Tuesday, May 1, 2007

What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate

President Bush vetoed the supplemental appropriations bill this evening, afterwards giving a speech explaining why. I have included the entire transcript of the speech below. Bush, in workmanlike fashion, hits all of the major points as to why the legislation needed to be vetoed.

What President Bush does not do is address those major points in the context of the dissembling used by the Democrats to launch incessant attacks on his policies. Please feel free to take issue with me, but I think that unless and until Bush starts directly naming people and taking on their arguments directly, he will simply not overcome the weight of their assertions. There is no need to mount ad hominem attacks or to speak with vitriol. But I think it would make a world of difference if Bush's speech this evening had been a little more along the lines of:

Senator Reid and others have told you that we can withdraw our troops now because General Petraeus said that this war cannot be won militarily. He and everyone else who repeats those words are not being honest with you. They are telling you a very twisted half truth. As General Petraeus indicated in his prior remarks addressing this matter, and as any neutral party with some common sense will tell you, while the ultimate solutions in Iraq are political, there will be no solutions in Iraq unless the military first brings security to the country. Harry Reid is likewise not being honest with you when he tells you that pulling out of the Iraq now will somehow lead to success. Our National Intelligence Estimates and our people in Iraq will tell you just how false that assertion is. It is a near certainy that Iraq will degenirate into a real civil war, with foreign elements of al Qaeda and Iran joining in the fight for control of Iraq. With all due respect for the Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Reid's claim that leaving Iraq now will somehow lead to success is nothing short of pure fantasy.
Unfortunately, President Bush will not do that for some reason. Perhaps he does so out of an overly restrictive view of Presidential decorum. It seems much akin to entering the boxing ring with one arm tied. He is not making use of the bully pulpit in a reasonable manner, and he and other republicans who seem equally silent, subdued and/or workmanlike in their responses are doing the nation a great disservice thereby. Compare if you will the impact of what each is trying to communicate in Bush's speech below with this piece from Fred Thompson today. Fred knows how to communicate.

At any rate, the Democrats held the bill til today so that they could present it to President Bush on the fourth anniversary of the Bush;s speech from the carrier USS Lincoln, the "Mission Accomplished" sign appearing in the background. Pelosi claimed the delay was because she needed to read the bill. This woman is whacked. That ranks right up their with her claim - the one she still repeats to justify the bill itself - that the war against terrorism is somehow seperate from the war in Iraq. She refuses to accept that Iraq is al Qaeda's central front over there, despite daily mountains of evidence, including repeated expressions of the same from al Zawahiri. The thing is, she exudes sincerity. She strikes me as such an incredibly political animal that her mind now defaults to accept her partisan political thinking as reality and her transparent partisan ramblings as some acceptable form of truth. Dr. Sanity would have a field day with her on the couch. She is really scary.

The delay in getting the bill to the President was pure political theater. The meme being the President lied four years ago - the mission is still not accomplished. The reality is that the President did not claim "mission accomplished" in his speech that day on the carrier. You can read his excepts of his actual remarks here.
Update: You can also see Dr. Sanity's riposte on this issue here. She finds some deep psychological problems with this bit of political theatre. (H/T Dinah Lord)

Here is the transcript of the President's veto speech. You can also find video and audio here.

Good evening. Twelve weeks ago, I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave men and women in uniform with the funds and flexibility they need.

Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders. So a few minutes ago, I vetoed this bill.

Tonight I will explain the reasons for this veto -- and my desire to work with Congress to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. We can begin tomorrow with a bipartisan meeting with the congressional leaders here at the White House.

Here is why the bill Congress passed is unacceptable. First, the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq. That withdrawal could start as early as July 1st. And it would have to start no later than October 1st, regardless of the situation on the ground.

It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength -- and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq. I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure -- and that would be irresponsible.

Second, the bill would impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat. After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would dictate the terms on which the remaining commanders and troops could engage the enemy. That means American commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C. This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops.

