Bush’s State of the Union Speech
29 January, 2008 by steph
President Bush’s 2008 State of the Union speech:
“Our foreign policy is based on a clear premise: We trust that people, when given the chance, will choose a future of freedom and peace. In the last 7 years, we have witnessed stirring moments in the history of liberty…And these images of liberty have inspired us. In the past 7 years, we have also seen images that have sobered us…serve as a grim reminder: The advance of liberty is opposed by terrorists and extremists — evil men who despise freedom, despise America, and aim to subject millions to their violent rule.”
What we have seen in the last seven years is a US foreign policy based on a clear premise: tyranny, occupation, oppression and exploitation. We’ve also seen that policy fail in Iraq and Afghanistan; America on the brink of a economic recession and military catasprophe at the same time; American influence in the Middle East wane; America abandon plans to attack Iran without a single shot being fired; America’s military satellite Israel, defeated by Hezbollah; Hamas take control of Gaza; and the rise of xenophobia, extremism and terrorism.
We’ve seen that when attacked and occupied, no matter how bad the previous regime, the indigenous population will rise up and defend themselves against the foreign aggressor. But most of all, we’ve seen the chasm between Islam and the West widen. George W. Bush turned a single terrorist atrocity into a Holy war. When he leaves office, I hope American will asks themselves whether it was worth the cost in blood and treasure.
steph
Rob
What I don’t understand is how he still has the gall to stand up there and deliver the same goofy facial expressions and smirks. Take away what he’s saying and he’s annoying as hell just to watch (especially in hi-def).
Here is the decline in US combat troop deaths over the past several months, according to icasualties.org/oif/HNH.aspx
May-07 123
Jun-07 99
Jul-07 73
Aug-07 60
Sep-07 44
Oct-07 30
Nov-07 30
Dec-07 14
14 combat deaths in December, down from 123 in May. Wow, that’s a real “military catastrophe.”
Yes there were more casualties last year overall, but that’s what happens when you surge up and go on the offensive aggressively. Now it’s declining fast which is by any reasonable assessment evidence of success. That is unless you prefer to filter facts throught an ideological sieve.
I have a question?
Would you still condider the US defeated even if we maintain permanent bases in Iraq and are able to use those bases to exert its influence on things in the region that matter (such as iran, the oil supply etc), and if the trend continues and the US casualty rate drops even further?
You call the surge a success and by success you mean the country is even more subdued? Yeah congratulations, what a fantastic ’success’. Well done. Be proud of yourself.
And as for you belief in the “statistics”, let me ask you, do they factor in elements such as whether (during the latter period of 2007) merc’s (aegis or blackwater etc) or awakening councils have been given more combat assignments, or simply US regular forces simply hiding in their bases even more than usual?
Perhaps Juba might have some answers?
http://www.baghdadsniper.net/en/index.htm
The US will win the war if it gains control over the oil. It can still win the war by incurring a military defeat, i.e. the Iraqi resistance have significant strength after US forces withdraw because the puppet government it leaves behind (save for a handful of ‘School of the Americas’ black-ops trainers remaining) could still carry out US policy, but of course, with a strong resistance, the puppets will experience much restriction.
And really, it’s not the “US” that will win, rather a cabal of rich US elitists that will consider themselves to have ‘won’ which may see them throw scraps to the US people.
The permanent bases are I believe for that Military training.
lwtc247,
You make good points and ask good questions. I’ll post a response later.
Thank you.
@ noideologies
That what I mean by childish acceptance of US propaganda. Look at how Gen Sanchez described it, “A nigthmare with no end in sight”, British generals have been even more blunt.
The last six months of 2006 and the first six months of 2007, were the worst of the war, the American response was to surrender territory. The militias now control most of Iraq. In military terms losing territory is a defeat. Napoleon lost in Waterloo, Hitler lost in Stalingrad. There is no sign of a reversal in US military fortune in Iraq, they haven’t gained ground they’re are planning on surrendering more.
The American have decreased their contacts with the enemy, concentrated their forces in smaller areas, are flying more air raids, and the largest hostile militia, the JAM, has declared a six month cease fire, so a decrease in the number of American dead is to be expected. The real issue is that lossing any at all - who are they fighting? They’re not fighting militias, they’re not fighting AQI, they’re going up against disgruntled Iraqis.
