More Practice With IEDs, At Our Expense

So, what happens when all the practice the insurgents get using and inventing new IEDs get to deploy those skills on American Soil? Who's to blame?

Earlier this year, a newspaper published details of a new anti-IED technology that was being developed. Within five days of the publication -- using details from that article -- the enemy had posted instructions for defeating this new technology on the Internet. We cannot let the enemy know how we're working to defeat him. But I can assure the American people that my administration is working to put the best technology in the hands of our men and women on the front lines -- and we are mobilizing resources against the IED threat.

I assured General Meigs that he will have the funding and personnel he needs to succeed. In 2004, the administration spent $150 million to fight the IED threat. This year, we're providing $3.3 billion to support our efforts to defeat IEDs. These investments are making a difference. Today, nearly half of the IEDs in Iraq are found and disabled before they can be detonated. In the past 18 months, we've cut the casualty rate per IED attack in half. More work needs to be done. Yet by targeting the bomb-makers, and training our forces, and deploying new technologies, we will stay ahead of the enemy, and that will save Iraqi and American lives.

Oh, by the way, did you catch that there was the printing of some details about our technology in a newspaper. Does that mean there was yet another leak of classified information by the "impervious" W, Rove and Co?

Note also, that W of the W, Rove and Co uses dead soldiers and their grieving families once again for political gain. After repeatedly spanking the Nine Eleven Monkey again today, we see W tugs on the heart strings and for what? Are people who are pissed at Cindy Sheehan equally pissed at W for doing the same thing?

Since the morning of September the 11th, we have known that the war on terror would require great sacrifice -- and in this war we have said farewell to some very good men and women. One of those courageous Americans was Sergeant William Scott Kinzer, Jr., who was killed last year by the terrorists while securing polling sites for the Iraqi elections. His mom, Debbie, wrote me a letter. She said: "These words are straight from a shattered but healing mother's heart. ... My son made the decision to join the Army. He believed that what he was involved in would eventually change Iraq and that those changes would be recorded in history books for years to come. ... On his last visit home... I asked him what I would ever do if something happened to him in Iraq. He smiled at me with -- his blue eyes sparkled, as he said, 'Mom, I love my job...If I should die I would die happy, does life get any better than this?'" His mom went on: "Please do not let the voices we hear the loudest change what you and Scott started in Iraq. Please do not... let his dying be in vain. ... Don't let my son have given his all for an unfinished job. ... Please...complete the mission."

I make this promise to Debbie, and all the families of the fallen heroes: We will not let your loved ones dying be in vain. We will finish what we started in Iraq. We will complete the mission. We will leave behind a democracy that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself. (Applause.) And a free Iraq, in the heart of the Middle East, will make the American people more secure for generations to come.

But what about the question as to whether Mr. Bush is clinically in denial about how it's going in Iraq:

Q Scott, can I ask you about the speech? You say that there's a lot of progress being made, but there's more work to do. When you say that speaking for the President, it sounds like he's dangerously out of touch with public opinion in this country about the war. And these speeches, which are kind of a PR blitz for the second time, seem to be about communicating the policy, and not addressing what a lot of people think is a failing policy.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think it's convenient to try to simplify it and talk about it in those ways, but it misses the broader context of what we're working to achieve, and what our strategy is. And the American people want to hear from their Commander-in-Chief during a time of war. We remain at war. Iraq is central to winning the war on terrorism. And the President has been very up front talking about the challenges and the difficulties that we face. You heard him Friday.

I encourage you to listen very closely to his remarks, because he will talk about how this is a serious situation. The situation remains tense in Iraq, and there are difficulties that remain. There is continued sectarian violence that is going on. But the Iraqi people, by and large, are showing they want to live in freedom. The vast majority of the Iraqi people are saying, we want a free and democratic future. And it's important that we continue to stand with them. And he'll talk about why victory is important in Iraq. Victory is important in Iraq because it is a central front in the war on terrorism.

