The Bush Speech

[Paelos]

If you saw it last night, then I expect you had some reaction to it. I sort of absorbed it while playing NWN, but I picked up on his 5 step plan and the idea of giving back Iraq to the Iraqis. While it was a rehash of most of his points, I did get the idea that he is still pushing the June 30 deadline and that he is now really going to have to make that stick. He's written the checks now a month ahead of time, and if they bounce it means trouble for his election.

Overall, I thought the speech was good, and in some places very true to the American ideal. I think he came off much better in the eyes of the people when talking about giving freedom back and his plans to have a friend in a free Iraq. I also think he coupled it well with the idea that things won't be easy. I like that realism from a President even in the months before an election.

I did notice the one glaring error in the speech when trying to name the Iraqi prison, which has already made a soundbyte on shows this morning. So feel free to ram Bush for bumbling Arabic names.

[schild]

Meh, I'm a pretty good public speaker  but I won't rail on anyone for tripping over a vowelcentric language like hebrew or arabic.

[Riggswolfe]

I didn't see the speech last night. To be honest I typically don't watch a President's speeches I try to find a transcript of it the next morning and read it. I saw the 5 points in the paper and they seemed to be fairly realistic. I liked that he said he was going to demolish that prison. I'm not so sure that building a new prison there is a good idea given the history of the current one.

Overall we'll see what happens June 30. My guess is the insurgents will step up their attacks when we get close to the deadline.

[Big Gulp]

Overall we'll see what happens June 30. My guess is the insurgents will step up their attacks when we get close to the deadline.

What I think the speech did well was to try to spell out for everyone that the handover is going to go through, come hell or high water, and that continued attacks in Iraq should be considered to be aimed square at Iraqi citizens and other Muslims.

It's a fairly good plan, it puts terrorists in the bind of losing popularity throughout the Islamic world by appearing to prey on other Muslims.

[DarkDryad]

Not that most of thier attacks kill far more Muslim citizens than American ones or anything cause that would be bad and whatnot.

[HaemishM]

What I saw of it (about the first fifteen minutes), I thought it was a typical cowboy politico circle jerk. We're only figuring out THIS WEEK who the actual people in those positions he named will be? 1 month from the deadline? How is that possible? Shouldn't those names have been tossed in a hat and picked out like 6 months ago? Or is not revealing them supposed to be some clever ruse to keep the rulers from being targeted by assassins?

We practically had Karzai inagurated before we were done with hostilities in Afghanistan. A year after "Mission Accomplished" appears and we can't publicly name one candidate for president. That's planning for you.

[Aslan]

I didn't realize we had anything to do with naming a president.  My understanding (flawed though it probably is) is that we are appointing an interim council to run things until such time as regular elections are held.  The president will be appointed and elected by Iraqis, not us.

[HaemishM]

The provisional president, as well as the provisional prime ministers, the guys who will set up the free elections are being determined "AS WE SPEAK" by some UN guy. What I'm saying is the CPA should have had thsoe names not too long after the last shot was fired. Picking those people now just looks like a lack of planning.

I also thought the symbolic destruction of Abu Ghraid (sic) prison is silly. Haven't we blown up or destroyed enough buildings already? Why demolish a perfectly good prison because some shitheads fucked up? Fix the shitheads. The building did nothing.

[daveNYC]

According to the UN resolution that the US and Britian submitted, Iraq's sovereignty is going to be about as real as Hong Kong's 'one country two systems' thing.

And yeah, saying that he's going to tear down one prison and replace it with... a prison! is teh stupid.  The space should either be a memorial, or some sort of mosque/school/happy place type thing.

[Margalis]

The new government is a joke. It doesn't matter who's in it. I could be in it. It's almost purely symbolic as far as I can tell.

[DarkDryad]

The provisional president, as well as the provisional prime ministers, the guys who will set up the free elections are being determined "AS WE SPEAK" by some UN guy. What I'm saying is the CPA should have had thsoe names not too long after the last shot was fired. Picking those people now just looks like a lack of planning.

I also thought the symbolic destruction of Abu Ghraid (sic) prison is silly. Haven't we blown up or destroyed enough buildings already? Why demolish a perfectly good prison because some shitheads fucked up? Fix the shitheads. The building did nothing.

