Posted by Mark Silva at 8:05 am, updated at 9:24 am and 1:27 pm CDT
With his prime-time televised address from the Oval Office last night, President Bush used the hijackings of American airliners that became missiles in the hands of terrorists five years ago to make his case for a broad war against terrorism which he maintains is playing out in Iraq.
But the president's critics say the only thing hijacked last night was 16 minutes of prime-time television, taken hostage in a political act. This is what Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D, Mass.) had to say last night about the president's speech: "The president should be ashamed of using a national day of mourning to commandeer the airwaves to give a speech that was designed not to unite the country and commemorate the fallen but to seek support for a war in Iraq that he has admitted had “nothing” to do with 9/11. There will be time to debate this president’s policies in Iraq. September 11th is not that time.”
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), who joined Bush and Republican leaders in a wreath-laying ceremony at the Pentagon yesterday, echoed similiar sentiments about the speech today.
"Nine-eleven was one of the darkest days of this nation’s history,'' Reid said today. "It brought America together like never before. We were inspired by the bravery of our fellow Americans, we stood shoulder to shoulder with the president, and when he stood upon that mound of rubble at Ground Zero with bull-horn in hand, he spoke for all of us.
"Last night, however, the president spoke for his aadministration, not for the nation,'' Reid said. "No bull-horn, only the bully-pulpit of his office, which he used to defend an unpopular war in Iraq and to launch clumsily disguised barbs at those who disagree with his policies there. By focusing on Iraq in the manner he did, the president engaged in an all too familiar administration tactic: conflate and blur the war in Iraq with the response to 9/11.''
The Democratic complaints prompted some push-back from House Majority Leader John Boehner (R, Ohio,) at a news conference today:
"I wonder if they're more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people,'' Boehner said of the Democrats. "They certainly don't want to take the terrorists on and defeat them."
The White House, while refraining from commenting on Boehner directly, sought a little political distance from the party leader today -- with White House spokesman Tony Snow saying he does not believe that Democrats are any less interrested in defeating terrorism than Republicans are.
Asked if he believes that Democrats are more interested in protecting terrorists than protecting the American people -- the comment that Boeher had made -- Snow said: "No.'' Asked if he believes that both sides want to defeat terrorists, Snow said, "Yeah, I do.
"There are going to be plenty of debates over who is going to be more effective in waging that battle.''
Some partisan sniping is "predictable'' in an election year, Snow said. "apparently there are differing points of view,'' he said at a White House briefing this afternoon. "We're going to have a lot of political conflict this year -- perfectly understandable, predictable -- that's the way it works... You had a bunch of people ready to punch the send button the minute the speech was finished – fine.''
Yet Snow maintained that there was nothing political about the president's speech last night -- noting that Bush did not attempt to draw any distinctions between Democrats and Republicans in his address. It would have been impossible for the president to talk about 9/11 without talking about the continuing war on terror, Snow said, and the president cannot talk about the war on terror without talking about the war in Iraq -- which the president maintains has become the central front in the broader war.
If the president hadn't addressed the war in Iraq last night, he said, "You guys would be out here clubbing me like a baby seal saying, 'Why didn’t you talk about Iraq?'''
"You cannot talk about the war on terror without talking about Iraq,'' Snow said.
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D, Ill.), maintains that Bush is attempting to sell the war in Iraq as central to the war on terror because of the political vulnerability that the war poses for the GOP this fall -- and also maintains that it was unfortunate that Bush brought Iraq into a commemoration of 9/11.
"it is very clear that the Republicans view their vulnerability in the November election to be their policy in Iraq,'' Durbin said on CNN's Situation Room this afternoon. "So they've been very forthright in saying, this is a policy to fight terrorism, and they are fighting that political battle.
"I was disappointed yesterday,'' Durbin said. "This should have been a day, the fifth anniversary of 9/11, where we set the politics over on the side and really appealed to the American people to emember where we were as a nation five years ago. We were unified. We were nonpartisan. We were
determined to fight terrorism.''
For more on what the president had to say and what his speech itself says about politics at this supposed time of unity in a nation still recovering from the worst domestic assault in its history, consider first this article and then an analysis that appeared in the Tribune today:
“Bush says nation's safety depends on victory in Iraq
Oval Office speech calls on Americans to maintain resolve
By Mark Silva, Washington Bureau. Tribune national correspondents Lisa Anderson from New York and Frank James from Washington contributed
September 12, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Appealing to the courage that carried Americans through the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 five years ago, President Bush used an emotion-packed televised address Monday night to enlist new support for the war against terrorism that he maintains is playing out in Iraq.