The JAM declared its ceasefire because the of Iran’s influence. The Iranian’s without a boot on the ground have more influence than America, they were able to broker a truce between the JAM and the Badr, which is now thanks to largely to America, unlikely to be renewed.
@ lwtc
Most the oil is in South and he who controls Basra port controls the oil supply. The American military isn’t going to walk into the Shia heartlands. The militas not Malaki control most of Iraq.
I thought the people most opposed to freedom, were supporters of George W Bush and country music radio. Especially after they banned Dixie Chicks records in 2003!
US supporting freedom?! I think that might actually be another word beginning with F - Fascism!
Steph, I agree with every word of your State of the Union speech. No it wasn’t worth the blood and treasure.
@ Chen
What do you expect from a cheerleader?
RA RA RA RA!
@ Ros
Exactly. Patriot Act, Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq - and he’s got the cheek to talk about freedom.
noid -
You conveniently left out the 36 American dead this month, not to mention the thousands of Iraqi dead.
And there’s the 4.5 million dispossessed Iraqis floating around.
The United States was defeated militarily and politically the day they went into Iraq. We’ve won nothing, but have rained death and destruction on a country that was no threat to us.
Permanent bases mean only that the United States will be a target for as long as we maintain them. They will be a drain on our resources and bring no gain.
Influence the oil supply? You forget that Iraqi oil does not belong to us. It is the property of the Iraqis. So do we use our presence there to extort low oil prices from the Iraqis, or whoever else our psychopathic president chooses to attack?
And do you really think that Iraqis will stop hating the United States for destroying their country, for flattening their cities, for creating a government that daily falls deeper into corruption? Do you really think they will ever stop fighting us? AQI is nothing.
If you want to predicate success in Iraq on the number of dead Americans, then you’re as delusional as the nutcases running the government, and are showing that you haven’t got a freaking clue about the shitstorm of dynamics operating in that part of the world.
Ric, well said.
Over a million dead Iraqis. America turned out to be a more brutal overlord than Saddam. America has lost influence in the region and Iran is now top dog. That is hardly a success for the Bush admin.
@ Stef.
“The militias now control most of Iraq. ” - Indeed, the Puppet government said the other day it was going to attack Mosul to clear the insurgents. This may have been a ruse, but the declare such an important town was utterly in the hands of the resistance is telling. Outside the “green” zone really the invading hoards are very vulnerable.
@ Stef at 2:43 pm -
That’s probably why the US are relying on the Shiah puppets - to open the way for BAsrah and the southern oilfields. But my guess is the US will cause a fracture of the south into “Shiastan” whose puppets will use Saddam like violence to once again oppress the people there trying to suck the oil away as fast as uncle Sam can swallow it. If this happens the South of Iraq will become the worlds largest oil exporter and the US will dump it into their tapped out domestic wells.
@lwtc
Fadhila are accused of being British puppets but they are against the South breaking away. Badr and JAM aren’t American, British or Iranian puppets. The fight between the main two Shia militias is a family thing. Looking on, I think Sadr has done more for Iraq than Hakim, but that’s up to Iraqis to decide. America want to prevent a Shiastan, which would be most of Iraq, because the Shia are hostile to the American presence.
From what I can see, the militias, Sunni and Shia, do a better job of providing security and services than the Occupiers.
“America want to prevent a Shiastan” - I find that surprizing. If one looks at the father of neoconservatism - Bernard Lewis (Clash of Civilizations author) there is a clear suggestion that the south of Iraq is to be sliced off.
I think the US and Brits will try very hard to get the militias fighing each other. The USUK alliance are masters of it. Its what lies behind the sectarianism that mushroomed about two years ago now with the bombing of Shiite mosques. As there’s already a faultline between the various Shiah groups they can prize it open when they need to.
I recall watching a Peter Oborne documentary in Iraq which purported the Shiah people in the South under British occupation were already living in fear from various Shiah malitia who were given a degree of power by the British in condition they maximise security for the Brits. Lies? maybe, but the lack of British deaths makes for interesting speculation.
