The President used his radio address this week to talk about his scheduled meeting on Wednesday with congressional leaders over the Iraq war funding bill dispute. The President started off by accusing the Congress of not meeting their responsibilities to fund his war. “When we meet on Wednesday, I look forward to hearing how Members of Congress plan to meet their responsibilities and provide our troops with the funding they need. Supporting our troops is a solemn responsibility of all elected officials in Washington, D.C. So 68 days ago, I sent Congress an emergency war spending bill that would provide the vital funds needed for our troops on the front lines,” Bush said. (By the way, Congress did carry out their responsibilities and pass a funding bill. There is a difference between not passing a bill and passing a bill that the president will veto).
He continued, “But instead of approving this funding, Democrats in Congress have spent the past 68 days pushing legislation that would undercut our troops. They passed bills that would impose restrictions on our military commanders and set an arbitrary date for withdrawal from Iraq, giving our enemies the victory they desperately want.” (Notice the revival of the old tried and true administration tactic, of labeling any disagreement with their policy, support of the enemy. In this administration’s mind you are still either with them or against them).
“I recognize that Republicans and Democrats in Washington have differences over the best course in Iraq, and we should vigorously debate those differences. But our troops should not be trapped in the middle. They have been waiting for this money long enough. Congress must now work quickly and pass a clean bill that funds our troops, without artificial time lines for withdrawal, without handcuffing our generals on the ground, and without extraneous domestic spending.” (This is a good point about the troops, but what exactly is a “clean bill?” If you accept that the bill that the White House wants is clean, then by definition congressional Democrats want a “dirty bill” that is bad for the country and aids the enemy. The president is trying to frame the debate on this issue by defining the terms used in the discussion).
“When Americans went to the polls last November, they did not vote for politicians to substitute their judgment for the judgment of our commanders on the ground. And they certainly did not vote to make peanut storage projects part of the funding for our troops,” the president said. (Perhaps the president needs a quick civics lesson; we live in a representative democracy. That means that often our elected officials have to use their own judgment when they vote. The president can’t seem to accept the fact that the Democratic position on Iraq is a reflection of the view of the majority of Americans).
“The American people voted for change in Iraq, and that is exactly what our new commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, is working to achieve. And they expect their elected leaders to support our men and women on the front lines, so they have every resource they need to complete their mission,” Bush said. (The American people voted for Democrats in 2006, because they wanted a brand new strategy, which would lead to the troops coming home. They did not vote for a new commander to carry out the same tactics with even more troops).
Since I first started writing about these weekly radio addresses a few weeks ago, this is the first one that was a major disappointment. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the administration, it is nice to get an unfiltered point of view. I usually include more of the president’s address and less of my remarks, but this week’s talk was just a rehash of last week. The president tried a different argument, but it was weaker than the one he used last week. Overall he has sounded like a broken record on the issue of Iraq for years now, and Saturday’s address was no different.
Full text of President Bush’s weekly radio address
Jason Easley is the editor of the politics zone at 411mania.com. His news column The Political Universe appears on Tuesdays and Fridays at www.411mania.com/politics
Jason can also be heard every Sunday afternoon at 1:30 pm (ET) as the host of The Political Universe Radio Show at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/thepoliticaluniverse
Loading ...
1 user commented in " President Bush’s Weekly Radio Address 4/14/07 "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackback‘Pullout of Iraq in 08, and Bush veto’ is not a plan
I believe that a time line for the pull out of Iraq in HR 1591 is not a plan, but does provide the opportunity to account for proposed plans. But without a real plan, given a time line, the Republican vision of a blow out in the region with a Iranian and Saudi dynamic is a reasonable probability; and that any anticipated American interests would also loose strategic ground.
I suggests that by adding an amendment that a comprehensive plan must be provided that includes political solutions for Iraq as a condition, then the time line can be honored.