"We face an enemy determined to bring death and suffering into our homes," Bush said, parlaying the call for national unity after Sept. 11, 2001, into a new rallying cry for the war against terrorism, and notably the conflict in Iraq.
"America did not ask for this war, and every American wishes it were over. So do I. But the war is not over--and it will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious."
Bush said the fight against terrorists "has been called a clash of civilizations. In truth, it is a struggle for civilization. We are fighting to maintain the way of life enjoyed by free nations."
Acknowledging "mistakes" made in Iraq, the president declared in his prime-time address that pulling out American forces now would be "the worst mistake" and would invite new terrorist attacks at home. And he repeatedly emphasized the broader fight for peace in the Middle East.
The president spoke for 16 minutes from the Oval Office, where he had delivered a five-minute televised address on the evening of the Sept. 11 attacks.
"Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America," the president said in his 2001 address. "These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve."
Five years later, the president circled the scenes of the Sept. 11 crimes, offering condolences, hugs and kisses --and even bright smiles with words of encouragement for relatives of victims. He started at breakfast with firefighters and police officers in New York, flew to the Pennsylvania field where passengers had forced one airliner to the ground, and ended outside the Pentagon.
The president's televised address also carried a stern reminder of threats to the United States that remain five years after the worst domestic assault in the nation's history.
He underscored his argument, saying the struggle against terrorism is "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st Century, and the calling of our generation."
With his references to the emotional affront the nation suffered on Sept. 11, Bush is struggling to reclaim support for a war in Iraq that has lost the backing of most Americans and to confront the political reality that the war has become a divisive element of fall elections in which his party is fighting to maintain control of Congress.
"Our nation has endured trials--and we face a difficult road ahead," the president said. "Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country. So we must put aside our differences, and work together to meet the test that history has given us."
Mentions bin Laden 3 times
The Al Qaeda leader ultimately responsible for the 2001 attacks, Osama bin Laden, remains at large. Bush named him three times Monday night.
Fourteen terrorists accused of leading roles in the attacks and other bombings targeting Americans abroad were flown recently to the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Bush is seeking congressional support for creation of a system of military tribunals to try them.
The day's remembrances began at a New York firehouse, the Ft. Pitt station, not far from ground zero, the 16-acre crater where the twin towers of the World Trade Center once stood.
The president and First Lady Laura Bush joined firefighters and police officers before heading to the trade center site where thousands had gathered.
Observing moments of silence at the times of the attacks and collapse of the twin towers, many wept as they placed flowers into temporary reflecting pools. Standing on a windswept platform erected on the pit's gravel floor, spouses and significant others read aloud the 2,749 names of those killed in New York City.
Nearing the end, a sobbing Dorota Zois read the name of her husband, Paul Prokopios Zois, and expressed the hope that future generations will be "born into a world where they won't have to stand here. Ever."
Outside Shanksville, Pa., where passengers had forced hijacked United Flight 93 into the ground, killing all 40 passengers and crew, the president and first lady joined about 200 people in a field fringed with Queen Anne's lace. Rev. Paul Britton, brother of Flight 93 passenger Marion Britton, said: "There is no more sacred ground . . . than this very place."
Outside the Pentagon, where 184 died when hijacked American Flight 77 smashed into the building, the president and first lady joined about 100 relatives of victims for a wreath-laying.
Among them were a woman and teenage girl wearing matching dark T-shirts with the shape of a white Pentagon on the back and inside it the words: "In Memory of Eddie Rowenhorst 9-11-01."
Not a public word was spoken as a four-piece Marine brass band played "America the Beautiful" while the Bushes observed a moment of silence.
With his public words, however, the president has attempted to seize this wrenching moment as a means of recapturing support for the war in Iraq.
`They will not leave us alone'
"Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone," the president said in the White House speech. "They will not leave us alone. They will follow us. The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad."
5 YEARS AFTER 9/11
ANALYSIS
Brief moment of unity lost in a city always at battle
By Michael Tackett
Tribune senior correspondent
September 12, 2006
WASHINGTON -- This city almost always does ceremony well. Monuments provide compelling backdrops. Generations of politicians have perfected the photo opportunity. Presidents, members of Congress and Cabinet officers have had plenty of practice.
