President Bush’s speech on Iraq
Update 9:32pm Eastern. John McCain says the right thing…pointing out the Democrats’ absolute refusal to acknowledge any progress or signs of success at all in Iraq and their character attacks on Gen. Petraeus.
***
It starts in a few minutes. Allahpundit will have video.
You can catch the White House webcast here:
:
***
The White House e-mailed out a few advance excerpts:
Tonight President Bush will address the Nation from the Oval Office to lay out his plan for the way forward in Iraq.
On keeping us safe here at home:
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.
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.
On the success of the surge:
The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress… The goal of the surge is to provide that security – and to help prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it. As I will explain tonight, our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home.
On political progress:
Now the Iraqi government must bring the same determination to achieving reconciliation. This is an enormous undertaking after more than three decades of tyranny and division. The government has not met its own legislative benchmarks – and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders, I have made it clear that they must.
Yet Iraq’s national leaders are getting some things done. For example, they have passed a budget. They are sharing oil revenues with the provinces… And local reconciliation is taking place. The key now is to link this progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so will national politics.
On the principle of “Return on Success”:
The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is “return on success.” The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.
On coming together as a Nation to support this mission:
Americans want our country to be safe, and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home.
The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together.
On an enduring relationship with Iraq that requires many fewer American troops:
This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my Presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship – in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.
On why we must succeed:
The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States.
Realizing this vision will be difficult – but it is achievable. Our military commanders believe we can succeed. Our diplomats believe we can succeed. And for the safety of future generations of Americans, we must succeed.
Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East. We should be able to agree that we must defeat al Qaeda, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land, and strengthen our military so we can prevail in the struggle against terrorists and extremists.
So tonight I want to speak to Members of the United States Congress: Let us come together on a policy of strength in the Middle East. I thank you for providing crucial funds and resources for our military. And I ask you to join me in supporting the recommendations General Petraeus has made, and the troop levels he has asked for.
On the gains we are making in Iraq:
Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken. It is never too late to deal a blow to al Qaeda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win.
The talking heads on Fox are complaining that he has made too many speeches on Iraq. Weren’t these same types carping that he never addressed the topic enough?
FNC’s Bill Sammon just made my point. Thank you.
***
More details on troop levels.
***
9:06pm Eastern. President Bush mentions the murder of Anbar sheikh Abu Risha.
9:20pm Eastern. Democrat Jack Reed of R.I. is giving the Democrat response. Attacks Bush for not laying out a plan to end the war. “Iraq’s fundamental problems are political, not military.”
FYI, here’s Jack Reed’s letter earlier this year pushing Bush to be more “proactive” in ending the “humanitarian crisis” in Darfur:
Simply condemning the worsening violence is not enough; we believe it is past time to use all resources at our disposal to stop this humanitarian tragedy.
Here’s something to cheer you all up: the Democrats are demoralized.
From MNF-I, news of improvements in Husseiniyah.
Citizens turning in weapons caches in Arab Jabour and al-Buaytha.
And a Taji terrorist safe house destroyed, with help from Iraqi Army Scouts.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Stop The ACLU » Blog Archive » Bush To Order 5,700 Troops Home By Christmas
- Old War Dogs
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » UPDATE: DEMOCRATS RESPOND(IGNORANTLY)Open Thread: President Bush To Address The Nation
- Democrats Gone Wild! Their Attempted Smoke Screens - The Fighting GOP
- DeMediacratic Nation
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Iraq
Ed Driscoll
» The University Archipelago
Ed Driscoll
» First We Take Chicago, Then We Take BerlinPundit & Pundette
» Westboro haters have enough to go around for everyoneTigerHawk
» Abortion and health care "reform"Weekly Standard
» The Federal Bureau of Non-InvestigationNewsBusters.org
» Matthews on Ft. Hood Suspect Warning Signal: 'That's Not a Crime to Call al Qaeda, Is It?'protein wisdom
» The One note song [Darleen Click]Pundit & Pundette
» Guess what? Hasan frequented strip club
I’ve always thought one of the weak points of Bush’s Iraq policy has been his lack of communication directly to the people.
He needs to get his position out there more.
How many people watch/listen to Bush’s speeches? I’d assume that most against the war would refuse to watch/listen to it because they “don’t want to hear any more of that propaganda.”
As I performed another OB ultrasound exam on an illegal alien, (tax payer funded), I wonder how America can fight a war with the southern border wide open. I mean, If a preg. illegal alien female can make it to the Red River, who can not?
We never would’ve had such a low level of support for this war if he had got out there and had addresses as he did tonight on a regular basis.
Stay the course, Kick Butt!
Nancy Pelosi is certifiably insane. Her latest pearl:
““We need a new direction that redeploys our troops from Iraq, rebuilds our military and refocuses on fighting terrorism across the world,” Ms. Pelosi said.”
Say what?
Overall, a good speech.
FNC’s Bill Sammon is another one of the better commenters. Very quick, well prepared.
