Posted on 05/13/2008 5:21:42 AM PDT by moderatewolverine
Douglas Feith, the former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, has embarked on that most difficult and worthy of voyages: to set the record straight on the run-up to the War in Iraq. Yesterday, his voyage brought him to the Daily Show, deep into the heart of uninformed territory...
(Excerpt) Read more at primetimepolitics.com ...
“Bush gives new reason for Iraq war”
Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists
By Jennifer Loven, Associated Press | August 31, 2005
CORONADO, Calif. — President Bush answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.
The president, standing against a backdrop of the USS Ronald Reagan, the newest aircraft carrier in the Navy's fleet, said terrorists would be denied their goal of making Iraq a base from which to recruit followers, train them, and finance attacks.
‘’We will defeat the terrorists,” Bush said. ‘’We will build a free Iraq that will fight terrorists instead of giving them aid and sanctuary.”
Appearing at Naval Air Station North Island to commemorate the anniversary of the Allies’ World War II victory over Japan, Bush compared his resolve to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's in the 1940s and said America's mission in Iraq is to turn it into a democratic ally just as the United States did with Japan after its 1945 surrender. Bush's V-J Day ceremony did not fall on the actual anniversary. Japan announced its surrender on Aug. 15, 1945 — Aug. 14 in the United States because of the time difference.
Democrats said Bush's leadership falls far short of Roosevelt's.
‘’Democratic Presidents Roosevelt and Truman led America to victory in World War II because they laid out a clear plan for success to the American people, America's allies, and America's troops,” said Howard Dean, Democratic Party chairman. ‘’President Bush has failed to put together a plan, so despite the bravery and sacrifice of our troops, we are not making the progress that we should be in Iraq. The troops, our allies, and the American people deserve better leadership from our commander in chief.”
The speech was Bush's THIRD in just over a week defending his Iraq policies, as the White House scrambles to counter growing public concern about the war. But the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast drew attention away; the White House announced during the president's remarks that he was cutting his August vacation short to return to Washington, D.C., to oversee the federal response effort.
After the speech, Bush hurried back to Texas ahead of schedule to prepare to fly back to the nation's capital today. He was to return to the White House on Friday, after spending more than four weeks operating from his ranch in Crawford.
Bush's August break has been marked by problems in Iraq.
It has been an especially deadly month there for US troops, with the number of those who have died since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 now nearing 1,900.
The growing death toll has become a regular feature of the slightly larger protests that Bush now encounters everywhere he goes — a movement boosted by a vigil set up in a field down the road from the president's ranch by Cindy Sheehan......
The proof is in the pudding. He blew it, Rumsfeld blew it.
Bad job all around.
SHOWDOWN WITH IRAQ; Bush Gives Hussein 48 Hours; President Sets Stage...
- Mar 18, 2003
A solemn President Bush put the nation and the world on a war footing Monday, ... the use of force against Iraq expressed disappointment that Bush did not ... Expanded reader comments on president's...
THE WORLD; SHOWDOWN WITH IRAQ; World Answers With Resentment; Bush’...
Bush Iraq pitch: home vs. abroad
Christian Science Monitor - Jan 30, 2003
WASHINGTON – President Bush's urgent explanation of why a war against Iraq may be ... To raise the specter of further attacks, as Bush did in his speech, ... The Bush State Of the Union address: Susan Page - USA Today
- Boston Globe - Sep 8, 2003
The speech, however, did not indicate the administration was willing to cede ... Instead, Bush compared America's role in 21st-century Iraq to that of the ... Lawmakers assess Bush's speech - CNN
BUSH GIVES SPEECH TODAY NATION: PRESIDENT WILL... -
San Francisco Chronicle -
Jan 29, 2003
PRESIDENT BUSH'S STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH SHOWED THE IMPORTANCE OF IRAQ IN HIS ... Bush once again linked Iraq to his war on terrorism, restated what he ... Bush delivers dramatic, pointed State of the Union - San Diego Union Tribune
(...once again linked Iraq to HIS war on terrorism?????)
Democrats Assail President Bush's $87 Billion Spending Plan for...
Chicago Tribune - AccessMyLibrary.com - Sep 9, 2003
Republicans said they also intend to give the Bush request close scrutiny ... But the president did not provide any timetable for the withdrawal of American ... Whose Sacrifice? - Washington Post -
“Horrible” speaker, great speech
Salon - Jan 30, 2003
An expert on great speakers says President Bush is among the worst ever, ... Do you think that many of them, after hearing the speech, would be moved from ...