On the night of Sept. 11, 2001, members of Congress joined hands in a rich and sincere spectacle, Republican with Democrat, liberal with conservative, to sing "God Bless America," offering up the prospect of a Washington united in national purpose.
Five years later, how quaint.
Within months, if not weeks, forces that proved much stronger even than a devastating national tragedy brought the capital back into its well-cleaved sense of balance. Which is to say, largely back to Sept. 10, 2001, bitterly divided, highly partisan and harshly negative.
No era of virtue followed the days of good feeling. A lobbying scandal enveloped several members of Congress and further undercut public confidence.
A lasting response
To be sure, the government responded to Sept. 11 in important and lasting ways. A vast new bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security, was created in the name of helping to streamline the many overlapping--and often conflicting--jurisdictions. A new director of national intelligence was named to serve as headmaster for the many agencies that produce intelligence data and had at times almost seemed at war with each other. And tens of billions of dollars were appropriated in the name of making America more secure.
The attacks on New York City and Washington five years ago led to creation of an independent commission to investigate what led up to Sept. 11 and provide recommendations, many of which remain little more than words on the pages of its best-selling report.
"One of the things that I find very frustrating is we've got a congressional election this year, as you know, and I can't find a candidate in either party who will look at me and say, `I'm not for your 41 recommendations,'" said Thomas Kean, chairman of the Sept. 11 Commission and former Republican governor of New Jersey. "So if everybody in Congress is for all 41 recommendations, what happened? How come they're not passed? How come the country isn't moving further on these things?"
And now the debate has changed almost entirely. Democrats openly criticize President Bush's handling of the war on terror, and more pointedly the war in Iraq. Many Republicans have sought to put distance between themselves and the White House. One Democrat, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, suffered a humiliating primary defeat in large part because he supported the president on Iraq. His fellow Senate Democrats have almost shunned him.
The divide-and-conquer culture that has dominated Washington for more than a decade has shown a durability that the early blush of post-Sept. 11 unity could not.
For the first three years after the attacks, the president was able to win with voters on the notion that he, and by extension fellow Republicans, offered the best chance to keep the country safe. With the recent burst of activity, including several high-profile speeches leading up to the fifth anniversary Monday, he signaled that Republicans again would use the attacks as the hammer and anvil of their message this fall.
This time, Democrats seem more than willing to answer the challenge, and in effect, try to put Bush on the ballot in November.
The campaign about to unfold is unlikely to evoke any notion of shared pain. The negative nature of politics is arguably worse than it was five years ago. Democrats smell victory in places that would have been fantasy when the year began and that has forced Republicans into a rare defensive posture. They in turn have vowed to attack challengers, and no doubt they will be playing the national security card in the process.
Linking 9/11 and Iraq
Clearly, the president has decided to play it and has done so by insisting on the linkage between the terrorist attacks and the war in Iraq--even in the face of compelling contrary evidence. After attending Sept. 11 ceremonies in New York, Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon, the president wanted to get a last word on the remembrance in a speech to the country.
He nearly spent more time talking about the broader struggle for bringing peace to the Middle East than he did about the attacks, reinforcing again his thesis that the war in Iraq is synonymous with the war on terror. He made an appeal again for a common view.
"Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country," the president said. "So we must put aside our differences, and work together to meet the test that history has given us."
It was a message he has delivered many times before.
On Monday evening, a couple of hours before the president spoke, several dozen members of Congress attempted a reprise of their poignant moment the night of the Sept. 11 attacks in an early evening ceremony at the Capitol. Many of the familiar faces were there. But their overall numbers were dramatically diminished from five years ago, emblematic of a lack of unity in Washington that not even a camera-ready ceremony could make whole.
+++
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I must say that I feel our politics and polititians have reached the bottom of the barrel. A day when the country should be unified
over a great loss of life..it has been used as a
reason to advance political ideas and line the pockets of media moguls. It is clear the attitude of this country is sooo divided that I have know idea how we'll ever come together again. I also feel attitude reflects leadership.
I see none from anyone.....
Posted by: bill r. | September 12, 2006 8:35 AM
More of the same fear tactics from Bush and Co. No amount of speeches trying to tie Iraq to Bin Ladin will ever convince the voting public he was justified in sending almost 3000 young men and women of our military to their deaths. No amount of Rove spin could keep the American voters from doing their duty for their country and removing the threat of this administration. The Bush Administration has become the threat, to our freedom, our Constitution, and our way of life. For the President to use a broadcast on a day of national mourning to push his political agenda is a national disgrace. His use of references and images of 9/11 to further his political agenda is disrespectful to those who died on 9/11 and their families.
