Certainly, he is a politician and completely interested in winning votes. But that's where the trouble begins, not ends. Because he is pushing the debate forward in his own words, he does a direct and malicious disservice to every one involved in winning the war in Iraq.
First, he paints the Iraqi people as if they had a choice in the matter. Certainly they are a resilient people, but they are currently witnessing almost as much bloodshed or more than when Saddam was in charge.
Second, when he suggests that democrats are of one unified vision on the war in Iraq, he is wrong. Since when is the Democratic Party unified at all on any position? That hasn't been my impression of the party for a long while.
Third, by painting only two options, it suggests to me that he doesn't have a viable option either. Rhetoric does nothing to win the war on terror and fix the mess he started in Iraq. The President flaps his gums because he is not willing to do what it takes to actually win the war in Iraq because that would most certainly cost the GOP victory in November.
Why do you think they want to hold back Jim Baker's report until after the election? It's because it is going to cost us more lives, more troops, and heaping sums of good money after bad to solve this problem - for which there is no good solutions to choose from either. And dare I say it, no matter what crafty solution some one is able to extract from the morass of bad choices, it may well result in new taxes to pay for this solution (and lets not be fooled by the increased national debt disguise). That's not going to win any elections, now is it.
Because W continues to paint the situation in a dualistic mode, it shows us that he only has his interests in mind. He wants his party to win this election at any cost, even to the detriment of improving plans for the solving the problem he gave us in Iraq.
There is much more wrong with the President's speechifying, but I'll let you flesh it out. The above is just my two cents worth of initial reaction to these short paragraphs in yet another shot from the Presidential Political Propaganda Catapult.
The same Democrats that doubt and don't believe this is a part of the war on terror also argue that we should pull out our troops before the job is done. The person I ran against for President said there ought to be a date certain for withdrawal. That means it doesn't matter what's happening on the ground, it just means, get out. You've had a leader in the House say, well, the best way to deal with this is to put our troops on an island some 5,000 miles away from Iraq. There's all kinds of difference of opinions, but none of them are, let's do the hard work necessary to secure America.
We have a difference of opinion. And that's why I have said that the Democrat Party, the party that -- where some leaders have said we shouldn't spend another dime on Iraq, others have said get out now; others said get out in a couple of months -- that's why they are the party of cut and run. (Applause.)
It's a difference of opinion, but it's a fundamental issue in this campaign. The voters out there need to ask the question, which political party will support the brave men and women who wear our uniform when they do their job of protecting America? Which political party is willing to give our professionals the tools necessary to protect the American people? Which political party has a strategy for victory in this war on terror?
Listen, I fully understand it's a tough fight in Iraq. I know it, you know it, and our troops know it. Last week -- or earlier this week, I spoke with the Prime Minister of Iraq, Prime Minister Maliki, and we discussed the violence in his country. I told him I was -- I was amazed at how tough the Iraqis are when it comes to violence. Think about that. They haven't abandoned their hopes for a government of, by, and for the people; 12 million people voted, they still long to live in a free society. Yet they're putting up with unspeakable violence.