Well the guy they had in mind being BLOWN UP tends to put a small chink in that theory guy.

[Dark Vengeance]

I also thought the symbolic destruction of Abu Ghraid (sic) prison is silly. Haven't we blown up or destroyed enough buildings already? Why demolish a perfectly good prison because some shitheads fucked up? Fix the shitheads. The building did nothing.

I've been under this crazy impression that since the prison was a site of torture under Saddam's regime, and the site of abuse under our occupation, that it is a symbolic gesture of Iraq's renewal.

I'd wager there were plans to destroy it prior to the abuse reports, but that it became politically prudent to publicize this after the abuse reports surfaced in the US.

I'd liken the need to replace the prison with the need to renovate the library in Columbine high school. You don't do it because it's no longer functional, you do it to strip away a constant reminder of the past....specifically the old regime.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[daveNYC]

The provisional president, as well as the provisional prime ministers, the guys who will set up the free elections are being determined "AS WE SPEAK" by some UN guy. What I'm saying is the CPA should have had thsoe names not too long after the last shot was fired. Picking those people now just looks like a lack of planning.

I also thought the symbolic destruction of Abu Ghraid (sic) prison is silly. Haven't we blown up or destroyed enough buildings already? Why demolish a perfectly good prison because some shitheads fucked up? Fix the shitheads. The building did nothing.

Well the guy they had in mind being BLOWN UP tends to put a small chink in that theory guy.

And now they'll replace him in less than six weeks.  Shit, it takes longer than that to hire a halfway good UNIX admin.

[Dark Vengeance]

And now they'll replace him in less than six weeks.  Shit, it takes longer than that to hire a halfway good UNIX admin.

But if they don't, they'll have every liberal and anti-war activist in America claiming that Bush lied about the June 30th transition date and playing cicken little about our eventual withdrawal.

Not to mention that you'd be providing additional credibility to anti-occupation sentiments in Iraq, and that you'd further embolden the terrorists and insurgents with the idea that they can effectively delay or prevent the smooth transition to a new free Iraqi government. Nothing like giving them a taste of success to make them fight even harder.

Like it or not, making the transition of sovereignty on June 30th is now a political must. When the terrorists try to stop that from happening, the administration has to do what our soldiers have been forcred to do for the past year....adapt, improvise, and overcome.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[daveNYC]

The turnover is only a political necessity is because Bush made it a political necessity.  He could have just as easily put in place a x year long turn-over plan, and played up the stability/rule of law bit for political points.

June 30th is important because Bush spent the last six months saying it was important.  To complain about political foes jumping all over him if he misses the date is pure chutzpa.

[DarkDryad]

The turnover is only a political necessity is because Bush made it a political necessity.  He could have just as easily put in place a x year long turn-over plan, and played up the stability/rule of law bit for political points.

June 30th is important because Bush spent the last six months saying it was important.  To complain about political foes jumping all over him if he misses the date is pure chutzpa.

Actually June 30 is important because thats the date agreed to by everyone and to delay it makes us appear to want to rule Iraq. If we miss the deadline 3/4 of the UN will stand and in unison say "See! Look they wanna stay there forever. "

[Signe]

I missed most of it as I left the TV on a network channel and didn't notice that the time had passed.  I found out later that NONE of the network channels carried the speech.  Although, I certainly don't fault anyone for wanting to miss a W speech, I surely think they should have the option.  Evidently, these days you have to subscribe to a newspaper or cable TV to keep up with politics and current events.

[daveNYC]

The turnover is only a political necessity is because Bush made it a political necessity.  He could have just as easily put in place a x year long turn-over plan, and played up the stability/rule of law bit for political points.

June 30th is important because Bush spent the last six months saying it was important.  To complain about political foes jumping all over him if he misses the date is pure chutzpa.

Actually June 30 is important because thats the date agreed to by everyone and to delay it makes us appear to want to rule Iraq. If we miss the deadline 3/4 of the UN will stand and in unison say "See! Look they wanna stay there forever. "

What everyone?  Britian?  June 30th was chosen by the administration.  Probably due to its distance from the November elections.