Posted by: Rory M | September 12, 2006 9:38 AM
How far all of us have fallen. On what should have been a somber day of national rememberence, politics raised its ugly head once again. The admistration thrives on making us all fight each other. At a time when we should have been remembering that horrible day where we all stood untited as one Nation, we were reminded once again how far we are from that day. The Democrats are not blameless here either as they should have stayed silent last night, instead bringing up the President's atrocious behavior at a later time. They played right into his hands. Will we as Americans ever be united again? I'm beginning to wonder.
Posted by: Dean G. | September 12, 2006 10:21 AM
I hated what Bush did making 9/11 a football political issues how dare he does that. And Stay the course again. Tell me Mr President we have lost a Province in Iraq.And the report said we can not win it back. To fight for Bagdad has failed. Our families have been stop lost what the hell is wrong with you stay the course. Get a plan for victory. You and this Congress claim we support the troops and veterans again one more lie.Anger is growing and here is why
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004044M
No you don't support the troops or veterans your grades are in liars
Posted by: Dale Peters | September 12, 2006 10:59 AM
Among all the half-truths, misstatements and double-speak spread around, the one undeniable lie uttered by our Commander-In-Chief was, "I'm a uniter, not a divider."
Posted by: Steve Ochoa | September 12, 2006 11:54 AM
George Bush recently said there is no link between 9/11 & Iraq. None.
He also mentioned he doesn't understand why people in this country still believe Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
So he clears it up on the 5th anniversary of 9/11 by talking about the war in Iraq on prime time tv.
Where's the integrity Bush said he was going to restore in the White House?
Posted by: RomanB | September 12, 2006 11:55 AM
Yesterday I posted that any politician would take advantage of the day and time to make a political statement. But I never expected what was done.
I'm very disappointed that after he took a minute to honor the victims and survivors he spent most of the time selling the war on terror and even went so far as to bring up Iraq.
Posted by: JWV | September 12, 2006 12:01 PM
If you notice all the things used to try to help the Republicans.
The bringing of the "detainees" from the secret prisons(that dot exist)that rendition sent them to. These people have not had any real time information for several years.
The "Path to 9-11" that is of course supported by Disney and others with no commercials. Propaganda of the first degree.
Just a side bar on Disney Disney contractors abuse staff: report
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/archives/2006/09/11/2003327157
Iraq, Saddam Hussein, Terrorist, 9-11, Fear.
The media has lost its way ever since Ronald Reagan got rid of the equal time provision.
Posted by: Lee Stephens | September 12, 2006 12:08 PM
Once again, US politics manages to out-satire the satirists.
As an exercise in undignified behaviour, yesterday took some beating. The spectacle of any politician using national grief for polictical ends is gruesome, and yet yesterday saw both sides doing just that.
I'm just counting the minutes 'til the next 9-11 Lets Roll set up on the deck of an aircraft carrier.
Note to investors: Go short on dignity, long on sickbags, 'cos there's an election a'coming.
Posted by: OHCD | September 12, 2006 12:15 PM
Bush's speech seemed more like an infomercial for already rejected policies than any kind of memorial.
All that was missing was the fawning audience.
(Though I imagine Fox News had that too.)
Posted by: BB | September 12, 2006 12:27 PM
Ted Kennedy criticizing ANYBODY is about as absurd as it gets. He comes from one of the most corrupt families in modern history, was able to buy his way out of vehicular manslaughter charges, and he is griping about 19 minutes of television. "The president should be ashamed of using a national day of mourning to commandeer the airwaves to give a speech that was designed not to unite the country and commemorate the fallen but to seek support for a war in Iraq that he has admitted had “nothing” to do with 9/11. There will be time to debate this president’s policies in Iraq. September 11th is not that time.” Who the @#%& is Mr. Kennedy to question the morals or motives of anybody. This is a man whose whole life has been void of morals. I have never heard him gripe about any other presidential speech, in any administration during his corupt reign as a politician. I wonder what show the Bush speech interrupted. I would think with the Kennedy fortune he could afford TiVo, or some type of technology so he does not have to throw a tantrum, under the GUISE of politics, because he missed 19 minutes of television. I can guarantee you that if ANY DEMOCRAT gave a 19 minutes speech, at the exact same time, Mr. Kennedy would not have said a word, regradless of the topic of motives for the speech. The most useful thing Mr. Kennedy could do for his country is RESIGN immediately. This would do more to begin cleaning up corruption in Washington than anything else.
