"The President's Last Stand" [UPDATED]

Did I just hear Anderson Cooper say that?? 

I began this post in halfhearted liveblog mode as the President's speech began:

***

CNN reporters are so busy airing their own opinions that they cut into the Prez's speech when it's already begun!  And the sound is cutting out, almost as if his unspoken expletives were being bleeped.  I thought he stammered as he started out, but it may have been CNN's sound glitches.

"Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.  Radical Islamists would g- would gr- would grow . . . "  That time it was definitely him stumbling.

He uses the words "failed" and "mistakes" and says, in effect, that the buck stops with him (punctuated with a pouty little purse of the mouth, as if he'd tasted something bad).  But he does not sound at one with his words.  At moments he sounds as if he's having trouble understanding what he himself is saying. 

How is it different this time from past attempts to secure Baghdad that "failed"?  "This time we'll have the forces we need to hold the areas we've cleared."

This time, we'll have "the green light to go into those neighborhoods" (Sadr City is among those implied).  "The Iraqi government has assured us that sectarian interference will not be tolerated."  If the Iraqis do not do their substantial part, they will lose our support.

Iraq will pass legislation to  share oil revenues and will commit 10 billion of its own money to reconstruction and job creation.  De-Baathification will be reformed.

Secretary Rice will appoint a "reconstruction coordinator."  Oy.

The president is hitting his stride now.  He sounds more comfortable and confident, more one with what he is saying, but this is a stripped-down, grim, no-frills, no-rhetorical-flourishes speech.  Giving it in the library also makes it feel as if he's been demoted, sent to sit in the corner.  He's in voluntary exile from his imposing Oval Office desk.  He's accepted that he's on probation.  (Sideways Mencken nails it, as usual:  "Mr. Bush looked like he was making a hostage tape.")

I momentarily hear "attacks on American troops" as "a tax on American troops."

A lot about diplomacy, at last, involving other Middle Eastern countries, demanding their support for "Iraq's unity government."

No happy talk, at last.  Our enemies will "mak[e] the year ahead bloody and violent.  We must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. . . . There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship."

He grits out a welcome to dissent but challenges opponents to explain how the path they propose will work better.

"The advance of freedom is the calling of our time."

As he pays tribute to the troops I'm thinking about the soldier who sat on a live grenade that had been thrown into his armored personnel carrier, giving his life to save four others. 

It may not be too late, but the great fear is that 20,000 troops is too little to suppress headlong sectarian violence.  Dick Durbin makes that point in his rejoinder, and it is one of the two strongest reservations about this new policy.

The other is the heavy, though conditional, reliance the President is placing on the promises of Nuri al-Maliki.  Obama raises the point that al-Sadr's militia tacitly backs Maliki's power, so how can he be a forceful advocate of disarming the Mahdi Army?

The strongest factor in favor of this policy is David Petraeus.  Over a year ago, U.S. News called him "one of the most fascinating people in the United States Army": 

With a Ph.D. from Princeton University, he is often referred to as the military's warrior-scholar. He has drawn deeply from his dual backgrounds to create a leadership style that is at once of a piece with military tradition, yet is at the same time innovative.

The opposition:  I have to say that Obama sounds equivocating and lightweight and has nothing plausibly positive to offer.  Encouraging a political process and demanding that Iraqis "stand up" just sounds lame.  John Edwards has a few new lines in his face that make him look slightly more photogenically presidential, but all he can suggest is talking directly with Syria and Iran. 

I support this policy, but with fear and trembling.  It worries me very much (Bogus Gold, too) that the Democrats have a vested political interest in its failure (which is not to say that many of them, and quite a few Republicans, don't sincerely believe that it just can't work).   Opposing the war at this point is the politically safe course.  The demonstrators shouting outside the White House during the speech make you wonder if there's finally going to be an antiwar movement in the streets.   