[Dark Vengeance]

The turnover is only a political necessity is because Bush made it a political necessity.  He could have just as easily put in place a x year long turn-over plan, and played up the stability/rule of law bit for political points.

Doesn't matter when you do it....the groups that oppose the formation of the new Iraqi government are going to try and delay it, if not prevent it completely.

June 30th is important because Bush spent the last six months saying it was important.  To complain about political foes jumping all over him if he misses the date is pure chutzpa.

It's political significance in this country is minor compared to the psychological impact in Iraq itself. Even delaying the formation of the new government is a win for terrorist and insurgent groups. It would also be a reason for Iraqis and critics worldwide to question our motives, and our intention to let them regain sovereignty....which could even spur the formation of insurgent/terrorist actions within Iraq. Breaking our word would add fuel to the fire....we aren't exactly universally trusted by the Iraqi people.

In the US, it's main significance is that it shows progress in our plan with Iraq, and shows that the President is committed to his plan in Iraq, and that we are moving toward the eventual withdrawal of troops. Mostly, it's just hitting the stated deadline...which removes a world of critcism from the left about sticking to his plan and timeline.

Of course, the critics are as busy as ever....there's really no way to win this politically. In their eyes, either he misses the deadline, or he has acted too quickly and hastily to install the interim government.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[HaemishM]

It would also be a reason for Iraqis and critics worldwide to question our motives, and our intention to let them regain sovereignty....

You mean ANOTHER reason, don't you?

[daveNYC]

Mostly, it's just hitting the stated deadline...which removes a world of critcism from the left about sticking to his plan and timeline.

Not from this particular member.  Sticking to the June 30th date just so you can stick to the June 30th date is going to work about as well as any other action taken for the sole purpose of meeting an arbitrary date.

Putting it in MMOG terms, this handover is going to look like the Shadowbane, Horizons, and Anarchy Online launches rolled into one.  Except there's no free month, no boobies, and we paid a hell of a lot more for the box.

[Dark Vengeance]

Not from this particular member.  Sticking to the June 30th date just so you can stick to the June 30th date is going to work about as well as any other action taken for the sole purpose of meeting an arbitrary date.

Please re-read the post, and pay attention to the last paragraph. Politically, Bush is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

At least by going forward, he doesn't affirm the idea that assassinating potential leaders can prevent or delay the installation of a new Iraqi government. They indeed may not be releasing the names to try and avoid another assassination attempt.

I think he realized that he would take heat domestically, regardless of what he did, so he has decided to stick to his word. This is as much a statment of trust and goodwill to the Iraqi people as it is a declaration to the terrorists/insurgents that they will not deter us from achieving our objectives in Iraq.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[cevik]

I think he realized that he would take heat domestically, regardless of what he did, so he has decided to stick to his word. This is as much a statment of trust and goodwill to the Iraqi people as it is a declaration to the terrorists/insurgents that they will not deter us from achieving our objectives in Iraq.

It's certainly not a statement of "trust and goodwiill" to the Iraqi people, they see this transistion as being a total sham, much like it is.  This is nothing more than an election year ploy from Bush.

If this were a statement of "trust and goodwill", Bremer wouldn't be working around the clock to install Washington appointed commisions to 5 year terms that oversee every part of the Iraqi government for the forseeable future.  The interim government won't even be able to pass laws, at least according to an ultra liberal rag, the Wall Street Journal.

Just a couple of examples of what power the US will have in "soveriegn" Iraq:

In a series of edicts issued earlier this spring, Mr. Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority created new commissions that effectively take away virtually all of the powers once held by several ministries. The CPA also established an important new security-adviser position, which will be in charge of training and organizing Iraq's new army and paramilitary forces, and put in place a pair of watchdog institutions that will serve as checks on individual ministries and allow for continued U.S. oversight. Meanwhile, the CPA reiterated that coalition advisers will remain in virtually all remaining ministries after the handover.

