What the Clown actually said...

The question should have been asked throughout the speech… In what world is the president of the United States living? Larisa Alexandrovna nails her analysis of Bush's spech last night.

The President's speech took some time to understand, but after several passes over the transcript, it became clear that cutting troops in Iraq was not the centerpiece, although that is likely what everyone will focus on. The NYT transcript is HERE. He begins as follows (emph mine):

"In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq’s government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home. If Iraq’s young democracy can turn back these enemies, it will mean a more hopeful Middle East and a more secure America. This ally has placed its trust in the United States. And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours."


What is important in this speech is not the standard proclamations of love for democracy (of which there are many) by this President and his administration - which we all know has nothing to do with this war and never did. Nor does this speech have anything to do with helping to protect Iraq from her enemies (thinly defined and mentioned often). Rather, what is important about this speech is the future-tense the President refers to while using the myth of success to justify his future plans.

More importantly, what the President is doing with this speech is introducing the official scapegoat for HIS Iraq failures and proclaiming his own vision vindicated by the "success" of the "surge," or as rational people have called it, more dead Americans and more dead Iraqis. Most importantly, he lays out his goals - or at least my understanding of what his goals appear to be:

• To re-establish a link between Iraq and the war on terror - despite the fact that there was no terrorism in Iraq before the US arrived. The war on terror is profitable and politically useful. The Republicans need it to use against the Democrats because the politics of fear no longer work (which is why so many from the right are wishing for another September 11).
• To shift the blame for the Iraq disaster away from the Bush administration
• To frame Iran for the failure of Iraq
The President tells us in the last line of his opening paragraph what he intends to do in the near future:

"This ally has placed its trust in the United States. And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours."

He first has to remind us, however, of what he has already done, what a success that has been, and how important the Iraq war is to the national security of the United States. That means, that in order to justify what he is going to do - as yet undefined - in the future, he first has to tell us just how scary our enemy - Al Qaeda - is.

But this is also a very clever way to allude to the attacks of September 11 and the relationship of those attacks to Iraq and the "war on terror." We know that no such relationship existed, so his speech writer cleverly creates the impression rather than stating it outright.

The Al Qaeda meme
"Anbar Province is a good example of how our strategy is working. Last year, an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to Al Qaeda. Some cited this report as evidence that we had failed in Iraq and should cut our losses and pull out. Instead, we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local people were suffering under the Taliban-like rule of Al Qaeda, and they were sick of it. So they asked us for help."

On a side note, this entire paragraph is a lie. We have ignored the Taliban by and large in order to focus on Iraq. We have ignored Al Qaeda by and large, in order to fight the war in Iraq. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we arrived, and after we arrived we promptly labeled every foreign fighter as "Al Qaeda in Iraq," regardless of their actual affiliation with any terrorist group, if at all.
The Al Qaeda meme has evolved into something entirely different than what it meant shortly after the attacks of September 11. The enemy is no longer mostly made up of Saudi nationals, funded by some high level Saudis, trained in Pakistan. No, Al Qaeda has now become like the Taliban, rooted somehow in Iraq and ruling with a mighty fist. Al Qaeda is every foreign fighter and every Iraqi fighting against the US occupation. Al Qaeda is an enemy that can be molded to fit any agenda too, that is perhaps the most important benefit of this transformation.
The reality is that IF there is an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq, it is largely due to the contingent of foreign fighters from Saudi Arabia, who are in fact Sunni. But as you will soon see, after six years, the Sunni extremists have now reformed - just now and you will also see that Al Qaeda is once again rooted in Iraq:

"To take advantage of this opportunity, I sent an additional 4,000 marines to Anbar as part of the surge. Together, local sheiks, Iraqi forces, and coalition troops drove the terrorists from the capital of Ramadi and other population centers. Today, a city where Al Qaeda once planted its flag is beginning to return to normal. Anbar citizens who once feared beheading for talking to an American or Iraqi soldier now come forward to tell us where the terrorists are hiding. Young Sunnis who once joined the insurgency are now joining the army and police. And with the help of our provincial reconstruction teams, new jobs are being created and local governments are meeting again."

