Open thread: Bush’s speech on Iraq; Update: “An enduring relationship”; Update: Video highlights added
posted at 8:51 pm on September 13, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
9 p.m. ET across the dial. We’ll probably have video later so we might as well open the thread now. Sound off if you’re watching. The cat’s out of the bag — 5,700 troops home by Christmas plus the rest of the surge brigades to follow by next summer if all goes well. The Financial Times sums up the political value of the testimony this week: “By embracing Gen Petraeus’s plans, Republicans can now argue that they too are in favour of bringing troops home – but in a more orderly and responsible fashion than the Democrats.” Indeed. It’s a variation of “declare victory and go home”: declare progress and withdraw the guys you had to withdraw anyway due to manpower constraints. Politico has excerpts from the speech; the key phrase is “return on success,” which is itself a variation on “as they stand up, we will stand down.”
The Democrats say they’re close to breaking the filibuster on Webb’s proposal to mandate set periods of time between troop deployments. It failed in July. If it passes now, it would force a partial withdrawal by leaving the Pentagon unable to maintain the pre-surge troop levels while complying with the law. Bush will veto it, of course, and will sustain political damage from people wanting to know why he won’t guarantee the troops a fixed period of rest between tours. That’s what this is about, but it has the advantage of possibly getting the Dems beyond the psychological hurdle of 60 votes. The first step in an incremental process, according to their plan.
Silky bought two minutes of airtime tonight on MSNBC to respond to Bush in his own version of Rudy’s half-assed war-as-politics gambit. I’ll have the full clip later but you can watch the first 30 queasy seconds here.
Exit question: It’s unusual that the full text of Bush’s remarks hasn’t been released yet. Is he going to surprise us somehow? With an attack on MoveOn, maybe?
Update: Bret Baier is reporting outside the White House. You can hear protesters setting off air horns to try to intrude on Bush as he speaks.
Update: Four minutes of highlights for you including the surprise announcement of the night — plans for an “enduring relationship” with Iraq, presumably on the model of South Korea, that will involve a “security engagement that extends beyond my presidency.” That’s an odd thing to announce now, when he’s trying to reap the political benefits of a (very limited) withdrawal, but there you go. It also flies in the face not only of Sadr’s nationalist rhetoric but poll after poll of Iraqi citizens who say they want the United States out (eventually). Bush wants U.S. troops there to keep Tehran on its toes, though, and also to act as a “tripwire” (again, a la South Korea) in case Iranian forces try to assert themselves inside the country. The more menacing Iran is, the more you can expect Iraqis to grudgingly accept the idea, so long as the “security” part of the enduring relationship involves a small number of troops and, in all likelihood, bases in Kurdistan.
The other scoop is that he’s asked Petraeus to give another progress report in March. The Republicans up for re-election next year will have their life vests on and will have already been seated in the lifeboats by then, so unless that report’s as rosy as the desert sun, it’s game over.
Needless to say, the clip’s been heavily edited.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Petulant children.
techno_barbarian on September 13, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Agreed.
.
GT on September 13, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Sinner, Ali Sina of faithfreedom.org believes Islam can be erased in 30 years. More people are LEAVING islam than joining, he has the statistics on his page. Like any totalitarianism system, people will eventually reject it. And they will. How long did it take the Spaniards to throw off Muslim rule? Hundreds of years, but they did it. We have to start somewhere and not give in or give up.
CrimsonFisted on September 13, 2007 at 9:51 PM
King asks McCain how long we’re going to be Iraq:
Nice jab. Too bad no one in King’s audience will get it.
yo on September 13, 2007 at 9:52 PM
I’m suprised Code Pink didn’t storm the Oval Office and commence ranting…
JetBoy on September 13, 2007 at 9:52 PM
Silky:
-Listen to Gen.Patraues
-9:11 not related to Irag
-Fear
-(info commercial)If I’m elected President
-America is policeing a civil war
-America has to change strategy
-America has a mandate
-Congress need to stand its ground
canopfor on September 13, 2007 at 9:53 PM
Nelsa on September 13, 2007 at 9:53 PM
Iraqi vet on CNN, just called Bush a coward. Out loud.
yo on September 13, 2007 at 9:56 PM
You guys are so full of crap…you have been told over and over you big quitters…You are worthless and weak and make me sick.
tomas on September 13, 2007 at 9:56 PM
Look out…I think I see Mike Bloomberg headed for your house.
Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 9:56 PM
No one’s quitting, tomas. Many of us simply wish the president would be as tough on the Democrats as they are on him.
Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Overall, a pretty good speech.
Zorro on September 13, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Aren’t the windows bullet proof, therefore it’d be unlikely audible?
amerpundit on September 13, 2007 at 9:58 PM
So MSNBC refuses to air the pro-war Vets for Freedom ad, but John Edwards anti-war ad is perfectly okay.
SoulGlo on September 13, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Adam Kovach (sp?) … Iraq Vet … churning out Dem talking points at a feverish pace.
I’m conflicted.
yo on September 13, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Is it just me that is bothered that the the objective nouns in these headlines are interchangeable?
highhopes on September 13, 2007 at 10:00 PM
When I see the small children in Iraq with the pain looks on their faces and tears in their eyes, is when I realize how we need to stay the course at all costs. If we lose then we go out fighting…”I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore”…
Legions on September 13, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Think he’s safe. Bloomberg is busy plotting his 3rd party feint to get Hillary elected. Be careful of this m-f’er.
JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Standing around. Isn’t that what congress has been doing since january? Have they actually done anything at all?
lorien1973 on September 13, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Vets for Freedom:
-tired of the personal attacks
-bring home in honour
-its succeeding
-its the right strategy
Against the war:
-admires Bush,even if he was AWOL and a coward
-this is bad for America
-the futility in occupation
-pay reparations
-power in speaking out
-same as 2003,2004,same spin,same occupation
There you have it,the right make sense,and have the plan,
on the otherhand,if your going to talk to LIBERAL DEMOCRATS
have a drink ready,bang your head on the table a few times,
and it’s optional to drink first or after,your descretion.
canopfor on September 13, 2007 at 10:13 PM
The dems want out not because of Move On…not because they are against the war…not because they fear for their jobs…they want out because they know the have no clue about how move forward on Iraq. The other above reasons are just manifestations of their own cowardice and subservience to evil. They only know how to quit.
tomas on September 13, 2007 at 10:13 PM
I heard bits and pieces and it’s the same speech we’ve heard over and over from him. Abit updated for current events but it’s the same speech.
I agree with an earlier commenter who said we should’ve been fighting this much MUCH more aggressively but there’s probably a reason the put Generals over there and not me. ;) I bow to their wisdom.
Another commenter said the Dems are going to do what they are going to do and nothing the President or anyone else has to say will change that. They are definitely invested in our defeat in Iraq and the overall GWoT. It seems that EVERYONE is more interested in beating the domestic political drum than submitting policies that HELP fight the war. I’m pretty friggin’ sick of it myself.
What is it going to take to make the average Joe realize that this is World War III? Another 9/11? Barbarians setting up camps in our towns, blowing up malls and diners?
**sigh**…keep your powder dry Lads, it’s going to be a long night.
Pilgrim on September 13, 2007 at 10:16 PM
It’s going to be a long decade. And this lad is going to buy something to put that powder in. That’s my plan.
JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 10:20 PM
Congress needs to stand its ground.
Lorien1973 on September 13,2007 at 10:11PM
Lorien1973,ya I had fun running from the TV and back to the computer,highlighting these idiot liberal(talking points),
I mean comments,well thats what SILKY said.
Congess must stand it’s ground,but ya I got it,there
standing around.hehe.
canopfor on September 13, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Way ahead of you! ;) I’m beginning to catch the eye of the local constabulary. They tell me the line of claymores around the yard is a bit much. I tried to tell them I haven’t run the wires yet but still…they are insisting I take them down.
Perhaps that nice Pakistani Doctor neighbor will sell me a couple of his RPGs he keeps in his garage….
AR-15, Glock21, Winchester 30-30, Remington dbl barrel 16ga, among others make for a full closet.
Pilgrim on September 13, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Did anybody catch the Irag war zone,with a guns just a blazzing before Larry went to commercial.
