since december, after the president finally realized that he had lost the public's support of the war in iraq, bush has given a series of "major speeches" about iraq. these "major speeches" (which should not be confused with speeches announcing any thing of substance) are meant to win us over without addressing a single one of the public's misgivings.
i read the full text of today's speech. like the others, it was mostly a series of platitudes about progress. although this one had the added bonus of a warning for his critics to shut the fuck up. the warning was at the end. but if you weren't able to stay awake long enough to get there, luckily it seems to be the only thing the media got out of the speech.
this series of speeches are supposed to reassure the public. but when i read them i find them to be quite depressing. there's nothing wrong with a commander-in-chief trying to raise spirits and keep up morale during times of war, especially when there have been setbacks. but in order for that to work, at the very least, you have to acknowledge that there have been setbacks. winston churchill didn't bring up britain's "finest hour" until after he acknowledged "the colossal military disaster" on the french front. it seems rather elementary that if you want to reassure people, you have to at least acknowledge the basis for their doubt.
bush has none of that. none of his speeches do. today's speech makes two references to "mistakes" in iraq. but what is remarkable is that both references make it clear that the u.s. is not the one making the mistake. for example:
Iraqis are undertaking this process with just a year's experience in democratic politics -- and the legacy of three decades under one of the world's most brutal tyrannies still hangs over them. Many of the institutions and traditions we take for granted in America -- from our party structures, to our centuries' experience with peaceful transitions of power -- are new to Iraq. So we shouldn't be surprised if Iraqis make mistakes and face setbacks in their effort to build a government that unites the Iraqi people.(emphasis added) get it? political chaos in iraq is iraqis fault.
similarly, later in the speech, bush gives only one other indication that things aren't going perfectly in iraq. but once again he places the blame squarely on the shoulders of iraqis:
The Interior Ministry's Special Police are the most capable of the Iraqi police forces. There are now about 19,000 Iraqi Special Police trained and equipped -- which is near our goal for a complete force. Many of these Special Police forces are professional, they represent all aspects of society. But recently some have been accused of committing abuses against Iraqi civilians. That's unacceptable. That's unacceptable to the United States government; it's unacceptable to the Iraqi government, as well. And Iraqi leaders are committed to stopping these abuses. We must ensure that the police understand that their mission is to serve the cause of a free Iraq -- not to address old grievances by taking justice into their own hands.i have no problem with bush criticizing iraqi security forces for abuses. but if bush really wants to reassure me, he needs to at least acknowledge that the u.s. has been accused of abuses too. and in the midst of all the rah rah words about terrorists and "saddamists" defeats, he should at least give some nod to the fact that insurgent attacks seem to be getting worse, not better. especially considering that this past week has been particularly bloody. indeed, just yesterday insurgents launched perhaps their boldest attack yet, setting off bombs iraqi interior ministry. the ministry is well within the so-called green zone in baghdad.
this attack was a big deal, it came within a couple of hundred feet of killing the american ambassador. but even if it had, i wonder if you would be able to tell from bush's speech. reading it conveys only the sense of detachment. bush's "optimism" comes across as semi-delusional. i'm not sure whether bush is intentionally omitting the bad news or if he is unaware of it. is he hiding the bad news or does really think he is giving an accurate picture of the situation there? and i'm not sure which interpretation is more scary.
last week, the washington post reported that the bush administration was cutting off funding for civilian reconstruction in iraq. as i posted at the time, it looked like the bush administration was abandoning one of the three tracks to victory as outlined in the november 30, 2005 national strategy for victory in iraq. well, apparently bush never got the memo that his administration was cutting off civilian reconstruction in iraq. from this morning's speech:
Our work in Iraq in 2006 will be focused on three critical areas [political, security and economic].so once again we are left with the question: is bush lying or just clueless? i'm getting really tired of asking.
...And on the economic side, we will continue reconstruction efforts, and help Iraq's new government implement difficult reforms that are necessary to build a modern economy and a better life.
