Bush Surge Speech Open Thread And Liveblogging
Posted on January 10, 2007
O.K., I’m gonna do this, but I’m doing it a bit differently than usual. I’m encouraging readers to participate in the comments, trackbacks, etc. As for live blogging this, I will be summarizing what I think is important instead of combing over every word. Drudge has the text of the speech.
The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people – and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
Enough for the critics? Of course not.
It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group – a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.
So suck on that lemon Democrats…we are not gonna raise the white flag and abandon Iraq to the enemy like you all want.
Let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad’s nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort – along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations – conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.
This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence – and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them – five brigades – will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.
The key point the President says why this will work this time: This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared.
Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing – and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.
So here is your fair warning Iran. Step back or get stepped on.
We will use America’s full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists – and a strategic threat to their survival.
Really? I think its the Democrats in America that need to understand this.
The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue – and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.
Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world – a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them – and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.
There is your homerun section of the speech. Sorry Dems, we are not surrendering.
Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my Administration, and it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress.
I can’t help it, on National Security issues I like Joe Lieberman. The idea of a bipartisan group focused on unquestionable victory is a great idea. Don’t you all wish more Democrats wanted victory instead of surrender?
This speech will most likely not change any minds. It had points of genius, but I’m already hearing that victory is the wrong direction according to Dick Durben. What really matters is whether or not this plan will succeed. Pundits will debate this, but the President says he believes it will…for whatever that means to people. It means more to me than the surrender talk that Durbin is spewing.
Of course we don’t know how the enemy will react to this. The bottomline question…the only that really matters…is will it work? A plan for victory is better than anything the Dems have offered. I will stand behind this plan and hope for realistic success. The option of retreat and defeat that the Dems are begging for is unacceptable with many more negative consequences in the long run.
In the end…speeches don’t matter anymore. People want results.
Bush nailed his speech and the Dems walked off the cliff into oblivion. Bush was clear we had a tough job, but a doable one if things come together. And he was clear that failure in Iraq, especially derived from dumb-headed retreat, would cause the extension of our dying in Iraq and the ME as we would give Al Qaeda the grand prize of the ME: Iraq. Bush is open to all ideas which hasten and secure success. He is not interested in ideas on how to hasten our defeat. And America’s ‘can do’ attitude was tapped with good, solid changes in strategy. He said we always defy the pessimists (and we do). He explained the ramifications of defeat and how that path only leads to more death and destruction and innocent lives lost. How will we defy the pessimists (i.e., the Democrats)?
The Political Pitbull notes on Iran:
Basically, it’s the equivalent of telling James Baker to stick the Iraq Study Group’s report where the sun don’t shine. Talk with Iran and Syria? No, we’re going to go after them instead and “destroy” the people involved in fueling the war in Iraq. It’s classic Bush and, in my view, the only approach you can take when dealing with terrorist-sponsoring regimes. Perhaps our recent foray into Somalia is a preamble to what’s to come in Syria and Iran.
Routine operating procedure for the left wing commenters who flap in here to berate me is to call Iraq, “My war”. To accuse me of blindly following Bush in this. They are, of course and as usual, completely wrong. This is our war, All of America’s war. Once you are in a war you have to win it or lose it. It is no longer time to argue about the reasons for going to war. It is no longer time to scream and point fingers and accuse everyone you disagree with of having evil intent. It is time to win the war. Or lose it. I do not want America to lose this.
I think W just gave the best speech since his second inaugural. He admitted failure, which he has rarely done, but he also articulated a clear vision of what we can now do.
Captain’s Quarters liveblogging too.
Don Surber shares his thoughts.
Also see Gateway Pundit
Dan Riehl notes Bush’s ‘not so subtle’ warning to Iran and says that Bush has handed the Dems a quagmire of their own.
Jay Redding
Angela’s Right To Free Speech
Wizbang
Of course Hot Air has video
» Filed Under News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
6 Responses to “Bush Surge Speech Open Thread And Liveblogging”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Suggestions
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Bush is right on this one. We cannot afford to abandon Iraq to be over run by Islamo-Facist
terrorists. That will only embolden them to seize Iraq as their base of terrorist operations.
Then they will be able to turn their violence upon us, via nuclear or WMD weapons. If we
pull out now, we risk not only our safety, but, it will resound a message to the world that
America is not really for freedom of the oppressed. It will let them know that America is
nothing more than a hypocrite when it comes to the idea of the importance of liberty.
The only question I have is why did it take until now? Why weren’t we fighting this way in
Iraq before?
Nonetheless, this is the right direction for us to pursue. I am NOT a Bush sycophant.
Domestically, he is too much to the left on his plans. But, nonetheless, since 9/11 he has
definitely been the right man for the job. Thank God, we weren’t under a Al Gore, or John
Kerry president.
Democrats seem to be stuck on appeasement as their response. You can’t appease these demon
possessed terrorist. They are devoted, until death to their demon God. If liberty is to
survive, we must squash this threat to our way of life. Handing them yet another defeat,
(first in Afghanistan, now in Iraq). They must learn that their nihilistic goal for the
world is not going to happen on America’s watch.
The most important thing about Bush’s plan is that it will finally transfer the onus of
responsibility for Iraq’s freedom to Iraq itself. It is their time to step up to bat.
And it is long overdue. America is still willing to help them in their fight against the
enemies of their government, but, it is their time to put up or shut up.
Distinctions could never be more clear: One side wants to win and the other wants to lose.
No matter what you think of whether we should have gone into Iraq, whether you agree or not with how the initial invasion was conducted, whether you think it’s good, bad or mixed in Iraq right now, it is obvious that the president wants success and the opposition wants defeat.
How, Senator Durbin-Laden, can 20,000 additional troops be at the same time too few and too many.
Why, senator, can you not just say the words you really mean? Redeployment? Let me break out my thesaurus: Synonyms: retreat, surrender, declare defeat. Just say what you mean. Can it be denied any more that the Democrat strategy is New Saigon?
The Iraqis ALONE? Meaning with the US gone. Every time the Iraqis “call 9-11?” Don’t you mean, “piss on you, shrivel into oblivion for all we care.”
Are we really to be lectured by a man who likened our valiant troops to Pol Pot and Nazis?
With all the talk about how our prestige in the world is diminished…what will surrendering in Iraq do but leave us supine in front of our enemies and the UN?
This is what we asked for now isn’t it? I hope the president retains the resolve to deal with our Congressional Fifth Column.
Actually, by setting benchmarks (really he’s just publicly announcing existing benchmarks), he is implying a threat to withdraw troops prior to Iraq being fully stable. I think this is a good thing. It has to be a “stick and carrot” approach. But it does point the fallacy in your “surrender” rhetoric.
Good point. I hope he remembers warrants and the presumption of innocence are some of the many burdens that we bear in the name of freedom.
I left my complete thoughts as to what I thought of our President’s address over on my Angela’s Right To Free Speech blog.
(I am linking back to this one already - thanks)
With a pair of two’s, Bush, on the short stack, went ‘all in’ - Just like the incompetent donkey he’s always been.
Just wondering…if this does not work…what next? …This is a Shia govt that has not forgotten Saddam’s retributions…it is payback time…
…maybe the dumping of tortured people shot in the head and dumped in the streets is reasonable..I do know..I truly believe that more troops will not stop it..the fox is guarding the hen house..
If they did not have oil..what would we do?