Translation of key excerpts from President Bush’s Thursday night speech
Opinion: Translation, please
In his address to the nation on Thursday evening, President Bush attempted to do something that even his own lawyers will not assert is within his power: to impose an indefinite commitment to his Iraq policy on his successor.
“Iraqi leaders from all communities… understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship…”
Translation please?
I’ve already demonstrated that my constitutional powers are sufficient to keep U.S. troops fighting in Iraq long after most Americans have lost confidence in the benefits of such a policy.
From where we are, politically and constitutionally, it’s hard to see how the number of U.S. troops will get much below the pre-surge level of 130,000 before the next president is sworn in in January 2008. I’m no longer making any serious effort to kid you about that.
And in the same spirit of candor, I now acknowledge that the plan is for us to stay in Iraq forever, just like those crazy lefties have been claiming for years.
President Bush also said:
“In all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.”
Translation please?
Yes, I know what my approval ratings are and which party has the majority in both houses, but I still have my veto pen and Democrats still don’t have two-thirds to override.
President Bush also said:
“The [Iraqi] government has not met its own legislative benchmarks — and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders, I have made it clear that they must.”
Translation please?
But, since I’ve clearly indicated publicly on every occasion that no matter how many times they fail to pass the laws I keep urging them to pass or fail to supply the quantity and quality of Iraqi troops I keep asking them to supply, America has no option to leave them to their fate. When I say they must meet the benchmarks, I mean I hope they will meet the benchmarks.
President Bush also said:
“The key now is to link this progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so will national politics.”
Follow-up question please?
Because why?
President Bush also said:
“It will soon be possible to bring home an Army combat brigade, for a total force reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas.”
Translation please?
Republican senators like John Warner and Norm Coleman seem to be threatening to bolt if we don’t make a small token withdrawal, and if I start losing guys like that, even my veto pen might not save me.
President Bush also said:
“A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran.”
Rude follow-up question please?
And what if a free and democratic Iraq, with a Shia majority led by men who spent most of their recent years as guests of Iran, decide that they would rather have an alliance with Iran than with us?
Answer: Well then you’ll really be glad we still have troops and bases there, won’t you?
President Bush also said:
“Those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should begin bringing our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home. The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together.”
Translation please?
(I’m having trouble translating this one. Can you help?)
Comment