If George Bush would actually use his position as POTUS to get something done in Iraq instead of using his position as a means to pay lip-service to his half-ass policies, he may not have to make so many mind-boggling speeches.
It's way past to point to think this guy is changing. But I think the American public (in general) and the American media (in particular) should begin the discussion of whether this man is mentally stable enough to continue to serve in his present capacity.
I say this because if the crux of the his argument in this - the latest in a series of "we got stay in Iraq" speeches - is true, he has to be off his rocker...or simply the most incompotent, ineffective national leader in recent world history.
Yeah, I know: "What else is new?" But there's something about his speech that just...I don't know, makes him sound like a loon. He basic premise - that "al-Qaeda in Iraq" is the sole reason for Iraq's lack of progress - could only be made by a sane person if said sane person had only started paying attention to that region since 2005.
Here's how Bush began to..."make his case:"
In 2001, coalition forces destroyed Zarqawi's Afghan training camp, and he fled the country and he went to Iraq, where he set up operations with terrorist associates long before the arrival of coalition forces. In the violence and instability following Saddam's fall, Zarqawi was able to expand dramatically the size, scope, and lethality of his operation. In 2004, Zarqawi and his terrorist group formally joined al Qaida, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and he promised to "follow his orders in jihad."
Soon after, bin Laden publicly declared that Zarqawi was the "Prince of Al Qaida in Iraq" -- and instructed terrorists in Iraq to "listen to him and obey him." It's hard to argue that al Qaida in Iraq is separate from bin Laden's al Qaida, when the leader of al Qaida in Iraq took an oath of allegiance to Osama bin Laden.
Of course, when his job was at stake, Bush was singing a different tune. Take a look at the the first 2004 presidential debates and let me know if he mentions al-Qaeda as a reason for not getting a damn thing done in Iraq:
LEHRER: New question, Mr. President, two minutes. You have said there was a, quote, "miscalculation," of what the conditions would be in post-war Iraq. What was the miscalculation, and how did it happen?
BUSH: No, what I said was that, because we achieved such a rapid victory, more of the Saddam loyalists were around. I mean, we thought we'd whip more of them going in.
But because Tommy Franks did such a great job in planning the operation, we moved rapidly, and a lot of the Baathists and Saddam loyalists laid down their arms and disappeared. I thought they would stay and fight, but they didn't.
And now we're fighting them now. And it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work.
And I'm optimistic. See, I think you can be realistic and optimistic at the same time. I'm optimistic we'll achieve -- I know we won't achieve if we send mixed signals. I know we're not going to achieve our objective if we send mixed signals to our troops, our friends, the Iraqi citizens.
We've got a plan in place. The plan says there will be elections in January, and there will be. The plan says we'll train Iraqi soldiers so they can do the hard work, and we are.
And it's not only just America, but NATO is now helping, Jordan's helping train police, UAE is helping train police.
We've allocated $7 billion over the next months for reconstruction efforts. And we're making progress there.
And our alliance is strong. And as I just told you, there's going to be a summit of the Arab nations. Japan will be hosting a summit. We're making progress.
It is hard work. It is hard work to go from a tyranny to a democracy. It's hard work to go from a place where people get their hands cut off, or executed, to a place where people are free.
But it's necessary work. And a free Iraq is going to make this world a more peaceful place.
See any mention of bin Laden's favorite band? No? That's because with the exception of his intro (where he mentioned al-Qaida three times) Bush only mentions al-Qaeda twice by name. Compare that with his speech the other day, where al-Qaeda (or Al Qaida, or Al-Qaida) is mentioned a whopping 94 times. Sounds like they've gotten more powerful and dangerous over time, right?
After his intro, Bush proceeds to tell the crowd that nearly every bad thing (80%-90% according him) that happened after Zarqawi's arrival is somehow connected to "outside forces." He lists individuals from various countries as proof, but he has no names. He intertwines comments from the "military community" with the "intelligence community;" an obvious attempt to cherry pick what he needs to make his claims sound reasonable. He quotes Osama bin Laden almost as much as he does his own foreign policy advisors.
Then he ends with this gem:
Here's the bottom line: Al Qaida in Iraq is run by foreign leaders loyal to Osama bin Laden. Like bin Laden, they are cold-blooded killers who murder the innocent to achieve al Qaida's political objectives. Yet despite all the evidence, some will tell you that al Qaida in Iraq is not really al Qaida -- and not really a threat to America. Well, that's like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun, and saying he's probably just there to cash a check.
Well, if "al-Qaeda in Iraq" is a guy with a mask and gun, then the real al-Qaeda is the guy who's hacking into the bank's computer files and trying to recruit the disgruntled employees.
Bush claims that there's all this evidence, and to prove it, his hacks cobble together one very humorous "al qaeda in iraq" fact sheet, which is little more than his speech in a more condensed form. In fact, there are no links or references to any declassified documents, military or intelligence press releases, or newpaper reports.
And what it says makes little sense. Take "Al Qaeda in Iraq dispatched terrorists who bombed a wedding reception in Jordan and sent operatives to Jordan where they attempted a rocket attack on U.S Navy ships in the Red Sea," for example. Why would this group enter Iraq only to leave and attack another country? If we're to believe that Iraq is "central to the War on Terror," what's the point of going to Jordan? Or this comment:
We know their intentions. Just last November, al Qaeda’s top commander in Iraq issued an audio statement saying he will not rest until he attacked our Nation’s capital.
OK; if that's true, what's having so many US troops in Iraq going to do to prevent al-Qaeda from coming here? They've already said that al-Qaeda went to Jordan for an attack, so obviously their plan isn't "wait until America leaves before we make some noise."
So I have to ask: did they pull this "information" from thin air, the AIE, or both?
Then there's the claim that any dissenters (which now constitutes the majority of Americans) "must give General Petraeus and his troops the time and resources they need, so they can defeat al Qaida in Iraq." Unfortunately for Bush, a preview of Petraeus' plan has been leaked, and Fred Kaplan, a guy I consider to be pretty solid on these matters, doesn't think that the General's plan will work.
I did notice that Bush no longer boasts about how "strong" and numerous our alliance was...and I think I know why. I took a look at the current state of the "Coalition of the Willing" and was able to use the listed troop numbers to come up with this pie chart:
So let me recap the White House's recap:
- Because two well-publicized foreigners who came Iraq declared allegiance to bin Laden, we are supposed to believe that al-Qaeda has the strongest of footholds in that country.
- We are supposed to believe that al-Qaeda was planning on taking over Iraq regardless of whether or not we invaded the country.
- We are supposed to believe that keeping our current levels in Iraq will prevent them from following us, even though we have been informed that says not only has al-Qaeda left Iraq to attack other countries, they still plan on attacking us directly.
- We are supposed to believe that in September Gen. Petraeus will reveal a plan to help make this all better...even though we were told back in January that the surge was supposed to do the that.
Most importantly: we are supposed to believe that this president, who has failed to capture/kill this organization's leader or cripple/dismantle the organization itself (despite knowing where their headquarters and primary havens are located), is capable of orchestrating the destruction of a lame-ass, watered-down offshoot who only exists because his piss-poor planning gave them the opening they needed to set up shop.
I know people want to impeach Bush for breaking the law several times, but I think a strong case can also be made for his lack of sanity.
UPDATE: I can't believe I missed this: whatever "intelligence community" Bush is citing, it certaintly can't be this one, who says that "al Qaeda in Asia" is the real threat.