Speech. Less.

President Bush said today  at the Air Force Academy Commencement that Iraq has become "a training ground for al-Qaeda."  And they're over there planning attacks on the U.S.  That's why we need to stay there.

Now, I believe all three of those statements are true.  I'm one of those who thinks that giving up and pulling out would be a disaster and a disgrace.  What's conspicuously missing is the fourth leg of the table:  that it was our underplanned and undermanned occupation, following the removal of a dictator who'd kept the country under brutal control, that laid Iraq wide open to al-Qaeda.

I know, that's all water under the bridge and we need to talk about what to do now.  Nonetheless, it makes it extremely difficult (for me, anyway, evidently not for some) to listen to Bush saying these things in his tough-guy mode, without the slightest detectable sense of chagrin or irony.

We desperately need a new president to be saying these things, and we won't actually get one for almost two years.  It's not just that the war has discredited Bush.  What's worse, Bush has discredited the war! 

Comments

[spud]

Amba, how are we suppose to take Bush seriously anymore when he said in March of 02 "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." But now we need to stay in Iraq because it's "a training ground for al-Qaeda"? I thought we needed to stay there to help the Iraqi's "stand up so we can stand down". It's no wonder his approval rating has gone from 90% right after 9/11, to a 28% today. I have zero confidence in his leadership.

[GN]

There was a shift in the methodology for going to "war?" that began with the Vietnam conflict. When we collectively allowed "conflicts" to escalate to the level of "war" in terms of rrsources applied without declaration of war from the Congress (as prescribed in the Constitution), we set up the environment for a cowboy mentality from any President.

Granted, we are stuck, and must follow through with the current situation, but we should be defining the mission and doing some root cause analysis to insure that future conflict resolution is done by congressional consensus.

[Winston]

If you don't like what's coming out of Bush's mouth just wait a little while and he will contradict himself. There's a bit of a problem with assuming that al-Qaeda needs Iraq for training and planing. They already seem to have the bases they need to pull off attacks of major proportion.

I agree with you, particularly the conclusion. With one exception of a sort. Whether we stay a week or 100 years, there will be disaster when we leave. Sudden pullout would not be prudent from a political or military perspective. But if you really look at what we are doing there and the lack of progress we've made, an indefinite occupation looks to be achievable. I do not believe we should stay there year after year with no objective of getting out. That would be as wrong as our invasion was originally. Surely we have the brain-power to develop a realistic plan for coming home in the near future. Unfortunately, that brain-power is not in this administration.

[Peter Hoh]

Iraq has turned into a major source of funds for al Qaeda, along with being such a good training ground for them.

It's a damned shame. I support the surge, but recognize that implicit in the surge is a criticism for how the war was conducted up to this point.

Meanwhile, the president of Iraq is at the Mayo Clinic, being treated, according to some reports, for obesity.

And from an AP report: As Talabani boarded the plane in Iraq, he laughingly said he was going to the U-S "to lose weight and have some rest and
relaxation."

A great big damned shame.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

But this all depends on the perception that the Iraq Campaign has been a disaster. It hasn't. It's the general ignorance of what a real war is like, and how this compares with other actions, that's a disaster.

I suppose you could claim that Bush's administration should be better at educating people, but when the general theme is supported by outright lies ("mission accomplished", "plastic turkey", "WMDs were the only justification", "no AlQaeda connection", "Bush lied about the intelligence") it's a little ahrd to see how much Bush education could help.

[Peter Hoh]

Charlie, I suppose you thought that things went swimmingly well in New Orleans in September, 2005?

[karen]

Peter, don't you think that the gov't of LA & especially New Orleans had a little something to do w/the outcome of all those stranded people for days?

Don't you think that(& yes, i wasn't there and am ~judging~)folks from New Orleans themselves could have done more to get the yak outta there? In VT- our Governor calls the shots.

[Peter Hoh]

Karen, yes, I was being a bit flippant with the N.O. reference. Yes, I suspect that the local government bears a great deal of the blame.

The connection I draw is not based on the assumption that the federal government is to blame for both, or that Bush himself is to blame for both. Rather, it's about scale.

Those who wish to downplay the disaster that is the Iraq occupation often say things like, "3,000 dead is like a bad day in WWII." By that logic, then we can downplay what happened in N.O. because of the devastation that happened to Galveston in 1900.

[karen]

Oh- my misunderstanding.

I know that Iraq sucks- it's always sucked even if ~we~ thought it was a ~good~ idea or a bad one to go in and ~dethrone~ Saddam. It still sucks. Unfortunately, i believe that more good is happening than we will ever know because those that re reporting are not really ~out there~ in terms of in the field- they rely on handed down info, most likely.

I listen to NPR (a lot)(a lot more than i like to, even). I've yet to hear anything ~good~ reported.

One thing i know it isn't about. Oil.

[spud]

I listen to NPR (a lot)(a lot more than i like to, even). I've yet to hear anything ~good~ reported.
One thing i know it isn't about. Oil.

Karen, do you report on the planes that land or the ones who don't land? Here's another question, do you honestly believe we would have gone to war in Iraq if there wasn't oil in that region? There are dictaors in the world as bad as Sadaam was. I'm glad you listen to NPR, it's about the only news source that does not insult it's audience.

[karen]

LOL- doesn't insult it's audience. Riiighhhhttt.

I remember that Ira Glass spewing morality about giving $$$$ to NPR- the same way you teach your 5 yr old not to hit, or something. If you listen, you are beholdened to give. Morally obligated, i believe he said.

So, i don't.

[wj]

spud, You're absolutely correct that there are worse tyrants in the world. Burma, North Korea and Zimbabwe, not to mention Sudan, come to mind. (And in Burma, at least, there is a legitimate, viable, democratic government available to take over.) But I don't think oil was what drove the Iraq invasion.

I think for Bush, it was all about accomplishing something that (in his mind) his father failed at. Other people in the administration may have been pushing it because of oil. But in the end, it was Bush's decision, and I don't think he really cares about oil. Or much of anything else that is important in the real world.

[spud]

LOL- NPR doesn't insult it's audience. Riiighhhhttt.

Karen, I was talking about those who present the news, not fund rasing.