Last night, I did something out of the ordinary. I made a point of watching President Bush deliver an address to the nation on television. (Granted, I was actively dissociating during much of the speech, but I still watched it.) Usually, I avoid such fare like the plague or telephone calls from telemarketers. Why risk a spike in my blood pressure or a potential seizure if I don’t have to? In any regard, I was struck by how nervous Bush seemed. Perhaps that had something to do with the fact that he delivered the speech from outside the Green Zone of the Oval Office, i.e., in the less familiar and comfortable environs of the White House library. Perhaps that had something to do with the fact that he was facing the tough job of selling snake oil to a public that had already tasted and rejected the foul elixir. No matter, the President plowed ahead and pitched his plan to send some 21,500 more troops into harm’s way in Iraq. In largely rejecting the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, any number of military and political leaders, and the vast majority of Americans, Bush made it abundantly clear who’s in charge. He is The Decider (although, when it comes to confronting harsh reality, he appears more like The Denier). And he has made a decision that, at best, delays the inevitable and, at worst, incites greater violence and causes greater calamity to both American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. Sadly, it is a no-win situation.
Here is the New York Times‘ take on the President’s speech:
President Bush told Americans last night that failure in Iraq would be a disaster. The disaster is Mr. Bush’s war, and he has already failed. Last night was his chance to stop offering more fog and be honest with the nation, and he did not take it.
Americans needed to hear a clear plan to extricate United States troops from the disaster that Mr. Bush created. What they got was more gauzy talk of victory in the war on terrorism and of creating a “young democracy� in Iraq. In other words, a way for this president to run out the clock and leave his mess for the next one.
Mr. Bush did acknowledge that some of his previous tactics had failed. But even then, the president sounded as if he were an accidental tourist in Iraq. He described the failure of last year’s effort to pacify Baghdad as if the White House and the Pentagon bore no responsibility.
In any case, Mr. Bush’s excuses were tragically inadequate. The nation needs an eyes-wide-open recognition that the only goal left is to get the U.S. military out of this civil war in a way that could minimize the slaughter of Iraqis and reduce the chances that the chaos Mr. Bush unleashed will engulf Iraq’s neighbors.
What it certainly did not need were more of Mr. Bush’s open-ended threats to Iran and Syria.
Before Mr. Bush spoke, Americans knew he planned to send more troops to pacify lawless Baghdad. Mr. Bush’s task was to justify that escalation by acknowledging that there was no military solution to this war and outlining the political mission that the military would be serving. We were waiting for him to detail the specific milestones that he would set for the Iraqis, set clear timelines for when they would be expected to meet them, and explain what he intended to do if they again failed.
Instead, he said he had warned the Iraqis that if they didn’t come through, they would lose the faith of the American people. Has Mr. Bush really not noticed that the American people long ago lost faith in the Iraqi government — and in him as well? Americans know that this Iraqi government is captive to Shiite militias, with no interest in the unity, reconciliation and democracy that Mr. Bush says he wants. [full text]
Kmareka.com 
I remember my mother telling me about some point in the Vietnam war when it seemed to her like everyone could have gotten on their knees and begged Nixon to end the war, and he wouldn’t. I am not familiar with this time in history (I was a toddler/preschooler in the Vietnam era) but I wonder (if my mother’s description is accurate) if we have reached another point in history where a president simply will not yield to the will of his people. Hmmm.
Anyone who remembers this, I’d be interested to hear your comparative analysis.
How do we measure the will of the people? Your mother might remember this point in time, but history tells us is didn’t actually exist. President Nixon was re-elected in a landslide over his anti-war opponent in November of 1972. In January 1973 he negotiated with North Vietnam an end to American involvement.
I think the same is being said today. While the media and poll takers attempt to tell us the will of the people, the truth is that we re-elected George Bush president. Until 2008, that is the only gauge that I trust.
Interesting. On a totally unrelated note, I have my own second toddler now, and yesterday she ran 20 laps around the inside center of the house. It was kind of remarkable. There are these little moments in parenting that tell you something new about your child. This is the kind of thing my mother is always urging me to write down.
…the truth is that we re-elected GWB president…
Gosh, was I dreaming, or didn’t we have another election a couple of months ago? In this dream, all of the Repubs did everything they could to distance themselves from the Pres and his failed policies. Then, the people spoke so loudly that both houses of congress transferred to Dem control.
Oh wait–that was real! So it seems we can safely infer that the choice of 2004 has been superseded by the choice of 2006. The moment has come, the people have spoken, and they’ve vehemently repudiated the boy-king and what he stands for.