Posted by: Rob S | September 12, 2006 12:29 PM
Bush and his minions are looking increasingly desperate in trying to rally support for the misbegotten war in Iraq. Of course, yesterday he was trying to capitalize on the 9/11 memories to try to regain the goodwill he received immediately after the attacks. However, the American people have finally realized that Iraq had no connection with the attacks and were just an excuse the Project for the New American Century Neocons (headed by Cheney) needed to try to gain a foothold in the Middle East. Bush, Cheney and those responsible for all the deaths and treasure squandered in Iraq must be held accountable.
Posted by: Judith S. | September 12, 2006 1:09 PM
I didn't think the Presidents speech was political at all. Okay,he slapped around the lefties a little,but they deserve it for their cut and run and white flag waiving cowardice.
After viewing the "Path to 9-11" last night we all should rest easy that now there are real men in The White House confronting terrorism vs. the previous administration that let it fester and grow right under their noses.....not to mention all the times we were attacked in the 90's.... Clinton failed us all.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | September 12, 2006 1:12 PM
There are probably 125 million people besides Ted Kennedy that would echo his sentiments if given the opportunity.
Posted by: johnf | September 12, 2006 2:00 PM
Rob S,why are you so angry? I find it interesting that you've stated you work with the mentally ill,and can you name me a family that has devoted more time and funds to that illness?
The Kennedy family sure has had their share of problems,but to label the family corrupt shows you know little about the Bush empire.
I find it interesting that the wing nuts love to hate Teddy boy,the guy who has devoted his life to helping the under privledged and working class guy.But love Rush,who is the greediest bastert this side of Cheney.
And again I see you bring up the accident from 40 years ago.Do you think Laura Bush should have been prosecuted when she ran a red light and killed her boy friend in Texas?
Rob,you seem like a decent guy,you need to keep that anger in check.
Posted by: Raving Loon | September 12, 2006 2:49 PM
RobS...Boy how about that Kennedy guy...what a nerve saying anything...that guy really screwed up years ago and that whole family huh?...and by the way...did you see that disgusting speech last night where the president used this day of sorrow for his political gain?
Paulo...don't know about you but the colors on my flag are red, white, and blue..
As far as path to 9/11..I believe they are coming out with a sequel...herbie the love bug goes to washington!
Posted by: bill r. | September 12, 2006 3:04 PM
Paulo: I spent 23 years in the US Amy, retired in 1980. I guess that I am one of those "cut and run and white flag waiving cowards" as are very many veterans, even Retired Generals. For your edification Clinton sent Cruise missiles to get Osama Bin Laden. We were attacked not by Osama or foreign terrorists here but a home grown terrorist Tim McVey.
If you read the actual report and not rely on fictional propaganda for your information perhaps you could see the difference.
When you cannot defend the president, Vice President, Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of state on actual plans and truths then all you have is to blame Clinton.
Posted by: Lee Stephens | September 12, 2006 3:09 PM
Uh, lemme see here.
Iraq and Saddam Hussein had "nothing" to do with 9/11.
But, if we "cut and run" from Iraq, 9/11 will happen again.
It's all so, so confusing...
Compared to the Bush Administration Alice in Wonderland is the driest of non-fiction.
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 12, 2006 3:29 PM
Rob S,
I have never understood the bitter hatred the right has for Sen Kennedy, so, since I was too young to remember the Chappaquidick incident, I did some reading on it. I am surprised that Kennedy has survived in politics after such a tragedy and mess...perhaps because of his name or maybe his constituents are happy with the job he's doing, in spite of a flawed past. I'm sure remaining in politics keeps the incident in his face more than if he disappeared from public view with a conviction...
That a man who used his family connections to avoid military service is now commander-in-chief and sending thousands of our precious service men and women to peril, injury and death (for wrong and illegal reasons) galls me much more today than dredging up a drunk driving incident from 1969.
Paulo, I hope you're not serious. Sarcasm seemed to be the only possible way to interpret your post, and if that is what you were going for, it was prettty rockin' funny.
