Did any of you hear President Bush's speech

[Tigermike 3,053]

Speech may get critics to back off for now

(But don't count on it)

June 29, 2005

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

With public support for the conflict in Iraq declining at a rapid rate and his approval falling even faster, President Bush went to the nation Tuesday night to try to bolster the resolve and spirits of the people. After months of presidential silence on the war, he appeared to at least take a modest step toward this goal.

What he did not do was signal any change in his policy or give any hope for a quick withdrawal. Nor did he even suggest Vice President Dick Cheney's claim that the Iraqi insurgence is "in its last throes."

That guarantees continued attacks from his Democratic foes and will not satisfy the expanding body of Republican critics who want him to speed a troop withdrawal. Nevertheless, Bush made clear that while he wanted to turn the fight over to forces in Iraq "as quickly as possible" that this would not come soon. Instead of promising victory, he pleaded for patience.

There was no surprise change in policy or tactics as Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon frequently unveiled in their repeated, unsuccessful efforts to halt deepening public opposition to the Vietnam involvement. Instead, Bush offered more of the same policy that has led to his political decline

There was no change in basic strategy. He once again rejected setting a deadline for withdrawal or even, as Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) suggests, promising not to stay in Iraq forever. He once again rejected pleas by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to send more troops to Iraq because, he said, U.S. commanders say they are not needed.

The president did present three tactical changes to give the impression of new approaches: "partnering" between U.S.-British coalition and Iraqi security forces; "embedding" coalition forces in Iraqi units; and improving Iraq's new interior and defense ministries. But those changes are so bureaucratic that they hardly could make an impression on the ordinary listener.

On the whole, however, the president's address was less bureaucratic and more inspirational than is normal for him. With a prepared 28-minute speech read carefully, Bush achieved a degree of gravitas that he lacks when talking about the war off the cuff.

The president avoided answering the old arguments about why U.S. forces should not have intervened in Iraq. He did not apologize for planning deficiencies after the first military success. He did not admit error in claiming weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. However, he did seek to describe the war in Iraq as the natural follow-up to the 9/11 attacks and efforts to prevent a recurrence of that catastrophic day.

Format planned by Rove

The concern by the president's political team about the rapid decline in his popularity has been intense. This speech was scheduled in response to criticism by Republicans in Congress that he no longer talks about the war.

The format was carefully planned by Karl Rove, the president's principal political adviser and organizer. That rejected both the sterile atmosphere of a speech from the White House Oval Office and the frivolous mood of the usual pep rally when Bush is on the road.

Public support for the war and Bush will depend eventually on obvious progress in Iraq and a sign that withdrawal is not that far in the distance. But Tuesday's speech probably kept the political wolves from the door for a while.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-nws-novak29.html

[Jenny AU-92 0]

The best quote?

As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters — the sober judgment of our military leaders.

In other words..

"Hey New York Times and your stupid editorials written by pinko peaceniks with no clue about life in the real world outside those highrise islands in Manhatten... KISS MY BUTT!"

[WarTim 3,457]

You are right on the money Jenny. (As per your usual.)

President Bush's critics will never "get off his back". They are still pitchin' a fit over the fact that America CHOSE this good and decent human to be their President instead of the kennedy liberal from new england. THEY just don't get "it".

[Piglet 0]

If only he really was a good and decent human being. To me, he looked weak and dishonest. But then, that's how he always looked to me. His entire Presidency has been smoke and mirrors, no substance.

Maybe someday he'll get the results he wants from Iraq, and I'll be happy to be shown wrong. But I ain't gonna hold my breath waiting. I expect more American soldiers are going to be hurt and killed, and nothing good will come of it.

[WarTim 3,457]

Following slick willy(the biggest draft dodgin' liar in the history of America), President Bush has proven himself to be a great statesman. I , and the majority of Americans, am proud of our President.

I do understand that libs are still in denial though.

[CCTAU 3,344]

I expect more American soldiers are going to be hurt and killed, and nothing good will come of it.

REALLY? Damn, and here I was thinking WAR is milk and cookies time. Iraq will be free and independent and it will continue to create more democracy in the middle east. In 20 years, history will look back and recognize what a signifaicant WORLD change this brought about. If it will only remember the anti-american americans, I will be happy also.

[texaubie 0]

If you had told me 2.5 years ago that we could take and hold Iraq for 2 years with under 2,000 casualties, I would have said

I don't want to see anybody get killed but what we have done in Iraq is unprecedented. We have the best military in history. I have no doubt that what they are doing today will save 100X as many casualties world wide over the next 50 years. JMHO

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Okay, soapbox time...

I am SO TIRED of people criticizing GWB for making comments about 9-11 and Iraq. THERE IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE ANYONE WHO WILL SAY THAT SADDAM HAD ANYTHING TO DO SPECIFICALLY WITH 9-11. BUT...