CBS News - Mar 29, 2003
(AP) Seeking to maximize support for the war in Iraq, President Bush on Saturday issued ... President Bush did not mention the still-unfound weapons of mass ... All 47 related - Related web pages
Bush Stands By Tenet But Some Want Tenet Out After He Took Blame For...
CBS News - Jul 12, 2003
President Bush listens to Colin Powell as Condoleezza Rice looks on before Mr. ... A CIA report last October mentioned the allegations but did not give them ... Tenet taking the hit on Iraq - USA Today
Media Backtalk
Washington Post - Sep 8, 2003
For what reason did President Bush give his speech from the Cabinet Room instead of the ...
‘Turning of the tide’
San Diego Union Tribune - May 2, 2003
President Bush, framed by warplanes that did awesome damage to Saddam ... “The president's going out to an aircraft carrier to give a speech far out at sea ... President hails ‘victory’ at sea - Bush:... - Philadelphia Inquirer -
President Bush Gives Speech To Men Serving In Iraq.
Nov 27, 2003
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I was just looking for a warm meal somewhere ... We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq, ... President Bush's Speech to Troops in Baghdad. -
Current Affairs | 19.11.2003 Bush Kicks Off State Visit to Britain
Deutsche Welle - Nov 19, 2003
In his speech, Bush defended his Iraq policy, which has been opposed by many in England and elsewhere in Europe. In doing so, the president drew parallels ... Raw Data: Bush, Blair News Conference - FOX News
President Bush Meets with Protests during London... - Boston Globe -
Speech Fails to Sway These Undecideds
Washington Post - Sep 4, 2004
Other parts of the speech did little to stir the group, ... “Look, I wanted to hear Bush give a better defense of unilateral military action in Iraq and I ... Where's the Agenda? - Washington Post
… IRAQ; Bush Offers Plan to End Chaos in Iraq; In speech at...
Los Angeles Times May 25, 2004
The president gave the speech in the War College gymnasium, ... The five steps President Bush outlined to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom: ... Analysis: Bush's Iraq Plan - Washington Post
Awaiting Answers On Iraq
Subscription - Washington Post - HighBeam Research - Jan 29, 2004
President Bush gave a speech......
WITH FEW DETAILS, BUSH RHETORIC MAY FALL SHORT
$2.95 - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - NewsBank - May 25, 2004
Bush also has yet to convince wary US voters that his Iraq plan will, ... “Did this [speech] prepare the American people for the fact that Iraqis might make ... Bush sets his agenda on transfer President kicks... - Fresno Bee - HighBeam Research (Subscription)
Bush tries to turn tide on Iraq He details... - Sacramento Bee -
… : Sen. John Kerry and Pres. Bush Give Speeches About Their...
NewsHour - Sep 7, 2004
Even though we did not find the stockpiles that we thought we would find, ... PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The army of a free Iraq is fighting for freedom, ... Cheney: Kerry Victory Is Risky - Washington Post
Kerry says Bush broke promises, set wrong course... -
Washington Post - Sep 24, 2004
After Kerry criticized Allawi’s speech to Congress, Vice President Cheney tore into ... “Did Bush really think elections were possible in four months’ time? ... Allawi Thanks US, Stresses Iraqi Resolve; In a... - Los Angeles Times -
Some Democrats See a Turning Point - Washington Post
George Bush gives speech to clarify Iraq policy
abc.net.au - May 25, 2004
Just hours before the President delivered his speech, the US and Britain had ... But even as the Bush administration moved to give the UN a greater role and ... Analysis: President Bush's Monday night speech... - National Public Radio -
Cool Reception For Bush Speech Fails To Sway Many Foreign Skeptics Or...
CBS News - Sep 24, 2003
(CBS/AP) President Bush's speech to the United Nations appeared Wednesday to have made little headway against opposition to US postwar plans. Mr. Bush did ... Bush, Schroeder Agree on Help for Iraq -
Bush: US Faces ‘Hard’ Task in Iraq; Result Will Be More... Aug 27, 2003
... President Bush would finally drop his campaign-style rhetoric and give us straight ... At the noon fundraiser, Bush did not speak in detail about Iraq, ...
Bush takes his Iraq case to Europe
Christian Science Monitor - Nov 20, 2003
PARIS – In a forthright speech in London Wednesday, President Bush tackled ... Mr. Bush defended the war in Iraq and called for more international support ... Interview With Sir David Frost. - America's Intelligence...
Q&A: What's the Timetable for War Against Iraq?
