This was before 11-06 when Bush had a mysterious change of heart and began to use the lack of progress in Iraq as the new justification for our involvement. Back when he made this speech he was using the tremendous progress in Iraq to justify our involvement. The reason for the mysterious change of heart was the election results, no doubt.
So, when Bush sees his policies as working, that means we have to stay in Iraq. Likewise, when Bush's policies fail to work, we have to stay in Iraq. See a pattern here?
Bush: Advancing the cause of freedom and democracy in the Middle East begins with ensuring the success of a free Iraq. Freedom's victory in that country will inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran, and spread hope across a troubled region, and lift a terrible threat from the lives of our citizens. By strengthening Iraqi democracy, we will gain a partner in the cause of peace and moderation in the Muslim world, and an ally in the worldwide struggle against -- against the terrorists.Yeah, I'm sure that people from 'Damascus to Teheran' are looking at Iraq and saying "Hey, wouldn't it be nice if we could be more like them". And the Shia majority in Iraq sees Iran as their ally, not the U.S. Also, you would have to be delusional to see Iraqi democracy as 'strengthening'. The Iraqi government is instead dominated by the two main parties involved in the civil war (which Bush says is not a civil war). It's an open secret that as soon as the U.S. does withdraw from Iraq, that Turkey will invade Kurdistan with the nice shiny military we have built up for them. How does this play out in the "ally" scenario? Will we defend our Iraqi ally against our Turkish ally? Or is all this 'ally' talk a load of crap that really means we install a government in Iraq who says what we tell them to say and does what we command?
-----------------------------
Bush: As we make progress toward victory, Iraqis will take more responsibility for their security, and fewer U.S. forces will be needed to complete the mission. America will not abandon Iraq. We will not turn that country over to the terrorists and put the American people at risk. Iraq will be a free nation and a strong ally in the Middle East -- and this will add to the security of the American people.Again, Iraq is not looking anything like an ally at this point. And now, in May '07, the old Decider Dude says that more troops are needed, not fewer. And those Iraqi troops that were supposed to "stand up" turned out to be more of the problem than the solution, because their primary loyalties were to the sectarian militias. And somehow, as the situation has deteriorated in Iraq since this speech, we haven't seen a corresponding increase in danger here in the U.S. - Are we supposed to continue this war until everyone in the world who doesn't like us is killed? Is that what Congress meant when they 'authorised' this war? Why does Bush get to decide what Congress intended by their authorisation?
------------------------------
The truth is that our strongest defence against a radical Iran was Saddam, as bad as he was. If we want to frame this in terms of U.S. security, then that would be the primary concern. A weak central Iraqi government, in a shattered nation with its own armed forces at war with itself, led by Shia who see Iran as their natural ally, is not a scenario painting Iraq as a bulwark against Iran and its aims.
Bush: And we should not fear the debate in Washington. It's one of the great strengths of our democracy that we can discuss our differences openly and honestly -- even at times of war. Your service makes that freedom possible. And today, because of the men and women in our military, people are expressing their opinions freely in the streets of Baghdad, as well.Okay, so how is it that now anyone who disagrees with Bush is a traitor, and debate is the biggest fear of the Republicans? How is it that "the debate in Washington" is now not a sign of the freedom that those in the military have made possible, but seen as akin to aggression against the troops? Why are Republicans trying to undermine what their Great Decider has stated to be "one of the great strengths of our democracy"?
-----------------------------------------
Will the Decider please decide which Decider is the Real Decider?
Of course, now Bush has simply defined "victory" as a decrease in sectarian violence, and doesn't really talk about the "strong ally" (or ally, period), or about the shining democracy that will make dictators across the Middle East tremble. Heck, we don't even care about car bombings, unemployment, a deadlocked Parliament, or refugees in the new picture of "success". Robert Gates has even gone so far as to suggest that Iraqis kicking us out would be considered "victory".
I wish that the Democrats would point out that Bush's "hang tough" act really consists of him lowering the bar for what is considered victory while stalling for his lowered standards to be acheived. And he can't even make that work.
