7.62mm Justice: It’s nights like tonight that I feel compelled to go back to Baghdad. To hear the President talk about sacrifice, and to know that I could be doing so much more than I am. I owe the men and women who have died for our freedom more than I can ever repay. I owe it to future generations to make sure that we do not leave Iraq without a win. While I am only one man, if my blood, and last full measure would put us over the top and into a win, then I would gladly give all. I am so frustrated with the situation. I am so angry at the dissenters.
Blue Crab Boulevard: Having now read the speech, which I was not able to watch for a very good reason, I really think it did a good job of describing the situation and, more importantly, the consequences of failure. There were some bits I thought quite strong, others less so. Overall probably a B+.
Stop the ACLU: This speech will most likely not change any minds. It had points of genius, but I’m already hearing that victory is the wrong direction according to Dick Durben. What really matters is whether or not this plan will succeed. Pundits will debate this, but the President says he believes it will…for whatever that means to people. It means more to me than the surrender talk that Durbin is spewing. Of course we don’t know how the enemy will react to this. The bottomline question…the only that really matters…is will it work? A plan for victory is better than anything the Dems have offered. I will stand behind this plan and hope for realistic success. The option of retreat and defeat that the Dems are begging for is unacceptable with many more negative consequences in the long run.
Iowa Voice: For those people who aren’t aware of this fact, when a President dispatches a carrier to a region, that’s sending a message…one that isn’t very often ignored by those it’s intended for. Even though there are already naval forces in the region, sending additional forces sends the message to Iran (and to Syria) that they’d better knock it off. However, sending 20,000 additional troops is not going to be enough at this stage in the game. If we’re going to send anything, it should be a far larger force to just crush the insurgency and accomplish the mission of securing Iraq. It would also make Syria and Iran calm down, because when you’ve got a majority of the United States Army next door, you’re going to behave.
Right Wing News: I liked this speech a lot because it revealed a workable plan, it gave people a key date to watch (Nov, 2007 for the Iraqis to takeover), and it did seem to explain the point of the surge. I love the fact that he told the Iraqi government that they have gotta move on these militias, they’ve got to fulfill their promises. He also warned Iraq and Syria. Great. Not a great delivery, but it seldom is with Bush. All in all, B+
Flopping Aces: 9/11 taught us, or should have, that we cannot sit idly by and allow the hatred and ignorance in that part of the world to fester without tackling it head on, and believe me, bringing freedom to people is a tackle that knocks the enemy out.
Wizbang!: I watched the President’s speech, but only watched a few minutes of the post speech commentary. I saw Tim Russert say that Bush bet his presidency on Iraq and that tonight he made that bet double or nothing. I was impressed by the speech. I thought the President struck the correct tone, explained the plan sufficiently for viewers to follow along, and provided enough details for them to decide for themselves whether or not they believe the plan deserves a shot. He also did a really good job explaining why it is so incredibly important that we do everything possible to succeed in Iraq. He cited in some detail some of the mistakes that have contributed to the current situation. He made clear that he took full responsibility. He said that the troops have done everything that has been asked of them and that they bear no blame for the things that have not worked.
Sister Toldjah: It was very important for him to emphasize to the American people, who have lost confidence that this war can be won and a majority of who think we should be out by the end of the year, what leaving too soon would mean in the overall scope of the war on terror: disaster. It’s critical that people be reminded that if we were to leave before the job is finished, that the violence and chaos that would overtake Iraq would be a danger not just to Iraqis who desire peace, but us too, and the rest of the international community.
The Poltical Pit Bull: What are the consequences if the Iraqis fail to meet the benchmarks or the security push in Baghdad fails? President Bush didn’t mention any and that might be a good thing in that perhaps it means that he’s accepted that this is the final opportunity to get things right. As I’ve said before, I know I view it that way. If this push doesn’t dramatically reduce the level of violence within a year to 18 months, then it’s over. It might not end on Bush’s watch, but the next president, Republican or Democrat, will end this war.
Captain’s Quarters: Bush and his team spent quite a bit of time on the address. They included several elements to bridge political differences. His assumption of responsibility for the failure to quell the violence in Baghdad is the one element that had been missing until now, and it may help take the edge off of some of the criticism.
A Blog for All: This was a serious speech for a serious situation. Even though the media and Democrats are focusing on the number of troops that may or may not be required, the real key isn’t the number of troops, but the rules of engagement that our forces operate under. Change the rules of engagement to let our forces go after the jihadis and insurgents without worrying about the legalities or supposed sensitivities if we have to go into mosques or other areas, and the jihadis and insurgents will have no where left to hide.
Webloggin:The Democrats, in their infinite wisdom have essentially sided with the insurgents and raised the white flag. They are openly admitting that they believe that the U.S. military can’t win a war in an area the size of California. But I have a question, who could win a war with spineless politicians like Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid backing them up?
The Anchoress: The Democrat philosophy of the past 3-4 years has essentially been, “whatever it is, if Bush is for it, we’re against it. If Bush is against it, we’re for it!” So, as recently as December 2006, Dems were calling for more troops and acknowledging that we can’t afford to lose.
Winds of Change: I am, for the first time, deeply pessimistic about the future of this country. In my studies of American history, I cannot identify another time when both political parties were of such small ideals, little intellect, less vision and greater selfish interest than both parties are now. The American people are more poorly served by our national political figures now than ever. We’ve certainly had times when one party or the other was miserable, but fortunately there were some voices within them who were heeded for renewal and during such times there was a reservoir of excellence in the other party. Today neither the Republicans or the Democrats have anything to commend them to the admiration of future historians and there exists no one in either party who can possibly lead them out of the swamp. McCain? Pelosi? Obama? Gingrich? It is to laugh. Then cry. Tonight the president will announce the addition of 22,000 soldiers and Marines to the forces already in Iraq. From all accounts, the president will announce that he is implementing the Keane-Kagan plan. This will be too little, too late. Twenty-two thousand troops will make a short-term difference but it will not last. As Joe Katzman wrote, this will be “surging to lose.”
