Why ‘significant progress’ sounds kind of familiar

April 10, 2008

This morning, speaking from the White House, the president boasted, “American and Iraqi forces have made significant progress” in Iraq. It got me thinking, haven’t we heard that phrase before in relation to Iraq?

* White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan on October 27, 2003: “In the north and south [of Iraq], we have made significant progress.”

* President Bush on November 13, 2004: “Fighting together, our forces have made significant progress in the last several days.”

* President Bush on June 28, 2005: “In the past year, we have made significant progress.”

* Vice President Cheney on October 19, 2006: “[W]e’ve made significant progress.”

* President Bush on February 23, 2007: ” I think we have made significant progress in Iraq.”

Indeed, it’s a phrase the White House has used to describe events in Iraq several hundred times over the last five years. I can’t imagine why anyone would be skeptical about the claim now.

And as long as we’re on the subject of this morning’s speech, Bush also announced today:

“To ease the burden on our troops and their families, I’ve directed the Secretary of Defense to reduce deployment lengths from 15 months to 12 months for all active Army soldiers deploying to the Central Command area of operations. These changes will be effective for those deploying after August 1st. We’ll also ensure that our Army units will have at least a year home for every year in the field.”

This sounds familiar, too, in large part because Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) was recommending this change in policy last year.

At the time, one of Webb’s colleagues said Webb’s proposal would “emasculate” the surge policy, “could easily bring about … defeat,” and lead to “chaos and genocide” in the region. The colleague, of course, was John McCain.

Imagine what a hundred years of significant progess will look like

  • When Hillary is finally forced to come to her senses and we can begin to point our arrows at McCain…he’s toast.

  • Yes, the next six months are always crucial to these liars. I guess they figure that’s about how long it takes the average television watcher to forget their last wild claims of success.

  • No doubt when Lil’ Georgie decides to bomb Iran, sometime after the elections, that will be deemed significant progress too. (Good grief, seven years of this nonsense has made me paranoid, I’m seeing improbable conspiracies and plots everywhere — right?).

  • The keywords here are “active Army.” He doesn’t say anything about Guard units, Marines, or anyone else. Just out of curiosity, how many “active Army” units are in Iraq right now?

    “Significant progress” is like the first half of Newton’s law on gravity; we see the “what goes up”—but never the “must come down.”

    Only in the rose-tinted bubbledome of Bushylvania….

  • Recycle, recycle, recycle. Finally George W Bush is thinking green. I can’t stand to listen to him so I appreciate the summary.

  • At the time, one of Webb’s colleagues said Webb’s proposal would “emasculate” the surge policy, “could easily bring about … defeat,” and lead to “chaos and genocide” in the region. The colleague, of course, was John McCain.

    I suspect this is also why McCain doesn’t like updating the GI bill. Imagine what would happen to the military if significant numbers of soldiers said, “you know what? I’ve done four tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s someone else’s turn. I think I’ll go to college.” McCain would rather just send them back for their sixth and seventh tours, and tell everyone how wonderful they are for doing it voluntarilly.

  • I’ll bet if you were to google “Vietnam and significant progress”, you’d come up with a similar number of optimistic rose-coloured lies.

  • I’ll bet if you were to google “War on Poverty and significant progress”, you’d come up with a similar number of optimistic rose-coloured lies.

  • ’ll bet if you were to google “War on Drugs and significant progress”, you’d come up with a similar number of optimistic rose-coloured lies.

  • CNN is repeating your Meme right now Steve.

    Boy George II never points out that we have achieved every one of our pre-war objectives (not including controlling Iraq’s oil, which we deny was an objective). That means we’ve already won.

    It’s the damned Iraqis responsibility to see they retain their democracy, if they care about it at all. Which of course they don’t. They are of the One Man, One Vote, ONCE philosophy.

  • In a sense it is significant progress; the hole we are in is deeper, the cost of the war is greater and more people hate us. What we’re progressing towards, though, is another point.

    “Significant progress” is the new “turning a corner.”

  • Funny how when the Dems want to create legislation it’s anti-troop, aiding the terrorists, etc., but when the R’s steal the idea, hey, it’s great. Has happened too many times to count.

  • Funny how after all that significant progress our leaders still have to sneak in and out of Iraq unnanounced in the dead of night, doing corkscrew landings with flak jackets on, meanwhile the Iranian president makes scheduled visits to be kissed by the Iraqi government officials.

    I’m sure McCain would love to go shopping again, only this time without the marine battalion.

    All of the idiots crowing about the alleged “significant progress” would be laughed out of town if we had a real media which wasn’t owned by huge corporations.

  • I’ve directed the Secretary of Defense to reduce deployment lengths from 15 months to 12 months — Clueless George

    Sorry; that’s not a reduction; that’s just bringing it back to the pre-surge levels. Just like the “troop withdrawal” is BS until we reach the pre-surge levels.

  • Steve@5 asked,

    “The keywords here are “active Army.” He doesn’t say anything about Guard units, Marines, or anyone else. Just out of curiosity, how many “active Army” units are in Iraq right now?”

    I’m wondering the same thing. Anybody got an answer?

  • Steve @ 5: But, they’ve “thrown out all of the rose-colored glasses,” again.
    The cliche train, and the killing and dying, roll right along…

  • “The keywords here are “active Army.” He doesn’t say anything about Guard units, Marines, or anyone else. Just out of curiosity, how many “active Army” units are in Iraq right now?”

    15 months never applied to the Guard. They have 12 month tours.

    I think the Marines are SEVEN, but I could be wrong about that.

  • Can anyone here tell me what General Petraeus’ definition of “success in Iraq” is? Or how about President Bush’s definition of “success in Iraq?”

    If success is not clearly defined, we will either never achieve it — or we will declare it once the deaths and expense have become too much to bear.

    I’ve done five tours in the Middle East since the Gulf War in 1991. The White House’s best kept secret is that we have never left the Middle East since Desert Storm in 1990. Operation Iraqi Freedom is simply a continuation of that war.

    Signed,
    Jim, U.S. Air Force Chief Master Sergeant (retired)

  • Joe – seeing as the current govt isnt toast, and gets away with this crap for 5+ years, why do you think it will be any different for McCain, who is clearly held in higher esteem by many more folks than Bush? We should be very scared right now.

    • Comments are closed.