Posted by: DD | September 12, 2006 3:29 PM
Paulo has it right!
Bush was all over the threat of terrorism from the day he stepped into office. Wait, no, that's not right. He didn't do a thing until after 9/11. No wait, he sent some troops to Afghan the put all his resources into toppling the biggest terrorist country in the world: IRAQ. Wait no; Iraq wasn't a terrorist country until we invaded....
The only thing I can think of that's more ignorant that Bush are the lemmings that follow him.
Posted by: JWV | September 12, 2006 4:18 PM
I am not a political person. However, as an educator, I am appalled at the death toll of our young men and women killed in Iraq. My life as a teacher of 40 years has taught me to care about the lives of these children above all. We have taken away their right to go to college, realize an occupational dream, and grow old with families and friends. Most have no idea when they volunteer of the risk they are taking with their lives and their physical and mental well-being. As in all wars, it is my opinion that we use our troops as political pawns to carry out the ambitions of our political leaders
My heart bleeds for our fallen children as well as their families. It's easy for those at the top who have no children fighting in Iraq to say their deaths are noble and worth the fight for democracy in Iraq. I don't see many willing to sacrifice their sons and daughters on the battlefield.Their children go to college and feel confident in their dreams and ambitions.
I also care for all the Iraqis who have lost loved ones because of this senseless war. The cost of "freedom" that the U.S. is supposedly giving them has very high stakes for their families as well. Life is far more precious than politicians profess it to be.
Political words tell me we are winning this war. How can there possibly be any winners in this? Winning becomes meaningless for those whose children will never return home or those who come home physically and mentally ill.
Posted by: Ann | September 12, 2006 4:41 PM
Fully indoctrinated Bush apologist paulo bleats,"I didn't think the Presidents speech was political at all. Okay,he slapped around the lefties a little,but they deserve it for their cut and run and white flag waiving cowardice."
Next thing you know, since he doesn't have any possible way to support his pathetic beliefs, except for the lies that Dumbya has TOLD him to believe, the dim-wit will start the; But but but Clinton...But but but Clinton idiocy....Oops, I guess he did!!
Way to Go!!
By the way, when are you going to enlist?
Posted by: B Grice | September 12, 2006 4:49 PM
I started to write "Assume for the sake of discussion that from here on out Iraq goes as Bush plans/wants." My thinking (as best I can with what I've got) was to suggest that even with a "win" (whatever the definition of that is) terrorists will still pose a threat.
But then I realized that that premise is so without foundation as to be patently absurd.
That said, we need to get out of Iraq. We are refeering a civil war. A civil war where we cannot and should not take sides. Although some of these factions may hold moral ground higher than others, for us to pick sides gets us deeper and deeper into this tar baby.
Leaving Iraq should be done through consultations (NOT negotiations) with the Iraqi government. Our withdraw should be done in such a way as to give the current Iraqi military/police confidence building (a/k/a you have to do this to save your own asses) measures by giving them responsibility for various parts of their country until we leave altogether.
To: J John D, bruce, et al of like ilk
Within the realm of the possible: What is it you want to see happen? Don't cut and run and/or stay the course is not a strategy or policy.
So - I ask - once again, with respect to Iraq? How do we get from here to there? What is a win?
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 12, 2006 5:02 PM
Doug, I hear what you say, but given that this is a Civil War of Bush's - and Blair's making - do you not think that we have a moral responsibility to at least try to maintain some vestige of stability?
An Iraq without the US would be a bloodbath many times worse than it already is.
Moreover, Bush declaired a War on Terror, and the terrorists - having first worked out where Iraq was and how to get there said, fine, we'll play. As such, a withdrawl, in addition to screwing Iraq in perpetuity, would also give the post invasion terrorists a victory, increase their levels of support worldwide and make our lives even less safe than they already are – for which I thank you Dumbya. We set the rules - if they beat us at a game of our own devising, then heaven only knows what happens next.
Either way, we are stuck in Iraq. It’s not just the next administration, but those for decades to come that will have to take decisions based on the fecklessness of the current mob.
Let there be no doubt about the fact that Bush is beyond redemption. Impeachment is too good for him, and in an ideal world, it’d be nice to see him sent off to a war of his own making. But this argument has now been had – the new discussion should be one of responsibility at a national level. Our conscience should not allow us to abdicate that which we owe Iraq.
AKA This is our mess – we should clean it up.
