We were supposed to be impressed

August 23, 2005

In reading the text of Bush’s speech yesterday at the Veterans of Foreign Wars’ national convention, the specificity didn’t exactly stand out as noteworthy, but apparently it was supposed to be a big deal.

“We have lost 1,864 members of our Armed Forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and 223 in Operation Enduring Freedom. Each of these men and women left grieving families and loved ones back home. Each of these heroes left a legacy that will allow generations of their fellow Americans to enjoy the blessings of liberty. And each of these Americans have brought the hope of freedom to millions who have not known it. We owe them something. We will finish the task that they gave their lives for.”

As a substantive argument, Bush was repeating a talking point he’s been using for quite a while — if we change direction in Iraq and acknowledge that the invasion was mistake, then thousands will have died in vain. To follow this argument to its next logical step, we need to continue to embrace the mistake, even if it means thousands more troops will die, because to do otherwise would be an insult to the troops. (I know; I don’t really understand this either.)

But Dan Froomkin noted today that the president’s use of the specific number of fallen Americans was supposed to be important.

While the speech Bush gave was largely an amalgam of previous addresses, White House reporters were urged to note the extraordinary significance of the president — for the first time anyone can remember — actually acknowledging the number of soldiers who have died in Iraq. […]

Bush critics have never suggested that the president was literally not aware of the number of dead — after all, it’s in the paper every morning. But in this era of meticulous, artful and deliberate crafting of each and every presidential pronouncement, the unprecedented insertion of hard numbers obviously was meant to signify something.

And indeed, after the speech, White House officials spun it as hugely significant evidence that — in spite of his refusal to meet with grieving mother Cindy Sheehan — the president is sensitive to the sacrifices imposed by his policies.

I’m afraid someone is going to have to explain this to me. We’re supposed to be impressed that Bush’s speechwriter informed him of how many American service-men and -women have died in Iraq? Being honest about this debacle would be impressive. Crafting a plan for success would be impressive. Acknowledging even some of the colossal mistakes that got us into this mess would be impressive.

But for WH aides to run to reporters to say, “See? The president knows the number of dead Americans!” isn’t impressive; it’s sad.

The impressive part was Bush reading the number in the first place. Don’t you remember how bad he is with numbers? That’s why his flunkies were so excited, because he didn’t flub the line.

  • Obviously the intention was to dimish the significance of Cindi Sheehan – as just one of the thousands of parents of the 1,864 dead. The others aren’t speaking out so she must be sort of “the one sorehead in town not under control”

  • Ah, the platitudes that come to mind from the Ghost of Bush Past:

    “The soft bigotry of low expections.”

    “The definition of ‘success’ just got reduced, again.”

    “The insurgency is in it’s last throes.”

    “We’ll be greeted as liberators.”

    “The oil revenues will pay for this war.”

    “This war will last only a few days or weeks, certainly we’ll be out in 6 months.”

    “We know where the WMDs are, they’re East of Baghdad, and to the North, and the South, and the West of Baghdad.”

    “Nope, can’t find any WMDs under my desk.”

    “I’m glad to be here today with my base, the haves and the have-mores!”

    “He can run but he can’t hide, well get him dead or alive.”

    “I really don’t worry about Osama bin Laden at all.”

    “Bin Laden Determined to Stike Inside the United States.”

    “Bring ’em on!”

    “You go to war with the military you have, not the one you want.”

    “We don’t want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

    “Mission Accomplished.”

    Here’s one more, that I wish were asked more often: “How do you ask a man to die for a mistake?”

    Here’s another that I wish were being asked by someone besides Cindy Sheehan: “How do you ask a man to be the last one to die in Iraq?”

    Lying.Fucking.Bastards AND Incompetent.Fucking.Bastards

  • And the above list of quotes took me maybe 4 minutes to compose from memory. While maybe not verbatim, I submit that they accurately convey the essence of the ridiculous utterances of all those responsible for the state of affairs today.

    I am so damned sick of all of the lies, and the CCCP and the DLC and everyone else that lets the Lying.Fucking.Bastards get a way with it, that I think I just might vomit when another garbled exuse for a sentence comes clanging out of their lying mouths. If I could damn them all to Hell, I would. Since I can’t, however — and with apologies to Eadie and all others here with demeanors more sensitive than mine — I guess I’ll just have to keep screaming a word perfectly suited to the FUBAR that has become the good-old no more United States of America: FFFUUUUUUCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!

  • So doesn’t this tell us that they’ve been purposefully deceptive about this? That the omission of giving exact numbers wasn’t accidental or mere oversight, but part of the politics of this war? I personally was never aware that Bush had never acknowledged the number of deaths, so I guess it was nice of them to let us in on one of their little games.

    It really makes you wonder how many other little words/numbers/etc they’re purposefully leaving out of Bush’s speeches. Do they have a specific list, or do they just wing it? And is Bush aware of what these words are, or are they afraid that if they told him which words to avoid, he’d be more likely to accientally say them?

  • 1865.

    (BBC)(8/23/05) A suicide bomber has killed 10 people in an attack on a joint US-Iraqi base in the Iraqi town of Baquba which led to three more “friendly fire” deaths.

    Eight policemen died in the explosion along with a US soldier and a contractor, according to US military and Iraqi police reports.

    And three members of an Iraqi special forces unit in the area were killed in error by US troops, Iraqi police added.

    The explosion in Baquba, 50km (30 miles) north-east of Baghdad, occurred in a dining area in the Provincial Joint Co-ordination Centre.

    According to the police, US soldiers responding to the blast apparently mistook the special forces soldiers for insurgents and opened fire.

  • bcinaz,

    Thanks! How could I forget the mother of all of the “low expectations”?

  • Bush OUGHT to know the name, rank and serial number of every one of those servicemen and servicewomen who has died. Impressed that he knows the number of dead to date? What an incredible insult to every family member of these fallen soldiers, not to mention the rest of us.

    On a related note, every good businessperson knows not to “throw good money after bad” on a poor decision. Don’t let sunk costs dictate the best course of action. I learned that long ago in my MBA program. I guess Dubya must have skipped class that semester at Hah-vahd. The “we can’t let them die in vain” argument is a slap in the face to every soldier who continues to die because this administration screwed up so badly. Disgusting!

    • Comments are closed.