Patrick Ruffini: This war isn’t just Iraq. It won’t be over with Iraq, even with victory in Iraq. Achieving that victory and future victories requires unbending will. What is happening in Iraq is a desperate final-ditch struggle by the jihadists to preserve what influence they have left in a new Iraq. That struggle has exacted a painful toll — one that makes clear just how much al-Qaeda fears our success. My bottom-line thinking about this war remains: “If they’re shooting at you, you must be doing something right.” The country needed to be brought closer to recognizing this, and that’s what the President did tonight.
Jules Crittenden: The only other thing I want to say tonight is that I found it somewhat telling that as I drove home around 11 p.m., the BBC’s report on public radio was more relevant and balanced than what the Associated Press had sent over. The AP was actually breaking left of the BBC.
Rightwing Nuthouse: I largely agreed with the President’s assessment – as far is it went. Why he kept mentioning “sectarian elements” rather than militias and not mention al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army by name is a minor point but telling. What it says to me is that despite al-Maliki’s assurances, we’re still not sure what the consequences will be when we start going after Mookie’s Army. If the Mahdi Militia comes out swinging, the Iraqi army will have its hands full with no guarantee that they will actually fight them. In fact, this entire plan is dependent on an Iraqi army that has yet to prove it can do anything much at all. Deploying 18 brigades to Baghdad when the largest combat action that the Iraqi army has been involved in has been company sized engagements will test the new army to the limit.
Hot Air: Durbin’s rebuttal was more of the same pitiful tough-love garbage about Iraqis needing to “step up,” as if the problems in the country were due to laziness or too much happy-go-luckiness. They sound like a woman telling her unemployed college-dropout son to get a job.
4 Responses
Readers are solely responsible for the comments they post. Comments do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of Blogs of War or John Little.
January 11th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Forward In Iraq…
It’s nights like tonight that I feel compelled to go back to Baghdad. To hear the President talk about sacrifice, and to know that I could be doing so much more than I am.
I owe the men and women who have died for our freedom more than I can eve…
January 11th, 2007 at 10:14 am
“The Responsibility Rests With Me” Presidential SpeechRoundup…
Last night President Bush addressed the nation to discuss the United States’ involvement in and continuing plans for Iraq. I could summarize his words, but I won’t – primarily because I prefer to send you to the primary source. The transc…
January 11th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
“As President Bush Proposes, So The Democrats Oppose” is my post on the subject. I am so sick of these dastardly Dems and their quisling behavior! They are such incredibly political creatures that their ACTUAL survival is less important than their POLITICAL survival.
It is the classic Marxist meme: The end ALWAYS justifies the means. No lie is too big and, if repeated frequently enough, it will become truth! Total situational ethics and morality.
January 12th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
I asked an Iraqi in Najaf what he thought abou this. This is what he said:
Jassim: I still believe in american
Karen: yes, many people are asking to force a full American exit from Iraq
Karen: what do you think would happen if the Americans were to leave now?
Jassim: even if I do not agre or understand USA government policy some times I respect soldiers
Karen: Bush is currently planning to send 21,500 troops
Jassim: because I know what they suffer too, I jusy hope them would take care of iraqis
Jassim: yes I know that
Jassim: if usa withdraown from Iraq every one will kill every one else
Jassim: it is like a civil war now but it will be official
Jassim: no one know what would happen exactly but every bad thing is possible
Jassim: may be arabic countries will attack us
Karen: is the Iraqi military part of the solution or part of the problem?
Jassim: Iran also
Jassim: both !!!
Jassim: no one can depend on them
Jassim: they are a wasting formoney
Jassim: for money
Jassim: like most of money spent in iraq
Jassim: just wasting
Jassim: most of it went to private pockets !!
Jassim: or to support militia
Jassim: political parties
http://alenaae.blogspot.com/2007/01/6-what-if-americans-leave-iraq-where.html
In a previous conversation, he had this to say:
Jassim: but may be I say may be if USA government follow a new strategy it would make a differance
Karen: what kind of strategy?
Jassim: wel some thing like chasing terorists
Jassim: eleminating them
Karen: I thought that the Americans were already hunting terrorists
Jassim: support independent people in government not parties
Jassim: no
Jassim: they are bearly doing that
Jassim: it surprise you right ??
Karen: yes, it does
Jassim: I know
Karen: the whole reason for being in Iraq is supposed to be “The War on Terror”
Jassim: they are defending themselves but not attacking them effectively
Jassim: well in some how it changed
Karen: In the news, we are told that it is impossible for the Americans to tell the difference between terrorists and civilians. They are afraid to go after terrorists, because they might kill more innocent people.
Jassim: Bush strategy was to allow all terrorists to gather in Iraq instead of attacking USA then eliminate them but slowly
Jassim: no
Jassim: every one know where terrorists located
Jassim: even children
Karen: I definitely will need to tell others that
Jassim: so you see he used Iraq as a field for his war instead fighting on USA ground
Jassim: we pay for this strategy
Karen: have Iraqis told the American soldiers where to find the terrorists?
Jassim: yes
Jassim: I was involved in one of the hottest cases during my work
Jassim: it was what happened in …
Karen: would the civilian population support the Americans if they went after the terrorists?
Jassim: for months terrorists were entering fom borders in Seyria and gathering in this city
Jassim: killing Shia, bombing, prepare bombing cars
Jassim: american forces reported for months about this activities but they did nothing
more at: http://alenaae.blogspot.com/2007/01/2-further-conversation-with-iraqi.html