In many cases, these U.S. and Iraqi proxies will serve multiyear terms and have significant authority to run criminal investigations, award contracts, direct troops and subpoena citizens. The new Iraqi government will have little control over its armed forces, lack the ability to make or change laws and be unable to make major decisions within specific ministries without tacit U.S. approval, say U.S. officials and others familiar with the plan.
...
In March, for instance, Mr. Bremer issued a lengthy edict consolidating control of all Iraqi troops and security forces under the Ministry of Defense and its head, Ali Allawi. But buried in the document is a one-paragraph "emergency" decree ceding "operational control" of all Iraqi forces to senior U.S. military commanders in Iraq. Iraqis will be able to organize the army, make officer appointments, set up new-officer and special-forces courses, and try to develop doctrines and policies to govern the forces. But they can't actually order their forces into, or out of, combat -- that power will rest solely with U.S. commanders.

[daveNYC]

Yep, saw that.  I just grabbed the quote that worked better with my post.  Of course there are groups out there that are going to rip on Bush no matter what he does.

Just to clarify my point: I would be much happier about the situation in Iraq if Bush had laid out certain environmental conditions to be met before an interim government (at the federal level) was set up.  Something like, we won't turn over the running of the country until there's electricity to 90% of the country, 250k cops, a working military, the justice system is rebuilt, and the school system is functioning at its pre-war level.  These are just examples, the main thing is that we would be handing over a country that would be in good shape, stable and what not.  As it is, the whole country could be on fire on June 30th and we'll still go ahead and turn it over.

I'm not a fan of being in Iraq, I didn't think we should have invaded in the first place.  But now that we're there, we have a responsibility to clean up the mess.

I know that troops are supposedly going to be in Iraq for the forseeable future, but this move to hand over Iraq by a certain date, come hell or high water smells like Vietnamization to me.  Which, sadly, will soon be followed by "Operation Declare Victory and Get Out".

[HaemishM]

Bush sticking to the June 30 date come hell or high waters makes a sound not unlike a violin playing while Rome burns.

[personman]

Just a couple of examples of what power the US will have in "soveriegn" Iraq:

Neocons don't trust democracy in their own country - surely we wouldn't expect more in one of the largest oil producers of the ME... ;)

[Dark Vengeance]

Just a couple of examples of what power the US will have in "soveriegn" Iraq:

So we continue to oversee development of army and law enforcement...hardly anything insidious there. We have to leave them in a position where they can maintain order within their own country and defend their sovereignty from aggression.

The interim government will be unable to make or change laws, or make other major decisions without our OK. Go figure that we don't want them doing things like passing laws that oppress religious minorities within the country, or choosing to adopt a wholly different political structure...such as a new de facto dictatorship.

Emergency control by the US is pretty obvious....you don't form a brand new army, and the n immediately order them into combat. Likewise, while we still have troops there, you don't want their military leaders ordering troops out of combat and leaving our guys to twist in the wind.

Seriously, is it just because it's a Republican administration, or do you just assume that all actions taken by the US government are rife with evil intentions?

It's not a binary thing...total control over all phases of government is not simply on or off. The transfer of power back to the Iraqi people is going to be a gradual one. Having some oversight for the next 5 years to ensure that we don't end up opening the door for an even worse regime is just a smart thing to do. We created the power vacuum, we have a responsibility to keep an eye on things until the new Iraqi government is fully stabilized.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[cevik]

Seriously, is it just because it's a Republican administration, or do you just assume that all actions taken by the US government are rife with evil intentions?

Did you even read the article?  Or because it's a Republican administration do you just apologize for them no matter how evil their intentions?

It doesn't matter what I think about the transfer of power, it matters what the Iraqi People think about the transfer of power.  And when we "transfer power" but maintain control over every aspect of the country including the television stations for the next 5 years we haven't actually "transfered power" and the Iraqi people are going to realize this.  The June 30th deadline is pointless, you claim that Bush is holding to it as a "statment of trust and goodwill" to the Iraqi people, but the Iraqi people won't even have the power to create new laws.  It's hardly a statement of "trust and goodwill" as you claim, it's simply an election year ploy to get some pressure off of Bush.  Nothing more, nothing less.

[Paelos]

it's simply an election year ploy to get some pressure off of Bush.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Um, so what? It's not like he would really hand them the keys and tell them to lock up on his way out. We're trying to instill a radical concept in a region built on different principles, so I think we all know it's a political move. And of the two options, its the best political move he could make. Action beats wait and see.

