[Draw your own conclusion.] A Case for Progress Amid Some Omissions http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR2005062801583_pf.html By Glenn Kessler and Robin Wright Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, June 29, 2005; A15 In his speech last night, President Bush ignored some uncomfortable facts about the U.S. enterprise in Iraq and overstated the extent of overseas support. But he correctly identified the gains made by the nascent Iraqi government in the past year in the face of a fierce insurgency. The president portrayed the war in Iraq as a central front in the anti-terrorism effort, a sort of quarantine for terrorist groups that might otherwise attack the United States. But the original rationale for the invasion of Iraq was ignored last night: a conviction by the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein's government possessed chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons of mass destruction. In fact, the U.N. resolution that the Bush administration used as a rationale for the war dealt entirely with Iraq's failure to give up those weapons -- none of which were found after the war. Bush, announcing the invasion on March 19, 2003, said the military operations were "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." Two and a half months later, when he declared that major combat operations were over, the president said it was a victory in the war against terrorism because Hussein was "a source of terrorism funding" (referring to Iraq's role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) and because "no terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime." Bush also described Hussein as "an ally of al Qaeda," a point he suggested again last night, but the Sept. 11 commission concluded there had been no collaboration between Hussein and the terrorist group headed by Osama bin Laden. Now, many analysts inside and outside the government portray Iraq as a breeding ground for terrorist groups, in part because of mistakes made by the administration after it defeated Hussein and occupied Iraq. Bush emphasized the gains fighting terrorism, but the Pentagon commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, said this month that more foreign fighters are now moving into Iraq than were six months ago. In other sections of his speech, the president strained to make the level of international support higher and broader than in reality. He said the "international community has stepped forward with vital assistance," with 30 nations providing troops in Iraq. He also said the insurgents have failed to "force a mass withdrawal by our allies." But the U.S.-led coalition, which once included about three dozen nations, has become a political liability for several participating countries. In the past year, more than a dozen countries have withdrawn or have announced plans to leave. Spain, one of the three original co-sponsors of the invasion, withdrew more than a year ago. Portugal, Norway, Hungary, the Philippines, New Zealand, Thailand, Honduras, the Dominican Republic and Tonga have also pulled out. Among three of the largest contributors, Ukraine and Poland have announced they will pull out by year's end, and Italy plans to begin reducing its presence this fall. Bush also asserted that "some 40 countries and three international organizations have pledged about $34 billion in assistance for Iraqi reconstruction." But he did not say that $20 billion of that amount is from the United States, and much of it has been diverted to security or has not yet been delivered. Moreover, only about $2 billion of the remaining pledges -- made nearly two years ago -- has been delivered by the rest of the world. Even if the full $34 billion is eventually delivered, it is well short of the $56 billion that the World Bank and the United Nations said in 2003 that Iraq would need over the next five years. Yet, as Bush noted, the international community has become convinced that success in Iraq is important and that it is necessary to support, at least rhetorically, the transitional government. Bush said Iraq's political transformation is sparking change across the Middle East. Yet Yasser Arafat's death was the turning point that brought new Palestinian leadership -- and new prospects for talks with Israel and U.S. intervention. The suicide bombing that assassinated Lebanon's opposition leader provoked the "Cedar Revolution" and demands for Syria's withdrawal. And the process that led to Libya's surrender of its weapons of mass destruction was started before Bush came to office. Indeed, because of bloodshed, rather than Iraq being viewed as a model, many in the region say they fear the kind of change that Iraq has experienced over the past two years. On several points, Bush accurately portrayed the situation. Despite the slowness in forming Iraq's current government, the three-phase transition has met most of the deadlines. More than 60 percent of Iraqis defied the violence to vote in January's free elections. Iraq has made significant gains in both the quantity and quality of its security forces over the past year, although together the 150,000-strong international coalition that ousted Hussein and the 160,000 Iraqi forces have not been able to handle the insurgency. Indeed, as Bush said, Iraqi insurgents and foreign fighters have so far failed to achieve their strategic goals -- and hundreds have been killed or captured. Their activities are still largely in three of Iraq's 18 provinces. Bush also noted that the insurgents have "failed to incite an Iraqi civil war." That is correct, thus far, but senior Iraqi officials warn that intensifying sectarianism makes a civil war increasingly possible.
I thought he dropped that argument? I was a little dissapointed I missed the speech but it looks like nothing new.
Once again, however, the president missed an opportunity to fully level with Americans, even though some of the hard truths he elided have been spelled out by his aides and senior military commanders. Mr. Bush's account of his strategy for Iraq, which has remained virtually unchanged in the past year, doesn't answer the worrying questions raised by these facts. How will the insurgency be contained during the considerable time it will take to prepare Iraqi troops? How will the Army and Marines manage years more of heavy deployments while addressing their recruitment problems? And how will continued heavy spending on the war affect the federal budget and domestic priorities? The president's evasion of the hardest facts about Iraq is coupled with a reluctance to candidly describe the likely price of success... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR2005062801525.html
The Houston Chronicle said the point of the speech was to firm up the base of loyal Republicans who are beginning to waiver. How many more times can Bush falsely play the 9/11 card which has little if anything to do with the Iraq war, except as a pretext, before even the Republican faithful have doubts. They are the only major part of the US population still with a majority supporting his war.
