 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Today's Reading List | Main | Customer Service Rave: Hertz » November 30, 2005LA Times Ignores Key Points of Bush's Iraq SpeechThe Los Angeles Times story on President Bush's very fine speech today to Regarding the training of a new Iraqi army, the LAT wrote: During especially difficult combat operations last year in and around the insurgent stronghold of Fallouja, west of Baghdad, many Iraqi units simply melted away once the fighting began.But the LAT fails to mention that, since Fallouja, there has been very good progress - as Bush outlined in his speech: The progress of the Iraqi forces is especially clear when the recent anti-terrorist operations in Tal Afar are compared with last year's assault in Fallujah. In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition battalions made up primarily of United States Marines and Army -- with six Iraqi battalions supporting them. The Iraqis fought and sustained casualties. Yet in most situations, the Iraqi role was limited to protecting the flanks of coalition forces, and securing ground that had already been cleared by our troops. This year in TAL Afar, it was a very different story.Why did the LAT leave that out? Perhaps because the contrast makes it clear that Bush's strategy is showing progress. Regarding the same subject of training Iraqi security forces - the centerpiece of Bush's Iraq victory strategy - the LAT wrote: Two months ago, Army Gen. George W. Casey, commander of the multinational force in Iraq, told a Senate hearing that only one of the 100 Iraqi military battalions formed over the previous two years was fully trained and equipped and capable of operating independently.Bush also addressed that - but the LAT left out what he said: Some critics dismiss this progress and point to the fact that only one Iraqi battalion has achieved complete independence from the coalition. To achieve complete independence, an Iraqi battalion must do more than fight the enemy on its own -- it must also have the ability to provide its own support elements, including logistics, airlift, intelligence, and command and control through their ministries. Not every Iraqi unit has to meet this level of capability in order for the Iraqi security forces to take the lead in the fight against the enemy. As a matter of fact, there are some battalions from NATO militaries that would not be able to meet this standard.Why did the LAT again avoid presenting the other side? Perhaps because they don't want to present the other side - it undermines their contention that the war is going badly. Does anyone still wonder why so many people distrust the mainstream media? President Bush's speech was a complete and factually detailed refutation of the claims of some on the Left that we are losing in Iraq and a strong rejection of the call from the defeat-mongers of the Left for a rapid withdrawal of American forces. I recommend you read the whole thing You also should read eveything Instapundit is linking to related to Bush's speech and the new Iraq strategy documents being released. Click here and here. Posted in War on Terror
Comments
Minor correction, Bill, but the speech wasn't to the "graduates at the U.S. Naval Academy" but to the current midshipmen there.... Oh and BEAT ARMY! Posted by: JFH at November 30, 2005 1:34 PMSorry for the mistake - I thought it was a commencement speech, so I wrote "graduates" when I should have written midshipmen. Not sure why I thought it was a commencement speech given that it is December... Wow, how great must that have been for the soon-to-be-graduates to hear speech that directly addresses their very near future, from the commander-in-chief. I listened to it on the radio this morning, and loved the thunderous applause from the midshipmen when Bush declared: "Decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgment of our commanders - not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington." As for the Army-Navy game, In my childhood years growing up in the Philly suburbs there were only two college football games that really mattered - Penn State v. Pitt (we rooted for Penn State) and Army v. Navy. We rooted for Army because my dad was in the Army Corps of Engineers, in Germany in the early 1950s. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at November 30, 2005 2:00 PMBill, It was a great speech. It's unforgivable that it won't be honestly reported by certain elements of the leftist MSM. As a Canadian it's my observation that the greatest threat to America's security comes from within your own borders. Now that you have your guard up the Islamofascists can't inflict further grievous injury upon you without help from the inside. Unfortunately the enemy is getting a lot of help from the Democrats and their cohorts in the MSM. Dissent is everyone's democratic right, but so is calling a spade a spade. These people place a higher value on partisanship than patriotism even during a war that they voted for. Disgusting. Young Americans are dying needlessly because of this orgy of dishonest unjustified criticism of the war effort. (E.g. saying there is no plan when in fact the plan is obvious to anyone with a brain) It's not the effect of this criticism on the morale of your troops that concerns me, it is the effect on the morale of the enemy. Why should they quit when so many in America in positions of authority and influence are telling the world that they (the insurgents) are winning. Posted by: Terry Gain at November 30, 2005 3:17 PM"...it must also have the ability to provide its own support elements, including logistics, airlift, intelligence, and command and control through their ministries.... As a matter of fact, there are some battalions from NATO militaries that would not be able to meet this standard." Nice of him not to actually say..."Why not one battalion of the Canadian army can meet that standard." G.