Yeah Bear I heard that also, she has no clue just a mouthpiece that wouldnt know her a__ from a hole in seacrhlight where her little no brain half a man buddy is from.
As much as it’s good that Bush gets out in front of the people and make the case, I’m really sick and tired of his political timidity. When the Democrats in Reagan’s day bulled some unconsionable BS, Reagan called them out on it. When the ultra left-wing are flailing Bush, the troops and his party alive Bush softly speaks of reconciliation “in congress’, too much of a mouse to even barely say the word “Democrats”.
If only he’d speak up against the Left, their outright falsehoods and despicable acts like the General Betray Us ad directly, his approval would be up 15 points, the Repubs would regain control and the country would be alot less divided because all you have to do is show the facts which expose the Dems to erase a great deal of their political power.
But no, our little fellow talks of the courage of our troops, without evidencing the courage necessary to call out those who slander and – dare I say it – betray them.
Someone should tell our commander in chief that being plain-spoken sometimes means standing up strongly to your political opponents who would undermine the efforts to which our troops make the ultimate sacrifice so to insure that the damage is less than it might otherwise be.
Speech rating:
Positive Message: A+
Putting the facts out: B
Standing up to the traitors in our own country in a time of war: F.
Pathetic.
On September 13th, 2007 at 9:14 pm, OldGuy53 said:
I’ve always thought one of the weak points of Bush’s Iraq policy has been his lack of communication directly to the people.
No. One of the weak points of Bush’s Iraq policy is his total sellout to Saudi Arabia. Few realize that the first invasion in 1991 in Iraq was to save wahhabbis in Riyadh. The policy of Bush Jr, has remained the same today. Hence the immense prize payed in American taz-dollars and blood. Will continue to do so, no matter what Bush communicates i,e lies, to people.
The country was much different when Reagan was president – he won both his elections by a landslide, so he had the “political capital” to be confrontational with the Democrat-controlled Congress. Bush won two extremely close elections (both electorally and in raw numbers). With the Dems and the Old Media like they are today, whatever political capital Bush had doesn’t really exist anymore. I know the President’s approval rating is currently higher than Congress’, but it’s still down in the 30s. His numbers would probably have to come up before be can gain back some of that capital.
Once we can drill off ALL our coastal waters, and in ANWAR, and can build nuclear power plants, and can build more efficient oil refineries, and become less dependent on foreign oil, it will be a lot easier to tell the Saudis to sit and spin. but, because of NIMBY and the environmentalist lobby and California & Florida not wanting oil rigs visible off their tourist beaches, we’re kinda stuck sucking up to the House of Saud…
One of the big problems here is that Iraqis have proven to be unworthy allies, pocketing the gallantry of our military while doing little to set their country straight and carrying on internal grudges and vendettas. Gen. Petraeus has tried to counter this by adopting Tip O’Neill’s philosophy that all politics is local and working with Iraqis from the ground up. President Bush has been unable to bring himself to admit this reality about a divided country that we have been trying in vain to unite over the last four years. The approach of Gen. Petraeus requires much patience and time, which is wearing thin on the American public no matter how much we despise the loony left.
The Tinkerbelle Solution
> OldGuy53 said:
> I’ve always thought one of the weak points of Bush’s Iraq policy has been his lack of communication directly to the people. He needs to get his position out there more.
This is very true, but it’s sad that it takes a Daniel Webster and a floor show to make people understand the situation and ramifications of our posture over there. We have too many people looking on this thing like a football game to one-up a Big-Bad-Blame-Someone when our enemies don’t give a damn. The end point of a war is not how fast you can pull out but how well you can finish the job so that you don’t have to go back again. It bristles me when some talk about their super-compassion about lives lost over there. I rue every uniform and innocent lost in a war — and I also know Tinkerbelle is a poor substitute to zero zealots literally out to kill us in our beds here if they’d the power to. The vexing thing about it is that too many here are not streetwise enough to know it’s the law of the jungle running things out the real world, and they swear the danger is exaggerated or even that we DON’T have real enemies, just angry people that “we’ve” wronged somehow. They ignore or are blind that this has been simmering over there since Lawrence of Arabia and is due to boil over one day, Bush or no Bush. These are IMPLACABLE enemies. You can’t “sit down” and reason with them. They don’t think like you or I. We are infidels, and that means more than just a dictionary term to them. If a meteor wiped out America and Europe it’d mean squat to them; just a removed dirty speed bump in their history, This is not a game. This is not a get-even contest. This is not Theory 101. This is not a debating society match to win someone over. Our families are in a bullseye. We got people out there who just for the sake of converting us to Islam are all too willing to turn our cities into craters if they get a nuke or virus slipped to them under the table. I have relatives who are converts with that mindset, and you can’t appreciate what you’re up against until it’s glaring back at you in the eye. Our soliders know this and that’s why the vast majority are hanging in there taking the bull by the horns, not deserting or balking; they don’t want to see their kids coming back to patch up their half-ass left undone job later on. When they see people who want to “save them from themselves” by pulling them out of a theater of war, they feel like being regarded as babies in a playground and their mothers are running to grab them because they see a pedophile behind the trees. If you don’t trust Bush at least trust the people on the ground over there — not what the “we’re trying to short-circuit the war by terrifying public opinion to save our babies in uniform” media feed you, but the actual folks over there who’ve stared the monster in the face and don’t want it tailing them home afterwards.
