The President's Speech

[Annie]

As were mine, and myself when my children were born. Still doesn't prevent you from being a jerk though. (Please note, no stronger adjectives used, thought known.)

 

[dilloduck]

He said what his critics said they wanted to hear. A plan. Now the critics want more details. They will never be happy so no loss there. It was my impression that he was aiming the speech at his own base of support which has been wavering somewhat. I'm sure he also aimed it at swing voters but I'm not really sure he said anything new to them. I liked it personally but think he unfortunately needs to s-p-e-l-l i-t a-l-l out slowly so that people understand how this war makes the US safer.

 

[Gop guy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Pretty good. I wish he would have spent more time discussing what the greater implications of this war are all about.

And is demolishing abu Ghraib really necessary? Seems overly dramatic.

I thought it was excellent as well, he could've sounded a tad more passionate, but all and all, excellent.

 

[supermarine]

i thought the speech was very good. And i do think they should destroy the prison, not because of the american "atrocities" but because of saddam's torture chambers.

 

[5stringJeff]

Honestly, it wasn't a great speech, rhetorically speaking - it was actually kind of a rehash. What was important about it was the Bush laid out his plan, step by step, for returning Iraqi sovreignity. I think his plan is well though tout and very feasible.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
How could you guys say it was a good speech?! He didn't say anything about the june 30th handover.

Did you even watch or listen to the speech?

Here's text directly from his speech:

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. America and other countries will continue to provide technical experts to help Iraq's ministries of government, but these ministries will report to Iraq's new prime minister.

The United Nations Special Envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, is now consulting with a broad spectrum of Iraqis to determine the composition of this interim government. The special envoy intends to put forward the names of interim government officials this week. 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. America fully supports Mr. Brahimi's efforts, and I have instructed the Coalition Provisional Authority to assist him in every way possible.

In preparation for sovereignty, many functions of government have already been transferred. Twelve government ministries are currently under the direct control of Iraqis. The Ministry of Education, for example, is out of the propaganda business, and is now concerned with educating Iraqi children. Under the direction of Dr. Ala'din al-Alwan, the Ministry has trained more than 30,000 teachers and supervisors for the schools of a new Iraq.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38638

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by dilloduck
He said what his critics said they wanted to hear. A plan. Now the critics want more details. They will never be happy so no loss there. It was my impression that he was aiming the speech at his own base of support which has been wavering somewhat. I'm sure he also aimed it at swing voters but I'm not really sure he said anything new to them. I liked it personally but think he unfortunately needs to s-p-e-l-l i-t a-l-l out slowly so that people understand how this war makes the US safer.

He said what his critics wanted to hear.
He was aiming the speech at his own base.
Also aimed it at swing voters.

I think that just about covers everyone eh?


Someone from the Washington Times (not that liberal Pulitzer prize winning rag, the Post) said on the radio this morning that people took from the speech what they brought to it. That it probably did not change many peoples mind.

I think that's pretty much the case. For those like Gen. Zinni who said the current policy is heading over Niagara Falls, it offered little in the way of a new direction that is not headed for disaster.

For those who support Bush's Iraq policies, it reaffirms his commitment to get the job done and bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people.

The debate will probably continue till the election at which point we’ll finally find out if Kerry really has an alternative to offer, or if he’s just Imperialist-Lite.

 

[dilloduck]

Gen. Zinni needs to sell his book just like all the other "writers" who are trying to make bucks while the country is so divided.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Gen. Zinni needs to sell his book just like all the other "writers" who are trying to make bucks while the country is so divided.

Nothing wrong with selling a book. In fairness to the General though I would make two points. (1) He was a vocal critic of the war plans long before he co-wrote the book, and (2) He's right.

 

[dilloduck]

If Iraq fails the libs will blame it on Bush---If it Succeeds the libs will say it cost too much or we should have been doing something else more important. It's all the same old crap with any issue these days. Petty mudslinging, scapegoating and issue spinning. We will just have to wait and see what happens and history will judge. ( and judge and judge).

 

[freeandfun1]

MARCHING OFF THE CLIFF

by Michael Rubin

Salon.com

May 25, 2004

President Bush successfully contextualized Iraq as an essential component of the war against terror. His reminder that the U.S. cannot afford to fail is important, especially in an election year where Democrats and Republicans alike seek to make Bush's management of the Iraq war a campaign issue. Bush was wise to let Iraqis know that the Coalition Provisional Authority would not simply transfer itself into an embassy on June 30; it will be a mistake if any American continues to occupy CPA headquarters in Saddam's Republican Palace on July 1.

There were significant omissions in the Bush speech, however. Before the war both the State and the Defense Departments underestimated the trauma of President George H.W. Bush's abandonment of Iraqis in 1991. Iraqis remain unconvinced that the U.S. will stick to its rhetoric and will not once again cut and run. While Bush rightly says that "whenever people are given a choice . . . they prefer lives of freedom to lives of fear," he ignores the fact that Iraqis will not again put their necks on the line if they doubt U.S. commitment to their future. Comments by both Secretary of State Colin Powell and CPA Administrator L. Paul Bremer in the past week suggesting that the U.S. might withdraw its troops shook Iraqi confidence in the United States. Iraqis--who fear the worst--will notice that Bush did not roll back Powell's statements.

Iraqis will also be disappointed by the trust Bush places in the United Nations. The U.N. may be respected in the United States and Europe, but Iraqis have a very different experience. Many Iraqis believe that the raid on Ahmad Chalabi's compound was meant to squash the Governing Council's investigation into the U.N. oil-for-food program. U.N. special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi's credibility took a hit in the past month when Iraqis learned that his daughter was engaged to Prince Ali of Jordan, the half-brother of King Abdullah. We may respect Brahimi's role in Afghanistan, but Iraqis are prickly nationalists and distrust any mediators' ties to neighboring countries.

By focusing on the role of Saddam's elite guards in the insurgency, Bush downplayed the role of regional states like Iran and Syria in the current conflict. Ignoring their complicity may be politically expedient, but it can cost American lives. Over the eight months I worked for the CPA, I would sometimes visit the black market for documents. The price of Iraqi passports and identity cards increased as the cost of Iranian passports decreased. That's basic supply and demand. When I drove along the Syrian border in January, it was still unguarded. Tire tracks breached the single coil of barbed wire that delineated the frontier in the vicinity of Jebel Sinjar.

Bush also glossed over what elections for Iraq will mean. He laid out a multistep process, but the results of elections will be far different if they are party-slate (enabling tyranny of the majority) or single-constituency (making individuals accountable to specific districts). The devil is in the details, but with stakes so high, details cannot be ignored. All in all, a good start. But both Americans and Iraqis wait to hear more.