LA Times reporter probably didn't include it because he/she doesn't believe it. Your commentary is insightful. Everyone who complains that Bush doesn't do enough to get his side of the story out should look at this. When he does make a major speech, the MSM turns it into a summary of what's going wrong. The signal to noise ratio is beyond the casual reader's ability to close the link to what the president says. The administration's story has been there for several years. The media has edited it, ellipsed it, and truncated it to where it is not recognizable. Is it any wonder that Bush considers it a losing proposition to attempt to communicate through the media? Wasn't it just last week that the LAT front page carried the Murtha pull out recomendation; included his picture? Well this week the paper doesn't even mention Senator Liberman's column in the Wall Street Journal cited in his view, after just returning from Iraq, that progress is being made and that to pull out now would be wrong. Posted by: Tom Bullock at November 30, 2005 6:54 PMIn his speech today (see link below), President Bush subtly rebuked the NYT by quoting the portion of a letter written by fallen Marine Corporal Jeff Starr which had been selectively edited by the NYT in a story in which the NYT falsely suggested that Starr believed that he was about to die for a mistake. (See e.g., http://instapundit.com/archives/026657.php) The portion of CPL Starr's letter omitted by the NYT - and quoted by Bush today - makes it clear that Starr believed in his mission. Here is the excerpt from Bush's speech that diplomatically rebuked the NYT's deceitfulness regarding CPL Starr: "One of those fallen heroes is a Marine corporal named Jeff Starr, who was killed fighting the terrorists in Ramadi earlier this year. After he died, a letter was found on his laptop computer. Here's what he wrote. He said, "If you're reading this, then I've died in Iraq. I don't regret going. Everybody dies but a few get to do it for something as important as freedom. "It may seem confusing why we're in Iraq; it's not to me. I'm here helping these people so they can live the way we live, not to have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. Others have died for my freedom; now this is my mark." There's only one way to honor the sacrifice of Corporal Starr and his fallen comrades. And that is to take up their mantle, carry on the fight and complete their mission. We will take the fight to the terrorists. We will help the Iraqi people lay the foundations of a strong democracy that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself. And by laying the foundations of freedom in Iraq, we will lay the foundation of peace for generations to come. " Here is a link (from DRUDGE) to the full text of the Bush speech: Posted by: Reader at November 30, 2005 11:20 PMFirst off, I have to join with Bill and say, BEAT NAVY! And, Bill, I also was initially thinking it was a commencement speech, before I rememembered the date. But my excuse was that it's 80 degrees out here. Though, in your defense, there are actually a handful of December grads at the academies. I was one of them. So for those mids who graduate later this month, it was a commencement speech of sorts. In 2002 President Bush gave the commencement address to the graduating Cadets at West Point. I remember several in the media wondering why he was addressing the war on terror and a looming war with Iraq during a commencement address. I guess they thought that new lieutenants wanted to hear the same banal pabalum that the rest of America's 22-year olds are subjected to every May. In late '87 or early '88, President Reagan came to speak at West Point. His address signalled a shift in our strategy with the USSR. My point is that the nation's military academies have long been a suitable backdrop and audience for a presidents' major foreign policy addresses. Oh, and, BEAT NAVY! Posted by: Bob K at December 1, 2005 12:00 AMThis most detailed, thoroughly documented speech was instantly dismissed by Democrats who still offer us nothing more than their agenda of defeat. Imagine how much more quickly we could win this war if Democrats who were FOR the war before they were AGAINST it stopped playing politics and united for the common goal: VICTORY! Posted by: Mike's America at December 1, 2005 1:47 AMI was looking this morning for some Army-Navy related video on the website of CBS 3 Philadelphia, kyw.com/video, and ended up watching CBS 3's report from yesterday on the President's speech. Here is how the clip was introduced by the noon-time anchor: "Democrats are calling President Bush's latest speech on the war in Iraq 'tired rhetoric.' This morning the President outlined his plan for victory, but those looking for a timeline on bringing the troops home will be disappointed. We have more now from Aleen Sirgany in Maryland..." What followed was a standard report, 3 clips of the prez amounting to 21 seconds and a 10 second clip of some guy named John Kerry. The President gives a major speech, and Democrat talking points are the first and last things heard. Hrmmph. Oh yes, BEAT NAVY! Away, away, we go, Terry Gain, in his comment, captures the essence of our problem in America. An ignorant, or worse, complicit 5th column of the enemy within our borders armed with megaphones. Posted by: jimmy at December 2, 2005 9:55 AMGo NAVY! BEAT ARMY! That tropy will stay right where it is for another year... I watch exactly one football game every year, and it is tomorrow! Navy '83 I don't have a subscription to the LA Times: did they print Bush's speech in full? I know that for most major presidential speeches, the NY Times does. It only seems the fair thing to do. Posted by: Grace Nearing at December 2, 2005 6:36 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