New York Times - Jan 13, 2003
The president has not put an exact timetable on it.” Many other countries on the ...
Detroit News - NewsBank - Apr 29, 2003
as President Bush addressed adoring Iraqi exiles during a speech in Dearborn. ... “If you give Iraqi people the chance to see the president, ...
It may give one comfort to “blame” 2 men, who are and will be gone eventually.
Or give one comfort to believe that if only Israel was gone, (as the MSM tells us) the headchoppers will go away, or if only Republicans could get some different guys in office, all would be peachy.
For 40 years now we have been saying that.
All the while ignoring the petrify of the MSM, which is why they STILL run the show, run US policy, run US culture, and have the power to destroy lives, reputations and livelihoods with impunity. Elect and unelect who they choose.
Watching daily military strategy, decisions, wins, losses, errors, and victories, is like watching sausage being made, but it does not change the fact that if the UnAmerican Democrat Party and their MSM propaganda tools were not working for the enemy in Iraq, aiding and abetting, leaking intell, slandering the US President as a liar and corrupt, the terrorists in Iraq may have left sooner. This did not happen in WWII, and rightfully so.
“Brilliant, factual and historic, David Horowitz and Ben Johnson have documented how and why the Democratic leadership split the nation in the global war on terror. It will be judged as the seminal book on an unprecedented attack against America’s president and military in combat. Every American must read this book.”
- Lieutenant General THOMAS McINERNEY, USAF (Ret.)
“Having been one of David Horowitz’s more severe critics as a young officer in the foxholes of Vietnam, I can say with some authority that he is now bringing a message of national importance to the American people.”
- Major General JAMES E. LIVINGSTON, USMC (Ret.)
Recipient of the Medal of Honor
“David Horowitz and Ben Johnson explain in detail the unprecedented attacks on a sitting President and expose the lack of understanding at the highest levels about the nature of our enemy. This book must be read by all Americans.”
- Major General PAUL VALLELY, USA (Ret.)
“In concise and riveting fashion, David Horowitz and Ben Johnson have laid out a bill of particulars against an anti-war Left whose efforts to undermine the terror war are little short of treasonous. It offers a stark reminder of the folly of fighting a war on two fronts: one on the streets and battle fields of Iraq, the other here at home against ourselves.”
- JOEL SURNOW, creator of 24
More to counter leftwing propaganda.
By Victor Davis Hanson
The war in Iraq — as all wars — is fraught with savage ironies.
In the build-up to the invasion, anti-Americanism in Europe reached a near frenzy. It was whipped up by French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, and evoked warnings of an eternal split in the Atlantic Alliance. If Iraq had proved a catalyst for this expression of near hatred — fueled by long-standing angers and envies — it soon, however, proved to be a catharsis as well.
Both leaders overplayed their hands when the U.S. had already begun downsizing its NATO deployments in Germany. Elsewhere, Europeans started to have second thoughts about alienating America at a time of rising Russian belligerency, and suffered from increased worry over radical Islamic terrorists, at home and abroad.
The result is that their successors, Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, are staunchly pro-American in ways their previous governments were not, even well before the Iraq War. And given the increased jihadist threats to Europe, worries about Iran, and the consistency of the U.S. effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, these governments may well have learned — in a way they did not anticipate in 2003 — that there really is no other ally like a steadfast United States, in these unstable times.
European youth can print all the anti-war leaflets they wish with splashy photos from Abu Ghraib — but their leaders quietly understand not only that the United States did not quit Iraq in defeat, but that it also may be winning an unforeseen victory there. Moreover, they see that this victory has repercussions for the security of their own countries — and this will require readjustments to the easy anti-Americanism of the past.
The post-war occupation was supposed to be difficult, but few envisioned a bloody four-year struggle. Instead, after the fall of Saddam, al Qaeda chose to escalate its war against the West by sending thousands of jihadists into the new battleground of Iraq — in part, to aid the Sunni and ex-Baathist insurgencies in their wars against the U.S., and the Shiites. The violence that ensued left tens of thousands dead, and resulted in nearly 4,000 American battle fatalities. We spent nearly a trillion dollars, as public support dropped from a 70-percent approval of the war to less than 40-percent.
Yet it was not the American military that was ruined fighting an unpopular war in the heart of the ancient caliphate, but most likely al Qaeda who has lost thousands, (and, far more importantly, completely destroyed its Pan-Arabic mystique of religious purity).