Third, the bill is loaded with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror. Congress should debate these spending measures on their own merits -- and not as part of an emergency funding bill for our troops.

The Democratic leaders know that many in Congress disagree with their approach, and that there are not enough votes to override a veto. I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war. They've sent their message. And now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need.

Our troops are carrying out a new strategy with a new commander -- General David Petraeus. The goal of this new strategy is to help the Iraqis secure their capital, so they can make progress toward reconciliation, and build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and fights extremists and radicals and killers alongside the United States in this war on terror.

In January, General Petraeus was confirmed by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate. In February, we began sending the first of the reinforcements he requested. Not all of these reinforcements have arrived. And as General Petraeus has said, it will be at least the end of summer before we can assess the impact of this operation. Congress ought to give General Petraeus' plan a chance to work.

In the months since our military has been implementing this plan, we've begun to see some important results. For example, Iraqi and coalition forces have closed down an al Qaeda car bomb network, they've captured a Shia militia leader implicated in the kidnapping and killing of American soldiers, they've broken up a death squad that had terrorized hundreds of residents in a Baghdad neighborhood.

Last week, General Petraeus was in Washington to brief me, and he briefed members of Congress on how the operation is unfolding. He noted that one of the most important indicators of progress is the level of sectarian violence in Baghdad. And he reported that since January, the number of sectarian murders has dropped substantially.

Even as sectarian attacks have declined, we continue to see spectacular suicide attacks that have caused great suffering. These attacks are largely the work of al Qaeda -- the enemy that everyone agrees we should be fighting. The objective of these al Qaeda attacks is to subvert our efforts by reigniting the sectarian violence in Baghdad -- and breaking support for the war here at home. In Washington last week, General Petraeus explained it this way: "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of all al Qaeda's global campaign."

Al Qaeda -- al Qaeda's role makes the conflict in Iraq far more complex than a simple fight between Iraqis. It's true that not everyone taking innocent life in Iraq wants to attack America here at home. But many do. Many also belong to the same terrorist network that attacked us on September 11th, 2001 -- and wants to attack us here at home again. We saw the death and destruction al Qaeda inflicted on our people when they were permitted a safe haven in Afghanistan. For the security of the American people, we must not allow al Qaeda to establish a new safe haven in Iraq.

We need to give our troops all the equipment and the training and protection they need to prevail. That means that Congress needs to pass an emergency war spending bill quickly. I've invited leaders of both parties to come to the White House tomorrow -- and to discuss how we can get these vital funds to our troops. I am confident that with goodwill on both sides, we can agree on a bill that gets our troops the money and flexibility they need as soon as possible.

The need to act is urgent. Without a war funding bill, the military has to take money from some other account or training program so the troops in combat have what they need. Without a war funding bill, the Armed Forces will have to consider cutting back on buying new equipment or repairing existing equipment. Without a war funding bill, we add to the uncertainty felt by our military families. Our troops and their families deserve better -- and their elected leaders can do better.

Here in Washington, we have our differences on the way forward in Iraq, and we will debate them openly. Yet whatever our differences, surely we can agree that our troops are worthy of this funding -- and that we have a responsibility to get it to them without further delay.

Thank you for listening. May God bless our troops.

1 comment:

HillbillyPolitics said...

I would like to think there is a reason beyond what we see that stays his hand. The case for treason is mounting, even among those now running a presidential campaign for '08.

He has been threatened with impeachment and has been isolated. There are calls for Gonzales' resignation but I think to myself, why? If he resigns, it will just give them someone else to stone and for what reason?

We have santuary cities in direct violation of our Constitution and other federal laws. This is what Nancy Pelosi, et al. have wrought.

They lie and scheme and think people forget what happened in the past, the number of them who swore that Iraq had... but later when they saw power slipping from their hands, they lied and said Bush lied... I'm sick of them and the rest of the United States should be, too.


View My Stats