The enemy understands how high the stakes are in Iraq. We need to continue to work to make sure that we deny the terrorists a safe haven, to make sure that we gain an ally in the war on terrorism, and that we're bringing hope to a troubled region of the world. It goes directly to our own security. Remember, we've talked about how the broader Middle East has been a region that has been troubled for a long time.

Q Scott, this is the vision, but I'm asking you a question about reality on the ground. And part of that reality -- you talk about the strategy for war. There's a new book out by Bernard Trainor and by Mike Gordon of The New York Times, where they've looked at the actual combat phase of the war -- the President says that's been over for a long time now.

But, specifically, it makes the case -- through interviews and other classified materials -- that essentially commanders on the ground had a sense that the enemy was not what war planners thought it was, they could see the insurgency coming, and that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and even General Franks simply didn't listen, that there were missed signals, missed opportunities to get at this insurgency at the very start.

What's your response to that? Are they right?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let me correct you, first of all, because our troops remain engaged in fighting. They remain going after the terrorists and seeking to bring them to justice. What we're doing is training and equipping Iraqi security forces so that they can take the lead. They are taking the lead in the fight, and we're more and more in a supporting role, and more and more able to focus our efforts on going after the terrorists. Let me correct you in some comments that you threw into your question there, because I think that's wrong and it leaves the wrong impression for the American people.

Secondly, in terms of looking back and talking about what actions were taken during the lead-up to the war and after the war -- and we've talked repeatedly about that. I think we've expressed our views very clearly. And people can judge for themselves by looking at the facts and seeing what the situation was. But anytime you're engaged in a war you have to be able to adapt and adjust to circumstances on the ground. And that's one of the key points the President is talking about when he talks in greater detail about steps we have taken to fix what is not working. Flexibility is key to prevailing in the war on terrorism, and victory in Iraq is critical to our overall efforts.

Q So what's your response to the charges in this book?

MR. McCLELLAN: I just said that we've made our views very clear on those very issues --

Q Well, then, spell them out again. There are some specific points here. The President has said that he was surprised that Iraqi troops melted back, sort of fell back and melted to create an insurgency. He says that he always listens to commanders on the ground -- well, here are specific instances, a specific case being made that in fact this administration did not listen to commanders on the ground --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not true.

Q -- and dropped the ball when it had an opportunity to kill this insurgency before it began. True or untrue?

MR. McCLELLAN: Our commanders on the ground are the ones who put the plan in place. And it's important that we not try to let the political leaders from Washington manage the war. It's important to let our military commanders, who are in the best position, to manage the war on terrorism and to carry out the war on terrorism. They're the ones who are in the best position to call the shots.

And we made it very clear in the aftermath of the liberation of Iraq that some things happened that weren't necessarily expected. There were other things that we had planned for that did happen. But some things, like the enemy leaving the battlefield, fleeing the battlefield quicker than we anticipated, only to come back and fight more at a later time. So you have to, again, be able to adapt and adjust to circumstances on the ground. But it's important to look to our commanders on the ground to make the determinations about what needs to be done.

Q Did or did not Rumsfeld make critical errors in judgment that led to the growth of this insurgency?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, I don't know how many times we've been over all these issues. If you want to do a book review, that's your business.

Q It's a pretty important question, it seems to me, instead of a flip answer. I think it's an important question.

MR. McCLELLAN: It's not a flip answer. We've been over it many times and --

Q I'm not doing a book review; I'd like to get the President's view on a pretty serious account.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you know, we've expressed that view very many times and if you want to continue to jump in here, that's your business. But he's expressed his views quite clearly, David, and you know that as well as anyone because you've heard it a number of times from leaders in this administration -- you've heard it from Secretary Rumsfeld, you've heard it from General Franks and you've heard it from others.

Q Today is a new day, new information. I'd like to hear it again. That's appropriate --

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't read the book, so I can't speak to what's in the book.

Q Oh, okay, well, you didn't say that.

Sounds like an interesting book to review. But in the end, the reporter lets Scotty off the hook. Not good.