Al Qaeda had long "planted its flag" in Pakistan and built its army out of Saudi nationals. Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda at all and whatever Al Qaeda elements did develop in Iraq, those were the direct result of the US created chaos in the region and the funding of Saudi interests. But you can see that what the President is saying is that Al Qaeda came from Iraq and without actually saying it, he creates the impression that the attacks of September 11 are related to the Iraq war and the so called "war on terror." He also appears to claim, although I may be reading into this a bit much - is that the Sunni extremists - from whom Al Qaeda was born by the way - has now reformed, leaving the question open as to who Al Qaeda is made up of.

He again separates Al Qaeda from its history and gives the impression that it is a Shia group:

"These developments do not often make the headlines, but they do make a difference. During my visit to Anbar on Labor Day, local Sunni leaders thanked me for America’s support. They pledged they would never allow Al Qaeda to return. And they told me they now see a place for their people in a democratic Iraq. The Sunni governor of Anbar Province put it this way: “Our tomorrow starts today.”'

The reality is that the local Sunni leaders are aiding the Sunni foreign fighters and whatever Al Qaeda elements are in Iraq, were brought in by the Sunni elements. Why then is history being rewritten to absolutely leave out the Saudis, the actual make-up of Al Qaeda, and the actual reality on the ground in Iraq?


The New Plans

To recap what we have been told thus far, the President has managed to tie Iraq to the war on terror and Iraq to the origins of Al Qaeda and create the perception that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Having reaffirmed his war on terror motto and rewritten history to redefine the enemy. He is now ready to deliver the new plans:

"Because of this success, General Petraeus believes we have now reached the point where we can maintain our security gains with fewer American forces. He has recommended that we not replace about 2,200 marines scheduled to leave Anbar Province later this month. In addition, he says it will soon be possible to bring home an Army combat brigade, for a total force reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas."

Do you think for a moment that a man who has yet to admit any mistakes, is arrogant enough to continue to lie despite all facts to the contrary, and a man who has for nearly four years ignored all reality on the ground in Iraq, would suddenly see progress enough to withdraw troops? Ironically, he uses the same argument of why we should stay the course in Iraq as he does for why he will be pulling forces out.

Do you believe him? If you do, then why did he start his speech with this:

"And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours."

I find it remarkably unsettling to say the least. Now, pay close attention to the last sentence of the next part of the speech:

"General Petraeus also recommends that in December, we begin transitioning to the next phase of our strategy in Iraq. As terrorists are defeated, civil society takes root, and the Iraqis assume more control over their own security, our mission in Iraq will evolve. Over time, our troops will shift from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces. As this transition in our mission takes place, our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counterterrorism operations and training, equipping and supporting Iraqi forces."

What is the mission that we are transitioning from? Does anyone know? I don't. If it was democracy - which was not what we were told before the war, then we have failed.

If it was to locate WMDs, what we were in fact told, then we were setup to fail because none existed. If it was to fight the mythical "war on terror," then we invaded the wrong country. If it was to destroy Al Qaeda, then we created a whole new and larger movement against us. So what is the mission that we are transitioning from exactly? And what exactly are "counterterrorism" operations in the theater of war?

He then once again switches to crafting the perception that the Iraq war has something to do with our national security, which in fact, has been made worse by our adventure.

"Americans want our country to be safe and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home."

The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States. A free Iraq will deny Al Qaeda a safe haven. A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. A free Iraq will marginalize extremists, unleash the talent of its people, and be an anchor of stability in the region. A free Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East. A free Iraq will be our partner in the fight against terror — and that will make us safer here at home.

I again remind you that Al Qaeda's safe haven is in Pakistan and there was no Al Qaeda cell in Iraq before the Bush administration's war on that country. So why all of this trouble to rewrite history, redefine the enemy, and create the impression that Al Qaeda was born out of Iraq?

Who is the actual enemy? Perhaps the answers come in the last part of the speech, although not directly, but effectively.

We are here:

"If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened. Al Qaeda could gain new recruits and new sanctuaries. Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region. Extremists could control a key part of the global energy supply. Iraq could face a humanitarian nightmare. Democracy movements would be violently reversed. We would leave our children to face a far more dangerous world. And as we saw on September the 11th, 2001, those dangers can reach our cities and kill our people."

