Bush's Speech

Jeff Jarvis posted an excerpt from Bush's speech last night. Jeff liked what he heard. I didn't much care for what i read. Here is Jeff's excerpt with my comments in italics.

America's commitment to freedom in Iraq is consistent with our ideals and required by our interests.
required by what interests? - our reliance on oil from the mideast because we have no other energy policy?

Iraq will either be a peaceful, democratic country or it will again be a source of violence, a haven for terror and a threat to America and to the world....
As I have said to those who have lost loved ones, we will finish the work of the fallen.
America's armed forces are performing brilliantly, with all the skill and honor we expect of them. We're constantly reviewing their needs. Troop strength now and in the future is determined by the situation on the ground. If additional forces are needed, I will send them. If additional resources are needed, we will provide them....
why not ask our friends - or the countries that used to be our friends before Bush pissed them all off - to send some of their troops to help us out?

Now is the time, and Iraq is the place, in which the enemies of the civilized world are testing the will of the civilized world. We must not waver....
this is only the case because Bush decided to make Iraq the place where he would fight these "enemies of the civilized world". maybe he should have picked a better place to do that

Yet, in this conflict, there is no safe alternative to resolute action. The consequences of failure in Iraq would be unthinkable.
then why were we in such a hurry to pick a fight there? didn't we realize that the risks of failure were so large?

Every friend of America in Iraq would be betrayed to prison and murder, as a new tyranny arose. Every enemy of America in the world would celebrate, proclaiming our weakness and decadence, and using that victory to recruit a new generation of killers.
We will succeed in Iraq.
at what cost? and why did it have to be this way?

Comments

[anon]

I agree 100%, the Bush Administration is terribly incompetent.

Incredibly, Jeff "the Buzz Machine" is such a tool that even though he cries out against the murderers that tried to kill him on 9/11 (he was in the PATH station), Jeff still wants to believe that his Daddy, GWB will save him.

[Bennett Zucker]

I thought Bush did a commendable job last night.

Whether you like or dislike him and his decisions, one thing is unassailable: He is literally the first leader to say to terrorists that enough is enough. No one has ever held them accountable for their atrocities over the years.

To blast Bush for starting what will undoubtedly be a very long and difficult war to rid the world of these menaces is, in my opinion, to be counter to everything that our nation stands for.
If we don't do it, no one will. And the rest of our "friends" are hoping - in silence, lest they appear to be too friendly - that we are successful.

[Bennett Zucker]

I thought Bush did a commendable job last night.

Whether you like or dislike him and his decisions, one thing is unassailable: He is literally the first leader to say to terrorists that enough is enough. No one has ever held them accountable for their atrocities over the years.

To blast Bush for starting what will undoubtedly be a very long and difficult war to rid the world of these menaces is, in my opinion, to be counter to everything that our nation stands for.
If we don't do it, no one will. And the rest of our "friends" are hoping - in silence, lest they appear to be too friendly - that we are successful.

[Dinosaur]

"He is literally the first leader to say to terrorists that enough is enough.", but why did he invade Iraq? Willie Sutton robbed banks because that's where the money was. Did Bush invade Iraq because that's where the terrorists were? No, there was a toothless tiger, but not much else, except now we have created lots of anti-Americanism that did not exist before.

[Anonymous]

That's like telling the cockroaches in your house, "enough is enough", and then drenching your house in DDT.

Except that DDT would probably kill all the cockroaches, while it was creating a new set of problems.

[Mike Zeares]

"maybe he should have picked a better place to do that"

I can't think of a better place than Iraq. It's centrally located in the ME. It has no mountains or jungle to hide in. It had an incompetent military that was easily shoved aside. It has at least some infrastructure (granted, it's bad infrastructure, but it's lightyears ahead of Afghanistan). It has at least a chance of becoming a modern nation (it was well on its way before Saddam took over). Where the heck do YOU want to fight the bad guys? Better there than here. Right?

As for "created lots of anti-Americanism that did not exist before," please. Give me a break. The people who are anti-American now were anti-American before 9/11. They will always be anti-American. We cannot do anything to appease them, short of ceasing to exist (kind of like Israel).

[where are the WMDs]

VC - I concur. It is a shame that in this day and age the capstone of the commission is nothing more than finger pointing and politicking.

[El Jefe]

"...our reliance on oil?"

If you're taking that stance, get in line with JFK. How many barrels of oil have we 'stolen' lately? Oh, yeah, that's right...about $7.5M worth (which is going right back into Iraq).

"why not ask our friends - or the countries that used to be our friends before Bush pissed them all off - to send some of their troops to help us out?"

What? Blair isn't our friend anymore? Why wasn't I informed of this?

"Bush decided to make Iraq the place where he would fight these "enemies of the civilized world". maybe he should have picked a better place to do that"

Your living room would be fine by me.

"then why were we in such a hurry to pick a fight there? didn't we realize that the risks of failure were so large?"

No failure rate in your living room.

"at what cost? and why did it have to be this way?"

Oh, a few hundred billion by the last estimate I read. Bargain at twice the price knowing that we have a pro-active president who's main concern is the security of this great nation.

[lk]

OK, I was wrong, i should not have said "created lots of anti-Americanism that did not exist before,". The brown skinned bastards shooting our soldiers have always been anti-American, but now they are killing our sodliers. Better I said Bush "created a lot of dead US soldiers that were alive before". In for an inch, in for a mile, at this time let's flatten the whole GD country, and if you disagree because of civilian casualties, name 3.

[Giordano Contestabile]

The last comment made me want to vomit.
Please tell me that the America I love so much is not thinking like the last poster...

[where are the WMDs]

Here's a breakdown of the number of troops involved.
I'm glad to see that our 'friend' Blair is pulling his weight with 7% compared to our 80%:

United States 130,000
Britain 12,000
Albania 70
Australia 1,000
Azerbaijan 150
Bulgaria 470
Czech Rep. 92
Denmark 496
Dominican Rep. 300
El Salvador 360
Estonia 55
Georgia 70
Honduras 370
Hungary 300
Italy 3,000
Japan 250 (750 on the way)
Kazakhstan 25
Latvia 120
Lithuania 105
Macedonia 28
Moldova 25
Mongolia 180
Netherlands 1,100
New Zealand 60
Nicaragua 230
Norway 150
Philippines 95 (175 on the way)
Poland 2,400
Portugal 130
Romania 400
Singapore 200
Slovakia 69 (120 on the way)
South Korea 675 (3,000 on the way)
Spain 1,300
Thailand 443 (30 on the way)
Ukraine 2,000

[timekeeper]

Hey, WMD, before you shoot off your mouth, look at the facts.

The US contributed 88% of the troops in the Korean War (excepting the South Koreans), while they have only 86% of the troops in the current conflict (excluding the Iraqi forces trained after Baghdad fell). See this post at Blackfive with numbers and links to the citations. In fact, only 18 countries (including the US and South Korea) had troops in Korea, while your own list notes 36, more than twice the number in Korea.

You seem to fall into the trap that unless France and Germany are on board, it's not a coalition.

[where are the WMDs]

You are right about the numbers. Does that make them acceptable? I suppose if I opine that they are not, I'm shooting my mouth off?

[bearcruiser]

Bush's newest justification for the war -- finishing the work of the Fallen -- is just too ironic. Now he's trying whip up support by calling us to avenge the deaths of our soldiers. He just doesn't get it, does he?