Consider, for the Iraqi people to be considered freed that this means free from turmoil and civil war. In this manner, the United States would accomplish its stated mission to free the Iraqi people; and there would be no question from the world of American honor and leadership which has cost over 3,000 American lives, and severely wounded upwards of over 30,000 other brave American soldiers.
I do believe that time lines are critically important when it comes to milestones. For Iraq, besides telling the so-called insurgents, and Prime Minister Nnuri Kamel Al-maliki’s Iraqi government that it’s time to act, it also affords the opportunity to start putting political solutions on the table which the Iraqi people, including the Sunnis and Shiites, in all fairness can and are compelled to consider. This is regardless of their leanings toward Iran and Saudi Arabia. It’s a matter of what political solutions are put on the table.
I see that the standing Iraqi government as a political solution is not strategically viable as it is part cause of the Civil war. I further view that phased withdrawal regardless of not announcing as to when, could make remaining American troops, in being fewer in number, even easier targets. By suggesting this strategy is also playing toward the safe side, as in defering the political solution to the Iraqi government with a passive solice that it is now only in their hands.
I suggest that as responsible interests, in parallel to the 08′ time line, the United states should work with the UN to deliberate plans that can then be presented to Iraq for consideration. Consider, that the 12 million people who did vote, given other options might have voted for something else, where there could even have been a greater turn out. Given plans that are ultimately sponsored by the UN, and backed by the United States for Iraq to vote on, civil war would at least have a cease fire from neighbor killing neighbor in the heart of Baghdad.
I also believe that this strategy would give Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, John Edwards, and other Election 08′ Presidential Candidates, the ideal opportunity to provide clear, decisive and responsible plans even before the Election Primaries. For that matter it also tells the United Nations to get working !
I propose a plan at unity2008.org . This plan accounts for the fact that like the Kurds, any culture, such as the Shiites, and Sunnis want their own Sovereignty; and therefore have their dignity within their own autonomy. And that this should be the starting point of any plan to be considered for stewarding political solutions as it is the cause of the Civil War.
The Daley Plan, aka ‘Peace with Dignity’ ( as listed in Google ) was written in 2004. It proposes 3 sovereign nations of Iraq that have fairly shared their resources such as Oil; and that as sovereign nations, have full UN representation and protection from their neighbors, and are able to become part of OPEC; and that Iraq decides the government model for each new nation.
I believe that by having sovereign nations, there is also less potential of an Iranian, or Saudi dynamic compared to when in civil war; and the momentum of Jihad from outside interests will dissolve. Any presence of Al Qaeda would be come resented by the 3 nations of Iraq.
In my plan, each of the 3 nations being sovereign, are able to invite foreign interest as they see fit. The United States I believe would be a welcomed guest, and one of the more attractive investment sources and strategic partner in any one of their economies. This is due to having demonstrated an honorable interest in them as a people in the first place.
But at a minimum, , to require a plan for the time line demonstrates unquestionable responsibility of Congress, where the $100 billion in additional spending toward military operations ONLY in Iraq and Afghanistan can be achieved, and where other needed and outstanding domestic funding is no longer viewed as pork by the Republicans.
I also dismisses the view that American solders fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq prevents terrorists in the war on terror from coming over here in boat loads in order to invade our shores. In fact this is reminiscent of the Nixon warning that in leaving Vietnam that the communists would invade our shores. The Vietnamese invite Amercians now as tourists to Hanoi.
Further our National Guard better serves a much needed purpose in guarding and protecting our borders and ports as opposed to building walls between countries and leaving our ports unprotected.
The bottom line is that in not having the Timeline 08′, there is no budget, and without executive branch agreement, there is no time line. If we write to our representatives about this on both sides of the aisle then they are on notice that a responsible and timely solution is expected from our representation.
Sincerely Yours,
Orion Karl Daley
Presidential Candidate for 2008
for the Strategic Future of our nation
Balanced Party NYC, NY
Leave A Reply