President Bush gave a wonderful speech today. I just read through it fairly quickly, and he made some excellent points. However, I'm not going to analyze it just yet (if at all). Instead, I find the views from the left to be far more interesting.
Edit Copy, (hat tip for the links!) who found the links to the speech and the President's mapped-out strategy, thinks the President was pretty good, though he disagrees with some points. The next thing he does (as usual) is link to the most pertinent related quotes and stories - beginning with Senator Russ Feingold (D - Wisc.). While I personally disagree with Feingold, whom I feel is arguing a weak point, he does speak forcefully and has a clear point, however weak I feel it is. Keep this in mind for the moment.
Croaky at the Inter-Galactic Jester, definitely no right-winger, had a couple of issues with some Bush points, but overall was pretty happy:
This may have been President Bush's greatest speech. This was a moment he had to seize and he did. The country should be proud to have a leader with such resolve.
Maybe I'm a sucker for good patriotism or maybe the scene of my President supporting our troops with a force I haven't felt from him before has left me temporarily high, but I am now convinced that the right move is to keep U.S. troops in Iraq until it is qualitatively safe for us and for the Iraqi people to withdraw. Let's follow the President and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's lead on this.Croaky, too, is a big Russ Feingold fan.
Courtesy of Hugh Hewitt's solid roundup, I found Bill Hobb's destruction of the LA Times' piece on Bush's speech. They made points that Bush had already specifically addressed and debunked in the speech! Not wise in the blogger age... Hewitt also notes the Washington Post's piece on Joe Lieberman talking about Iraq. [I discussed his Wall Street Journal op-ed yesterday.]
Most important on Hewitt, however, was this Daily Kos link.
I just listened to a statement from John Kerry in response to the President's speech, and then an interview with Russ Feingold.Just? Should have asked conservatives... He (Jeffrey Feldman) continues:WOW!!
Russ Feingold has just become the new leader of the Democratic Party.
Feldman goes on to enumerate Feingold's points, which aren't terrible at all, though I completely disagree with every point after the first two. But that really isn't the point: Feingold has, once again, established himself as an intelligent, thinking Senator who doesn't merely spew rhetoric without substance but rather plans and ideas. I (and others) may not agree with those ideas or plans, but they do exist.Kerry made a series of statements where he attempted to parse the difference between his position and President Bush's statements. According to John Kerry, the problem with the President's "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" was that it made the claim that the U.S. military belonged to the President's policy and not to the American people (hang on, here, it's hard to explain Kerry's arguments). He then went on to explain that Democrats are not calling for a time table for leaving Iraq, but were instead calling for a time table for success in Iraq which would allow for the U.S. military to leave (See the difference? Yeah...me neither).
Kerry was confusing, he was overly patrician. He was unclear. After listening to him speak for five minutes, it was not clear what his ideas were.
Feingold was the exact opposite.
I noted a while back, in the article that eventually got published in WSJ's OpinionJournal:
Tom Coburn put forward at least two amendments to cut pork, and just 13 Senators voted for it - including just one Democrat, Russ Feingold, who is looking more and more like a great Presidential candidate who sticks to his principles.And another time:
Feingold, as much as one may disagree with him, should be respected for his consistency and guts. Great example.
The blue-staters who voted for Roberts deserve credit for standing up for what is right: Leahy (discussed here), Dodd & Lieberman (CT), and Kohl & Feingold (WI) [the last four are all well known for their integrity; I've met Feingold and Kohl and have been impressed].Feingold is clearly seperating himself from the pack on the left, and is actually someone who can draw from the right, as well. He has integrity; he votes what he feels is right, even if it's against the rest of his party; and he makes clear points - whether you agree or not. It would be interesting to see him run, if only because I think he'd wipe the floor with the so-called "names" of the Democratic Party, such as the Clintons and Kerrys. Kerry can't get a point across, and Clinton tries to pander too much (a point made well by John Hindraker quoted in today's Best of the Web).
As Kos itself notes, the (excellent) White House release "Setting the Record Straight"* focuses primarily on Feingold's statements in its quick response.
* Essentially, the WH puts out a release to combat misinformation, whether by Congressmen or the media. Effective from its inception a few weeks ago, it seems to me like they're learning to do it more quickly as well. Now, if only they'd add links...!
At this point, if I had to vote for a Democrat for President in 2008, Feingold would be the clear winner. I may disagree with what he says, and I may disagree often; but I know where he stands. More importantly, I know he believes in what he says, and is doing his best to do what's right.
See? Even SerandEz can agree with Kos.