That wasn’t an attempt at being subliminal was it,or was CNN trying to make it sound like Irag was a chaos of H!ll!
canopfor on September 13, 2007 at 10:36 PM
I haven’t read any of the comments, so this might be out of left field. But there were two soldiers who helped write the Op/Ed questionning the democracy goals of our Iraqi policy, who died in a truck accident this week.
Yeah, well, the Moonbats have once again jumped the shark on this one.
You will
notbelieve the comments that these morons are making on this. 2 soldiers dead when their truck drives off a bridge, and they want to Saint them both while simultaneously suggesting that they were killed by their brothers in arms.Lesson #743 in how the American left “supports the troops”.
Jaibones on September 13, 2007 at 11:08 PM
NYC suburban Dad here. Just getting with the program. Have a hard time getting transfats here. Think I’ll have any trouble with the Claymores? This novice asks you what is best single firearm for me for home protection? shot gun?
what kind, etc.?
JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 11:08 PM
(Clarification: I haven’t been reading the comments in this thead)
Jaibones on September 13, 2007 at 11:09 PM
sorry. above was for PILGRIM
JiangxiDad on September 13, 2007 at 11:09 PM
(Thread…oh, dear)
Jaibones on September 13, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Of course we’ll have permanent bases in Iraq. That was the point of the invasion. I guess no one in the Democratic party or the media have played Risk. Having a land base with access to a port in the middle of all your enemies is elementary.
This is the Long War.
Stormy70 on September 13, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Dad, my cop friends always said a sawed-off or short barrel shotgun was best. Aim in the general direction of danger and fire.
I like the Glock myself.
Jaibones on September 13, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Slu, I couldn’t figure out who Tomas was ripping. You?
Fwiw, Tomas, I agree with Slu – Bush should be unloading on the effing Dems. They are off the reservation and he needs to call them out from the highest pulpit in the land.
Jaibones on September 13, 2007 at 11:16 PM
All of us, I think.
And I just bought my first firearm. It’s only a .22 S&W, but it’s a start.
Slublog on September 13, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Hey, congrats. Nice.
Jaibones on September 13, 2007 at 11:36 PM
JiangxiDad on september 13,2007 at 10:36PM
JiangxiDad,I’m just chimmen in here,I would
go for the Dillian Mini-Gun.HEhe.
canopfor on September 13, 2007 at 11:40 PM
**Boy I must wonder... is it the air or the water that the media types consume that makes them negative pontificators regarding success in Iraq?
Or is this spill over from the MSM?
Whatever the case, comments like that really do have a ripple effect even all the way to Texas, ’cause I sure feel it.
Or is it just me…………………..
So next time I become negative about anything, I’m blaming it on you, AP.
Consider yourself warned.
Mcguyver on September 13, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Having said the above at: 11:45 PM in a true venting fashion, I am now able to continue with positive pontifications and statements.
This war which is a clash of idealistic civilizations is of epic proportions and it must be won, NO ands, ifs, buts, should’ves, could’ves, would’ves, maybes, well buts, (and add here any other excuse you can dream up)!!!!!!!!!!!!
Put aside the chance that WMD’s were escorted out of Iraq in the dark of night…. our military intelligence knows it but cannot speak about it….. as Bryan so succinctly details here, quote:
(bold, strike and italic inserts mine)
Will continue in a moment…
Mcguyver on September 13, 2007 at 11:47 PM
Hsu contributed over $2,000 to JACK REED- Who responded for the Dems tonight!!!Is he Giving it BACK!!!!!!!!
http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Norman_Hsu.php
Nelsa on September 13, 2007 at 11:48 PM
Continued from above at: 11:47 PM
Now we are in Iraq, and this by the way, is the main reason, that we haven’t been attacked here since 9-11, so far.
And before you blow me off, let me explain:
In any organization be they legit, rogue or otherwise, there are going to be problems, problems related to human error, weaknesses and outright failure to perform as planned.
In short, terrorist organizations are run by…gasp… imperfect humans, that despite their best efforts…do not, function as planned.
Mcguyver on September 14, 2007 at 12:03 AM
Continued from: 12:03 AM
A part of the dysfunction within the terrorist organizations is a result of the schock wave of 9-11….. similar to the pilots feeling the shock wave of the nuclear bombs… every action causes another action….terrorist rejoicing over the absolute fear that 9-11 caused us, for a couple days anyway…then they themselves are overcome with the same fear.