He has now defined the enemy as Al Qaeda and Iran, despite the fact that Al Qaeda, Iraq, and Iran have nothing to do with one another and did not even come up in the same context until this President attacked Iraq. He also tells us that it is this enemy who controls the global energy supply and in that statement is the buried definition of the actual "mission." We are fighting an energy war to wrest control of resources from oil rich countries and anyone who will not comply with our demands in any oil rich nation, is the enemy. Iraq's leadership was the enemy because the oil rich nation would not play ball on the energy front. We now control that resource. Iran is now the next enemy, tied now to Al Qaeda, because Iran will also not comply. The enemy - Al Qaeda - who was once real, has now become officially any "extremist" in control of the "global energy supply."

But he tells us again that Al Qaeda and Iran are the enemy, just in case we may have missed it it the first time:

"Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East. We should be able to agree that we must defeat Al Qaeda, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land, and strengthen our military so we can prevail in the struggle against terrorists and extremists."

On a side note, I do, want to address Mr. Bush's questions to the American people here, because his seeming attempt to reach out to the public and across political lines is incredibly manipulative.

1. Yes, we all agree that "America has a vital interest" in defeating Al Qaeda. No question. Despite party lines, we all agree. But why then are we fighting inside Iraq and not Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?
2. Yes, of course we can agree that it is in America's interest to prevent chaos in the Middle East. No question. Despite our political leanings, we all agree. But why then are we in Iraq and why did we abandon Afghanistan without securing the nation and its people?
3. Yes, of course we should work for peace in the "Holy Land." No question. We all agree despite our personal politics. But why then are we arming Saudi Arabia, a nation that won't even acknowledge Israel as a country and why are we starving the Palestinian people as pay back for their election of Hamas, which occurred precisely because we made no effort toward peace in the Holy Land? Does that sound like an attempt toward peace?

You see, his questions are very manipulative, because he wants unity from us - the people he has waged all out political warfare against and he wants us to put our differences aside for a single cause, but the cause itself is a lie.

And if you missed the Al Qaeda/Iran connection the first two times, don't worry, he will remind you once again of who the new enemy is:

"To Iraq’s neighbors who seek peace: The violent extremists who target Iraq are also targeting you. The best way to secure your interests and protect your own people is to stand with the people of Iraq. That means using your economic and diplomatic leverage to strengthen the government in Baghdad. And it means the efforts by Iran and Syria to undermine that government must end."

Remember, the majority of foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudi nationals, but that country is never once mentioned. Pakistan, the absolute safe haven for Al Qaeda is not mentioned. The two countries most closely associated with Al Qaeda are not mentioned at all and are in fact US allies in the "war on terror." Why? And who do you suppose he is talking to when he addresses "Iraq's neighbors?" What do you suppose he means by "who seek peace?"

What I think he means - and I may very well be wrong - is that any other oil rich nation who wants peace with the US must not interfere, not resist, and actually help the Bush administration take control of the oil rich resources in the Middle East. To that end, he has re-introduced the war on terror as a war against extremists in the Middle East, re-branded Al Qaeda as a child of Iraqi extremism and of Shia makeup, and called the adventure of this war a success. Why?

The real speech is...

In my view, if you take out all the filler, that is, all of the items not in bold, you get a real sense of what is being said, here is the summary version:
1. We were asked by the Iraqis to help defend them from Al Qaeda, an Iraqi evil that attacked us on September 11, 2001.
2. We defended the Iraqis against Al Qaeda and they were appreciative and vowed to continue what we started, so our mission to come to the defense of the Iraqi people was a success.
3. But other countries (Iran) and groups (Al Qaeda) keep interfering, killing Iraqis and Americans alike, despite all of our progress.
4. We won't be safe from another 9/11 attack until we secure Iraq, which we cannot do because Iran and Al Qaeda won't let us.
5. Iran, Syria, and Al Qaeda are the real problem, not our efforts to secure Iraq, which have proved a success.
6. Patriotic Americans will understand this, despite their party affiliations, they understand that until Iraq is secure, we are not safe, and we cannot secure Iraq because of Al Qaeda and Iran.
7. Those in the region and elsewhere better take sides now, because you are either with us (our energy war) "for peace" or against us - terrorists - who will not have peace.
8. We have a moral obligation to the Iraqi people and an security obligation to our own country to ally ourselves with Iraq as she defends herself from Al Qaeda and Iran.
9. The leaders of Iraq and the United States have agreed to defend Iraq from terrorism from Al Qaeda and interference from Iran, who is likely soon to have WMD to use against the entire region.
10. We must secure Iraq and stop the enemy (any country, but for the present Iran, who controls the global energy market).

See also this and this.