The president can do what he wants, but will the money be there?  Will the Democrats be able and willing to block funding?  John Warner calls this the biggest challenge that the Senate has had [in the 29 years] since I've been there." 

Suddenly the much-discussed and lamented division of the country up to now seems like nothing but a dress rehearsal.

Andrew Sullivan:  "We've got six months to hope that a miracle can happen.

(Props to The Moderate Voice for the good links.)'

UPDATE:  I'm with Ann:

[Bush has] made his decision, and I think people need to support what he's doing and not undercut him by revealing to our enemies that we can be worn down and demoralized.

Comments

[Ruth Arrnne]

"Sent to sit in the corner"...well no wonder he's not giving it in the Oval Office! No corners there.

[Ruth Anne]

Regarding the additional troop amount: he probably won't give specifics due to tactical concerns. He did say "at least 20 thousand". If by that he means 20000 combat, that means an additional 40-60k support.

I will be interested to hear what the troops over there say. I bet they can't wait to take the gloves off and kick some sectarian a$$.

[amba]

Re: troop amount: I hope you're right.

Re: troops' reponse: I bet you're right.

[amba]

Hey, what's the difference between Ruth Arrnne and Ruth Anne? Is the former your pirate incarnation? Arrr.

[maria]

I was listening on NPR, and they had pretty spotty sound as well. Maybe the whole system was glitchy?

As uninvolved as my own non-military life is with these things, I am very anxious about what this year and these decisions will bring. Watching the last half-year unfold living a few miles from a major army base has given me a lot more perspective on the human cost of all this.

[maria]

PS. Robert Siegel cut late to the President as well. I wonder if other networks had their timing off?

[Ruth Anne]

The arrrrne was a typo.

I haven't felt like we've been "at war". I want to see the Hollywood establishment sell bonds, do USO shows, back the troops. I want to see movies depicting us winning. I want to join in, like a modern day Rosie the Riveter, in any way I can. I want to see the American spirit lifted. I know war is hell. Why don't we all bear the burden in some small way?

[amba]

Do you think, IF there are some encouraging signs that this policy is paying off, the mood will change?

[Icepick]

I saw this:

-- Text of a joint statement from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Senate Democratic Whip Richard Durbin following President Bush's address to the nation Wednesday:

and also heard that Obama, Hillary and Edwards issues replies as well. If Bush is such a light-weight, why does it take >b>seven high-powered Democrats to respond?

[amba]

It has little to do with what a heavyweight Bush is or isn't. The first four are flexing their muscles. The last three are running for president. They're betting their political futures that this isn't going to work. It would have made a better, more statesmanlike impression to wait and see. Say just what he said about Maliki: "We're giving him one more chance. If this policy has a chance to succeed, we want it to succeed. If it fails, then we clearly won't share the blame."

[karen]

Considering how much negetive talk up there was even before the speech was given, i made damned sure to watch (mostly, my little girls hate going to bed!).

In the end, regardless of who ~wins~ or loses: US or Islamofacists- W will get all the blame for letting the cat outta the bag and going after them on their own turf. Now we know they exist- where they exist and where they train, etc.

How much did the average American know or care about terrorist attacks on American interests and citizens BEFORE W?

I also heard, thanks to NPR- that scientists(O/T- sorry)are blaming this Admisistration for forcing their hands on their predictions of the miracles of ESCR. One scientist actually said that these embryotic cells are ~like little children~ in that they are difficult to control and get desired results. Am i the only one that finds that analogy sick?

[GN]

We are short on Crips .... send in more Bloods ..... and "Stand By Me"

[amba]

How much did the average American know or care about terrorist attacks on American interests and citizens BEFORE W?

Huh?? Make that "before 9/11." Before they hit us where we all live. It made no difference who was president. (Although I guess I'm glad it wasn't John Kerry. Or would he have riz to the occasion too?)

[Stephen Brown]

And the sound is cutting out, almost as if his unspoken expletives were being bleeped. I thought he stammered as he started out, but it may have been CNN's sound glitche.