Does anyone know the estimated size of the insurgency? Because the last couple of days, I keep hearing the "we've captured or killed hundreds of insurgents" line as a show of our success. We have 150,000 troops plus 150,000 Iraqi forces... and we've managed to kill/capture a few hundred enemies? Assuming the insurgents have several thousand people and are recruiting more, this doesn't seem like a formula for success.
I'd like to know the answer to this too. I'm amazed at the resilience of patriotism-induced willfull ignorance. The cynic in me says truth has nothing to do with it anymore - American voters tend to play "team loyalty".
meanwhile, in pakistan (our frontline ally in the war against terrorism) : http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/12000968.htm and this: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GF22Df02.html
I think if you look at the attitudes expressed by many of the pro-invasion posters here sums explains. Many posters here just can't conceive of the possibility that the Admin has undertaken something this major under anything but honorable pretenses and that the Admin could be so misguided in its execution. Further 9/11 did change things in terms of a higher degree of fear which naturally leads to a greater desire for strong leadership to face the threat and not just more willingness to surrender individual judgement to leadership but also a belief that without following that leadership fully that will lead to greater danger. All of this has played to the strengths of a highly politicized Admin who even befor 9/11 emphasized an all or nothing loyalty and partisanship. So we've got a situation that has played into the worst (or best depending on your POV) tendencies of this Admin already bent on centralizing power and stifling dissent. This situation though has occured throughout history where a country or society under threat has used patriotism / nationalism to quash dissent and centralize power often with the consent of the population.
So now the liberals are comparing the US to Nazi Germany. You guys are truly pathetic. Disgusting. Please show some knowledge and appreciation for just how awful the 3rd Reich was before you go throwing around these wild claims. Very irresponsible.
You are completely unable to respond within the context of the thread, aren't you? Truly sad for a supposed Rice grad.
References to "September 11?: 5 References to "weapons of mass destruction": 0 References to "freedom": 21 References to "exit strategy": 0 References to "Saddam Hussein": 2 References to "Osama Bin Laden": 2 References to "a mistake": 1 (setting a timetable for withdrawal) References to "mission": 11 References to "mission accomplished": 0 http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/28/bush-iraq-speech-by-the-numbers/
So it is OK for Karl Rove to say whatever he wants, but anyone else is pathetic. I'll agree that Nazi Germany is an extreme example. A more appropriate comparison would just be a fascist regime in general. Everybody lately gets compared to the Nazis. GWB compared Saddam and his regime to the Nazis, now the liberals are comparing our government to the Nazis. I personally think everyone should just leave the Nazis in the history books. Now on the subject of irresponsibility, how about the fact that GWB is still trying to convince the public that before the U.S. invaded Iraq that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were in cahoots? How about our extra tax payer dollars lining the Halliburton bank accounts? Why shouldn't the liberals throw out ridiculous statements with half-truths? The entire Bush administration is built upon half-truths.
Head In The Sand Bush: “In the past year, we have made significant progress.” Fact: Daily attacks are on the rise. The number of attacks per day has risen from 10 in May 2003 to 52 in June 2004 to 70 last month. [Brookings, 6/3/05] Fact: Car bombs are on the rise. “[T]here have been more than 484 car bombs since the handover, according to an Associated Press count, killing at least 2,221 people and wounding at least 5,574.” [AP, 6/27/05] Fact: Gen. John Abizaid said insurgency is just as strong as six months ago. “In terms of comparison from six months ago, in terms of foreign fighters, I believe there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago. In terms of overall strength of the insurgency, I would say it is the same as it was.” [CNN, 6/23/05] Fact: Rumsfeld said insurgency could go on for 12 years. “That insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years.” [Fox News, 6/26/05] http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/28/head-in-the-sand/ I would have so much more respect for Bush and this administration if they could just be honest with the American people. Admit their mistakes, tell us how they are going to adjust to those mistakes and move on. But they insist on painting this rosey picture that just insults my intelligence. I may not agree with what they want to do, but I can at least respect honesty.
I agree we should probably leave the Nazis in the history books. But I can see why some posters use that as an example, just to show the danger and urgency of the current situation. When they said Germany pre 1937, it's not comparing to the third Reich in its late stage, but rather the third Reich in the make. Honestly, there are so many similarity in any fascist regimes, like mass opinion manipulation, classify people by commerades and friends of enemies - enemies etc. Bush's administration have been practicing lots of stratigies reminds me of those so-called communist regimes. Actually, it's not surprising to me at all, although different extremists proclaim to have different goals, their means and consequences of their methodologies are always similar, because in fact, they are the same sort - "I am the only rightous one, and I will use every means possible to defeat you and prove I am right". However, whenever Nazi is mentioned, or Communist is mentioned, no matter whatever context it's in, it will raise outrage from all different angles. Because it's a tabu in the States. If we think we are offended, then it doesn't matter any more about what was discussed. You raise questions, lay out facts or nubmers, and point out flaws in statements etc, you won't get direct answer. No one will come out to defend indefendables. But once there is a tabu word found in the whole browser, people will jump out to condemn you, because you committed a crime, and it all because of your evil motive. Once your motive was wrong, no matter what you did is evil. Actually, it quite refreshing to me. Because I used to see that in "old" China, and saw it fading away recently. Now, in the most democratic country, those "evil" methodology find a new home.