Posted by: OHCD | September 12, 2006 5:46 PM
Doug Zook,
There's nothing I hate more than these vacuous catch phrases like "cut and run" or "stay the course" that are tossed around by the Republican and Democratic cheerleaders. You're right, they're not strategies or policies, they're bumper sticker slogans.
That said, it's important to note that Iraq is NOW central to the Western/Islamist conflict. Besides the moral obligation we bear to clean up the mess we created, there is also the crass, selfish matter of our own well being to consider.
We must leave Iraq only when there is a stable, self sustaining, peaceful society there. That means that:
1) Infrastructure (roads, electricity, water purification, telephone, sanitation) must be fully restored ASAP.
2) Societal institutions (police, fire depts, postal service, education, a real national army) must be reestablished. The more point no.1 is achieved, then the quicker this will happen.
If and when these things occur, then the insurgency may lose steam and become defeatable. The fact that there is no normal societal structure in place now means that people naturally turn to more local tribal structures for security -- hence the militias thrive.
The current "strategy" (and I don't even know what that is) is not achieving these ends. What is needed, unfortunately is a greater expenditure of lives, time and money, unfortunately. The next president is going to have to start talking about a draft. Building a real international coalition (if that's even doable, given our current status in the world) is also vitally important.
If we don't do all of the above, then we are condemning the Iraqis to a cruel fate. We stormed in there and destroyed their (relatively) peaceful and stable society. It would be a hideous, cold hearted sin for us to just walk away and say to them, "you clean up the mess."
If the moral imperative doesn't move you then think of this: Iraq has become the major battleground of Islamism. These are people whose stated goal is to establish a caliphate that stretches from Persia to the Iberian peninsula. If we leave Iraq under anything less than the terms outlined above, then it's open war on all of the West... and god help us all.
Posted by: Juanito | September 12, 2006 6:35 PM
OHCD, Juanito,
Gentlemen.
I share many of the sentiments of both your posts. That said, I ask again - how do we get from here to there?
Rhetorically, I ask?:
More troops?
How many?
Where deployed?
What mission?
Thank you for your thoughtful posts.
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 12, 2006 8:35 PM
Truthfully, I watched the movie. It was a heckuva movie. I'm not so concerned about which statements were false and which were true, but it was a heckuva movie. It was great that it was commercial free.
My only comment about the content was that Richard Clarke, who now works for ABC, comes off as someone who was totally on the ball. The smartest character in the move was CIA analyst "Patricia".
Posted by: Terry | September 12, 2006 9:11 PM
So, Juanito, given that the Bush Administration didn't deliver what it promised Americans before the war (the warm welcome from Iraqis cheering US troops on the streets, handing them flowers) or after the war (the reconstruction of Iraq) and has handled virtually every issue with a toxic blend of incompetence, recklessness, obstinance, bat---t-ideology and just-plain-craziness, who on earth is supposed to execute the stabilization project you suggest? Leprechauns?
And I call total bull---- on your statement "Iraq has become the major battleground of Islamism."
Um, no. It's mostly sectarian violence. They're primarily fighting each other, and just happen to hate us in common, not to mention US--oh, pardon! -- "Coalition of the Willing" troops are in the middle.
And let's not forget what unleashed this horrible situation in the first place--Bush's war of choice and his administration's total lack of planning! Whatever Iraq has become, it is totally obvious to all but the willfully blind that the US had a major role in creating it.
P.S. "Open war on all of the West" is to "hyperbolic" as "Mt. Everest" is to "hill."
Posted by: wahrheit | September 12, 2006 9:50 PM
It is clear to all of us that there is nothing to
low for the Liar in Chief George W Bush and his
Vice Liar Dick Cheney to stoop too as we saw
on 9-11 - 2006 when King George 43 tried to play
Republican Party Politics with a clearly GOP
Political Speech And On A Day Of National Mourning
9-11 and that proves how desperate Bush & Cheney
& the Republican Party is this election and how
afraid of their loss ofControl of Congress in
2006 And Loss The White House in 2008!
So I Have One Question For You George W Bush
Where Is Osama bin Laden And Why Have You Failed
To Get Him By Now George W Bush?
Posted by: Ralph Long | September 12, 2006 11:28 PM
Today the President of Iraq met with the President of Iran.
Apparently they have made a deal where Iran will help Iraq with security.
This is what I have been afraid of from the begining of this mess in Iraq.
