How many lies can one presidential speech hold?
A critique of Bush's address to the nation
By Homero Guajardo
Address of the president to the nation
From the White House (as delivered)
6:52 PM PST, January 10, 2007
01/13/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- 1) "Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror -- and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror."
Critique: It is a lie that the struggle in Iraq " will determine
our safety here at home". Iraq has never attacked us. The US attacked Iraq and made it unsafe for the Iraqis. Now the President twists things and says that the Iraqis are making us unsafe. This goes against the facts. It is the US that is terrorizing the Iraqis, by bombing their cities, killing and torturing their citizens. What American city have the Iraqis bombed? What American city has been subjected to the house to house search of Iraqi soldiers?
2) "When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together, and that as we trained Iraqi security forces we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops."
Critique: The truth is exactly the opposite of what the President is saying. The Shiites voted in mass for a divided and undemocratic nation. They voted overwhelmingly for a State that will force on the area the Shiite version of the Muslim religion and for Shiite political parties to run this State. The vote spelled the end of a united Iraq. The US had already taken military power away from the Sunnis. The vote added one more nail on the coffin, for it meant that the Sunnis were now to be excluded from political and administrative power. And as it turned out the election indeed put the Shiites in total control. They now control Armed forces, political parties, and the ministries of Iraq. All with the help of Bush's vigilant watchful eye. This power grab by the Shiites of Iraq benefits Iran of course. Is this the mission the US wanted to accomplish?
3) "But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq -- particularly in Baghdad -- overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause, and they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra -- in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today."
Critique: It is a complete misinterpretation of the situation to say that "the opposite happened" that "the violence in Iraq -- particularly in Baghdad -- overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made". Let us never forget that the sectarian violence that afflicts Baghdad has its root cause in the fact that US Armed forces under Bush's command destroyed the power structure that existed during Saddam. The Sunni controlled armed forces were broken apart and the commander in chief of these armed forces- Saddam Hussein- was hanged.
So what's happening at this moment is exactly what had to happen once the US Army and Marines, under the command of President Bush, broke up the Sunni military machine, and once President Bush and Congress authorized our tax dollars to install an army controlled by the Shiite, and political parties under Shiite control. This new army and these new political parties -finance by our tax dollars - attacked their old opponents, the Sunnis.
What's happening in Iraq is not a mess, something unexpected. It is a logical and necessary consequence of the policy implemented by the President and his brilliant team of advisors. But President Bush will never take responsibility. He will always blame "the others" for any consequences he dislikes. Our President will blame it on the Sunnis, the Insurgents, the Terrorists etc.
4) "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."
Critique: If the President were to be made responsible for the death and destruction his decisions have brought upon Iraq, he would be hanging by the neck like Saddam Hussein together with his advisors. The President is lying when he says that he accepts responsibility. No one will dare make the President of the United States responsible, because he is backed and supported by the full power and might of the US Armed forces. Only when this support disappears will the President be made responsible for his decisions.
5) "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, our 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."
Critique: The implication is that the US has yet to fail in Iraq. If the purpose of President Bush's mission was to give the Shiites power and control over what happens in Iraq, then indeed this has been a successful mission. The Shiites now hold military and political power in Iraq. But remember that empowering the Shiites in Iraq is also a success for Iran. Was the US mission in the area to enable the Iraqi Shiites to present a united front with the Iranian Shiites? Was this the vision of success that President Bush had in mind when he ordered the destruction of the Sunni political and military machine in Iraq?
6) "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."
Critique: A good part of the chaos in the region has been created by the presence of the US forces blowing up Iraq, torturing, raping, looting, and destroying. This presence of US troops in Iraq is strengthening not only the Iraqi resistance, but also all kinds of religious extremists which are indeed gaining a growing number of new recruits. The President again twists the facts.
The paragraph above contains at least two more misleading implications :
First: That it was extremists in Iraq that brought destruction to our cities. This is a lie. The Iraqis had nothing to do with the attack on the Twin Towers. Besides, America did not see the destruction of its cities and people, like Iraq is witnessing. What America witnessed was an attack against selected buildings that represent its financial and military might.
Second: That Iran plans to launch attacks on the American people with nuclear weapons. This, again, is an absolute lie and a pretext to attack Iran. Iran has never been and is not a threat to the safety of the American people.
The president here is using the same tactic the Nazis used to convince the
Germans to support Hitler, that is, that the safety of the German people was in jeopardy. This is a tried and successful tactic to make the people back unsuccessful military missions, like the one President Bush has undertaken.
7) "The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it."
Critique: One truth and one more lie. It is true that "only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people". But it is not true that it is their government that has put forward a plan to do it. The "aggressive plan" to bring Bagdad under control has been put forward by President Bush and his advisors. The Shiite Armed forces under American control have to go along with the plan or else.
8)"Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work."
