Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

NYT: The President's Speech

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-04 11:33 PM
Original message
NYT: The President's Speech

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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-04 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The Zanti Regent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-04 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
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?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
countmyvote4real Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-04 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
3. *'s description of the "tersts" sounded like his administration.
I guess it takes one to know one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
punpirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-04 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pretzel4gore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 05:26 AM
Response to Original message
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 ' fukken way!
The US media's treason literally shouts for attention....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul 22nd 2017, 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC