Bush's Speech: A Sad Moment For America

Cross-posted from Moral Questions Weblog.

Before I read anything else, I wanted to  give my take on the speech tonight.  Here it is.

A sad moment.  That's all I can describe Bush's speech as.  Sad.  

Throughout our nation's history, we have at times had statesmen as our leaders who were willing to rise above the partisanship and bickering, rise above their own arrogance and agendas, and explain things the way they needed to be explained to the American people, to level with them in a way that they can accept the way things are, accept what has happened, and sacrifice and soldier on.  Sadly, tonight George Bush finally proved once and for all that he has never had the kind of vision and honesty that such a thing would require.  

The simple fact is that we cannot withdraw from Iraq--I don't care what Moveon.org says.  It would be a disaster both morally and strategically for America if we left Iraq now to descend into genocide and civil war, chaos and failed statehood.  Therefore, responsible liberals face the galling prospect of attempting to prop up support for a war we opposed under the command of a proven incompetent.  And if Bush had any interest at all in the future of our country and that of Iraq as opposed to just trying to win the next political battle, he would have spent this night reaching out to liberals and independents who opposed the war by acknowledging the truth of their critiques, instead of sending his henchmen out to insult us and farther divide the nation and, then, spend the evening going over an old reelection stump speech.  

It was sad, but it was also predictable and phony.  Will they ever cease politicizing the tragedy that struck us on 9/11?  Of course not.  Of course, he couldn't go 30 words before invoking that terrible day once again as the justification for his war of choice.  I am absolutely disgusted.  Disgusted.

And finally, George Bush's speech tonight was scary, because we can now reasonably assume that the next three years will be a wash for us--time we will never have again to deal with problems that are spiraling out of control.  

There will be no mid-course correction from this administration.  The tactics and approach to Iraq will not substantially change and we can expect it to be a breeding ground for terrorists and a source of resentment in the Arab world much like Israel for the next several years.  

We will still approach national security from the old Cold War, defense contractor-enabled perspective.  There will be no bold non-proliferation and intelligence apparatus created to deal with the true threats we face.  

And at the crux of it all there is oil, and we can expect that as world oil production crests toward its peak, there will be no honest assessment of how we have harloted ourselves out for it and abuses less powerful countries over it and are now set to see our living standards begin a relative decline.  

As for domestic politics, instead of solving Medicare's shortfall, we'll let it go over the edge just as the babyboomers are retiring.  Instead, we can expect to go deeper in debt to fix a practically far-flung shortfall with Social Security.
And as opposed to working to keep people from financial disaster by creating a national health care system, we can expect the President to continue to line the pockets of oligarchs through corporate welfare and porkbarrel spending and maybe even a shiny new flat tax to shift most of the tax burden onto the middle class.  

This is a sad, sad moment for America.  Historians often write that when countries face challenges, a great leader usually will rise to the occasion.  But not always.


Display:


Major points not being made (3.00 / 1)

The crux of the administration's argument for staying in Iraq is that if we did not things would go to hell. I offer two replies:

  1. That is an exaggeration: the most likely scenario is a brief and bloody consolidation of power into shiite hands. A machiavellian would have to admit that we could actually be better off with a shiite-sunni division in the middle east. The small gulf oil states would be even more reliant on our protection from Iran-Iraq.

  2. If we aren't there, how does it hurt us? Oil Prices? Whoever takes control will pump oil out of necessity. The continuing war and other right-wing follies are costing us enough each year to buy oil at three times the price. We do have, after all, an annualized twin deficit of over a trillion dollars... that's a lot of oil. Terrorism?  If terrorists wish to attack us we will respond with fire and brimstone (from afar), and if they don't... victory!

Its not enough for democrats to say "we need a plan", they need to explicitly say we need to pull out and let nature takes its course. Timetables are good motivators, not just for terrorists, but for our guys and the "good" Iraqis. As long as people think that we are going to be there forever we actually promote terrorism and retard (via 'moral hazard') the development of a realistic Iraqi government.
by Paul Goodman on Tue Jun 28, 2005 at 11:01:24 PM EST

Time to leave (3.00 / 1)

Therefore, responsible liberals face the galling prospect of attempting to prop up support for a war we opposed under the command of a proven incompetent.

Responsible liberals will face the facts that they aren't smart enough to fix Bush's mess. He's going to keep smashing the pottery for another three years. Iraq cannot be fixed by a white Christian nation.

Responsible liberals will adopt The Humpty Dumpty Rule:

If you run over a piece of pottery or an egg with a tank, you can't put it back together again.

The longer Bush and the Theocons are allowed to completely ignore the basic question of what their goal is, aside from building Democracy, the more likely Bush's Iraq war will extend into double digits.

Rumsfield identified the problem that the Theocons intentionally established. How do you accomplish a goal that has no measureable metrics? Bush and the Theocons have not been failing to plan, they have been planning to fail. They never had any intention of leaving Iraq. Their unstated goal has always been a garrison state similar to South Korea.


by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 09:12:58 AM EST

Excellent points by Paul and Gary (none / 0)

The simple fact is that we cannot withdraw from Iraq--I don't care what Moveon.org says.  It would be a disaster both morally and strategically for America if we left Iraq now to descend into genocide and civil war, chaos and failed statehood.  Therefore, responsible liberals face the galling prospect of attempting to prop up support for a war we opposed under the command of a proven incompetent.

This is a Repug mousetrap. Morally, responsible liberals shouldn't allow the Rupugs to move the goal posts. The "disaster" occured when the current administration utilized our armed forces to invade Iraq in an illegal resource war. Strategically, America has sustained an unacceptable level of damage to its prestige in the international community as a result of this occupation. This has greatly diminished our ability to move forward with any agenda outside of our borders. Forcing an immediate withdrawl is most practical means available for liberals to rectify this scenario.

As long as liberals remain on the defensive and continue to allow this entire game to be played on our side of the field, we're not going to score too many points in the public arena. It's only through assumming the offensive and calling for an immediate withdrawl that we maximize our returns on investment.  

 

by Seldom Seen Smith on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 11:04:29 AM EST

I wonder.... (none / 0)

....is president Bush the illegetimate son of Lyndon Baynes Johnson and Barbara Bush? It has
an increasing number of enlightened Americans wondering. A petite and pretty young Batbara Bush plying herself to save a young son  from the impending horrors of Viet Nam? Hey, stranger things have happened! What price to assure
little sonny boy G.W. a sweet deal in the N.G. and a non-combatant sky hawk fighter plane to protect the lone star Texas from Vietnamese terrorists.Indeed, what price?  
by northwest on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 01:35:50 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.