Why were they afraid, (if as Bill Maher said they were brave)?
[smirk]
Let’s follow their emotions:
a) Sheer joy over our sorrow.
b) Euphoric feelings subside, (they always do).
c) They run out of groceries and booze, then realize….
d) “Crap! I have a false I.D. What if I get caught!”
e) “Damn! I cannot get caught now!”
f) Result is: paralysis by analysis.
g) No movement = no action =…
h) = no resources, ie: money and focused energy dwindle over time.
Mcguyver on September 14, 2007 at 12:25 AM
poll after poll of Iraqi citizens who say they want the United States out (eventually).
We see pretty much the same thing in S Korea.
TallDave on September 14, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Continued from: 12:25 AM
Then comes the call to arms in Afghanistan and now Iraq which equals……
i) Jihad!
j) 72 virgins!
Remember they truly believe this.
k) Allah here I come!
Tomorrow’s program note:
Why the oil in Saudi Arabia and all of the Middle East is dwindling fast and why, we the United Sates of America will not have to depend on them anymore, because we have more oil right here in the heartland.
Your homework assignments are to Google the keywords in the last paragraph.
Mcguyver on September 14, 2007 at 12:38 AM
Gooooooooooood night!
Mcguyver on September 14, 2007 at 12:39 AM
Why are we telling al-Qaeda how many troops will be leaving Iraq?
Doesn’t a long-term security engagement assume Democrats will never win the White House?
Aren’t we in these precarious situations because the full power of the American was machine has never been allowed to be unleashed on Islamofascim – out of fear of “offending” the politically correct?
Halley on September 14, 2007 at 1:52 AM
war machine, I meant
Halley on September 14, 2007 at 1:53 AM
AP, May 10th:
AP, Jul. 9th:
AP, Jul. 24th:
AP, Sept. 13th:
OK.
Karl on September 14, 2007 at 3:00 AM
Karl, thanks for the early morning laugh.
LOL!
Stormy70 on September 14, 2007 at 6:18 AM
Bush cannot secure the border of the U.S. and is focusing on security for a sandbox of dysfunctional critters? Thanks!
saved on September 14, 2007 at 6:44 AM
I couldn’t even watch him last night. I’m so disillusioned now. All politicians sound the same to me – like the teacher on all the Charlie Brown movies.
pullingmyhairout on September 14, 2007 at 9:12 AM
Last night was one night I would have given just about anything to have the internet and Hot Air at home.
W’s speech was good, and the local coverage on our community reaction was good, but I almost broke my tv when NBC, ABC, CBS, and PBS all carried the “Democratic Response.” No shock that the Democrats would respond, but the fact that the networks actually carried a formal speech by a Democratic Senator immediately following in response to the President of the United States addressing the nation in time of war.
1) That is so over the top WRONG to put one Senator up equal to the President.
2) It’s not a “response” when he goes on the air 60 seconds after the President. That’s premeditated windbagging, and as far as I’m concerned it’s treason considering the subject matter. It showed me once again that the Democrats do not know how to listen and possess not one shred of intellectual honesty or ethics.
I really hope that what happened last night is the straw that breaks the camel’s back for the many moderates in the DP. Power to the people! Now all I have to worry about is what January 2009 will bring…
/vent
Numenorean on September 14, 2007 at 10:00 AM
I watched last night. I thought it was one of his better boiler plate speeches.
I think this says it better, though.
locomotivebreath1901 on September 14, 2007 at 10:12 AM
I worry that the Iraqi people just don’t have the intellect to carry them where they need to go. Too many years of intense brainwashing and Muslum dogma. If it wasn’t for oil, most of the middle east population there would be living just like the barbarians there 1000 years ago.
saiga on September 14, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Uninspiring man giving uninspired speech about a war front fought with confused motives and restrained military force against an enemy (Islamic/Koranically-based militants) he refuses to confront ideologically.
We cannot defeat fanaticism without undermining its rationale.
Which means analyzing the specific Koran verses (and Hadith sayings) which excuse and promote their “holy” terror.
“Democracy” will only allow the Koranically-brainwashed majority to gain power, when we should be confronting, lambasting, mocking and scholarly/intellectually destroying their “religious” justifications.
