Our coalition is standing
with responsible Iraqi leaders as they establish growing
authority in their country. The transition to sovereignty
requires that we demonstrate confidence in Iraqis, and
we have that confidence. Many Iraqi leaders are showing
great personal courage, and their example will bring out
the same quality in others. The transition to sovereignty
also requires an atmosphere of security, and our coalition
is working to provide that security. We will continue
taking the greatest care to prevent harm to innocent civilians;
yet we will not permit the spread of chaos and violence.
I have directed our military commanders to make every
preparation to use decisive force, if necessary, to maintain
order and to protect our troops.
>>>>Should we not
also be worried about protecting Iraqis if we expect
them to take responsibility for their own destiny?
The nation of Iraq is moving toward self-rule, and
Iraqis and Americans will see evidence in the months
to come. On June 30th, when the flag of free Iraq is
raised, Iraqi officials will assume full responsibility
for the ministries of government. On that day, the transitional
administrative law, including a bill of rights that
is unprecedented in the Arab world, will take full effect.
The United States, and all the nations of our coalition,
will establish normal diplomatic relations with the
Iraqi government. An American embassy will open, and
an American ambassador will be posted.
According to the schedule already approved by the Governing
Council, Iraq will hold elections for a national assembly
no later than next January. That assembly will draft
a new, permanent constitution which will be presented
to the Iraqi people in a national referendum held in
October of next year. Iraqis will then elect a permanent
government by December 15, 2005 -- an event that will
mark the completion of Iraq's transition from dictatorship
to freedom.
>>>>Finally the President
lays out a timeline for the American people. For everyone’s
sake, let’s hope this is all as easy as he makes
it sound.
Other nations and international institutions are stepping
up to their responsibilities in building a free and
secure Iraq. We're working closely with the United Nations
envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, and with Iraqis to determine
the exact form of the government that will receive sovereignty
on June 30th. The United Nations election assistance
team, headed by Karina Parelli (phonetic), is in Iraq,
developing plans for next January's election. NATO is
providing support for the Polish-led multinational division
in Iraq. And 17 of NATO's 26 members are contributing
forces to maintain security.
Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of State Rumsfeld,
and a number of NATO defense and foreign ministers are
exploring a more formal role for NATO, such as turning
the Polish-led division into a NATO operation, and giving
NATO specific responsibilities for border control.
>>>>”Working
closely” is a pretty subjective term. It sounds
to me like while we’re consulting the United Nations
in drawing up our plans for transition, we’re
not actually getting U.N. help when it comes to implimenting
those plans. Furthermore, this is just the latest in
a long line of attempts by the administration to make
the “coalition” sound more significant than
it is. His mentioning of NATO six times within two paragraphs
creates the false impression that NATO as a body officially
supports the war in Iraq when in it does not. Only the
U.S. and U.K. are contributing more forces to Iraq than
independant security contractors, leaving me unconvinced
of the significance of the other 15 of NATO’s
26 members (I’m assuming, of course, that the
original 17 included the U.S. and U.K.).
Iraqi's neighbors also have responsibilities to make
their region more stable. So I am sending Deputy Secretary
of State Armitage to the Middle East to discuss with
these nations our common interest in a free and independent
Iraq, and how they can help achieve this goal.
>>>>I’m sure
it’s possible that Iran and Syria won’t
exactly agree with what Mr. Armitage has to say.
As we've made clear all along, our commitment to the
success and security of Iraq will not end on June 30th.
On July 1st, and beyond, our reconstruction assistance
will continue, and our military commitment will continue.
Having helped Iraqis establish a new government, coalition
military forces will help Iraqis to protect their government
from external aggression and internal subversion.
>>>>I fear that as
long as American humvees are on the streets of Iraq,
most Iraqis will feel that the occupation is still on.
The success of free government in Iraq is vital for
many reasons. A free Iraq is vital because 25 million
Iraqis have as much right to live in freedom as we do.
A free Iraq will stand as an example to reformers across
the Middle East. A free Iraq will show that America
is on the side of Muslims who wish to live in peace,
as we have already shown in Kuwait and Kosovo, Bosnia
and Afghanistan. A free Iraq will confirm to a watching
world that America's word, once given, can be relied
upon, even in the toughest times.
>>>>Afghanistan is
largely controlled by warlords. Kuwait is nowhere close
to democracy. However, one can’t help but appreciate
that the President seems to once again be appealing
to the non-extremist muslim population. I have always
thought that this was one of the things the President
did the most effectively in the time following 9/11,
and that conveying this message was central to winning
the war on terror.
Above all, the defeat of violence and terror in Iraq
is vital to the defeat of violence and terror elsewhere;
and vital, therefore, to the safety of the American
people. Now is the time, and Iraq is the place, in which
the enemies of the civilized world are testing the will
of the civilized world. We must not waver.