UPDATE: Malkin rips Kerry as well.
John Kerry responds by whining about the president making war-related speeches in front of troops and and with military backdrops. Where would he rather have Bush speak about the war--in front of a Wal-Mart? Next Kerry complains that "No one is talking about running"...and then cites poll results on Americans who want us to withdraw from Iraq.So does the Political Teen, who has video.
Then:Instapundit has even more problems with Kerry's speech. And it's the left complaining, too. He's also got plenty of bloggers ripping the LA Times' piece, as well.
In his after-speech presser today, Kerry said “No one…NO ONE on the Democratic or Republican side…
is calling for timetable for withdrawal of troops”.Perhaps Sen. Kerry should re-read his own speeches and press briefs:
Kerry Urges U.S. to Start Withdrawal From Iraq
Iraq: Kerry Urges Timeline for Withdrawal
Technorati tags: Bush, Speech, Feingold.
Ezzie,
ReplyDeleteTo me, it has seemed like the DailyKos boards have shown a lot of support for Feingold over the past month or two. Yesterday's contrast between him and Kerry show why. It is a pretty basic tenet of being a good politician that you control the debate and Kerry isn't doing that.
Having said that, the Democrats will not fare will in the '06 elections if they become the "pull the troops out now" party. Feingold's "chessboard" analogy and "Victory against al-Qaeda not victory in Iraq" are great, but in the end, he is proposing the same thing as Kerry: wind down the mission in '06.
The White House is going to paint everybody they can as "timetablists." And, I think there is good reason for that. The White House feels that announcing a timetable will just force the enemy to hide out and hurt the general mission. I buy that.
The funny thing is, I think Bush and Rumsfeld will be pulling some troops out in '06 anyway! It would make sense after the new Iraqi government take office in January to do so. It is my belief that some of the politicians in the legislature are calling for withdrawal because they know this and want to claim afterwards that they were the ones to put the pressure on to withdraw. John Murtha is excluded from that group. That guy is a true patriot.
Part of what I was saying in my post yesterday was similar to what Feingold was saying: the "chessboard" is larger than the Iraqi square. I would go further than Feingold and say, the analogy isn't "the U.S. v. al-Qaeda" but "the U.S. protecting our interests in a game that will never end, nor should it, it is just the international diplomatic scene." Our military efforts should be focused on al-Qaeda, yes. But, our "freedom" rhetoric is killing potential alliances with those in the Muslim World, and even in Europe. Part of the game is played out in conversation across the chessboard between the players, "the U.S." and "everybody else." al-Qaeda is someone we need to deal with on the chessboard, but the hearts and minds that will truly calm things down are sitting at the table.
Thanks for the hat tip. Thanks also for the kind words on whom I select to reference.
ReplyDeleteGet this, The White House put out the strategy document at 635 a.m. yesterday, but did not post it onto the White House Iraqi site until like 720 (estimate). So, it missed my a.m. posting. Oh well.
Also, the White House Iraq page will probably post everything about the war from their point of view. Press releases and speeches and such.
ReplyDeleteCroaky - I think you pretty much nailed everything on the head. The only parts of Feingold's speech I did agree with were the chessboard metaphor and the focusing on Al-Qaeda as well portion. Even then, the chessboard metaphor is disingenuous, as it implies each square has equal importance; in reality, with terror cells focused in Iraq and the struggle for democracy that exists, certain squares carry more weight.
ReplyDeleteOn one issue, however, I have to disagree: The "freedom" rhetoric is not ruining relationships with allies. Granted, it is 'tough talking'; but that is the type of speech necessary for the countries we are dealing with. The general populus of these countries - at least the ones who are able to understand the news, outside the blocks placed by those governments - are quite thrilled to hear about freedom. In a sense, you are right: The current leadership of those countries are upset. But they are powerless in this instance - nobody wants to be the next Saddam.
Just look at the neighboring countries' reactions since the invasion: Increased democracy, at least to some extent, in numerous countries in the Middle East (and Northern Africa). I think it's obvious those would not have happened without Iraq. The tough talk isn't endearing Middle Eastern leadership to our POV, but I think it's effective and necessary.
Copy Editor - That's fine, I think it should. It essentially will be in direct contrast to what the mainstream media will be reporting. After a while, I think the less politicized citizens of this country are going to be asking serious question about the MSM, and there might be a nice shift in reporting standards - which has been necessary for a long time.
ReplyDeleteCopy Editor - you select most of the best stuff every day. I'm just being honest.
ReplyDelete