Bush continues to tread water instead of daring to start to drain the Islamic swamp of its malignant ideology.
He got off on the delusional Religion of Peace foot, and it has tripped him up ever since.
May the next fighter against Islamofascism be more honest (Guiliani?) so that we may fight more effectively.
profitsbeard on September 14, 2007 at 11:26 AM
Numenorean on September 14, 2007 at 10:00 AM
You worry too much. Sen. Reed responding to any president, is just a little man entering the big picture.
Plus, who doesn’t know the libs’ games by now? I was more shocked that none of the leftie contenders for the presidencey responded. Talk about chicken! They know that they wouldn’t end the war, or as they say ‘occupation’ and, thus, wouldn’t expose themselves. No cojones, just games.
Entelechy on September 14, 2007 at 12:02 PM
more coffee – s/b presidency
Entelechy on September 14, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Guess what, folks.
All this talk about troop withdrawals, retreat, and benchmarks is totally trumped by one fact: We’re never leaving Iraq.
President Bush told us so last night.
ModernConservative on September 14, 2007 at 12:05 PM
This is precisely why I can’t listen to him (or any other politician) anymore.
pullingmyhairout on September 14, 2007 at 12:16 PM
You’re right. Just like we never left Germany, South Korea, etc. We are there to stay. And the Iraqis will have to begrudgingly accept it as long as Iran is breathing down their back.
pullingmyhairout on September 14, 2007 at 12:18 PM
ModernConservative, indeed. Great list you got. May add Singapore and Taiwan. Singapore is one of the most strategic once for what’s yet to develop in Asia.
Going to and staying in Iraq will have little to do with Saddam or the WMDs, though getting rid of him was necessary. Looking back 20, 30+ years it will have been brilliant. Being in Afghanistan as well. Geo- is waaaay more important here than local kibitzing.
Entelechy on September 14, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Machiavelli Ho!!!
Nonfactor on September 14, 2007 at 3:29 PM
This is the definition of awesome.
Nonfactor on September 14, 2007 at 8:05 PM
Gotta say – even considering how ticked I was about his shamnesty support, I really appreciate his stand on the Middle East.
It’s more of the same beautiful plan I recognized in the beginning. We plant the flag in the muslim back yard and say to hell with their religious fantacism element that keeps them sequestered from playing nice with the rest of the world.
Now we emphatically make the point that we ain’t leaving. Time to grow up and join the 21st century. Good. Well done Mr. President. I’m with you.
warriorlawyer on September 15, 2007 at 12:17 PM
That’s what I thought too, Stormy. Are we the only ones who heard that? Maybe we were just hallucinating.
petefrt on September 15, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Nope! Hearing that just tickled me pink … without the code .. ;)
We don’t need no stinkin’ EXIT plan!
Texas Gal on September 15, 2007 at 4:32 PM
As I recall, the exit plan was to move from Iraq to Iran.
Remember the early pre-war analysis? There were three hard issues on the table–Iraq, Iran and Korea– and the debate raged for months over how to sequence our approach to them. NK was considered almost impossible, militarily. So the first engagement, as a practical matter, boiled down to either Iraq or Iran. Iraq was considered less difficult. Among the arguments for prioritizing Iraq over Iran were that it would be a good training ground and a beach head for the larger/longer fight in the Middle East.
petefrt on September 15, 2007 at 8:04 PM
Iraq and Afg = loose bricks in the wall. post saddam Anbar = post spanish Northern Phillipines. Shia East = Enemy Moros. Benevolency and ruthlessness, rehabilitation military doctrine. never use US military for reconstruction of strategic beachhead partners? 1899 Phillipines= 2007 Iraq. After the Phillipines we went on to bigger fish in Japan. Bush owns all of you.
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/yates.pdf
page 14-17
pc on September 16, 2007 at 9:52 AM
if us did not move when it did (knowing Bush would have 7 years to cement commitment) Saddam would have gradually weakened and his criminal sons fallen prey to a far more deadly Shite enemy. Iran would have fomented a copy cat people’s Islamic Revolution in population centers in Iraq and ouila! The Saudis and the rest get totally bullied and the west dances to Sauron’s tune. Not bloody likely!
pc on September 16, 2007 at 9:58 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2