Regardless of how the reader or writer feels on the subjects,
the President is facing the most intense scrutiny to date
of his policies both before and since September 11, 2001.
The bipartisan commission on 9/11 has seemed at best unsatisfied
with the administration’s performance in dealing
with the threat of terrorism that preceeded 9/11 as well
as in their willingness to be forthcoming in the commission’s
public hearings.
To make matters far worse, the war in Iraq has taken
a very ugly turn, with several cities erupting in uprisings
that are either popular or unpopular, depending on who
you listen to, but nonetheless bloody for American,
“insurgent”, and Iraqi alike. Aid workers
and journalists from several different countries have
been abducted and held for political ransom, and some
have been killed. In two of the deadliest weeks of fighting,
the President has said remarkably little about the situation
that is unfolding. Again, ambiguous to the politics
of the reader or the writer, the President is taking
a beating in the media and in the polls.
This edition of The Annotated President will break
down the prepared statement that the President delivered
to the nation before opening up to questions from the
White House press pool. The Q&A session will be
covered in the next edition, which I promise to follow
up with in the next 24 hours.
Press Conference of the President
APRIL 13, 2003 - 8:31 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Before I take your questions,
let me speak with the American people about the situation
in Iraq.
This has been tough weeks in that country. Coalition
forces have encountered serious violence in some areas
of Iraq. Our military commanders report that this violence
is being instigated by three groups: Some remnants of
Saddam Hussein's regime, along with Islamic militants
have attacked coalition forces in the city of Fallujah.
Terrorists from other countries have infiltrated Iraq
to incite and organize attacks. In the south of Iraq,
coalition forces face riots and attacks that are being
incited by a radical cleric named al-Sadr. He has assembled
some of his supporters into an illegal militia, and
publicly supported the terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah.
Al-Sadr's methods of violence and intimidation are widely
repudiated by other Iraqi Shia. He's been indicted by
Iraqi authorities for the murder of a prominent Shia
cleric.
>>>>This is probably
a fairly accurate assesment of the situation, though
“some areas of Iraq” seems to downplay the
serious nature of what is going on (the President even
put his own emphasis on the word “some”).
At many times during the recent round of violence, the
media has reported significant “insurgency”
in as many as eight Iraqi cities. To take a page out
of Brit Hume’s playbook and compare Iraq to California
(nearly identical landmass), can you imagine eight cities
in California erupting in violence and a President referring
to it as “serious violence in some areas of California”?
Furthermore, call me nitpicky, but I wonder if it makes
al-Sadr more powerful when the President of the United
States mentions him by name. Is there such a thing as
street cred for terrorists? It bothers me that the President
feels it strategically necessary not to mention his
“democratic opponent” by name, but does
mention terrorist leaders by name when it may be strategically
advantageous not to do so.
Although these instigations of violence come from different
factions, they share common goals. They want to run
us out of Iraq and destroy the democratic hopes of the
Iraqi people. The violence we have seen is a power grab
by these extreme and ruthless elements.
It's not a civil war; it's not a popular uprising.
Most of Iraq is relatively stable. Most Iraqis, by far,
reject violence and oppose dictatorship. In forums where
Iraqis have met to discuss their political future, and
in all the proceedings of the Iraqi Governing Council,
Iraqis have expressed clear commitments. They want strong
protections for individual rights; they want their independence;
and they want their freedom.
>>>>Why are we so
sure that Iraqis want these things? Deserve, obviously.
But want? These people lived under a horrible tyrant
for decades and never did anything about it. We all
obviously want them to want these things, but one wonders
whether many people who have never had freedom of speech
would be likely to open up to the media saying anything
but exactly what they think the men with the tanks want
to hear.
America's commitment to freedom in Iraq is consistent
with our ideals, and required by our interests. Iraq
will either be a peaceful, democratic country, or it
will again be a source of violence, a haven for terror,
and a threat to America and to the world. By helping
to secure a free Iraq, Americans serving in that country
are protecting their fellow citizens. Our nation is
grateful to them all, and to their families that face
hardship and long separation.
>>>>If we’re
talking in present tense, I have to agree with the first
part. It is certainly inconsistent with our ideals to
bail out now from a country that we’ve bombed
and occupied without their government having attacked
ours in the first place, all the while promising both
them and the rest of the world peace and prosperity
because of these actions.
This weekend, at a Fort Hood hospital, I presented
a Purple Heart to some of our wounded; had the honor
of thanking them on behalf of all Americans. Other men
and women have paid an even greater cost. Our nation
honors the memory of those who have been killed, and
we pray that their families will find God's comfort
in the midst of their grief. As I have said to those
who have lost loved ones, we will finish the work of
the fallen.
>>>>If you really
want to thank them, do something about the fact that
many of the wounded seem to have to wait far too long
for treatment. While you’re at it, do something
about the deterioration of long-term military benefits
that are leaving veterans of past wars holding the bag,
so that neither they nor the brave men and women currently
serving are ever denied care upon their return. I’m
sure you can cut a deal with your pals in big medicine
to get this done – they still owe you big for
lining their pockets with the prescription drug bill
you recently got passed.
America's armed forces are performing brilliantly,
with all the skill and honor we expect of them. We're
constantly reviewing their needs. Troop strength, now
and in the future, is determined by the situation on
the ground. If additional forces are needed, I will
send them. If additional resources are needed, we will
provide them. The people of our country are united behind
our men and women in uniform, and this government will
do all that is necessary to assure the success of their
historic mission.
>>>>All true, I hope
even the part about providing the resources needed.
When I hear stories about the lack of flak jackets for
front-line soldiers or the lack of armor for humvees,
I get sick to my stomach.
One central commitment of that mission is the transfer
of sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. We have set
a deadline of June 30th. It is important that we meet
that deadline. As a proud and independent people, Iraqis
do not support an indefinite occupation -- and neither
does America. We're not an imperial power, as nations
such as Japan and Germany can attest. We are a liberating
power, as nations in Europe and Asia can attest, as
well. America's objective in Iraq is limited, and it
is firm: We seek an independent, free and secure Iraq.
>>>>Let’s get
one thing straight, though – Germany blitzkreiged
our allies in Europe and Japan destroyed a good chunk
of our Navy in one swift sucker punch. While the President
clearly has to dig deep into history for an example
of a U.S. military occupation with a positive result,
Japan and Germany are clearly used here to invite an
analogy between the War on Terror and World War II.
Many level-headed thinkers have argued that the U.S.
is in fact an imperial power, but that said imperialism
just takes a different form than traditional, old-world
imperialism.
Were the coalition to step back from the June 30th
pledge, many Iraqis would question our intentions and
feel their hopes betrayed. And those in Iraq who trade
in hatred and conspiracy theories would find a larger
audience and gain a stronger hand. We will not step
back from our pledge. On June 30th, Iraqi sovereignty
will be placed in Iraqi hands.
>>>>I’d feel
better if anyone seemed to know who exactly sovereignty
will be transferred to.
CONTINUED
>>> ON TO PAGE TWO
| 
Advertisement