If President Obama's speech last night was a movie I'd give it 2 ½ stars, Not a bomb, but not an Oscar winner either. It was sort of significant, but not exactly an "historic moment," in my opinion. More like a baby step. An historic moment will be when the last American soldier leaves Iraq. And while it may be called "an end to our combat mission in Iraq" the facts are we still have 50,000 troops there with essentially the same duties. Combat operations by any other name are still combat operations when soldiers are shooting and being shot at.
The Iraqi government, such as it is, which is supposed to stepping up as we kind of step down, is a big question mark. Nearly 6 months after elections "a caretaker administration" is still in place. Andrew Bacevich writes:
As the president moved on to Afghanistan he spoke of the mission to "disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda." A little on the vague side since al-Qaeda isn't there any more. To me, the timetable for withdrawal wasn't re-assuring either. We will begin to transition to withdrawal "determined by conditions on the ground" next July.
Meanwhile the death toll continues to mount. Some of those recent "conditions on the ground" being that 21 Americans were killed in a 48 hour period this week, and General Petraeus said the fighting will "get harder before it gets easier." How it gets any easier between now and next July I don't think even General Petraeus knows.
President Obama also talked about "supporting a political resolution to Afghanistan's problems" and "transitioning to Afghan responsibility." How we expect a political resolution from an Afghan president who came to power via widespread election fraud, and how a government riddled with corruption---corruption which is aided and abetted by the CIA--can somehow suddenly become responsible isn't clear either.
On the economy, long on generalities, short on details. Put Americans back to work, strengthen the middle-class, give children the education they need, and end our dependence on foreign oil, to name a few. All those things are admirable goals, but whatever the specifics of them may be, I don't see how any of it gets through this Congress, not to mention the next one, which in a best-case scenario has smaller Democratic majorities and worst-case a Republican takeover of both the House and the Senate.
I know Oval Office speeches aren't usually the place for policy and legislative details, but these aren't usual times and circumstances, for the president or his party, and a lot is riding on the outcome of the upcoming mid-terms. Especially with Republicans having no interest in seeing any of the economic conditions improve between now and 2012. Republican control of the House, added to their de-facto control of the Senate by virtue of filibuster, would be an economic disaster for the country. Good for their prospects of winning the White House in '12, bad for everybody else.
All in all, to me it wasn't one of President Obama's better moments. Instead of sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office speaking in calm and relaxed tones he needs to be giving the Democratic base some motivation to get out and vote in November. Last night's end of the war that isn't really an end of the war could have been handled by a press release instead of a prime time address. And speaking of getting Democratic voters to the polls, crediting George Bush for his commitment to national security as evidenced by the Iraq War isn't going to do that. Just the opposite.
The Iraqi government, such as it is, which is supposed to stepping up as we kind of step down, is a big question mark. Nearly 6 months after elections "a caretaker administration" is still in place. Andrew Bacevich writes:
"What we have at present is a gaggle of parties and interests that may be capable of conducting elections but have yet to demonstrate any capacity to govern--indeed, even to form a government. As a courtesy, we may refer to the government of Iraq, but it exists, if at all, only in a nominal sense.
[...]
Meanwhile, and most significantly, the jihadist insurgency continues. Bombs routinely detonate in the streets of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, inflicting a level of mayhem that anywhere else would be seen as evidence of impending state failure."
As the president moved on to Afghanistan he spoke of the mission to "disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda." A little on the vague side since al-Qaeda isn't there any more. To me, the timetable for withdrawal wasn't re-assuring either. We will begin to transition to withdrawal "determined by conditions on the ground" next July.
Meanwhile the death toll continues to mount. Some of those recent "conditions on the ground" being that 21 Americans were killed in a 48 hour period this week, and General Petraeus said the fighting will "get harder before it gets easier." How it gets any easier between now and next July I don't think even General Petraeus knows.
President Obama also talked about "supporting a political resolution to Afghanistan's problems" and "transitioning to Afghan responsibility." How we expect a political resolution from an Afghan president who came to power via widespread election fraud, and how a government riddled with corruption---corruption which is aided and abetted by the CIA--can somehow suddenly become responsible isn't clear either.
On the economy, long on generalities, short on details. Put Americans back to work, strengthen the middle-class, give children the education they need, and end our dependence on foreign oil, to name a few. All those things are admirable goals, but whatever the specifics of them may be, I don't see how any of it gets through this Congress, not to mention the next one, which in a best-case scenario has smaller Democratic majorities and worst-case a Republican takeover of both the House and the Senate.