It was like that on Fox and C-SPAN, too. I think the problem was with the White House communications office.

[Icepick]

It has little to do with what a heavyweight Bush is or isn't. The first four are flexing their muscles. The last three are running for president.

I'm aware of that, but all this clamor merely makes them look like a group of light-weight "Me Too!"-ers. Pick someone to give the official position, and stick to it. Peole running for office should weigh in later. There's plenty of time to get your point of view across AND get some attention while doing so.

I'm reminded once again that the reason Bush has been so dominant in this country's politics the last eight years is because of the wretched quality of his opponents. No one is going to look back with fondness for this bunch of fools, or for the electorate that couldn't or wouldn't demand better.

[amba]

I'm reminded once again that the reason Bush has been so dominant in this country's politics the last eight years is because of the wretched quality of his opponents. No one is going to look back with fondness for this bunch of fools, or for the electorate that couldn't or wouldn't demand better.

W O R D.

[dom]

What if, as Matthew Yglesias suggests here, the most dangerous vested political interests lie not within Democrats but with the President?

[jason]

I have to disagree on your update from Ann. Hasn't that been the argument all along: Don't disagree with him but instead stand behind him even when he's wrong? And look at where that got us. No, dissent is a wonderful gift and an essential liberty. Besides, he's still wrong, and this bizarre demand that people not voice opinions contrary to his makes me quite uncomfortable. To claim an exercise of constitutional rights somehow empowers our enemies is to hand our enemies just the kind of victory they're looking for--to change our way of life. I'd rather live under constant threat of danger than to give up more freedoms than have already been lost to that mentality.

[amba]

The president knows he's on probation. This is his last chance. He's basically admitted that his critics, who he implied were unpatriotic, were right! Now that it's on the table that his critics were right, do we really want this to fail? Or are we just a thousand percent sure, even with a guy like Petraeus in charge, that failure is inevitable? The denial is over. Now let's see if the modicum of safety and security we owe the Iraqis can be imposed. It seems it me we ought to want that, and not for Bush's sake.

[karen]

I understand Jason's point, but disagree (to a degree)(maybe even 180) because it's a whole different world- or am i just a tad disconcerted about the damage the Islamofacists want to do to us?

It reminds me of my neighbour- who for his entire life crossed our Canadian borders w/only a nod, practically. Most of us have blood ties or work-related ties up there. Hell, we're about three or four miles from it.

Now that we will need passports to cross, he stubbornly refuses to get one because that will mean the terrorists will have won- forcing us to change things we once took for granted.

I'd say we either adapt- or we expire. Evolution at it's most forceful.

Besides, standing behind our troops and our Country should be natural and i believe if it had been done, say- over three years ago- maybe we'd have gotten along well enough to have figured ourselves out of this mess, instead of, as Anchoress says- whatever Bush is for--- we're agin' it.

[karen]

Amba, isn't it realized that before 9/11 we had numerous terrorist attacks upon our interests and citizens abroad??? How long did we think we had, anyways, before they tried to get us at home.

Uh-- weren't the Towers attacked before 9/11? Embassies attacked? Do WE live in a vacuum? All i heard before W's speech was complete defeat from Dems. It won' work. It won't work. It won't work...

[jason]

I agree on that point. We owe the Iraqis a great deal more than we've given them thus far. Unfortunately, I also think we've allowed the situation to unravel to a point where this minor surge in troops probably won't amount to much. I really hope I'm wrong. Mostly, I hope I'm wrong for the poor Iraqis who are living through a nightmare we bestowed upon them.

Nevertheless, I don't think disagreeing with the approach is the same as disagreeing with the intent. And I also think Ann's tired adage of "you're empowering our enemies if you don't agree" is untrue, insincere, and unreasonable. It's the same fear card that's been played for years now. I guess I just find it troubling to hear so many utilize it hoping to silence dissent.

