Bush to address nation on Iraq


President Bush is expected to outline how the U.S.-led coalition occupying Iraq will hand over power to a new Iraqi government when he speaks Monday night at the Army War College, and members of Congress urged him not to skip the details.

Bush’s 8 p.m. ET televised speech in Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, is expected to run 30 to 35 minutes, the White House said Monday. It is the first of a number of planned presidential addresses on the topic in the weeks leading up to the June 30 handover.

Aides said Bush will outline a series of steps leading up to the handover and will discuss the U.S. role beyond that date – including the command structure for a proposed multinational force in Iraq after an interim government takes power.

Have the multinationals agreed to this? Anyway, ya’ll watch it and report back, ok? I’ll be playing tennis.

What a weird start!

The announcer sounded like he was at a basketball game.

“Ladies and Gentleman … your [b]President of the United States![/b]”

“Your” president? That’s an interesting change, it’s normally “the”.

Take my president. Please.

Tee hee. Bush tired four times unsuccessfully to pronounce “Abu Ghraib”.

I found it pretty shitty too, that he still insists that the abuses there were isolated to a small group of soldiers. Nice attempt to sweep it all under the carpet.

OK, I read the transcript and … he said absolutely not one thing that was new. The entire speech was a long litany of platitudes, with the only meat being the fact that we will hand off “full sovereignity” to an Iraqi government on June 30 and that we will provide security after that date and we will continue reconstruction after that date. No information on who the government actually will be.

So he had about 5 points we already knew and 20 minutes of useless platitudes. For a nationally televised speech.

He’s out of ideas. He got in over his head and he honest to God doesn’t know what to do. Its sad. I believe that in his heart Bush is internally sincere, just narrow minded, with limited knowledge, and lacking a problem solving mindset. I believe he actually means most of the platitudes that he states. However that’s not going to do us any good in the debacle that Iraq has become.

I believe he’s honestly going to be surprised by what happens after 6/30/04. But I’m not.


Is there anything he could’ve said?

I’ll answer my own question. Nothing Bush could say would solve any of the problems. Basically, the only strategy now is bail on June 30th and hope for the best. That’s really Bush’s only chance of re-election. Kerry would probably have to kill somebody to lose the election.

He said Abu Ghraib involved only a few American soldiers.

Let them do hard labor for life as long as I can get re-elected.

Well, he could have gone for a three-nation partition plan like’s been floating around. But he didn’t.

I expect things to go straight to hell after the handover.

Did he say “stay the course”? I live for that.

His handlers were evidently insisting it wasn’t a speech but ‘remarks’ according to the Hardball gang. I have no idea what that signifies if anything. And now today we have reports that the Pentagon left out possibly a couple thousand pages of the Taguba report. Senators, of both parties, are insisting they get the whole thing today or they’ll demand The Pentagon certify this is a complete report. If the latter happens, count on someone floating the actual report down the road.

Sheesh, this is a tough crowd!


AOL online poll results as of 6:00 AM West Coast Time:

How would you describe President Bush’s speech?
Unconvincing 58%
Convincing 42%

How would you rate President Bush’s handling of Iraq?
Poor 54%
Excellent 22%
Good 17%
Fair 7%

Total Votes: 198,978

Supposedly AOL trends pretty hard towards the conservative.
I wonder if 200,000 people is a large enough sample for Bob Cherub?

AOL pretty much sums up the trailerpark, NASCAR fan, “God Bless America” crowd, doesn’t it? :lol:


hee hee :lol:

AOL online poll results as of 6:00 AM West Coast Time:

As has been mentioned before, self-selected polls are meaningless. Still, Bush’s speech wasn’t good. To paraphrase Mickey Kaus, the election is turning into a race to the bottom. Depressing.

At some point, with a large enough sample size, and some tracking, you should still be able to pull a few interesting pieces of anectdotal data out of them, no?

Certainly more than, “My dad, who’s a conservative, said…”

Eventually, maybe, but 200,000 random people in a nation of nearly 300 million is not nearly enough, by an order of magnitude. A carefully targeted poll of 2000 people will provide more meaningful results.

Yeah, it really wasn’t the type of inspiring speech that he needed at this point. Time to fire the speechwriters.

And it is getting depressing. Kerry hasn’t brought forward anything substantively different in how he would handle the situation. His main theme has been “reach out to our allies.” There’s already a proposal being developed on the U.N. floor, and when pressed Kerry has no answer to what he means by that other than hoping that Germany and France and some others will suddenly decide to jump into the situation with us. Right - like they’ll do anything at all that will make any real difference. Kerry hasn’t disagreed with the June 30 date, hasn’t proposed any plan for pulling out the troops (or putting more in,) etc.

So he’s not taking advantage by offering any vision on the situation, and there isn’t any magic that Bush (or, IMO, anyone) can pull that will suddenly make the Iraqi people and the insurgents and the terrorists and the coalition join hands and sing Kum By Yah. The fact is that a democracy and self-determining government in that region is going to be a long, difficult process - they’re surrounded by people to whom a thriving democracy is a major threat to their power, and it would be foolish to think there’s an easy path. Iraq will be the subject of terrorist attacks for as long as they are a democratic culture and nation and they are surrounded by militant and terrorist nations. The only “easy” answer is to pull out and leave them to be taken over by the insurgents and terrorists.

Salon made the interesting (to me at least) observation that his repeated mangling of “Abu Ghraib” gave the impression that he hasn’t been using the name in the last few weeks/months. Which makes you wonder if he really is paying attention to anything.