We have removed any sort of buffer for Iran by invading Iraq.
The people that the Shites voted into power in Iraq,have sympathetic feelings towards Iran.
God help us.
Posted by: John E. | September 13, 2006 12:23 AM
Doug,
As I've said many times I'm neither a general nor a statesman. I've outlined what I see as the "What" that needs doing. That's the easy part. The "How" on the other hand is tricky. I have no specific answers there.
Nor should I.
My constant complaint -- which seems to get on the nerves of so very many of my fellow bloggers -- is that so few politicians want to seriously address the "What", not even to mention the "How". (Sen. Lindsey Graham's recent remarks posted here were a breath of fresh air!)
There are some hard decisions ahead for those who would run this country. Among the household names that aspire to the presidency, I see precious few who are up to the task.
What we desperately need is another Eisenhower -- either as president or as military commander in Iraq. He was superb at managing a coalition (something we need to build in real rather than symbolic terms, if that's even possible these days) as well as noodling the logistics. Plus there was his famous distrust of the Military Industrial Complex.
PS: Thank you for a pleasant and thoughtful exchange. That too was a breath of fresh air.
Posted by: Juanito | September 13, 2006 7:04 AM
Doug,
By the way. I think that engineering and construction should again be directly under the aegis of the military (ie, engineering and construction battalions).
Privatization is supposed to be more cost effective and efficient, but it is often a bad idea and it sure didn't work here. Private firms are collecting bails of tax dollars to rebuild Iraq and delivering very little.
Plus there are Iraqis who are capable who are simply being shut out. Just one example: Iraq had an enormous concrete production before the war, but concrete is now being imported for the reconstruction.
Posted by: Juanito | September 13, 2006 7:42 AM
Doug - you answer three of your four rhetorical questions. You don't know how many, I don't know how, and the lollop in the Oval office couldn't find a strategy with both hands and a flashlight.
But if we leave Iraq now, we leave it in a state of chaos. It is not our - the UK and the US - right to do this. We started this, and - don't think on this as a stay the course thing - we have to remaain there to at least try to mitigate some of the damage that we have caused.
The damage has been done, and will continue. More lives will be lost, and more grief will afflict more people in the years to come.
Let us just hope that the US electorate - and, for that matter, the UK - never again elect a leader capable of such a obscene lack of judgement again.
History will - I hope - judge both of them as war criminals. In the shorter term, their respective electorates should judge them as unfit for purpose.
Posted by: OHCD | September 13, 2006 10:07 AM
Jaunito, OHCD,
"If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority." Author unknown
The problem with rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure and otherwise staying there is (among a lot of other things) where do you start:
The correct answer is: Security
After these years have passed, the most dangerous road in Iraq continues to be from the Baghdad Airport to Baghdad. If we can't secure a single main road just imagine what big projects with lots of dump truck drivers, guys on cranes and in bulldozers require in the way of security.
Or to put it another way. Do you remember the old joke: When you're up to you ass in alligators it's tough to remember that your original objective was to drain the swamp.
I think that's where we are in Iraq.
For example: As much as the Iraqi people and we desire reliable 24/7 electricity it's not in the cards so long as we are there. The people who don't like us (right, wrong or otherwise) do not want us to get credit for squat. That's why when we build it, service it, etc. the bad guys blow it up or break it. We are chasing our tail.
Thus I continue to be of the opinion that we need a phased plan to leave Iraq.
A plan that compels the Iraqi leadership to get their act together security-wise or it'll be their behinds doing the dying.
A plan that is done geographically. When we stand down the Iraqi Army/police stands up in (fill in the blank province).
Only after security is accomplished will the rebuilding of Iraq's infrascructure be feasible.
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 13, 2006 11:21 AM
GWB playing on the sympathies of Americans for 9/11 to justify a war that has nothing to do with 9/11??? *gasp* Say it ain't so!
Bin Laden has been identified as the master-mind behind 9/11. Last I heard he was still in Afghanistan somewhere...not in Iraq. When all this was happening back when we first went into Iraq I was asking the question, "What does this have to do with Bin Laden?" Here it is 5 years later and we're no closer to arresting Bin Laden then we were in Sept of '01.
There is so much more that can be said but why bother? I know GWB, for one, is not listening. He hasn't been from the beginning.
The bottom line is why is Bin Laden still free?
Posted by: Barbara J | September 13, 2006 12:39 PM