Bush is out making marketing pitches for his Iraq War. Oh, excuse me, the White House Web site provides the Correct Line for discussing it in their title for Monday's speech: President Discusses Freedom and Democracy in Iraq 03/13/06.
He's still holding up Afghanistan as a model of successful nation-building, something that's only possible because the mainstream media does such a lightweight job reporting on what's happening there:
Today, the terror camps have been shut down, women are working, boys and girls are going to school, Afghans have voted in free elections - 25 million people have had the taste of freedom. Taliban and al Qaeda remnants continue to fight Afghanistan's democratic progress. In recent weeks, they have launched new attacks that have killed Afghan civilians and coalition forces. The United States and our allies will stay in the fight against the terrorists, and we'll train Afghan soldiers and police so they can defend their country. The Afghan people are building a vibrant young democracy that is an ally in the war on terror - and America is proud to have such a determined partner in the cause of freedom.
In fact, Afghanistan is mostly run by local warlords and is heavily dependent on a criminal network of drug smugglers for a huge part of their income, which comes from opium growing. The elections in Afghanistan may not have been quite as pro forma as those in, say, Communist Rumania used to be. But not much different. "Determined partner in the cause of freedom", right. A government that barely controls its own capital city can't be much of a "determined partner" in anything. I mean Afghanistan, not Iraq, though some confusion on that point might be understandable.
Bush keeps finding turning points and tipping points all over the place.
Here's how he presents the events following the attack on the Golden Mosque:
Immediately after the attack, I said that Iraq faced a moment of choosing -- and in the days that followed, the Iraqi people made their choice. They looked into the abyss and did not like what they saw. After the bombing, most Iraqis saw what the perpetuators [sic] of this attack were trying to do: The enemy had failed to stop the January 2005 elections, they failed to stop the constitutional referendum, they failed to stop the December elections, and now they're trying to stop the formation of a unity government. By their response over the past two weeks, Iraqis have shown the world they want a future of freedom and peace -- and they will oppose a violent minority that seeks to take that future away from them by tearing their country apart.
But at least he's right when he says, "The situation in Iraq is still tense". By all accounts, he's spot on with that observation!
"Soon the new parliament will be seated in Baghdad, and this will begin the process of forming a government", he says. The elections he was bragging about earlier in the speech took place in December. March 12 was the latest date the parliament was supposed to begin meeting. But they're still working on that government and parliament thing. I'm sure they'll get back to us on that one day soon.
Then he presents a series of feel-good stories about how well Iraqi miltiary units are performing. The role of American troops and "advisers" in those operations is modestly minimized.
And there's something new in the speech! An actual deadline! Well, kinda sorta.
As more capable Iraqi police and soldiers come on line, they will assume responsibility for more territory - with the goal of having the Iraqis control more territory than the coalition by the end of 2006.
Does anyone know what "control more territory" may mean? That Iraqis will be made responsible for large areas of desert while the US will only be counted as "controlling" the military bases on which they are stationed. It's unfortunately all too credible that the latter could happen. But if it does, it will hardly be the official Iraqi police and military controlling everything else.
Then we get the same old stuff:
As more capable Iraqi police and soldiers come on line, they will assume responsibility for more territory - with the goal of having the Iraqis control more territory than the coalition by the end of 2006. And as Iraqis take over more territory, this frees American and Coalition forces to concentrate on training and on hunting down high-value targets like the terrorist Zarqawi and his associates. As Iraqis stand up, America and our coalition will stand down. And my decisions on troop levels will be made based upon the conditions on the ground, and the recommendations of our military commanders - not artificial timetables set by politicians here in Washington, D.C.
It's kind of surprising that he spends so much time talking about the efforts to combat IED's, since it reminds the audience that there's a real war going on. But when he gets to this part, it makes more sense:
Some of the most powerful IEDs we're seeing in Iraq today includes components that came from Iran. Our Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, told the Congress, "Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti-coalition attacks by providing Shia militia with the capability to build improvised explosive devises" in Iraq. Coalition forces have seized IEDs and components that were clearly produced in Iran. Such actions - along with Iran's support for terrorism and its pursuit of nuclear weapons - are increasingly isolating Iran, and America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.
He closes with a story designed to make the soldiers who have been lost an emotional reasons for supporting his policies. I'm quoting it here because it's a good example of the kind of stories even generals *like* to have told. It's sad and painful. But even military censors don't have problems with emotional stories of families mourning their lost father or brother or other family member because they promote the ideal of willing sacrifice:
Since the morning of September the 11th, we have known that the war on terror would require great sacrifice - and in this war we have said farewell to some very good men and women. One of those courageous Americans was Sergeant William Scott Kinzer, Jr., who was killed last year by the terrorists while securing polling sites for the Iraqi elections. His mom, Debbie, wrote me a letter. She said: "These words are straight from a shattered but healing mother's heart. ... My son made the decision to join the Army. He believed that what he was involved in would eventually change Iraq and that those changes would be recorded in history books for years to come. ... On his last visit home... I asked him what I would ever do if something happened to him in Iraq. He smiled at me with - his blue eyes sparkled, as he said, 'Mom, I love my job... If I should die I would die happy, does life get any better than this?'" His mom went on: "Please do not let the voices we hear the loudest change what you and Scott started in Iraq. Please do not... let his dying be in vain. ... Don't let my son have given his all for an unfinished job. ... Please...complete the mission."
I make this promise to Debbie, and all the families of the fallen heroes: We will not let your loved ones dying be in vain. We will finish what we started in Iraq. We will complete the mission.
I wonder if any journalists bother to fact-check anecdotes like this in the President's speeches. It would be worth knowing whether the people mentioned in this little story actually exist and whether he has represented them accurately. It wouldn't surprise me at all if some of them turned out to be written by publicists at CENTCOM. Or by writers working on an expensive contract with Halliburton.
Finally, not be snarky or anything, but what our great and noble President really making a joke when he said the following?
I want to thank Steve Trachtenberg, the President of George Washington University, and his wife, Fran, for joining us today. Thanks for letting me come to your campus. I'm honored to be here. He informed me that my dad will be giving the graduation speech this year. (Laughter.) And Mother is getting an honorary degree. (Laughter.) Smart man. (Laughter and applause.)
That is pretty much the way the Bush dynasty crony-capitalist arrangement works. You bow and scrape to them, they throw a few crumbs your way. Or, in the case of Halliburton, billions of crumbs.
