What Bush said about The Surge in January

Southpaw

Registered User
Jan 12, 2005
934
0
0
#1
As Bush Prepares for 'Surge' Address Tonight: Here Is What He Promised in January Speech

By E&P Staff

Published: September 13, 2007 11:20 AM ET

NEW YORK With President Bush reportedly ready to endorse a full continuation of the "surge" in Iraq through next summer in a speech to the nation tonight, a look back at what he promised in his address last January might prove illuminating, especially concerning "benchmarks."

The president said then, "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....

"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."

None of this happened.

A fact sheet released by the White House at the same time stated:

"The Government of Iraq commits to:

--Reform its cabinet to provide even-handed service delivery.
--Act on promised reconciliation initiatives (oil law, de-Baathification law, Provincial elections).
--Give Coalition and ISF authority to pursue ALL extremists.
--All Iraqi leaders support reconciliation.
--Moderate coalition emerges as strong base of support for unity government."

Excerpts from the Bush speech on Jan. 10, 2007, follow.
http://editorandpublisher.printthis...ay.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003639940&partnerID=60
 
#2
He also said he was for smaller government and against nation building in 2000. 7 years later here we are 10 trillion dollars in immediate debt and entrenched in West Buttfuck, Iraq.

To think I actually voted for this piece of shit. I need my own ass kicked across my shoulders.
 

Mommadeez4u

Bastard coated bastard w/ bastard filling
Mar 26, 2005
4,024
902
608
Washington, DC
#3
how dare you contradict our Commander-in-Chief in time of war, you traitorous pig.
 

FellowTraveler

Frank Reynolds is my hero
Jul 24, 2005
1,976
196
513
#5
He also said he was for smaller government and against nation building in 2000. 7 years later here we are 10 trillion dollars in immediate debt and entrenched in West Buttfuck, Iraq.

To think I actually voted for this piece of shit. I need my own ass kicked across my shoulders.
I'm next in line.
 

Southpaw

Registered User
Jan 12, 2005
934
0
0
#7
A Surge, and Then a Stab
By Paul Krugman
Published: September 14, 2007

To understand what’s really happening in Iraq, follow the oil money, which already knows that the surge has failed.

Back in January, announcing his plan to send more troops to Iraq, President Bush declared that “America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.”

Near the top of his list was the promise that “to give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”

There was a reason he placed such importance on oil: oil is pretty much the only thing Iraq has going for it. Two-thirds of Iraq’s G.D.P. and almost all its government revenue come from the oil sector. Without an agreed system for sharing oil revenues, there is no Iraq, just a collection of armed gangs fighting for control of resources.

Well, the legislation Mr. Bush promised never materialized, and on Wednesday attempts to arrive at a compromise oil law collapsed.

What’s particularly revealing is the cause of the breakdown. Last month the provincial government in Kurdistan, defying the central government, passed its own oil law; last week a Kurdish Web site announced that the provincial government had signed a production-sharing deal with the Hunt Oil Company of Dallas, and that seems to have been the last straw.

Now here’s the thing: Ray L. Hunt, the chief executive and president of Hunt Oil, is a close political ally of Mr. Bush. More than that, Mr. Hunt is a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a key oversight body.

Some commentators have expressed surprise at the fact that a businessman with very close ties to the White House is undermining U.S. policy. But that isn’t all that surprising, given this administration’s history. Remember, Halliburton was still signing business deals with Iran years after Mr. Bush declared Iran a member of the “axis of evil.”

No, what’s interesting about this deal is the fact that Mr. Hunt, thanks to his policy position, is presumably as well-informed about the actual state of affairs in Iraq as anyone in the business world can be. By putting his money into a deal with the Kurds, despite Baghdad’s disapproval, he’s essentially betting that the Iraqi government — which hasn’t met a single one of the major benchmarks Mr. Bush laid out in January — won’t get its act together. Indeed, he’s effectively betting against the survival of Iraq as a nation in any meaningful sense of the term.

The smart money, then, knows that the surge has failed, that the war is lost, and that Iraq is going the way of Yugoslavia. And I suspect that most people in the Bush administration — maybe even Mr. Bush himself — know this, too.

After all, if the administration had any real hope of retrieving the situation in Iraq, officials would be making an all-out effort to get the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to start delivering on some of those benchmarks, perhaps using the threat that Congress would cut off funds otherwise. Instead, the Bushies are making excuses, minimizing Iraqi failures, moving goal posts and, in general, giving the Maliki government no incentive to do anything differently.

And for that matter, if the administration had any real intention of turning public opinion around, as opposed to merely shoring up the base enough to keep Republican members of Congress on board, it would have sent Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, to as many news media outlets as possible — not granted an exclusive appearance to Fox News on Monday night.

All in all, Mr. Bush’s actions have not been those of a leader seriously trying to win a war. They have, however, been what you’d expect from a man whose plan is to keep up appearances for the next 16 months, never mind the cost in lives and money, then shift the blame for failure onto his successor.

In fact, that’s my interpretation of something that startled many people: Mr. Bush’s decision last month, after spending years denying that the Iraq war had anything in common with Vietnam, to suddenly embrace the parallel.

Here’s how I see it: At this point, Mr. Bush is looking forward to replaying the political aftermath of Vietnam, in which the right wing eventually achieved a rewriting of history that would have made George Orwell proud, convincing millions of Americans that our soldiers had victory in their grasp but were stabbed in the back by the peaceniks back home.

What all this means is that the next president, even as he or she tries to extricate us from Iraq — and prevent the country’s breakup from turning into a regional war — will have to deal with constant sniping from the people who lied us into an unnecessary war, then lost the war they started, but will never, ever, take responsibility for their failures.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.h...-Q26Q2F1Q26KnWjWKjQ26Q2F1ZTw!Q5DQ5BjQ25zrQ5Di
 

BroGonzo

In between shots of bourbon
Jul 3, 2006
2,168
0
0
Cortland, New York
#9
What's great is that now that Gen. Petraeus' report is in, Republicans are endorsing an effort to "reduce troop levels." It's exactly the same thing Democrats have been asking for, except in their case, the Republicans called it "surrendering." Now that it's a GOP thing, it's simply "putting pressure on the Iraq government."