[karen]

"... I want to see the Hollywood establishment sell bonds, do USO shows, back the troops."

Too funny, Ruthanne. You and i both know that ain't happening soon- not the ~elite~Hollywoodites, anyway.

Jason, check out The Anchoress for her take on W's speech- her blog is on Amba's blogroll. She has a quote up that is so amazingly accurate(to me). I'd link, but... i'm inept.

[jason]

If it's the Roosevelt quote, it's one of my favorites. And I'm not sure how it applies.

But I do know this: Roosevelt also said, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, it is morally treasonable to the American public."

[karen]

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face in marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
- Theodore Roosevelt

Yup, how smart are you!!!? Amazing.

Anyway- how could it not aply? And, i doubt W wants no critism- i'd be off the wagon and under it w/the tremondous amt of critism he already has endure these past six years- beginning w/Gore getting the popular vote...

[amba]

You know, Jason, I don't think it's about silencing dissent. It's more about facing a united front to the outside while dissenting like crazy on the inside. Fighting each other not ad hominem but out of a shared concern for the country, but different notions of how to act on it. Both sides are to blame for turning such a vital concern into a partisan football.

We don't make that distinction between facing outward (united front) and facing inward ("heartfelt disagreement") because we've had the luxury of flaunting our freedom of speech. Maybe now we have to figure out how to do MORE serious preserving of that freedom and LESS self-indulgent flaunting of it. Again -- both sides are at fault.

[jason]

Your snark aside, I didn't mean generally how did it apply. I was curious about--specifically: How did you mean it to apply? The spirit is true; the specifics are muddy.

Essentially, it's inapplicable to government lest we say only those who have served in the government can criticize the government. Remember, those positions report to we the people. That's we the bosses, we the deciders. That was my point. More importantly, though, my concern is this ongoing, troubling idea that we shouldn't disagree with or criticize what our government does. That's a mentality that reduces the spirit of liberty, that takes away a fundamental and critical right this nation was founded upon: the ability to disagree with those in charge. It doesn't hinge on security. That's a cheap straw-man argument, a prop tossed up to confuse the masses and keep them subservient.

As for W wanting no criticism, he's one of those who has called us all traitors for questioning and dissenting. In fact, his administration and party have focused on that point for these past many years. How smart are you!? Not so amazing.

Let me just say this: My only point of contention was with that last update from Ann's post. To wit: "[Bush has] made his decision, and I think people need to support what he's doing and not undercut him by revealing to our enemies that we can be worn down and demoralized." Down that road lies ruin. Our Founding Fathers knew it. We should know it now. Dissent is what makes us strong, the spice that shows a lively democracy and an interested, attentive population. Silencing it is unacceptable. It's un-American.

[jason]

And that comment was for karen.

amba: I see your point. I also agree with the spirit behind it. But I don't agree. Our freedoms are what make us a great, enviable nation. To hide the practice thereof, to me at least, is no different than simply taking them away. In fact, I see it as a step in that direction. Healthy debate by the denizens of our country has always been a sign of our wondrous ideals, mainly that of freedom. To let the outside world set its opinion solely by that of mindless agreement with one man's distressful vision is to demonstrate a lack of spirit and a betrayal of our culture, our very foundation. Or so I feel.

I'd rather the world see us practicing the liberties we claim to uphold than to think us all mindless sheep following a misguided president. Even in this case where his approach might be correct (albeit too small), blind acquiescence looks too much like towing the party line.

And tomorrow when he decides to nuke Iran, do we do the same thing? Agree even though we adamantly want the world to know the country doesn't support the idea? And what's next? Therein lies my fear: where do we draw the line on when we can and can't publicly dissent?

[karen]

I'm sorry, Jason.

I don't snark- unless it's dirty stuff. I seriously meant--- you're smart to have known that quote would be from Roosevelt and i find that amazing.

Me- i'm sincere and contrite. Smart? Not so much.