IRAQ

Bloggers react to Bush’s speech on Iraq

To mark the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion, George Bush made a speech to the Pentagon today, in which he insisted that the controversial offensive had opened a "major strategic victory" in the broader war on terror. Two American bloggers criticise their president's speech, but for very different reasons.

Advertising

To mark the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion, George Bush made a speech to the Pentagon today, in which he insisted that the controversial offensive had opened a "major strategic victory" in the broader war on terror. Two American bloggers criticise their president's speech, but for very different reasons.

Bush reaffirmed in the speech that removing Saddam Hussein from power was the "right decision", and that this is a fight "America can and must win". He then went on to reiterate the somewhat worn out argument for continuing the war; that the Americans must combat al Qaeda in Iraq in order not to face them on their own soil; and to leave too quickly would cause chaos and strengthen terrorists in neighbouring Iran.

"If George W. Bush had been president in 1941, we’d all be speaking Japanese or German right now"

"TexasFred" is a blogger who promises to let you know "exactly what's on his mind":

Until WE went to Iraq there was NO insurgency, Saddam didn't allow anyone to stand against him, the only terrorist that threatened Iraq was Saddam Hussein himself and his terror was directed against his own people, NOT towards the USA, Saddam was NOT connected to al-Qaida or the attacks of 9-11, Iraq was NOT a part of the War on Terror until Bush made them a part of it, that has been thoroughly researched, proven and reported by numerous studies and surveys conducted by our own Congress and the Department of Defense, yet the Bush Bots say those reports are lies as they make their pathetic little stand in defense of The Bush...

Our mission in Iraq had nothing to do with Iraqi Freedom, that was a modified mission definition brought into play after Bush and Company crapped out on the WMD lie, the Iraqi Freedom thing was born when mission definitions began to take on a new directions on an almost daily basis as Bush attempted to justify his actions, ‘We must stay the course' immediately comes to mind for me...

We went to war in Iraq because George W. Bush claimed that Saddam had weapons that could threaten the USA, when the truth of the matter was this, Saddam had nothing that was threatening to anything more than his own nation and possibly a others in his region, and quite frankly, if others felt threatened, shouldn't they have been the ones to address the threat??

The only thing that has been found to date that could have been even remotely threatening was some .155MM howitzer rounds that were loaded with Sarin, aka GB, a nerve agent that was so depleted that it could have been poured directly on the skin with NO harm to the human body, Sarin that was so useless that it would have to have been ingested to cause ANY harm, that was the WMD we went to war over, that was the WMD that we have lost so many lives over, that was the WMD that has nearly ruined the American economy...

To call the Debacle in Iraq a success is as desperate an act of attempted self vindication as is likely to be heard, Iraq has all but bankrupt the United States and has cost us the lives of almost 4,000 fine young men and women, and it's now, as of today, taken 5 years to get to this point, and still, there is NO end in sight...

As we mark the 5th anniversary of our Debacle in Iraq, remember this little snippet of fact, we were directly involved in WWII for 3 years and 8 months, and we WON that one, a WORLD WAR, against awesome odds, yet here we are, still fighting in a nation that's approximately the size of the state of Texas, led by a Moron in Chief, a leader that calls the war a success...

Let me put this as plainly as possible, in terms so easily understood that even the most dense of the Bots can grasp it's meaning, IF George W. Bush had been president in 1941, we'd ALL be speaking Japanese or German right now, because if this Debacle in Iraq is what Bush calls a success, I would surely hate to see what he calls a failure..."

"He says that there will be no more serious withdrawals unless the generals on the ground say there should be"

Colenel Patrick Lang is a former senior officer of the US army. He served in the Department of Defense and is a middle-east specialist:

The president is still "sure." You can see that in the scowling demeanor. You can hear it in the taut voice, the twangy folksiness of the voice, so reminiscent of one of the "characters" in "No Country for Old Men."

As I write this, I hear Obama in the background. He is speaking at Fayetteville with "Iron Mike's" statue lurking in the background at Ft. Bragg. "Iron Mike" is the archtypical enlisted paratrooper. Obama says that he is going to withdraw from Iraq. Bush says that there will be no more serious withdrawals unless the generals on the ground say there should be. Guess what that means. That means an "endless war," in Obama's phrase. Generals don't vote to take responsibility for national policy decisions. They are by nature, and the nature of the process that made them generals, far too risk averse for that. If a decision to make war or not to make war is left to them they will pretty much always vote for the status quo.

Bush's Pentagon speech today contained no time line for the evolution of the war. War without end, Amen. How long before the American people start to walk away from "Iron Mike" in disgust? The applause for Bush at the Pentagon today will be remembered. I remember a time when my friend Mike could not walk down the street wearing his uniform. I do not want to see that again.

Bush, perhaps deliberately, dances, bobs, weaves and scowls over the identity of the enemy, and the reasons that he and the Jacobin neocons gave us for going to war. Much of that argumentation has been "exploded" by the failure to find it anywhere other than in the pages of rags like "The Weekly Standard" but that does not seem to bother him.

The Vice President seems as insulated from reality as always and absolutely shameless in his public denials of reality in Iraq. What's the deal with him? Is he really impaired somehow or is it about the money as the "oilies" insist?

Then, there is John McCain. He does seem impaired. Lieberman had to remind him that AQ is a Sunni group who hate the government of Iran?

The Democrats need to sober up and get Hillary and Obama onto the same ticket. I don't care who gets the top spot.

"Iron Mike" and his buddies deserve to be led by some one other than fools and knaves."