BushSpeak bs Response
pure bs opinion! Not to be confused with fact.
This is my response to Bush's speech of 24 May 2004.
First of all, an apology. I meant to get this entry posted yesterday, but it needed 'polishing.' Enough of my lame excuses. Without further ado:
Bushspeak
On Monday night President Bush initiated a new salvo to convince America, its allies - the coalition of the billing® - and the people of Iraq that he, and his adminstration has a plan, or plans to bring both peace and democracy to Iraq. Bush spoke, as he has as of late, in front of a backdrop calculated to buttress his image of being a strong leader. I remind the reader of Bush's now commonly mocked use of an aircraft carrier to signal Operation Iraqi Freedom, well, over. "Mission Accomplished, " right?
The backdrop for his latest speech was the institution whose name appeared again and again in tiny squares behind the president: "U.S. Army War College." This was an all too obvious ploy to portray Bush as a strong military leader(his missing year in the Guard, and utter discounting of his military's advice about a great many things related to his Exclellent Iraq Adventure® notwithstanding). His mission, in the remaining months before the election, was to convince America that the war in Iraq was, and is still, worth fighting and is winnable on some concrete level.
Everything in Iraq is a skeptic's banquet, and while Bush's speech conveyed both resolve and hope, it lacked the specifics that distinguish fairy tale thinking from a real plan to achieve his stated goals.
Bush laid out a five-point plan to bring peace, stability and democracy to Iraq. Since his stated plan was essentially a recitation of measures already under way, it was his newspeak way of saying "stay the course." This has come to mean death and despair to Iraqis and 'coalition forces' alike.
In the face of a growing body of evidence and mass public acknowledgement, Bush leveled with us and warned that the attacks on coalition forces and Iraqis who work with them would continue after the planned June 30 transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi interim provisional government. He also said - and I found this refreshingly frank, if a bit fear-mongering - that an Iraq that was allowed to collapse into chaos would endanger the world.
Yet Bush offered precious little explaining how to prevent a collapse from occurring if American troops pulled out. We'll be there for a long time.
We are stuck in Iraq(nah. no 'Q' word). Dissociating America while giving the Iraqis some hope to avoid civil war will take the help of other nations, including those with at least some degree of Islamic government. Bush has asked for that help, but he did not say what would induce the allies he ignored in the run-up to war to commit troops to Iraq now.
We know what works in these situations. Unfortunately, the governmental coffers are empty, and we seem less than freely willing to share lucrative reconstruction contracts with companies in countries whose help we not only need, but are likely to be essential for anything remotely resembling 'success' in Iraq.
Bush spoke of a turnover to an Iraqi government that does not yet exist. That government is to be assembled by one man, Lakhdar Brahimi, acting under the aegis of the U.N., an organization Bush scorned when it declined to sanction the invasion of Iraq. On 22 Oct. 2002 in the push to war, Bush urged the UN to be more than just a debating society, and on 12 Sept. 2002 Bush said the UN risked becoming "irrevelant" unless the UN rubber-stamped his personal war. These statements about the UN, and others concerning "old Europe" were echoed without modification by Bush Administration officials. Hardly diplomatic.
Bush spoke of giving that - as yet to be defined - government sovereignty over Iraq. But the militias of Iraq's many factions remain armed and in place. Since the new government will have no real ability to protect itself, Iraqi sovereignty will be symbolic at best. Indeed, the U.S. military will remain outside of the jurisdiction of any Iraqi government for an indeterminate time. I think we know where the real power in Iraq will be.
Throughout his speech Bush referred to all who attack coalition forces as terrorists - in an apparent attempt to justify launching a war of choice. The shell game of the casus belli remains elusive. There are terrorists in Iraq, not only likely more than when the invasion began, but perhaps terrorists with a trans-oceanic reach. This was not the case before the invasion. Coalition forces are also fighting Saddam loyalists, religious extremists and ordinary Iraqis who have taken up arms to avenge the death of a family member, or members, and those angry at the occupation of their nation and the deaths of innocent citizens. From foreign press accounts, the number of foreign fighters is far less than claimed by the U.S. I don't know where the truth is.
Bush also sent conflicting messages to America's troops, at a time when clarity and candor are warranted. At one point in the speech, after thanking them for their extended service in Iraq, he promised they would be home soon. But then, he said that depending on events, tours of duty may be further extended, and that more troops would be sent if America's commanders asked for them. He did not mention that the next day would bring news that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top American commander in Iraq, was being replaced. Ahem. Moving right along.
Noteworthy by admission, was Ahmed Chalabi, the thoroughly discredited Iraqi/Jordanian exile, neocon shill, and convicted embezzler, who, perhaps more than anyone else, sold the war to Americans through the dissemination of information about WMD which he later said: "As far as we're concerned we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important." Unfortunately, the "what was said before" was the faux WMD information used to sell the product known as Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Bush was also mute on that Osama bin Laden fellow. It is likely that Mr. Bush gave bin Laden a great recruiting tool with the invasion of Iraq. The al-Qaeda network may have as many as 18,000 terrorists that have infiltrated perhaps 60 nations.
This Bush speech on Iraq was the first in a series. He pledged to update the country weekly about the course of the occupation in Iraq. Talk is cheap. It will take more than euphony and a patriotic backdrop to prove that the Administration that started the war is capable of ending it.
