President Bush's Iraq Speech
So we were chatting on the way home about the speech and the reactions to same. Here's my problem: This speech would have been great 2-2 1/2 years ago.
Did we just learn in the last week that Syria and Iran were messing around in Iraq? I don' theenk so Skippy. So we've allowed Iran and Syria to kill American soldiers with impunity for however long its been that we've known all this?
But now, now we're going to get serious? What's different now? Why not when the president had a majority of his party on the Hill? Wouldn't it have been easier then to "get serious" about the war?
And after a speech like this I always wonder, if we're going to get serious now, does that mean we were unserious before the speech?
I think that's the correct answer. I can only speak for myself but I have a feeling if you could just lasso most Americans with Wonder Woman's golden lasso of truth you'd find that they're mostly puzzled by this rather bizarre war effort which has moved forward at best in fits and starts.
The real enemy has always been Iran, the real enemy is still Iran, so why are we pretending like their anything other than an enemy?
The first time we learned they were supplying IED's to the insurgency our stealth bombers should have been sortieing and knocking out military bases within twelve hours. The second time we should have been knocking down government buildings, preferably one containing President Amena-boop-I-dop!
I reiterate, this speech would have been right on time two years ago or so, now? Now it just feels like more of the same from a weak administration that can't quite find the will to prosecute the actual war on terror. This thing we're doing in Iraq may be many things, but it is only tangentially a part of the war on terror now.
Whenever I hear a speech like this I'm reminded of Kramer declaring that he won't talk, he's dead serious..."Starting.......NOW!"
I wanted to comment on this delusional bit from Larry "I love me some minty fresh illegals" Kudlow..."President Bush—aka President Backbone—may be fighting an uphill battle in Iraq, but he is sure fighting."
Of all the many things I'd like to call this president, "backbone" ain't one of them. I reiterate, how many soldiers exactly have we sacrificed to the IED's supplied by our "good friends" Iran? Syria? And we're only addressing this now? Come on! For goodness sake, he's a lame duck who's managed to almost singlehandedly destroy the Republican party. Here's a hot tip for Mr. "I worship at the church of the GDP" Kudlow, tax cuts are not the same thing as leadership, not to mention "backbone."
Andy McCarthy, by far my favorite writer at NRO had this to say in reaction to the speech..."An official pointedly explained that, while the violence in Iraq is being “fiercely stoked” by Iran and Syria, the mayhem would not end even if the Iranian and Syrian influence were to disappear.
True enough, but still, this is a very strange distinction to draw. Material support is, after all, material support. Under the Bush Doctrine as articulated in September 2001, it is supposed to be met with a vigorous American response because we deem rogue regimes to be just like the terrorists they abet. Patently, in the case of Iran and Syria, we have not done that. In turning away from the Bush Doctrine in this most essential of its potential applications, we have turned away from the blueprint for winning the war — not the Battle of Baghdad but the War on Terror."
Strong, Smart! (or something)
***UPDATE***
Damn, it's always nice when smart Hollywood actor types start parroting the Jake line! Fred Thompson had this to say..."I was struck by a couple of things he said that indicated not just a change in tactics but a whole new attitude with regard to what's necessary. He’s taking the gloves off. . . . I'll bet that a lot of folks who support the president on this are asking themselves "what if we'd taken care of business this way two years ago?"
Technorati Tags: iraq, iran, gwot, president bush, backbone
Did we just learn in the last week that Syria and Iran were messing around in Iraq? I don' theenk so Skippy. So we've allowed Iran and Syria to kill American soldiers with impunity for however long its been that we've known all this?
But now, now we're going to get serious? What's different now? Why not when the president had a majority of his party on the Hill? Wouldn't it have been easier then to "get serious" about the war?
And after a speech like this I always wonder, if we're going to get serious now, does that mean we were unserious before the speech?
I think that's the correct answer. I can only speak for myself but I have a feeling if you could just lasso most Americans with Wonder Woman's golden lasso of truth you'd find that they're mostly puzzled by this rather bizarre war effort which has moved forward at best in fits and starts.
The real enemy has always been Iran, the real enemy is still Iran, so why are we pretending like their anything other than an enemy?
The first time we learned they were supplying IED's to the insurgency our stealth bombers should have been sortieing and knocking out military bases within twelve hours. The second time we should have been knocking down government buildings, preferably one containing President Amena-boop-I-dop!
I reiterate, this speech would have been right on time two years ago or so, now? Now it just feels like more of the same from a weak administration that can't quite find the will to prosecute the actual war on terror. This thing we're doing in Iraq may be many things, but it is only tangentially a part of the war on terror now.
Whenever I hear a speech like this I'm reminded of Kramer declaring that he won't talk, he's dead serious..."Starting.......NOW!"
I wanted to comment on this delusional bit from Larry "I love me some minty fresh illegals" Kudlow..."President Bush—aka President Backbone—may be fighting an uphill battle in Iraq, but he is sure fighting."
Of all the many things I'd like to call this president, "backbone" ain't one of them. I reiterate, how many soldiers exactly have we sacrificed to the IED's supplied by our "good friends" Iran? Syria? And we're only addressing this now? Come on! For goodness sake, he's a lame duck who's managed to almost singlehandedly destroy the Republican party. Here's a hot tip for Mr. "I worship at the church of the GDP" Kudlow, tax cuts are not the same thing as leadership, not to mention "backbone."
Andy McCarthy, by far my favorite writer at NRO had this to say in reaction to the speech..."An official pointedly explained that, while the violence in Iraq is being “fiercely stoked” by Iran and Syria, the mayhem would not end even if the Iranian and Syrian influence were to disappear.
True enough, but still, this is a very strange distinction to draw. Material support is, after all, material support. Under the Bush Doctrine as articulated in September 2001, it is supposed to be met with a vigorous American response because we deem rogue regimes to be just like the terrorists they abet. Patently, in the case of Iran and Syria, we have not done that. In turning away from the Bush Doctrine in this most essential of its potential applications, we have turned away from the blueprint for winning the war — not the Battle of Baghdad but the War on Terror."
Strong, Smart! (or something)
***UPDATE***
Damn, it's always nice when smart Hollywood actor types start parroting the Jake line! Fred Thompson had this to say..."I was struck by a couple of things he said that indicated not just a change in tactics but a whole new attitude with regard to what's necessary. He’s taking the gloves off. . . . I'll bet that a lot of folks who support the president on this are asking themselves "what if we'd taken care of business this way two years ago?"
Technorati Tags: iraq, iran, gwot, president bush, backbone
posted by jakejacobsen @ 9:28 PM
<< Home