The President’s Address To The Nation
Just got done watching the address. I thought it was well done, if not exactly anything new. The President re-iterated the things we need to keep in mind regarding Iraq and he's correct on just about every one of them down the line. We must stay the course and not leave until the mission is over lest the loss of soldiers lives in Iraq be in vain. That's clear to anyone without a deep-seated partisan interest in seeing the President fail even at the expense of democracy in Iraq.
Even Gen. Wesley Clark, one of the most outspoken critics of the President and the war in Iraq during his campaign for the Democrat nomination last year, came out in support of the President and the war in Iraq in an interview on Hannity & Colmes tonight. We must complete the mission in Iraq.
Failing to do so will only leave us worse off than we were before the war.
One thing I did think the President could have done better is to contrast the difference between the middle east before the invasion of Iraq and the middle east now. He made brief mention of Libya and other things, but I think he could have done better. He should have talked more about the elections in Iraq and the fact that women got to vote and run for office in them. He should have talked more about the elections in Afghanistan. He should have talked more about how the people of Lebanon were inspired by the liberation of Iraq and rose up in protest to drive out the Syrian soldiers who were occupying their country.
In short, the President should have done more to highlight the good things in Iraq and the progress has been made. All the things the media ignores on a daily basis. But he didn't, and because of that I think his speech will probably be less effective in changing the public's current attitude toward the war in Iraq than he wanted.
Update:
I see the President's mention of 9/11 is already getting some attention from the press. Anti-war advocates will no doubt soon be claiming that the President's intent was to say that Saddam Hussein somehow played a role in 9/11. Clearly that isn't true and any reasonable person read the text of the President's speech would agree that he meant that we should not forget who it is we are fighting in Iraq. That country, under Saddam's leadership, became a safe haven for extreme Islamic terrorists. Not the same terrorists who planned and executed the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but people like them.
The point was to draw a comparison, not say that they were one in the same. And the comparison is apt, though lost on those who long ago made up their minds to hate the President and all that he stands for.
Even Gen. Wesley Clark, one of the most outspoken critics of the President and the war in Iraq during his campaign for the Democrat nomination last year, came out in support of the President and the war in Iraq in an interview on Hannity & Colmes tonight. We must complete the mission in Iraq.
Failing to do so will only leave us worse off than we were before the war.
One thing I did think the President could have done better is to contrast the difference between the middle east before the invasion of Iraq and the middle east now. He made brief mention of Libya and other things, but I think he could have done better. He should have talked more about the elections in Iraq and the fact that women got to vote and run for office in them. He should have talked more about the elections in Afghanistan. He should have talked more about how the people of Lebanon were inspired by the liberation of Iraq and rose up in protest to drive out the Syrian soldiers who were occupying their country.
In short, the President should have done more to highlight the good things in Iraq and the progress has been made. All the things the media ignores on a daily basis. But he didn't, and because of that I think his speech will probably be less effective in changing the public's current attitude toward the war in Iraq than he wanted.
Update:
I see the President's mention of 9/11 is already getting some attention from the press. Anti-war advocates will no doubt soon be claiming that the President's intent was to say that Saddam Hussein somehow played a role in 9/11. Clearly that isn't true and any reasonable person read the text of the President's speech would agree that he meant that we should not forget who it is we are fighting in Iraq. That country, under Saddam's leadership, became a safe haven for extreme Islamic terrorists. Not the same terrorists who planned and executed the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but people like them.
The point was to draw a comparison, not say that they were one in the same. And the comparison is apt, though lost on those who long ago made up their minds to hate the President and all that he stands for.
Eddie_the_Hated
robert108
Move_Zig
studakota
likwidshoe
Kevin
Spartacus
Neiman
