Bush contradicts self on when the US leaves Iraq

[Don Claybrook]

This was probably mentioned here after his speech, but I couldn't find it.

I was listening to Day to Day on NPR earlier. They had one of the Slate columnists on critiquing the speech, and the review was withering. The columnist mentioned that Bush, in different parts of the speech stated that:

1. we would leave Iraq when we had sufficiently trained Iraqi forces to defend the place on their own and,

2. we wouldn't leave Iraq until we had achieved total victory against "the terrorists".

Now, it would be easy to say that this is just run-of-the-mill Bush idiocy. But they've been working on this speech for some time now, and they know how important it is. They know what a desperate situation their puppet is in. I'd wager this speech was vetted almost as thoroughly as the State of the Union (yeah, it was nothing but lies, but it was gone over with a fine tooth comb).

So why is it that they screwed up so badly with the central question of when US forces will be able to leave Iraq? I mean, this is the secret plan they've been working on all along, as we've been told, so why is it that their once-secret, now-public plan for "victory" can't even define what victory is? Could it be because in reality, we have no plans whatsoever to leave?

Calibrate me. I've assigned great importance to this glaring inconsistency in the speech, because one way or another, the idiot lied about the central question of when troops would be coming home. Is this a big deal, or an overreaction on my part?

I'm off to dinner, but looking forward to others' thoughts on this.

Thanks.

[cliss]

1. Good, point, Don!

I missed that. I've just been listening to the reviews from AAR, and so far they're giving this speech an F.

Bush just isn't cutting it. It's too little too late. But nobody addressed this glaring contradiction.

[Don Claybrook]

2. Thanks, cliss

I'm glad to hear he received an F from AAR. I haven't seen much news today; wonder what the 'mainstream' pundits are saying.

[indepat]

3. They will leave when all the oil and natural gas have been harvested

in the region for what else would make any sense for having so many "permanent" military bases and a humongous embassy?

[Don Claybrook]

4. Yes, I think you're on the right track

But to me, the real story here is that what you've stated should now be screamingly obvious to even the dimmest of newscasters. We've all seen the media almost waking up in fits and starts recently. Do you think that this media will do its job and point out that he couldn't consistently answer the main point of his "major speech"?

[Disturbed]

5. W should have this photo behind him.

He should have made this statement and left his stage. It would have been his truth moment.


"The terrorists want to control the oil. Our way of life will be at risk". George W. Bush (Nov. 2005)