The more the jihadists fought, the more they were killed by the U.S. military — while kidnapping, murdering, stealing, mutilating, raping, and outraging Iraqi civilians. Nothing is worse in the Arab world than to be seen as weak and cruel, and al Qaeda proved, eventually, to be both on Al-Jazeera.
After Iraq, the al Qaedists’ reputation has become more akin to the Cosa Nostra, than to romantic Holy Warriors. It was not our intention in going to Iraq to cripple and discredit al Qaeda per se, in some third-party theater; but once the jihadists upped the ante, they also raised the stakes of being defeated with global implications to follow. Polls in the Arab world show a decline in support for suicide bombing, and a radical change of heart about bin Laden.
We made all sorts of mistakes in the immediate aftermath of the war. Pundits still bicker over whether we should have disbanded the Baathist army — or whether there was anything much left to disband. And by openly allying ourselves with the once-despised Shiites, we alienated the powerful Sunni elite minority that not only had run the country, but alone in Iraq, knew how to administer the infrastructure of a modern state.
All that being said, it is difficult to see how we could have immediately reconciled with the Sunnis, given their past alliances with Saddam, and their furor at the results of our one-man/one-vote policy of democratization. It was as if the British had landed at Mobile in 1859, declared slavery over, and expected the Southern white population to join in such a foreign-inspired multi-racial reconstruction.
Yet four years later, the Sunni insurgency is largely over — but largely over only because it has been defeated by the U.S. military. Tribal sheiks feel that they have restored the honor that was lost in Saddam’s three-week rout, by fighting the Americans tooth-and-nail for four years. That said, they now have learned that resistance brought them nothing but defeat and, if it continues, abject humiliation.
So there is a sort of tragic irony here too. It may well be that the Sunni tribes have learned, only through their failed insurgency, that they cannot defeat the U.S. military; that their Sunni al Qaeda allies were far worse than we are; that the Shiite government is not going away; and that the United States is an honest broker of sorts that is advancing their interests with the Shiite majority.
The unexpected result of all this is that it is only now — after the Sunnis have fought, lost, and learned the futility of continued resistance — that there a better chance for a lasting stability. It is impossible to imagine that the Southern Plantationists in 1860 would have been willing to reconcile with the North, or that Germans would have come to their senses and rejected Hitler in 1939. If the old dictum remains valid, that a war’s reconstruction and reconciliation come after, not before, the defeat of an enemy, then it may well be that the Sunnis had to learn the hard truth, the hard way, about the perversity of al Qaeda, the military superiority of the United States, and the permanence of the Iraqi constitutional government.
It is sometimes said that someone must be culpable for not finding a David Petraeus and his team of brilliant colonels earlier in the conflict. I wish it were that easy.
But such a conjecture is like saying Lincoln should have known of a Grant or Sherman at the war’s outset; or that earlier Union generals, even in error and blunder, did not attrite the enemy and provide both experience (even if by negative example), and some military advantage when Grant and Sherman finally emerged to positions of real influence; or that a Grant and Sherman did not themselves learn the necessary, prerequisite skills for their prominent command in 1864-5, while in obscurity during 1861-2.
The emergence of a Patton, LeMay, or Ridgway is usually through a process of distillation, where a military learns only from its mistakes, and only slowly sorts out the right people for the right job at the right moment. We should also remember that we did not suddenly discover the proper strategy for Iraq. We learned it only through the heroic sacrifices of thousands of lost Americans who took a heavy toll on the enemy all through 2003-6, and, in four years of trial and error, provided the lethal experience of what would and what would not work.
The war’s savage irony even extends to the reconstruction. Iraq by now was supposed to be pumping over 3 million barrels a day during the post-Saddam reconstruction. But due to vandalism, insurgent attacks, corruption, and neglect, the oil industry rarely currently sustains over 2.2. million barrels produced per day — despite a capacity to pump 3 million, and a potential some day to produce perhaps over six million per day.
Yet, because oil prices, in unforeseen fashion, have more than quadrupled since the war, Iraq finds itself with more petroleum revenues than ever before. Its total oil annual worth may reach $70 billion at the present price in the upcoming year, even without much of a change in production levels.
Electricity production has hit 5,000 megawatts per day and is climbing steadily, but consumption has skyrocketed from prewar levels. If Iraqis would consume electricity at prewar levels, they would probably now have power almost 24-hours per day. What the coalition and the Iraqi ministries are trying to do, then, is, at a time of war, protect and restore electrical service, but at the same time increase it threefold to meet increased demand brought on by millions of imported electrical appliances.
