The official blog of the Libertarian Party
September 14, 2007
Bush's speech same as always
For those that missed it last night, the President delivered a rare speech on the situation in Iraq following this week's updates from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. The speech comes at a very pivotal time for Iraq, as that Bush announced he would begin a 'limited withdrawal' of troops in Iraq although it would only put troop levels back to those before the troop surge.
For all intents and purposes, the President's speech was predictable and represented no real deviation from his plan despite his reassurance that this was a "change" in the course of Iraq. Bush reiterated previous statements before, saying the war in Iraq was essential to American security and even bringing in 9/11.
But after the cameras cut off and the pundits started their analysis, the general consensus was that nothing has changed. President Bush is still calling for more time for improvements and even the plan to begin withdrawing troops fits in with what was expected all along. We are now no closer to ending the occupation of Iraq than we were in March of 2003. In fact, we might be even further away.
One of the key elements of Bush's speech was his use of the term "enduring relationship" with Iraq, indicating an indefinite presence of U.S. soldiers in the country. Before the speech, some news agencies were quoting sources familiar with the President's speech who predicted the President would compare the Iraq war with Korea. This was perhaps to compare that we may have a similar presence in Iraq as we do in Korea now, more than 50 years down the road.
Bush believed his call for troop withdrawal would quell the ire from Democrats, Libertarians and even some Republicans who believe the Iraq war is failing and we need to begin bringing troops home.
The Libertarian and Democratic response may be a barometer of the public's reaction to his speech. After all, the American public is much smarter than Bush believes. However, if a Democratic controlled Congress fails to muster the spine to force more action from the Bush administration, waning public support may not be enough to pressure the Bush administration from doing anything more, especially given he is so close to passing the war off onto his successor.
As for right now, things will remain relatively the same until March, when the President will call for another report from Petreaus and Crocker, and we'll repeat this dog and pony show all over again.
Posted by Andrew Davis at September 14, 2007 01:28 PM
Reader Comments:
"...he is so close to passing the war off onto his predecessor."
You did mean "successor" I believe. I look forward to that day. Actually, that is my greatest fear today. Not that we will be attacked by terrorists, but that Bush will find some way to stay in power.
THat is a nice press release on this issue and thanks for getting it out. And I notice that's more than one this week. Way to GO!
MHW
Should we Constitution thumping libertarians ever refer to this attack and occupation as a "war?" I do not recall Congress declaring war.
As I was recently telling a poor god-damned Republican fool, 'Look, why don't you admit it?..Bushco., and many/most of the rest of these gd Republicrat fools won't 'leave' until they believe they have installed a crooked Iraqi puppet--preferably 'educated' in Republicrat 'economics'--willing to 'give' 'us' 'their' oil in 'exchange' for stinking federal reserve token money..and who also will brutally put down anyone sabotaging the $tinking operation or threatening 'Americas little buddy': the troublemaking Israelis'..
Btw, why does it take Republicrats so long to get around to the gi$t of everything?> ;o)
Clark actually made a point and he's right.
James R. it seems over the last 60 years, Congress declaring war is passe. That is something we should work to reinstate. War being debated by hundreds of people is much less likely than being at the whim of one.
- and since I consider war a BAD thing, I'll take any obstacle I can find.
God bless Smedley B. Butler
"I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras "right" for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested…. Looking back on it, I felt I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three city districts. We Marines operated on three continents."
I bet the guys over at Conservapedia would love this. (Conservapedia = A Conservative extremist 'encyclopedia' which claim to help homeschooled children. The scary part is that some Homeschooled people actually go there)
I've had loads of run-ins with Republicans online (I don't live in America, so I need to come online to keep in touch with my friends there, and, of course, find out more about politics), and it seems that most of them think that Iraq were involved in 9/11, or that it is now peaceful there. Oh well, let's hope that withdrawal of troops continues. Perhaps sending children, etc, to help rebuild once it is safe will help raise awareness? (Over here we've done the same thing for Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, etc. We learnt a lot about different cultures, etc. Which lowers the chance of being paranoid about people with beards.)
Good one, V6..
I have found Republicans a particularly stooooopid and/or hypocritical breed of Republicrat..And many of these monstrous gd fools fancy themselves as 'Christian?!'
As if it were Jesus the Mercenary, the Commando, The Fearsome, Sure Killer..instead of Jesus the Forgiver, The Wise Compassionate Peacemaker..
I would say these miserable stinking fools have confused Jesus the Christian with Moses the Jew..
..were it not that Moses taught 'one eye for one eye'..and these monstrous scumbags appear unsatiated after what, 50 'muslim' eyes for one 'christian'/"American" eye?
..You do the math, Republicrats..those of you capable.. >:0(
Maybe the removal of Saddam was a mistake and maybe it was not. The present situation is that the United States is currently engaged in a fight for democracy in Iraq. If the US pulls out troops now, it would leave Iraq in a poor condition for recovery. Extremists would take over the country and Iraq and the world would be in a far worse position. I have heard that there are other ways to bring democracy to a country but I haven't heard any other proposed solutions for Iraq other than pull out the troops. How can you stabilize a country like Iraq without an armed forces unit to bring the peace and prevent a coup?
CHARLES, PLEASE THINK ABOUT HOW YOU WOULD FEEL WERE, SAY, THE CHINESE MILITARY/GOVERNMENT TRYING TO 'BRING PEACE' IN A CIVIL WAR-RIDDEN AMERICA!?!
(apparently it's axiomatic amongst many Republicrats that they play cop, 'peace-broker,' etc. planetary busybody!..put the shoe on the other foot, Republicrats!! I believe most Iraqis HATE America/ns--and why wouldn't they??--despite what your stinking radio-teevee charlatans tell you!!)
PLEASE START MINDING YOUR STINKING BUSINESS, REPUBLICRATS!!..for once!!
How I feel is irrelevant to the argument. It is a choice between what is the right thing to do and the wrong thing to do. In our current situation, the wrong thing to do would be to pull out the troops for the reasons I have already stated. However, if I were feeling oppressed and under the control of an unrelenting dictatorship, perhaps I would welcome a reestablishment of government that promised me more freedom.
Also, the idea that you "believe most Iraqis HATE Americans" does not make it fact. If it were fact, then why does the entire country not rebel against the US forces, instead of small pockets of insurgents?
By the by, I am a Libertarian, and I dislike the way Republicans force their moral standards on everyone. But I agree with them in that pulling the troops out of Iraq would be a horrible mistake.
Reading these blogs has been interesting to say the least. I am a Libertarian and find the Illiberal bias here astounding. Clark could certainly never be called liberal - he'd have to allow the ray of light of another point of view to pierce his darkness.
Since when do Libertarians prefer dictators, despots and tyrants over capitalistic ventures? When did capitalism become the Great Satan?
Charles point about the oppressed needing someone to save them is on point. By Clark's reasoning, we should have stayed out of Europe in WWII. The obvious seems to escape Clark, who can’t tell the difference between deficiencies in the evolving dynamic of our own nation, in which liberty and democracy are cornerstones, and dictatorships founded on disinformation, tyranny and fear. This idea that America is some sort of imperialistic bully that invades countries for our own gain is pure, utter nonsense. In the last 100 years, we have not only sacrificed over a million of our men in the name of freedom, we spent billions in the Cold War environment rebuilding and protecting Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Japan, South Korea, Israel and Kuwait, none of which we now rule. Additionally, there is absolutely no historical precedence for the way the allies not only helped Germany and Japan after WWII, but we protected and remade them into democratic states that enjoy full freedoms now. If the point of US actions in Iraq were oil, we could have occupied and pilaged all we needed!
I don't have any hope to change an illiberal's mind - but I do hope Clark's opinion is NOT that of the majority of Libertarians!
Clark's nightmare,
I understand what you are saying, but ourplace is to help the people help themselves. it is not our place to overthrow governments. As for WW2, our allies were being attacked, then it is our responsibility to assist our allies. Also, we were attacked on December 7th and declared war in response to that. Once the war was over, it was just kindness that sparked us to help rebuild.
We had a chance after the first Gulf War to overthrow Saddam by backing the Kurds. We don't have the right to decide later to attack another nation without provocation. Look at our constitution!
My answer on how to end this and all other wars of this kind----Go back to war bonds.Let the government raise the money!
| 
"...he is so close to passing the war off onto his predecessor."
You did mean "successor" I believe. I look forward to that day. Actually, that is my greatest fear today. Not that we will be attacked by terrorists, but that Bush will find some way to stay in power.
Posted by: Coach Jim at September 14, 2007 07:41 PM