1. 9-11 was perpetrated by terrorists.

2. Saddam and his "government" were state sponsors of terrorism.

3. GWB said that we will take the fight to terrorists and the nations that harbor and sponsor them.

4. Baghdad + US Marines = BOOM!

Taking out Hussein and creating a stable Iraq will prevent future 9-11 type events from happening. Invading Iraq was not PUNISHMENT for the events of 9-11 - it was punishment for creating a climate where the next 9-11 could be hatched, paid for, and trained for. IT'S CALLED PREEMPTION. Nothing but good can come out of the events in Iraq - better to fight them there than in Houston, Montgomery, Atlanta, or New York.

[WarTim 3,457]

Well said Jenny. But remember, libs WILL NOT hear the Truth. They still want to pitch the liberal fit over W spanking their boy kerry!

[AUJarhead 70]

4.  Baghdad + US Marines = BOOM!

166543[/snapback]

Jenny in the future, please warn me before saying something so funny, it makes coke come out my nose.

[Piglet 0]

Taking out Hussein and creating a stable Iraq will prevent future 9-11 type events from happening.  Invading Iraq was not PUNISHMENT for the events of 9-11 - it was punishment for creating a climate where the next 9-11 could be hatched, paid for, and trained for.  IT'S CALLED PREEMPTION.  Nothing but good can come out of the events in Iraq - better to fight them there than in Houston, Montgomery, Atlanta, or New York.

166543[/snapback]

Yes, Jenny, that all seems self-evident...once you grant that what we're doing is likely to create a "stable Iraq". If it doesn't, then all invading Iraq did was to displace a secular military terrorist who was most interested in using terrorism against citizens of his own country---and replace him with the kind of religious fanatics who perpetrated 9/11.

I don't see a stable Iraq. I see ever-increasing chaos, and more dead American troops. Are we supposed to LIKE this?

The day there is a stable, pro-American Iraq, I will donate $500 to a politician of Jenny AU-92's choice. Even if I have to dodge the snowballs from Hell to do it.

[channonc 466]

3. GWB said that we will take the fight to terrorists and the nations that harbor and sponsor them.

So does this mean we are headed to Saudi Arabia next?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

3. GWB said that we will take the fight to terrorists and the nations that harbor and sponsor them.

So does this mean we are headed to Saudi Arabia next?

166643[/snapback]

No, Massachusetts!

[Jenny AU-92 0]

3. GWB said that we will take the fight to terrorists and the nations that harbor and sponsor them.

So does this mean we are headed to Saudi Arabia next?

166643[/snapback]

I wish. But in the case of Saudi, you have to admit that there is at least open dialog and somewhat rational communication between their ruler and the US. They are not defying 12 years worth of UN sanctions, their leaders don't make public statements offering to pay money to the families of suicide bombers, they don't gas members of their own country's minority party. They have voluntarily started to ease restrictions on women and are holding the first step towards completely free elections - on their own.

Is Saudi a hotbed of terrorism? Yes. But so are most countries in the Middle East, and most of the governments are powerless to do anything about it. When we should step in is when the LEADERSHIP of those countries are openly and deliberately and defiantly giving aid and comfort to the enemy. We can't go into soverign nations when the leadership is attempting to ally itself with ours. I think had he not wised up, Libya would have been next. My personal opinion is that Bassar al Assad better start doing some serious thinking. IMO, he is next on the hit list.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

4.  Baghdad + US Marines = BOOM!

166543[/snapback]

Jenny in the future, please warn me before saying something so funny, it makes coke come out my nose.

166552[/snapback]

You really should kick that coke habit - blowing powder all over your monitor is not conducive to a good work environment.

[vatz22au 142]

Tim, I think if Saddam was a republican conservative and ran for president, you would vote for him .

[WarTim 3,457]

Tim, I think if Saddam was a republican conservative and ran for president, you would vote for him    .

166666[/snapback]

Lucky for you that saddam is closer to a liberal democrat and thus will not even get my consideration.

[vatz22au 142]

Tim, I think if Saddam was a republican conservative and ran for president, you would vote for him    .

166666[/snapback]

Lucky for you that saddam is closer to a liberal democrat and thus will not even get my consideration.

166711[/snapback]

So does that mean if he was a republican conservative... He would have your vote?

[WarTim 3,457]

Any conservative, whether or not they are republican, would garner my consideration. But, saddam would not qualify. That is like asking if flipper were HC @ AU, would I still be an AU Man. It just ain't gonna' happen!

[vatz22au 142]

Any conservative, whether or not they are republican, would garner my consideration. But, saddam would not qualify. That is like asking if flipper were HC @ AU, would I still be an AU Man. It just ain't gonna' happen!

166730[/snapback]

Good answer