James Greenidge
Queens NY
You’re right, James. But I don’t most folks expect a dancing YouTube Snowman. We got spoiled with the “Great Communicator” who was able to talk over the politicos heads and speak right to the people with little effort.
While I don’t think a Reagan is needed to get the message across, I do think a more strong and frequent voice would be an improvement. President Bush doesn’t seem to have it in his basic makeup, except those times when he’s been impromptu – e.g. the bullhorn speech at Ground Zero, remarks like “wanted dead or alive” re:Bin Laden, those type of things are both meaninful and reach people.
The failures to attack the slanderous accusations in Congress last week and the over-used bromides in the speech left me underwhelmed.
Ahhh, no blood for oil. As predictable as sunrise. Nice to know that in an everchanging world some things remain constant.
Actually, protecting Saudi Arabia from an expansionist and aggressive Iraq was one of the stated goals of that war.
Potestas Democraticorum delenda est!
Actions speak louder than words. If Bush were really committed to protecting the American people from terrorism, cheap labor for his business cronies wouldn’t be his top priority.
We are left with the inescapable conclusion that Bush is a manipulative BS artist. This is so obvious I can’t stand to watch his predictable speeches.
What really shapes Bush? Poor judgement would top the list, followed by cronyism that ensures he’ll never get any good counsel either, religious zealotry that puts Israel over the U.S., and probably his relationship with his father.
Hi, Bhishma. I just finished reading the Mahabharata – I loved it!
Maybe if GW could speak the way Reagan did, the elections wouldn’t have been so close. And if he had called out the Demoncrats during the first term, the second election wouldn’t have been so close.
Leadership skills have always been his weakness.
Bush’s leadership style is a corporate type; flying under the radar. I’m familiar with it since I practice it as well. He wants to get the absolute right people into the right roles, get out of their way and let them do their jobs. He sets the course and makes adjustments. Not too easy to maintain at a large corporation and impossible to accomplish just running the country in the face of a treasonous far left and press much less attempting to save the rest of the free world from it’s own headlong rush to cultural suicide. But I understand and sympathize with the approach.
On September 13th, 2007 at 9:50 pm, bear1909 said:
My moonbat SO says the same stuff. I think I first heard something like it from Joe Biden or Barack Obama. They say that the war in Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror and that we need to “redeploy” so we can return to fighting the existing terrorists instead of creating more terrorists in Iraq.
Yeah like Bosnia or maybe Grenada!. Better yet, she’d redeploy them to the rear so we can save them for a rainy day when they might really be needed.
Vote Democrat! We Invest in Failure (so we can make the highest political returns)!
I can’t say the president doesn’t have leadership skills. When you say he doesn’t “speak the way Reagan did”, not many people do – they didn’t call Reagan the “Great Communicator” for nothing. I’m sure his public speaking skills came from being an actor and learning how to put emotion and passion into practiced speech. Bush never has done well when presenting prepared speeches. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, Bush speaks so much better when he speaks “off the cuff” than when he’s reading a speech. And, as for the particular words used? Every politician these days has speech writers…
I had always thought the purpose of the surge was to give the Iraqi’s room to make political progress.
Has there been political progress in Iraq? OK, some local municipal political progress (and, that should not be frowned upon) but the intent was for ‘National’ political progress.
The accepted cliche definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome. Hence, we changed ’strategery’ and what we were doing in Iraq. We moved from ‘clear’ to ‘clear and hold.’ That was good and wise.
Now for the definition of unmitigated stupidity. Doing what works and is successful and then stopping it.
The surge is working, why stop? Surge into other provinces, surge into more neighborhoods, surge until victory, because surge actually works.
I am just so cynical about Pres Bush and how he is prosecuting the Iraqi front on the GWOT.
One last question –
It is not about our military doing what is asked of them, but do you trust the Iraqis?
So, it is official, the 1991 was was to save rich wahhabis from Saddam. What did Saudi Arabia give USA (not the Bush family) in return? What were the other stated goals that were not related ot he first one? If the war was in no US interest, how is the war, not an abuse of using national resources?
Congratulations, Surak! How did you lik the turn of events? What were the salient features? How much do you believe / do not believe? If you feel like discussing the great epic, I’d be happy to. Congrats again!
-Timidity.
- Corruption.
- Persuit of wealth.
- Persuit of power.
.. shape Bush.
His record speaks for himself.
For more read ‘Letters to Leaders’ at: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/?id=20004&lvl=F