can know that they will be heading home soon.
General Abizaid and other commanders in Iraq are constantly assessing the level of troops they need to fulfill the mission. If they need more troops, I will send them.
More foreigners with guns telling Iraqis what to do. Fantastic! That'll go over superbly! And since there is no way that Iraqi command and control infastructure can be built in five weeks, Iraqis will see foreigners with guns telling their soldiers and police what to do. This should build enormous respect for civil society.
The mission of our forces in Iraq is demanding and dangerous.
Our troops are showing exceptional skill and courage.
I thank them for their sacrifices and their duty.
Mentioning the "demanding and dangerous" part two years ago instead of letting Dick roll out that ridiculous "welcomed like liberators" line would probably have been a good idea.
Iraq's military police and border forces have begun to take on broader responsibilities. Eventually, they must be the primary defenders of Iraqi security as American and coalition forces are withdrawn. And we're helping them to prepare for this role.
Now we're cooking with gas!
In some cases, the early performance of Iraqi forces fell short. Some refused orders to engage the enemy. We've learned from these failures and we've taken steps to correct them.
Or not.
Successful fighting units need a sense of cohesion so we've lengthened and intensified their training. Successful units need to know they are fighting for the future of their own country, not for any occupying power. So we are ensuring that Iraqi forces serve under an Iraqi chain of command.
Successful fighting units need the best possible leadership.
So we improved the vetting and training of Iraqi officers and senior enlisted men.
At my direction and with the support of Iraqi authorities, we are accelerating our program to help train Iraqis to defend their country.
When you're doing something as incredibly important as building a military or a police force, the word "accelerating" is best left alone. This should be slow, deliberate and thorough. "Acceleration" in military building was tried once before with the Army of South Vietnam. Remember how well that worked?
A new team of senior military officers is now assessing every unit in Iraq's security forces. I've asked this team to oversee the training of a force of 260,000 Iraqi soldiers, police and other security personnel. Five Iraqi army battalions are in the field now, with another eight battalions to join them by July 1st.
The eventual goal is an Iraqi army of 35,000 soldiers in 27 battalions fully prepared to defend their country.
This is insanely and stupidly small. Iran, which hates Iraq, can deploy hundreds of thousands of men in no time. Let's be realistic, okay. Even if its unpleasant, honesty is kind of important here.
Iraq's new sovereign government will still face enormous security challenges and our forces will be there to help.
No, for the forseeable future, your forces will be there to fight in the name of "Iraq's new sovereign government."
Mr. President, I supported this war. I continue to support it. However, to ask American men and women to die "assisting" a "sovereign government" when in fact, they will die fighting because there is no military to assist is unforgiveable.
And thanks in part to our efforts, to the efforts of former Secretary of State James Baker, many of Iraq's largest creditors have pledged to forgive or substantially reduce Iraqi debt incurred by the former regime.
This is very important and incredibly good news. No Iraqi government should be born only to drown in Saddam's debt.
We're urging other nations to contribute to Iraqi reconstruction, and 37 countries, and the IMF and the World Bank, have so far pledged $13.5 billion in aid.
America has dedicated more than $20 billion to reconstruction and development projects in Iraq.
This is nickles and dimes. If the countries of the west, particularly my own, are serious about a stable secure Iraq, this will cost HUNDREDS of billions of dollars in the next, say two years.
To ensure our money is spent wisely and effectively, our new embassy in Iraq will have regional offices in several key cities. These offices will work closely with Iraqis at all levels of government to help make sure projects are completed on time and on budget.
Uh Oh. More with the foreigners telling Iraqis what to do. Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!
A new Iraq will also need a humane, well-supervised prison system. Under the dictator, prisons like Abu Ghraib were symbols of death and torture.
Thank God we fixed that! Oh....right...
That same prison became a symbol of disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values.
America will fund the construction of a modern maximum security prison.
Because, after all, sexual abuse is completely unknown in American maximum security prisons!
When that prison is completed, detainees at Abu Ghraib will be relocated. Then with the approval of the Iraqi government, we will demolish the Abu Ghraib Prison as a fitting symbol of Iraq's new beginning.
And there's tomorrow's headline. And it's nice the "sovereign Iraqi government" is finally being asked to approve something.
At the summit, we will discuss NATO's role in helping Iraq build and secure its democracy.
Uh, the last time I checked, a NATO deployment required the unanimous approval of all members. And unless France and Germany were kicked out and nobody told me about it, I wouldn't count on NATO.
The fifth, and most important step is free national elections, to be held no later than next January.
This may also not be a good idea. People there are still very tense. Tense people who have been bombed for nearly two years tend to vote in funny ways. Ask Israel. "We want a peace process! Now where can we find a general who's been accused of war crimes and says the peace process is dead? We want HIM!"
What happens if a free and fair, internationally supervised election produces a government that won on the platform of, "America sucks! Let's kill them?" A cooling down period might be a good idea.
In this time of war and liberation and rebuilding, American soldiers and civilians on the ground have come to know and respect the citizens of Iraq. They're a proud people who hold strong and diverse opinions.
This is to put it mildly.
A representative government that protects basic rights, elected by Iraqis, is the best defense against the return of tyranny. And that election is coming.
"Come on Iraqis! An election! Wheeeeee! You'll be just like Florida! Oh....right."
Completing the five steps to Iraqi elected self-government will not be easy.
There's likely to be more violence before the transfer of sovereignty and after the transfer of sovereignty. The terrorists and Saddam loyalists would rather see many Iraqis die than have any live in freedom.
But terrorists will not determine the future of Iraq.
"Unless, of course, a certain Senator from Massachussettes I won't name becomes president. Then they're fucked. Ask Rove if the campaign ads are up in Basra yet."
I sent American troops to Iraq to defend our security, not to stay as an occupying power. I sent American troops to Iraq to make its people free, not to make them American.
Let's see...Iraq is now full of angry, frieghtened people with guns and ethnic problems. Nothing American sounding about that.
We believe that freedom can advance and change lives in the greater Middle East as it has advanced and changed lives in Asia, in Latin America, in Eastern Europe and Africa. We believe it is a tragedy of history that in the Middle East, which gave the world great gifts of law and science and faith, so many have been held back by lawless tyranny and fanaticism.
We believe that when all Middle Eastern peoples are finally allowed to live and think and work and worship as free men and women, they will reclaim the greatness of their own heritage. And when that day comes, the bitterness and burning hatreds that feed terrorism will fade and die away.
The failure of freedom would only mark the beginning of peril and violence. But, my fellow Americans, we will not fail. We will persevere and defeat this enemy and hold this hard won ground for the realm of liberty.
I believe that, too. All kidding aside, I hope to God this is done properly. This is bigger takes gambling than the United States has engaged in since 1950. Fucking it up will be catastrophic.
May God bless our country.
I'll second that.
Oh, the president didn't say "rape rooms", either. Good thing no one took me up on the bet. I really couldn't have afforded to lose it.
|
|
|
| |
