NYT: The President's Speech

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/opinion/25TUE1.html?hp

If President Bush had been talking a year ago, after the fall of Baghdad, his speech at the Army War College last night might have sounded like a plan for moving forward. He was able to point to a new United Nations resolution being developed in consultation with American allies, not imposed in defiance of them, and to a timetable for moving Iraq toward elected self-government. He talked in general terms of expanding international involvement and stabilizing Iraq. But Mr. Bush was not starting fresh. He spoke after nearly 14 months of policy failures, none of them acknowledged by the president, which have left Iraq increasingly violent and drained Washington's credibility with the Iraqi people and the international community. They have been waiting for Mr. Bush to make a clean break with those policies. He did not do that last night. The speech reflected the fact that Mr. Bush has been backtracking lately, but he did not come close to charting the new course he needs to take. His "five steps" toward Iraqi independence were merely a recitation of the tasks ahead.

Mr. Bush plans a series of addresses on Iraq before June 30. It was impossible not to wonder last night why he had waited until the security situation in Iraq had become disastrous, until Americans had begun losing faith in his leadership and, indeed, until just 37 days before a crucial new phase begins the transition to Iraqi sovereignty.

It's regrettable that this president is never going to admit any shortcomings, much less failure. That's an aspect of Mr. Bush's character that we have to live with. But we cannot live without a serious plan for doing more than just getting through the June 30 transition and then muddling along until the November elections in the United States. Mr. Bush has yet to come up with a realistic way to internationalize the military operation and to get Iraq's political groups beyond their current game of jockeying for power and into a real process of drafting a workable constitution.

[NMDemDist2]

1. kick n/t

[The Zanti Regent]

2. If they write this, why does the Screw York Times ALWAYS lie for him?

Why does the Screw York Times ALWAYS lie for this abomination?

WHY?

[countmyvote4real]

3. *'s description of the "tersts" sounded like his administration.

I guess it takes one to know one.

[punpirate]

4. There are two things which must be done...

... to return Iraq to some measure of stability: first, US troops are now a primary and obvious symbol to the Iraqis of occupation and repression. The combat troops will have to be withdrawn before the Iraqis believe that the US's wishes for democracy are sincere. Apart from those trained as peacekeepers (very few of the troops), the combat units must be withdrawn, and be replaced by UN peacekeeping units.

Second, the UN must devise a plan which does not favor US corporations in either privatization of oil fields or the reconstruction, and must ensure that the new Iraqi government is provided with the political and technical tools to prevent favoritism, cronyism and corruption, and use the resources of the country to benefit all its citizens.

And yet, these two necessities are precisely antithetical to the original aims of the US in waging the war (apart from the political advantages perceived to accrue to Bush which are now quickly disappearing). Without the US largely gone from the country, the fighting will continue.

[pretzel4gore]

5. "....Bush's character that we have to live with."

they had no problem attacking, harassing and relentlessly distracting the last truly elected US leader; they would not 'live with' PRESIDENT Clinton's 'foibles....no fukken way!
The US media's treason literally shouts for attention....