There’s always a Chalabi in waiting to pick up the pieces while the factions square off.
It is pleasing to see the attempted split of Iraq hasn’t succeeded in such magnitude yet that it is meaningful, but I think it’s the only way for the US to be able to drink Iraqs oil - which of course is their #1 goal.
@ lwtc
I don’t agree. The Shia are the puppets of the Occupiers, especially not the militias. The Shia resistance has been easily the most successful because its the largest. The British were driven out by the militias, and had had to beg the local JAM commander to let them leave unmolested. I don’t think that the tensions between the three main Shia militias have much to do with the occupiers, each wants control.
The same thing is happening in Anbar, Sunni militias are fighting each other for overall control. America has given up on Iraq and Bush is just looking for a honourable way out. In Afghanistan thinks are looking bad too.
Have you thought that maybe the Mahdi army and sunni militias wanted these cease fires because their backs were being put against the wall by the surge? In other words *they* are the ones that were being beaten. Or do you believe Iranian and Mahdi propaganda (and is that something other than childish??).
[steph edit: Let me stop you here. This is factually untrue. So before posting long-winded theories based on false premises, can you please read up on the facts.]
Here’s a sketch of my theory: The surge ramped up, the militias were put under more pressure then they could bear, so they agreed to a cease fire. The US agreed to this because it was never their goal to occupy every province of Iraq or chase down every last insurgent. And now that there is a cease fire these militias can be brought into a role in a federal unity government, which essentially is along the lines of the original goal.
Bush talking points? Or does my theory have evidence:
1. The Mahdi cease fire was declared just two or three months after the surge was fully ramped up. Coincidence?
2. Cease fires were also declared with sunni militias throughout the time of the surge. Was that also because of “Iranian pressure.” Doubtful. More likely: surge.
3. Violence is down overall in Iraq, meaning the sunni militias are fighting among themselves less and perhaps talking more.
4. Bin Laden whining and wimpering about how the sunnis aren’t working together to fight the Americans and are bailing on him. He’s admitting his Al Qaeda will not have a sanctuary in Iraq, a stated goal and a major accomplishment.
5. Sadr has a history of throwing in the towel when things aren’t going well for him. In 2004 he agreed to a cease fire after having his army’s ass handed back to it.
6 There are in fact recent signs of reconciliation between the government and sunnis. But yes they have a ways to go.
BTW, those statements by Sanchez and Brit generals. They’re outdated.
@ NI
The JAM called a ceasefire at Iranian intervention following the clash between Badr and JAM during religious holiday - before the surge took effect and after Britain had indicated its surrender of the South. The Iraqi Police chief charged with control of Basra has said the militias are in control of Basra and that the British were defeated.
America and Britain have officially surrendered nine provinces, and have in reality surrendered Anbar too. The ceasefire had nothing to do with the failed American surge, as is widely acknowledged even by the American military. And even with the surge America dares not set foot in Basra - even to relieve the British, who were forced to flee Basra under heavy fire - they stood idly by while the Occupation forces were drvien out of the Basra and most of the South.
And it’s not likely to change any time soon — all the US presidential candidates are on the authoritarian right, apart from Kucinich and Gravel, who don’t stand a chance.
@ Steve
I agree. I can’t see Clinton or McCain being much different than Bush.
http://alvarezgalloso.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/my-response-to-the-state-of-disunion-speech-by-bush/
Steph:
Inspired by your response to the State of the Union Speech by Bush, I wrote my rebuttal and repudiation of Bush and company with the title: “State of Disunion”. I left it as a link for you. I also hope you do not mind adding your article as a link or making some suggestions.
In response to noideogies, I will talk to you Steph because you are an expert on the Middle East. As I am writing, I read about the number of soldiers committing suicide in Iraq has increased. Feel free to look this up in Google. There are some who are voting for the Libertarians or the Greens.
I am still trying to get Press TV on the computer. I still have some interference. So much for freedom.
My Best Wishes.
Roberto
PS: Finally I have Press TV again. They have already said what was written in my article “Vermont Town wanting to arrest Bush”.
