The Speech The President Should Give

John F-ing Kerry telling the president what to say in his speech.

Because he wishes he were elected, I suppose.

Let's see what ole Bean-Boy has to say....

Our mission in Iraq is harder because the administration ignored the advice of others, went in largely alone, underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency, sent in too few troops to secure the country, destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification, failed to secure ammunition dumps, refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces and did no postwar planning. A little humility would go a long way - coupled with a strategy to succeed.

Too few troops is at best debatable, and it's already been debated. There were problems if you sent too few, problems if you sent too many. There's no such thing as a perfect plan. We went in largely "alone" with the help of a bunch of nations -- just not from a few of the more historically promeinent and currently socialist EuroWeenie countries because going in was the right thing to do, and not going in just because others won't wouldn't have been right. Did the Administration miscalculate some things? Yup. Did its critics get some things right before the war? Sure. I also fail to see where the Administration didn't recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces. No, we sure didn't bring pre-fab ones in, (well not many anyway), but I think everyone up to the top recognized that right away. What I'm hearing is "well, if we were in power it would've been done faster. Because we have a Plan®. And that Plan® has a Strategy to Succeed®. Fast. Read our website, on which we re-iterate over and over repeatedly that we have a Plan®. We don't tell you what it is, but by the Great Secular anti-Deity, we have one. Really. We're going to keep saying it until you believe us."

So what should the president say tonight? The first thing he should do is tell the truth to the American people. Happy talk about the insurgency being in "the last throes" leads to frustrated expectations at home. It also encourages reluctant, sidelined nations that know better to turn their backs on their common interest in keeping Iraq from becoming a failed state.

Yes, and defeatist talk will send the insurgency... er terrorists ... running back to their homes, petrified at our fear, uncertainty, and lack of conviction. It won't embolden them at all. Any sign of fear and waning resolve on our part is a victory for them. And what makes you think it is not the truth, anyway? Probably the fact that it would be politically inconvenient for your ilk. I've been hearing reports every day on NPR about "escalating violence" and "the ever escallating insurgency" since Saddam fell. With the exponential factor, Iraq should be molten by now, and yet it is not. "Continuing" apparently means "Escallating". If you haven't been paying attention in the Middle East for the last 60 years, "continuing" is not very hard.

We're doing our part: our huge military presence stands between the Iraqi people and chaos, and our special forces protect Iraqi leaders. The Iraqis must now do theirs.

I'm sorry, I'm really getting confused now. We didn't send enough troops, but we should start planning to pull them out, even though our "huge" military presence is all that stands between the Iraqi people and chaos. No wonder you lost the election. Take a position, flip-flop boy. Pick one. Any one. Just stick with one so we know where you stand.

As my dad used to say, "patience, child." I know you all have the attention-span of the average Teletubie, but sometimes things don't cook up like instant noodles. You know, like ending poverty with government subsidies. It's worked so well for the past 60 years.

He also needs to put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six-month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget needed to deploy them. The administration and the Iraqi government must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.

Um... what's a "True Six Month Wartime Footing"? Is there some textbook I missed? Or is this a new trademarked phrase you'd like to register? Of course, the minute we set a time limit for their training, you'll complain that we [Bush] hasn't prepared them enough. Because you're not really interested in what should be done, you're interested highlighting any problems with what Bush is doing. Have you ever considered the possibility that there might be valid reasons for training in Iraq, and that possibly that the paltry, lukewarm offers made frankly wouldn't be worth the trouble?

If Iraqis adopt a constitution and hold elections as planned, support for the insurgency should fall and Iraqi security forces should be able to take on more responsibility. It will also set the stage for American forces to begin to come home.

I thought the Administraton didn't have a plan. That sounds like a good one to me.

Iraq, of course, badly needs a unified national army, but until it has one - something that our generals now say could take two more years - it should make use of its tribal, religious and ethnic militias like the Kurdish pesh merga and the Shiite Badr Brigade to provide protection and help with reconstruction. Instead of single-mindedly focusing on training a national army, the administration should prod the Iraqi government to fill the current security gap by integrating these militias into a National Guard-type force that can provide security in their own areas.

Oh, now THERE'S a good idea. Sounds like a recipe for a civil war to me. And how is "integrating militias into a National Guard-type force" different than training a national army -- besides the fact that these militias are often from different tribes or sects who hate each other and have somewhat of a sense of national dis-unity?

Hamstrung by its earlier lack of planning and overly optimistic predictions for rebuilding Iraq, the administration has failed to devote equal attention to working with the Iraqi government on the economic and political fronts. Consequently, reconstruction is lagging even in the relatively secure Shiite south and Kurdish north. If Iraqis, particularly Sunnis who fear being disenfranchised, see electricity flowing, jobs being created, roads and sewers being rebuilt and a democratic government being formed, the allure of the insurgency will decrease.

Of course, if we had been working with them more visibly (as if we haven't been working with them) you'd accuse Bush of meddling too much with Iraqi affairs. Give us a break. On top of that, a huge part of the reason for the roads, sewers, and electricity problem is precicely because the insurgency targets these things to keep them disrupted -- its only chance of succeeding. But John-boy doesn't mention that.

Iraq's Sunni neighbors, who complain they are left out, could do more to help. Even short-term improvements, like providing electricity and supplying diesel fuel - an offer that the Saudis have made but have yet to fulfill - will go a long way. But we need to give these nations a strategic plan for regional security, acknowledging their fears of an Iran-dominated crescent and their concerns about our fitful mediation between Israel and the Palestinians in return for their help in rebuilding Iraq, protecting its borders, and bringing its Sunnis into the political process.

Um.. the Sunnis opted out of the political process, remember? And still the new government and the US bends over backwards to include them to stem their Disenfranchisement®. But many Sunnis, like Kerry, cannot be convinced that America can ever do right.... except for Kerry who thinks HE could if he were in power. But the Sunnis would not be any warmer to America because Kerry was President. America is America, to them The Great Satan®.

The next months are critical to Iraq's future and our security. If Mr. Bush fails to take these steps, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, costs rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face. Our troops deserve better: they deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice.

What a two-faced punk. Our [war criminal] troops deserve better. With that trademark drumbeat language (stumble along, our troops at greater risk, costs rising, the patience of the American People wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face) it sounds more like a campaign speech than constructive criticism. Oh, that's right, that's what it is!!!!!

He even got Quagmire® in there to boot. Can't leave THAT one out... except, according to him and his followers, haven't we been in a Quagmire® since like the 4th day of the invasion? Sounds to me like he's saying we're not in a Quagmire® yet, just almost. Unless our Democratic War Hero® ... er... criminal... er... Hero.... er... criminal.... steps in to save the day.