I know Oval Office speeches aren't usually the place for policy and legislative details, but these aren't usual times and circumstances, for the president or his party, and a lot is riding on the outcome of the upcoming mid-terms. Especially with Republicans having no interest in seeing any of the economic conditions improve between now and 2012. Republican control of the House, added to their de-facto control of the Senate by virtue of filibuster, would be an economic disaster for the country. Good for their prospects of winning the White House in '12, bad for everybody else.
All in all, to me it wasn't one of President Obama's better moments. Instead of sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office speaking in calm and relaxed tones he needs to be giving the Democratic base some motivation to get out and vote in November. Last night's end of the war that isn't really an end of the war could have been handled by a press release instead of a prime time address. And speaking of getting Democratic voters to the polls, crediting George Bush for his commitment to national security as evidenced by the Iraq War isn't going to do that. Just the opposite.
In regards to the speech can't people see why Obama couldn't just lay out the facts? Imagine you had busted tail and the boss comes on and says, "whoops, the previous boss sent you on a wild goose chase. You did great, but the company is worse off." I'd be pretty pissed (although I would anyway). Yet, if the new boss says, "hey we have a chance to make this work in our favor" it's like the lime wedge after the cheap tequila shot.
4400 American soldiers dead;
Hundreds of thousands with physical, mental, and emotional wounds;
1,000,000+ Iraqis dead and a country in shambles;
A failed and now unwinnable war in Afghanistan due to misplanning by GWB and company;
We're just starting to pay the price for this folly.
Once again, Carguy is spot on!
Add the tea party candidates (who scare the hell out of most of the Republicans) toppling the current Republicans in Congress and we are in for a bumpy, bumpy ride.
Obama has about 15 months to convince 15-18% of the people who voted for him that he is worthy of their vote again. With the republicans doing all they can to torpedo his presidency, that ain't no easy chore.
On top of that, many people who voted the republicans OUT, are not much happier with this congress. The question is, how many people are able to see the difference between political philosophies and ideals that exists betwen the parties. I am dissappointed in the democrats, but I've seen what the republicans did and as Obama put it.."They drove the car into the ditch. I am not gonna give them the keys" again for a long time. Unfortunately, some people are just stuck with the "throw the bums out" mentality. God help us if the makeup of congress shifts.
I am not kidding myself. Let's face it, Obama inherited the biggest economic and political mess since the great depression. He hasn't gotten much help from anybody, anywhere. Even his own party. Could be that the writing is already on the wall. I don't trust the American people to make the right decision anymore. Too many lies and misinformation being circulated by the right wing and the racists and bigots and the DNC just can't seem to get their act together to fight them.
The facts are quite simple and irrefutable. Those three factions don't trust each other, don't and can't get along. Any coalition government they put together will soon falter, or be overthrown. The religious itolerance is a HUGE obstacle to a sustained peaceful Itaq. Throw in the political corruption that will surely overtake whichever faction is in power and you have a volatile situation.
Not my opinion, that of the Brookings Institute.
humuna humuna huh...man, I think Bush really could be a success on the comedy circuit. All he has to do is flash his grin that screams idiot and bob his head. People would laugh their offal plum out of their bodies!
I listened and came away thinking Obama was walking the highwire again. He doesn't want to come out and say, "Our last president got us into this mess that we had no business being in. He laid no real objectives out and spent much of his five years in the war repeating "humuna humuna humana" when it came to strategy. So, thank you soldiers for your efforts, but we are actually worse off than when this thing started."
See, that's the truth, but if I were a soldier I'd be pissed to hear it. On the flip side, you can't overly praise a man for fucking up everything. So, you call him a patriot (which I think he is), say you disagreed, and then move on. I tend to agree with Des though. Why do an address at all?
One other thing I find curious is why the enemy would step up attacks as the U.S. was leaving the territory? It occurs to me that it could be viewed as a propaganda victory...maybe.
Bush was an ass. Period! Obama could spend days heaping praise on Dubya and he would still be an ass! I tend to agree with you, though, but at a deeper level I believe that national security in terms of technologies are something that CAN'T be acknowledged which at once leaves the Pres in an uncomprising position. It's hell being El Presidente.
Today, I'm thinking we're f*cked!