The violence we are seeing in Iraq is familiar. The
terrorist who takes hostages, or plants a roadside bomb
near Baghdad is serving the same ideology of murder
that kills innocent people on trains in Madrid, and
murders children on buses in Jerusalem, and blows up
a nightclub in Bali, and cuts the throat of a young
reporter for being a Jew.
We've seen the same ideology of murder in the killing
of 241 Marines in Beirut, the first attack on the World
Trade Center, in the destruction of two embassies in
Africa, in the attack on the USS Cole, and in the merciless
horror inflicted upon thousands of innocent men and
women and children on September the 11th, 2001.
>>>>The only thing
unpredictable about the President’s mention of
9/11 and his vague rationale for citing it as a reason
to go to war in Iraq is that it took him this long to
get around to it. Otherwise, those were three remarkably-crafted
paragraphs by whoever wrote this statement for him.
The problem is that it seeks to blur the line between
al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime, two entities that
couldn’t have been more seperate. I wonder what
Daniel Pearl’s loved ones think about the President
alluding to his death in Pakistan as indirect justification
for the Iraq war.
None of these acts is the work of a religion; all are
the work of a fanatical, political ideology. The servants
of this ideology seek tyranny in the Middle East and
beyond. They seek to oppress and persecute women. They
seek the death of Jews and Christians, and every Muslim
who desires peace over theocratic terror. They seek
to intimidate America into panic and retreat, and to
set free nations against each other. And they seek weapons
of mass destruction, to blackmail and murder on a massive
scale.
>>>>Despite having
justified the Iraq war by citing the threat posed by
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that nobody can prove
were there, this is the first time in the statement
that he even mentions them. If we’re still fighting
elements of Saddam’s military, and that military
had WMD on the scale that we insisted that they did
as reasoning to begin this war.... why on earth would
they still be “seeking” them?
Over the last several decades, we've seen that any
concession or retreat on our part will only embolden
this enemy and invite more bloodshed. And the enemy
has seen, over the last 31 months, that we will no longer
live in denial or seek to appease them. For the first
time, the civilized world has provided a concerted response
to the ideology of terror -- a series of powerful, effective
blows.
>>>>Which enemy is
Bush referring to... Saddam’s regime, the insurgents
currently fighting our forces in Iraq, or al Qaeda?
Since they’re three different things, looking
at it that way might help us deal with each of them
more effectively.
The terrorists have lost the shelter of the Taliban
and the training camps in Afghanistan. They've lost
safe havens in Pakistan. They lost an ally in Baghdad.
And Libya has turned its back on terror. They've lost
many leaders in an unrelenting international manhunt.
And perhaps most frightening to these men and their
movement, the terrorists are seeing the advance of freedom
and reform in the greater Middle East.
A desperate enemy is also a dangerous enemy, and our
work may become more difficult before it is finished.
No one can predict all the hazards that lie ahead, or
the costs they will bring. Yet, in this conflict, there
is no safe alternative to resolute action. The consequences
of failure in Iraq would be unthinkable. Every friend
of America and Iraq would be betrayed to prison and
murder as a new tyranny arose. Every enemy of America
and the world would celebrate, proclaiming our weakness
and decadence, and using that victory to recruit a new
generation of killers.
>>>>There is going
to be a new generation of killers no matter what because
we’re not addressing the larger problems that
have created the conditions under which terrorists are
thriving in the Middle East: 1) our relationship with
oppressive regimes that support either directly or discreetly
the very terrorists who seek to kill us (see: the Saudi
Royal family) and 2) our Bobby Brown-like dependence
on middle eastern oil that makes said regimes wealthy.
Thanks to this agreement, the “people” of
the Middle East are seeing very little in return for
our plunder of their countries’ chief natural
resources. However, the royals are rich beyond their
wildest dreams. That is why they hate us.
We will succeed in Iraq. We're carrying out a decision
that has already been made and will not change: Iraq
will be a free, independent country, and America and
the Middle East will be safer because of it. Our coalition
has the means and the will to prevail. We serve the
cause of liberty, and that is, always and everywhere,
a cause worth serving.
* * * * END OF PREPARED STATEMENT * * * *
IN SUMMARY: Despite my sometimes nitpicking problems
with the content, I am impressed by the craftsmanship
with which this prepared statement was written. While
it still refers to a connection between Iraq and 9/11
that has yet to be proven or even explained, this is
pivotal as it is the clearest and most concise statement
the administration has made about the gravity of the
current situation in Iraq and why we can’t afford
to back out now. Unfortunately, it is short on details
about the June 30 handover, including the identity of
the body which will be receiving “the keys”
on that day, and what exactly the handover is going
to mean to our military.
Stay tuned for the next edition of The Annotated President,
where I will deconstruct the Q&A session with the
White House press pool that immediately followed this
statement.
| 
Advertisement