US troops in Iraq went from 135,000 in Jan. 2007 to 168,000 in Sept 2007. The ceasefire was declared Aug 30 2007.
[Steph edit: The ceasefire was declared on the 29 August 2007, after a week of inter-Shia fighting between JAM and Badr in the holy city of Kerballa, during the Ashura festival that left 52 dead and 300 injured. It was brokered by Iran to stop the spread of inter-Shia clash throughout the South, and had nothing watsoever to do with the surge, which a) was limited to Anbar and Baghdad b) didn't take effect until September (after the ceasefire was declared), c) has largely avoided contacts with the JAM, and d) Britain surrendering Basra to the JAM during the ceasefire.]
Whatever the official reason given by the Mahdi army and Iran or whatever other internal reasons they have, the surge had to have been a factor. That’s certainly true overall.
We’ll just have to see what happens.
Steve,
The fact that there is not a huge gulf between Hillary and Bush is actually why I favor Hillary. Her main focus is Al Qaeda. My biggest fear has always been al Qeada using Iraq sunni areas as sanctuaries, far more than the Shaia and non AQ sunni militias. They’ll have to work things out themselves whether we leave or stay. And Hillary has said she won’t leave Iraq so abruptly that AQ can slip back in. But if you are far-left, that might seem like not much difference.
@ NI
There is no evidence to support your claim that the JAM ceasefire had anything to do with the surge because it’s just plain untrue.
The real reason for the ceasefire has never been in doubt - so unless you have a statement from the JAM saying it was a response to the surge, I’m not interested.
And as has already been pointed out to you, there is no AQI in Iraq today, and they never were even a quarter of the Sunni resistance. So your entire argument is flawed.
@NI: Hillary is the same as Bush. In fact, there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats.
@Steph: Thanks for the Response to the State of Union. Roberto
Thanks Roberto. Great post btw.
You may have misunderstood my comments about Al Qaeda. I know they were never a large part of the sunni insurgency, but my concern about them is two-fold. Whether they are 5% or 25% they are the most destabalizing force in Iraq. They are responsible for most of the suicide bombings, which leads to sectarian strife and hurts the chances of national reconciliation. Just as important, they would like to use Iraq as a new sanctuary from which to plan attacks on civilian targets in the West. In that sense it doesn’t matter how numerous they are relative to the non-Al Qaeda insurgency. If they are there, they can train, plan, and execute attacks on the West, and evade capture and do so unmolested if Iraq becomes a place US troops can never go.
Even though they appear to have largely been driven from Iraq, there is nothing that says that won’t change. Perhaps as the US leaves, fighting will break out between Sunni and Shia, and the sunnis will be forced to make deals with AQ in excahnge for helping with the fight. So an abrupt withdraw would be a bad idea as would be a total withdraw if Al Qaeda returns. That said, I think it might take just several thousand special forces troops to do that job.
I’m not interested in discussing hypothetical arguments about AQI, who aren’t Al Qaeda btw. They now no longer exist, they never were responsible for more than ten percent of the Sunni resistance activities, they aren’t carrying out the majority of suicide bombings, and they are defintely not destabilising Iraq.
The American combined armed forces have already surrendered to the Sunni insurgency in Anbar and the British have surrendered to the JAM in Basra. American special forces were part of that defeated army. The American surge (the battle for Baghdad) has already been lost.
Sorry to have to be the voice of reason here, but America never planned to attack Iran. It takes more than constantly saying something for it to actually be true.
Funny, you’re not interested in hypothetical arguements about AQI, but hypothetical and even outright falsehoods about the US plans to attack people are fair game.
And these “failed America surge” comments are about as hilarious as the “1 million dead” comments. To think Leno had to write his own jokes for the last 3 months. He should have just called you. Neither claim is based on a shred of fact, and ignore facts that prove the contrary.
I’d post some, but why should I bother, since you haven’t?
@ Red Pill
Voice of reason! I’d call it an uniformed unintelligent rant.
There is no dispute that America had plans to invade Iran, do a little research before commenting.
As for facts, have a look at some of the previous posts.
This one covers the failure of the surge but there are plenty more posts on this site.