You've been speech-ified

Last week delivered several speechs from radically different worldviews.  Osama bin Laden addressed his audience as did Pope Benedict XVI.  The content of these addresses are up for debate (as is the meaning of any speech.  The audience possesses the authority to decide what is meant in any public address.)  Barack Obama also delivered a speech to an American audience on the issue of race relations in the United States.

Obama's speech touched on profoundly real historical- and contemporary- issues in the United States, but also seemed to extend an aspect of his personality/campaign that seems different from those around him.  Barack Obama talks about domestic issues we have in the United States.  He doesn't seem terribly worried about projecting a will- or perception of superiority- outside of the United States.  He has demonstrated- at least to me- a sincere interest in addressing concerns within the United States that have long needed addressing.

With that in mind I'd like to take a close look at another speech delivered last week that will provide a strong counterpoint to Senator Obama's rhetoric.  As Obama canvases for votes to secure the position of the President of the United States of America, so too does John McCain.  McCain has already secured his votes for the Republican nomination while promising 100 years of our presence in Iraq. 

That's 100 years of war. 

Earlier this week, we- in the United States of America- recognized our fifth year in Iraq.  President Bush even prepared a speech.  As these things generally run, it was long but a lot less convoluted than preceding speechs given on previous anniversaries of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Bush has a story to tell ansd his story is a piece of "reality."  It is, however, not "reality" in and of itself.

In Bush's story, presented March 19th, the "enemy" in Iraq seems pretty clear.  It's tough to keep in mind that there was no enemy in Iraq until we invaded.  Before our invasion, there were primarily just "Iraqis" in Iraq.  Bush's speech performed a lot of leg work to further confuse that issue.

Bush also continued his attempt to establish "al Qaeda" as the enemy of the United States.  It's tough to keep in mind that al Qaeda works very well strategically as an enemy of the state because it's shadowy and mysterious.  You can say almost anything you want about al Qaeda without regard to "reality" because al Qaeda is virtually unknown to most everyone except in name alone.

You cannot show a picture of al Qaeda. 
You can't point al Qaeda out on a map.
You can't even produce an al Qaeda uniform.
Al Qaeda is anything anyone tells you it is.

President Bush's speech confused many topics while clarifying very little. 

"Thank you all...One boss may not be here, but the other one is." (Laughter.)

Bush was probably referring to Dick Cheney's absence.  You see, he was opening light with a joke.  'I'm the boss.  (Heh, heh)  I'm not the President.  I'm your boss.  (Heh, Heh)'

Is this supposed to function as a Jedi mind trick at work?
Why refer to himself as "the boss." 
I know this is small and nitpicky but "boss?" 

He's the President. 
He's the President of the United States of America. 
He's not a CEO in a corporate position of government. 
He's the leader of the world's most powerful nation. 
Right?

"On this day in 2003, the United States began Operation Iraqi Freedom. As the campaign unfolded, tens and thousands of our troops poured across the Iraqi border to liberate the Iraqi people and remove a regime that threatened free nations...The men and women who crossed into Iraq five years ago removed a tyrant, liberated a country, and rescued millions from unspeakable horrors."

Regardless of how you feel about the war, the war started with soldiers from the United States of America crossing the border of Iraq.  That much about where we are today is fact.  As part of a military operation, men and women from one nation picked up weapons and marched into another nation.

"I appreciate Admiral Mullen, the Joint Chiefs who are here. Thanks for coming. Secretary Donald Winter of the Navy. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte is with us. Admiral Thad Allen of the Coast Guard is with us. Ambassador from Iraq is with us — Mr. Ambassador, we're proud to have you here. Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen and Coastmen — Coast Guardmen [sic], thanks for coming, thanks for wearing the uniform. Men and women of the Department of State are here as well."

I understand that President Bush would need to list members of the military in a very general fashion.  The women and men from the State Department makes sense as well, because there are too many to name individually.  However, the U.S. Ambassador from Iraq probably has a name; either Ryan Crocker, or Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaidaie (who President Bush has met at least oncein 2006.)

It seems a bit odd that President Bush wouldn't mention the name of Iraq's Ambassador to the United States.  It almost seems disrespectful.  Ambassador Sumadaie has a name.  It may be difficult for an unaccustomed tongue to pronounce his name; however, the man is standing in the room and he is being introduced.  His announced attendance follows the announced attendance of men with titles that seem at least as impressive as his own.  By not mentioning Samir Sumaidaie by name, it seems that a social gaffe may have occurred where a bit of attention to detail would've have avoided such a gaffe.  This further suggests a general disregard for the Iraqi people as Bush demonstrated  later in the speech when he insinuates that the Iraqi people need us to "help...strengthen responsible leaders" over there.