Critique: Before the war started, Mr. Bush was told by several top Generals that he would need more than 500, 000 troops to control Iraq. He fired these Generals. But the fact is that there are 18 million Shiites that live in Iraq. These people live there, the American troops don't. The questions that our Commander in Chief should ask himself better be the following: How many Americans soldiers is it going to take to prevent the Shiites from being faithful to Allah and instead pledge allegiance to the United States of America and the principles which its flag is supposed to embody ? How many Shiite troops do we have to train so this can happen? For how long will the American troops have to remain there to get this pledge of allegiance? These are the questions President Bush should be answering. The truth is that the US effort to train Iraqi soldiers is the equivalent of providing skills and arms to people that, at the end, will not pledge allegiance to the United States of America, but turn against it at the proper opportunity. Add to this another fact. Right next to Iraq there are a total of 62 million Iranian Shiites. These Shiites have the same beliefs and customs as the Iraqi Shiites. They visit each other, trade with each other, have common religious sites, common customs. They help each other out. The Iranian Shiites have poured millions and millions of dollars to help the Iraqi Shiites. So again, the questions that President Bush has to answer are: How many Americans soldiers is it going to take to force the Shiites in the region to stop being faithful to Allah and to each other, and pledge allegiance to the Americans instead? For how long will the American troops have to remain there to get this pledge of allegiance? To be successful in Iraq these two questions must be answered truthfully by President Bush.
9) "Now 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 and setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents."
Critique: As the President explains in the next paragraph, the Iraqi forces will need the help of American troops in their "door to door trust gaining mission". One can just imagine Iraqi troops wearing their black sky masks, helped by American troops, arriving to an Iraqi house, blowing or knocking the door down, while they shout: "Open up mo..fu..ers we have come to gain your trust!" Maybe these troops will kill or maim the terrified children and women that live in these houses, as it has happened so many times. But President Bush says they will "gain their trust". It gives one a warm feeling inside doesn't it? This is one for Comedy Central to joke about.
10) "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've 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.
Critique: The question here is: What is the nature of the Iraqi units "these (American) troops" are going to "work along side" with, and "be embedded with". A new power structure has emerged in Iraq. The sources of this new power are fourfold: a) The US Armed forces that are now occupying Iraq. b) An Army of Iraqi Shiites and Kurds that is controlled and paid by Americans; c) Multiple Shiite and Kurd militias that are also paid in great part by American tax dollars, but remain out of control of the American centers of command. d) . Multiple Sunni militias that are resisting both the American occupying forces and the ever more powerful Shiite and Kurd forces These are the four sources of power in Iraq. As things stand the Shiite militias draw man power from the Shiite Iraqi Army and the Shiite Iraqi Army draws man power from the Shiite militias. It is, therefore, very hard to tell them apart. So who will the American troops end up embedded with?
One thing seems certain. Since the Sunni militias are responsible for 8 or 8 or more out of every American casualty, it is highly improbable that US soldiers will be embedded or in the bed of any Sunni militia. The remaining militias are the Kurds and the Shiites.
11) "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."
Critique: Anyone that doesn't refuse to see what is happening in Iraq, will realize that the Shiites are taking over with the help of US tax dollars and US soldiers. Therefore, in those areas and neighborhoods where Shiites have the majority, "the Iraqi forces left behind" will be Shiite forces. These forces will share the customs, religious beliefs and outlook on life that is proper to the Shiites. The American belief system, the American McDonald burger, the American miniskirt, tank top, Play Boy magazines etc., this system will not be "left behind." Baghdad will have "the security it needs", but according to the Shiite customs and beliefs. The Shiites will prevail and the Americans will leave. Pity the Sunnis.
12) "Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Well, here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we'll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods -- and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated."
Critique: Since the "neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence" are pretty much all the neighborhoods in Bagdad, this plan involves entering all the neighborhoods. As we have noted before, the plan requires Iraqi forces- usually in sky masks and helped by US soldiers - to knock at the doors of the residents of Bagdad politely announcing : "Open up mo..fu..ers we have come to gain your trust!" These trust gaining forces will then drag the men folk from the targeted houses and take them to some prison where they can be properly interrogated. Who knows they may even rape women or two or kill some children while they are in their trust gaining mission. This is the reality of the "Baghdad security plan" financed with our tax dollars. As you will see in the next paragraphs, according to President Bush, this is the plan which "we can expect" will bring "growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents." This is the plan by which "daily life will improve" and will make "Iraqis gain confidence in their leaders".
13) "I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."
Critique: How many lies and misrepresentations can one presidential speech hold? As one can see President Bush is clearly saying that the Iraqi government has "the support of the American people". This is a flat out lie.
14) "This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace -- and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible."