[cevik]

it's simply an election year ploy to get some pressure off of Bush.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Um, so what?

Um then don't make the claim:

This is as much a statment of trust and goodwill to the Iraqi people as it is a declaration to the terrorists/insurgents that they will not deter us from achieving our objectives in Iraq.

I responded to the absurd and incorrect claim that this is a gesture of goodwill.  This is clearly not, it is a political ploy.  I didn't respond to anything else in this entire thread.  Please quit trying to change my statement into something it's not.

[Paelos]

I responded to the absurd and incorrect claim that this is a gesture of goodwill.  This is clearly not, it is a political ploy.  I didn't respond to anything else in this entire thread.  Please quit trying to change my statement into something it's not.

Fair enough, but that's a two way door, hippy scum ;)

[Dark Vengeance]

Did you even read the article?  Or because it's a Republican administration do you just apologize for them no matter how evil their intentions?

I don't think you believe a Republican is capable of good intentions.

I read the article, and I don't see anything to apologize for. There are practical reasons that you don't just hand over the keys, without offering any guidance or oversight in the development of the new government. We will likely be involved with the new Iraqi government in some capacity for the better part of 10 years.

It doesn't matter what I think about the transfer of power, it matters what the Iraqi People think about the transfer of power.

Agreed, but I don't see THEM here bitching at every turn.

Seriously, we stand to lose more credibility by missing or changing the deadline, even if it were to mean less US involvement after the transfer.

And when we "transfer power" but maintain control over every aspect of the country including the television stations for the next 5 years we haven't actually "transfered power" and the Iraqi people are going to realize this.

As I mentioned previously, there are practical reasons for our continued involvement in those areas. We have a measure of control, not total control....and from the article, it appears that our primary role will be one of oversight and guidance while the fledgling democracy is formed.

When you talk about building a new government, one vastly different from what Iraqis are accustomed to, 5 years seems like a fair estimate to at least achieve some stability. I think it may actually take longer.

You don't just give a kid a bike and say "now ride it, bitch"....you slap some training wheels on the thing. Then you take them off an run alongside the bike until they are stable enough to move forward on their own.

I'm just curious as to what you'd propose as an alternative at this point...especially given that we've already commited to that date.

The June 30th deadline is pointless, you claim that Bush is holding to it as a "statment of trust and goodwill" to the Iraqi people, but the Iraqi people won't even have the power to create new laws.

They can't form new laws without our approval at first. Thus, laws oppressing women or minorities can be quelled, despite having popular support. they also can't radically alter the structure of government, or otherwise change laws to turn someone into a de facto dictator. It's pretty smart, really. Training wheels.

I don't see how the deadline is pointless. We made a commitment, we need to stick to it. This is the first real step for the interim government, the first power they've been afforded. It's not total control, but it's certainly arguable that they are not READY for total control from day 1.

It's hardly a statement of "trust and goodwill" as you claim, it's simply an election year ploy to get some pressure off of Bush.  Nothing more, nothing less.

I won't deny that any progress made in Iraq between now and November certainly helps Bush. However, the process has to begin sometime...and we cannot allow terrorists to hinder the process. We've been there over a year. If anything, I think it's PAST DUE. The President is doing something that needs to be done.

I am of the belief that holding to our word is an act of good faith, intended to establish trust with the Iraqi people. I'll even concede that June 30th may have been selected for political reasons.....but you can't undo that. At this point, we have to move forward and stick to our commitment.

What's the alternative?

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[Arcadian Del Sol]

When the transition takes place, the networks will be scrambling for news because there wont be anything to report. We'll cut back our troop numbers, recall the interim managers, and the temporary iraqi council will take over from there.

The earth wont shift on its axis, the sun wont shrink by a third, and Iraq wont sink into a massive sinkhole - it will be the single greatest non-event in the history of non-news.

[daveNYC]

We'll cut back our troop numbers...

What crack are you smoking?

[Mesozoic]

When the transition takes place, the networks will be scrambling for news because there wont be anything to report.

...would that be because the transition was smooth, or because it was a farce?