Don’t worry if you missed Bush’s speech about Iraq last night; it wasn’t anything that you haven’t already heard. Bush said early on that his remarks were intended to explain to America the “specific steps we’re taking to achieve our goals,” but that was clearly not the case.
Not one word of this speech was new. The nationally-televised address was billed by the White House as a significant effort to recapture a flailing policy that has angered the world. Reporters were told to expect Bush to talk about “concrete steps.” Instead, we heard a rehash of the same vague and ineffectual policy we’ve been frustrated with for months.
No specifics, no change in direction, no new initiatives, no exit strategy, no agenda for success. If this was Bush stepping up as a leader to reassert control and direction of an international crisis, we’re all in big trouble.
He touted a new United Nations resolution, but failed to note that it’s filled with vacuous generalities and few specifics. He boasted about “full sovereignty” for Iraqis, but failed to note that his administration is still committed to a plan that gives the U.S. sweeping power over the new government’s decisions.
While there were many questions Bush left unanswered, the arguments the president did lay out were bizarre, and at times, absurd. There were plenty of such moments last night, but two jumped out at me.
“In the last 32 months, history has placed great demands on our country, and events have come quickly. Americans have seen the flames of September the 11th, followed battles in the mountains of Afghanistan, and learned new terms like ‘orange alert’ and ‘ricin’ and “dirty bomb.” We’ve seen killers at work on trains in Madrid, in a bank in Istanbul, at a synagogue in Tunis, and at a nightclub in Bali. And now the families of our soldiers and civilian workers pray for their sons and daughters in Mosul and Karbala and Baghdad.”
One big war on terror. Wrong. These constant efforts to tie an elective invasion of Iraq with the attacks of 9/11 are a cynical and destructive scheme. The AP got reactions to the speech from “real people” across the country last night, and found a guy in Brookline, Mass., who said, “I’m confused, but not so confused that I’m ready to leave Iraq. When they flew those planes into the buildings, they started a war.” Widespread confusion like this can be traced to Bush’s irresponsible rhetoric.
“I sent American troops to Iraq to defend our security, not to stay as an occupying power.”
Really? That’s why the U.S. invaded Iraq? I must be confused. I thought Bush sent American troops to Iraq because of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, or maybe it was enforcing United Nations resolutions, or perhaps something about spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. Considering the various reasons Bush has offered to explain why the war was necessary — and there have been so many at this point — “defending our security” is the least persuasive. Our security was not in danger; Iraq was not a threat.
Last night was apparently an example of the White House doing damage control. Ultimately, I saw a whole lot of damage, but very little in the way of control.