That's way too much drivel. Sorry :)
This is my response to Bush's speech of 24 May 2004.
First of all, an apology. I meant to get this entry posted yesterday, but it needed 'polishing.' Enough of my lame excuses. Without further ado:
Bushspeak
On Monday night President Bush initiated a new salvo to convince America, its allies - the coalition of the billing® - and the people of Iraq that he, and his adminstration has a plan, or plans to bring both peace and democracy to Iraq. Bush spoke, as he has as of late, in front of a backdrop calculated to buttress his image of being a strong leader. I remind the reader of Bush's now commonly mocked use of an aircraft carrier to signal Operation Iraqi Freedom, well, over. "Mission Accomplished, " right?
The backdrop for his latest speech was the institution whose name appeared again and again in tiny squares behind the president: "U.S. Army War College." This was an all too obvious ploy to portray Bush as a strong military leader(his missing year in the Guard, and utter discounting of his military's advice about a great many things related to his Exclellent Iraq Adventure® notwithstanding). His mission, in the remaining months before the election, was to convince America that the war in Iraq was, and is still, worth fighting and is winnable on some concrete level.
Everything in Iraq is a skeptic's banquet, and while Bush's speech conveyed both resolve and hope, it lacked the specifics that distinguish fairy tale thinking from a real plan to achieve his stated goals.
Bush laid out a five-point plan to bring peace, stability and democracy to Iraq. Since his stated plan was essentially a recitation of measures already under way, it was his newspeak way of saying "stay the course." This has come to mean death and despair to Iraqis and 'coalition forces' alike.
In the face of a growing body of evidence and mass public acknowledgement, Bush leveled with us and warned that the attacks on coalition forces and Iraqis who work with them would continue after the planned June 30 transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi interim provisional government. He also said - and I found this refreshingly frank, if a bit fear-mongering - that an Iraq that was allowed to collapse into chaos would endanger the world.
Yet Bush offered precious little explaining how to prevent a collapse from occurring if American troops pulled out. We'll be there for a long time.
We are stuck in Iraq(nah. no 'Q' word). Dissociating America while giving the Iraqis some hope to avoid civil war will take the help of other nations, including those with at least some degree of Islamic government. Bush has asked for that help, but he did not say what would induce the allies he ignored in the run-up to war to commit troops to Iraq now.
We know what works in these situations. Unfortunately, the governmental coffers are empty, and we seem less than freely willing to share lucrative reconstruction contracts with companies in countries whose help we not only need, but are likely to be essential for anything remotely resembling 'success' in Iraq.
Bush spoke of a turnover to an Iraqi government that does not yet exist. That government is to be assembled by one man, Lakhdar Brahimi, acting under the aegis of the U.N., an organization Bush scorned when it declined to sanction the invasion of Iraq. On 22 Oct. 2002 in the push to war, Bush urged the UN to be more than just a debating society, and on 12 Sept. 2002 Bush said the UN risked becoming "irrevelant" unless the UN rubber-stamped his personal war. These statements about the UN, and others concerning "old Europe" were echoed without modification by Bush Administration officials. Hardly diplomatic.
Bush spoke of giving that - as yet to be defined - government sovereignty over Iraq. But the militias of Iraq's many factions remain armed and in place. Since the new government will have no real ability to protect itself, Iraqi sovereignty will be symbolic at best. Indeed, the U.S. military will remain outside of the jurisdiction of any Iraqi government for an indeterminate time. I think we know where the real power in Iraq will be.
Throughout his speech Bush referred to all who attack coalition forces as terrorists - in an apparent attempt to justify launching a war of choice. The shell game of the casus belli remains elusive. There are terrorists in Iraq, not only likely more than when the invasion began, but perhaps terrorists with a trans-oceanic reach. This was not the case before the invasion. Coalition forces are also fighting Saddam loyalists, religious extremists and ordinary Iraqis who have taken up arms to avenge the death of a family member, or members, and those angry at the occupation of their nation and the deaths of innocent citizens. From foreign press accounts, the number of foreign fighters is far less than claimed by the U.S. I don't know where the truth is.
Bush also sent conflicting messages to America's troops, at a time when clarity and candor are warranted. At one point in the speech, after thanking them for their extended service in Iraq, he promised they would be home soon. But then, he said that depending on events, tours of duty may be further extended, and that more troops would be sent if America's commanders asked for them. He did not mention that the next day would bring news that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top American commander in Iraq, was being replaced. Ahem. Moving right along.
Noteworthy by admission, was Ahmed Chalabi, the thoroughly discredited Iraqi/Jordanian exile, neocon shill, and convicted embezzler, who, perhaps more than anyone else, sold the war to Americans through the dissemination of information about WMD which he later said: "As far as we're concerned we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important." Unfortunately, the "what was said before" was the faux WMD information used to sell the product known as Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Bush was also mute on that Osama bin Laden fellow. It is likely that Mr. Bush gave bin Laden a great recruiting tool with the invasion of Iraq. The al-Qaeda network may have as many as 18,000 terrorists that have infiltrated perhaps 60 nations.
This Bush speech on Iraq was the first in a series. He pledged to update the country weekly about the course of the occupation in Iraq. Talk is cheap. It will take more than euphony and a patriotic backdrop to prove that the Administration that started the war is capable of ending it.
That's way too much drivel. Sorry :)
No comments :
Post a Comment