Critique: President Bush seems to think that the fact "that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering" has nothing to do with the fact that our military machine has been for the last four years arresting and torturing, maiming and killing throughout the different provinces and cities of Iraq. Blame it all on the Iraqis that are resisting the occupation, on their lack of allegiance to America. As one American soldier observed, if the Iraqis allowed McDonald hamburger restaurants on their cities none of this would be happening. It is highly unlikely that: "Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia (will) want to live together in peace" The slaughter will not be forgotten by any of the warring sides. What is bound to happen is that, with the aid of US tax money and the lives and limbs and mental sanity of our young soldiers, Baghdad will end up being entirely controlled by Shia armed forces, for who knows how long.
15) "A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced."
Critique: ""Open up mo..fu..ers we have come to bring visible improvements in your neighborhoods and communities.". This is the message that has accompanied all the US "military operations" in Iraq, since the beginning of the occupation. Close to four years of improvements in the neighborhoods and communities of Iraq. What a marvelous use of our tax dollars and soldiers. Only God could have made the necessary arrangements to put President Bush as our Commander in Chief !
16) "To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution."
Critique:As the saying goes: "There are lies, flat out lies, damned outrageous lies, cynical lies, hypocritical lies, fantastic lies, and President Bush's statements to the American people.
First: There is no way "the Iraqi government" will "take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November." Be sure that by November three things will happen: a) Anbar province will remain under control of the Sunnis, with the help of their brothers in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. To be certain of this one only has to look at a geography map and read who the dominant groups are in these States. b) Kurdistan will remain under Kurdish control, with the help of the Americans, the Israelis and- Oh! the irony - with the help of the Iranians; c) the rest of Iraq will be controlled by the Shias- it matters not to which tribes or political chieftain they pledge allegiance to
Second: There is no way that "Iraq will pass legislation
to give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy
or to share oil revenues among all Iraqis." News papers the world over are reporting that Iraqi oil is being turned over to the Oil companies that supported President Bush's campaign for office, that is Exxon and Chevron, not to mention the oil companies that support Tony Blair, that is, BP and Shell in Britain. What is left of the profits will be used to pay off Iraqi politicians that remain subservient, submissive, and compliant to the dictates of the United States.
Third: If the Sunnis are allowed to "re-enter their nation's political life", it will be because they broke the entry with bombs, Kalashnikovs and suicide attacks. Never underestimate the Sunni warriors.:
17) "America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units, and partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army, and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen the moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self-reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq."
Critique: The truth is, as we have previously stated, that the US effort to train Iraqi soldiers is the equivalent of providing skills and arms to people that, at the end, will not pledge allegiance to the United States of America, but turn against it at the proper opportunity. The US military knows this and therefore it is a complete lie that "We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army". We will never, ever, provide the Iraqis with tanks that can be used attack us, or jet fighters that can be used to attack us, or helicopters that can be use to attack us, or any kind of superior weaponry that the Iraqis can turn against us.
18) "As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad."
Critique: The Sunni warriors that are killing, maiming and driving crazy so many of our troops in the Province of Anbar, do not need Al Qaeda's help. These Sunni warriors have proven- just by keeping up the resistance to the most powerful, best equipped armed forces in the world - to be the best of the best. President Bush can not prevail over these incomparable warriors, and, he has no other recourse but to defame them, insulting them, calling them losers, Al Qaeda, foreigners, dropouts. The fact is that these warriors are in control of the Anbar Province and that we will not take away this control by violent means.
19) "Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders, and they are protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. And as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to keep up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan -- and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq."
Critique: President Bush is implying that the resistance in Anbar Province comes from foreigners, al Qaeda leaders and terrorists. Our Commander in Chief seems to think that the local population and the tribal leaders have nothing to do with the resistance against American troops. Again, he seems to believe in his own propaganda and lies. The ones that will pay the price will be these 4,000 extra troops he will send to be sacrificed to his propaganda machine. There isn't an Arab in Anbar Province who, if given the chance, is not willing and ready to kill American soldiers. This is the truth.
20) "Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. 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'll 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."
Critique: This is the most important part of President Bush's speech. He makes it very clear that he is preparing to attack Iran and Syria. We will have to bow and defer here to the incomparable critic, Mike Whitney:
"Seek and destroy"? Is that the plan?
A region-wide conflagration with results as uncertain as they are in Iraq?
So far, there's no solid evidence that Iran is "providing material support for attacks on American troops." All the same, the administration has consistently used "material support" as the basis for preemptive war. In fact, the so-called Bush Doctrine is predicated on the assumption that the US is free to attack whoever it chooses if it perceives a threat to its national security. The normal rules of self defense or "imminent danger" no longer apply.
Bush knows that if Iran was seriously involved in arming the Iraqi resistance, we'd be seeing the Russian-made, armor-piercing rocket launchers that were used so effectively by Hezbollah during their 34 day war with Israel. That hasn't been the case