Nothing is for certain in any war — as the savage ironies of Iraq have shown the last four years. Few envisioned the initial brilliant three-week war, and the utter and rapid defeat of Saddam. Fewer foresaw the ensuing bloody four-year occupation. And the fewest of all anticipated that out of that mess, the present chance at stability and a real reconciliation under a constitutional framework could come.
The lessons are only the eternal ones: that wars won’t be fought as believed and won’t end as planned, but that adaptability, self-critique, and persistence, in an effort believed to be both right and necessary, will eventually prevail.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
© National Review Online 2008. All Rights Reserved.
Ronald Reagan never had a problem reaching out to the American people with his plans and hopes for the future. The press hated his guts, too. Remember “Reaganomics”?
The Bush White House was lazy, lethargic and allowed itself to get beat up. Oftentimes, not responding to attacks and criticism of the MSM.
The White House Communications Office, under Mr. Bush, did a dreadful job in supporting administration policy.
Did RR or GHWB have an attack on our nation, (7 mo into a delayed election result without all cabinet posts seated) an attack on the Pentagon, attack on innocents in a high rise with men and women jumping to their deaths, high-jacked airplanes on suicide missions, killing 3000 Americans in 20 min?
Did RR have his military in two war theaters dying daily?
No RR did not have the enormous leftwing GLOBAL media campaigning against him 24/7/365, for 8 years running.
And he did not have a worldwide media announcing daily than Islamic Cults are WINNING, are VICTORIOUS, when they target and blow up innocents in the marketplaces, restaurants, clubs, buses, and schools.
And that RR and the US Military were corrupt, sinister, and murderers for battling back.
Look. You and I are just going to disagree over this.
I voted for Mr. Bush twice. I agree with everything you say about the MSM.
But, from my view, the White House let itself get slapped around pretty regularly. That’s what staff is for. The Boss can’t do everything.
Just like nothing in red tape bureaucracy, big government, liberal vitimhood, and dependence of government, ever changes when the left and therefore the public blames one man (the Pres) for Katrina response.
Trust me, if we ever have to go to war again, the next President will not do what needs to be done for fear of battling the press and the Dims. Look at how cowered the Republicans are on EVERY policy issue that comes down the pike..
They are afraid of the media, and therefore immobile. We can push no policies thru without destroying and discrediting the MSM. We need a apparatus, plans, funding, and a consistent, relentless, ruthless campaign.
BTW, did you know the MSM destroyed our “class of 94”, full of Conservatives that wanted to reduce the size of government, reform and consolidate, etc.
I have seen a study of media propaganda against them in their 96 elections.
It was stunning.
And cannot be ignored any longer, imo. Just look where we are today, with candidates such as Hussein, McCain and Hillary? Obviously, something is very, very, wrong.
(ok, end of rant, thanks for enduring:)
That’s hardly a public communications strategy. We’re talking about two different things here, obviously. Substance versus perception. On the substance you and I agree, I think.
What I am getting at is why such an overwhelming % of the American population thinks 1. WMD was the only rationale for the war. 2. We thought we would be greeted as liberators. 3. We felt it was “mission accomplished” after a few short weeks.
That gets back to communication with the public, which is a lot more than texts of joint resolutions which will be read by 0.001% of the public, if that.
There has been plenty of revisionist history on this issue, which is one of the reasons Feith wrote the book. The American public's perception of what happened has been shaped by the Leftist MSM and the Dems. When the Big Lie is repeated over and over again, it becomes a fact. Understandably, the Administration has had a very difficult time getting out its message. Harry Reid says the war is lost. It reminds me of the war I was part of, Vietnam, and the MSM and Dems convinced the public that the Tet Offensive was a huge military defeat for us when in fact, just the opposite was the case.
How would you have handled communications with the public on the lead up to the Iraq war and the events that followed?
Feith's statement that a lot of the recent books on Iraq are based on peoples' 'mis-remembrances' is spot on! They don't remember that the Democrats were pushing the idea of WMD in Iraq during x42's Administration, and completely gloss over the fact that x42 dropped the ball on terrorism, because he was too busy trying to keep from being impeached on charges of obstruction of justice. They concentrate on what the media and political pundits were saying, and ignoring what the Administration was saying, because they tended to disbelieve anything coming from the Bush Administration.
Jon Stewart's problem is that all of his 'knowledge' comes from those media sources, and he has believed everything he's been told or read, thus assumes that anything coming from the Bush Administration is a lie.
I remember all of that as well, but the fact that very few people are like us is a problem, and one that a better communication effort could have helped with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.