it wasn't his most dramatic speech, but he certainly got a rousing reception from those in the audience. clearly the military has great affection for this guy. his delivery was definitely stiff, tho i thought he brough it home at the end, talking about how we didn't invade iraq to turn iraqis into americans but to let them find their own path. i also found the part about the middle east eventually living up to the gifts of its ancient history particularly eloquent. not sure it'll sway any body firmly convinced bush is the anti-christ, but we're way past that point now, in any case.
One less thing for the liberals to complain about. The plan has been laid out and it is clear. Bush was right, the terrorists' only path to victory is testing the patience of the American public. The strong ones have held on. The weak flowers have wilted, giving in to the terrorists' wishes. Too much is at stake to simply give up, as many liberals are advocating. Terrorists should not and will not dictate the course of events in Iraq. A strong hand is needed, and Bush is that strong hand. A great speech tonight.
I'm sorry, what "plan" is that? This was just another stop on the campaign trail for Bush. I wasted half an hour listening to his bullsh*t. I can't wait for the Daily Show. That will put his speech in the proper perspective.
you obviously weren't listening then. the whole speech was about the five steps the admin is taking to return sovereignty to the iRaqi people. that's bull**** to you?
Am watching the speech on C-span. It is wierd it is like Bush doesn't have a clue what is happening in Iraq. He can just say this bs like nothing has happened to upset his little plans. Incredible. It might appease some dittoheads. Not much effect on the Iraqis. Thinks if he tears down the Prison that the Iraqis will forget the torture that was perpetuated by the US and santioned and covered up by the highest ranks of the US government. Thinks if he ocassionally say empty good things about Islam or Arabs that like children they will respond despite his deeds. How transparently patronizing to them.. Keeps trying to scare people with talk of terrorism and somehow suggest his Iraq War hasn't just made it worse. Some stirring military music. A campaign speeh at government expense.
I can predict Glynch's response before it even comes out of his keyboard. Decent speech, nothing to write home about, but I thought he communicated some of his points well. It was a neccessity for him to speak considering all the crap going on in the past few months.
I was only able to catch about the last 5 minutes on the radio tonight. It just so happened that Michael Savage carried it live. Savage said he was disappointed in the speech. The way he made it sound was as if Bush's message was geared more toward the citizens of Iraq than the citizens of America. Again, I missed it so I really can't comment.
The Times editorial about Bush's speech. Sounds like a reasonable take to me... May 25, 2004 The President's Speech If President Bush had been talking a year ago, after the fall of Baghdad, his speech at the Army War College last night might have sounded like a plan for moving forward. He was able to point to a new United Nations resolution being developed in consultation with American allies, not imposed in defiance of them, and to a timetable for moving Iraq toward elected self-government. He talked in general terms of expanding international involvement and stabilizing Iraq. But Mr. Bush was not starting fresh. He spoke after nearly 14 months of policy failures, none of them acknowledged by the president, which have left Iraq increasingly violent and drained Washington's credibility with the Iraqi people and the international community. They have been waiting for Mr. Bush to make a clean break with those policies. He did not do that last night. The speech reflected the fact that Mr. Bush has been backtracking lately, but he did not come close to charting the new course he needs to take. His "five steps" toward Iraqi independence were merely a recitation of the tasks ahead. Mr. Bush plans a series of addresses on Iraq before June 30. It was impossible not to wonder last night why he had waited until the security situation in Iraq had become disastrous, until Americans had begun losing faith in his leadership and, indeed, until just 37 days before a crucial new phase begins the transition to Iraqi sovereignty. It's regrettable that this president is never going to admit any shortcomings, much less failure. That's an aspect of Mr. Bush's character that we have to live with. But we cannot live without a serious plan for doing more than just getting through the June 30 transition and then muddling along until the November elections in the United States. Mr. Bush has yet to come up with a realistic way to internationalize the military operation and to get Iraq's political groups beyond their current game of jockeying for power and into a real process of drafting a workable constitution. The draft of the United Nations resolution that circulated yesterday was disappointingly sketchy on these points. It contains the phrases of international support — like references to a "multinational" military force — without committing the Security Council to do anything in particular. The draft endorses a continued American-led military presence in Iraq for at least a year beyond June 30, but it does not ensure expanded international participation. The resolution envisions that after the United Nations names the interim government leaders, it will proceed cautiously, and only when it deems it safe to do so. There are ways Mr. Bush can achieve the clean break that is so essential. A good start, first put forward by the Center for American Progress in Washington, is to go much further in internationalizing the next phase of the Iraq operation. Mr. Bush could convene a summit meeting to create a multinational group to oversee the transition. The U.N. Security Council could step up its participation by appointing an international high representative who would actively supervise the interim Iraqi government until the first round of elections. Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has proposed restructuring the military force in Iraq under NATO, with an American commander. Mr. Bush should pursue that at the NATO summit meeting next month. The president still has a number of speeches left to deliver before June 30. We hope he will use them to come up with a more specific plan, to stop listing the things we already knew needed to be done and to explain to us how he intends to do them. An acknowledgment of past mistakes would be nice. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/opinion/25TUE1.html
First, Bush has watched his Johnny Carson or Leno. He looked like he was having a gay old time as he strutted out. No somber concern like Nixon or LBJ or John Kennedy for him, at a time when the war is going badly and American troops and people are having problems. . No sir. I almost expected him to tell some Arab or maybe Kerry jokes or something, before introducing the military ban leader and getting the band to play a few bars to applause from the military audience. They could have then cut away to Halliburton, their sponsor. A second aspect of the talk that struck me was that Bush kept saying over and over that the occupation of Iraq is about the war on terror. All the Iraqis resisting the occupation are terrorists, or at least Sadam loyalists, so we must occupy and kill them. Pretty simple for him. No mention of Secretary O'Neil, terrorist expert Clarke or the Middle East Envoy and Commander of Middle t forces, Zinni, who have showed that Iraq hurt the battle against terrorism. In short, Wolfwowitz would be proud of Bush for holding the crumbling neocon line. Mentioned that every step of the way we have been following the UN. He forgot to mention that overwhelmingly the UN considered that we went to war without their vote. No mention of the polls that the majority of Iraqis just want us to leave, so they can be instantly self governed. He kept falsely asserting that nearly all Iraqis support the occupation, except for the small number of terrorists, of course which is why we need to go against the wishes of most that we just leave. Bush kept proudly emphasizing that he was granting "full sovereignity", to the Iraqis but never explained how this squares with occupation by US troops with a few of the coaliton of the willing, most of whom do no fighting. It was wierd, but the whole affair was so reminescent of say the old British Empire putting a native face on their armed control of a colony while talking about self governance of the locals. So 18th century. Once or twice he used his "Iraqis are a proud people" line.which he has used so childishly before. I'm sure that must have made the Iraqis and indeed the whole Arab world all feel so warm and tingly, forget the torture at Abu Graib and support the occupation of Iraq and perhaps even Palestine, since they can relax and rejoice in Bush's approval. In addition the line seemed to give Bush the type of affirmation that a racist gets when saying: "some of my best friends are black". As the NYT basically says. The whole speech is pretending the last 6 months to a year of miserable failure has not occurred. Maybe if Bush would just read the newspapers?
I agree with the Times editorial. This is the speech Bush should have delivered a year ago. Instead, at that time, we had him playing GI Joe on an aircraft carrier. Too little, too late.
Let's see, Jr's 5 point plan... 1. Handing over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government. well duh... 2. Establishing security. working on it... 3. Continuing to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. eventually...when we can get people to stop shooting at us… 4. Encouraging more international support. about time.. 5. Moving toward a national election in Iraq that "will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people." again, eventually... Don’t all these points seem obvious? I mean is this really a "new" plan?
I agree that these are all pretty much duhh, and he should have gone a little more in depth with each issue. However, I don't think he has ever stated these goals publicly or together so it was important for him to get that message out in a coherent speech. I think part of the reason he didn't want to go to in depth was so he could remain flexible with how these goals are carried out, i.e. if he says we're going to do it one way and then that way has draw backs he'd lose major face having to change the way he said he'd do it. It was a safe speech.
Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright; The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light, And somewhere men are laughing, and little children shout; But there is no joy in Mudville--great Casey has struck out.