"Operation Iraqi Freedom was a remarkable display of military effectiveness."

That's because we have one of the most advanced militaries on the planet.  We generally assess our effectiveness in practice rather than on battlefields, but Operation Iraqi Freedom only proved what we already knew.  Our soldiers and war equipment kick major ass.  Americans can always be impressed with our military's capability to destroy stuff more efficiently and effectively than almost any other country on the planet.

"Our troops engaged in pitched battles with the Fedayeen Saddam — death squads acting on the orders of Saddam Hussein that obeyed neither the conventions of war nor the dictates of conscience...They stopped at nothing in their efforts to prevent us from prevailing — but they couldn't stop the coalition advance."

It seems that we should not read too much into the ethics of how someone protects their homeland.  We have a Department of Homeland Security that gets a lot of our money to protect our homeland.  We've given up some of our civic rights in order to better protect our homeland.  Do you think Elliot Spitzer understands how much we gave up to secure our homeland?  Apparently, he was caught diddling prostitutes because of provisions created by the PATRIOT Act. 

Why should we express outrage or surprise when other people in the world defend their own homeland by every means necessary?  If another country invaded the United States of America, I'd hope my fellow Americans would join me in doing whatever was necessary to turn back an invasion. 

An interesting piece in the Pahrump Valley Times, gives a perspective from a U.S. Marine who was on the ground in the invasion of Iraq.

"Former Marine Jim Scott recalled how his infantry company went through a number of drills at their post on the Kuwaiti side of the Iraqi border five years ago, getting into their gas suits, then being told by their commanders to go back into their tents."

I don't know the accuracy of the information provided on the above-linked story, however, it represents another story about the war in which we are currently engaged.  This story refers to the life of a U.S. military member as well as what that means when practicing war.  For efficiency, and hopefully a step closer toward truth, I'll assume Jim Scott's story about serving as a U.S. Marine, and initially invading Iraq, is at least partially accurate because of this inclusion of "getting into...gas suits."  M.O.P. gear training is routine in the U.S. military.

The U.S. military drills its soldiers to be able to get into a chemical/biological protection uniform (i.e. M.O.P suit) quickly and thoroughly.  When chemical/biological contaminates start raining down on you, you want to have your gear in place, and protecting you, so that you can start helping your buddies get their gear in place.  That's a "reality" of warfare today.

"The liberation of Iraq took incredible skill and amazing courage. And the speed, precision and brilliant execution of the campaign will be studied by military historians for years to come."

Jim Scott is quoted as saying, "We were supposed to go in, take care of the Iraqi Republican Guard, the basic military thing. You do what Marines do — you go in, take care of business, then go home."  

Continuing with President Bush's story, he say, "What our troops found in Iraq following Saddam's removal was horrifying. They uncovered children's prisons, and torture chambers, and rape rooms where Iraqi women were violated in front of their families."

Those are horrifying things indeed; however, that was not why we went into Iraq.  We invaded because they supposedly had weapons of mass destruction.  Whereas President Bush's reference to these horrible incidents seems to justify our invasion of Iraq, this was not the case presented to invade.  These horrible incidents did not envigorate the American people to action; however, don't let me stop President Bush from listing more reasons that didn't motivate us to invade Iraq.

"Because we acted, Saddam Hussein no longer fills fields with the remains of innocent men, women and children. Because we acted, Saddam's torture chambers and rape rooms and children's prisons have been closed for good. Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer invading its neighbors or attacking them with chemical weapons and ballistic missiles. Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer paying the families of suicide bombers in the Holy Land. Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer shooting at American and British aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones and defying the will of the United Nations. Because we acted, the world is better and United States of America is safer."

Aside from what should be an obvious issue citing "defying the will of the United Nations" as a justification for anything we're doing in Iraq (i.e. the U.S. invasion of Iraq was considered an illegal act by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.)

Bush continues listing items that never even amounted to secondary factors for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.  Once again, "rape rooms" sounds horrifying but it seems at this point in the speech Bush might just like saying it.  It's got a sort of easy rhythm about it. 

Rape room. 

There are many other problems regarding "fact" in much of the list; however, one of the most problematic (and really simplistic) parts of the list is "the world is better."

From what perspective?  The Pahrump Valley Times wrote:

"While the invasion went pretty quickly...Scott said his company wasn't instructed to stop the looting that followed soon after Americans invaded Iraq...'We were told, don't go in and stop people. But if they were shooting people, that's a different story. They didn't expect it to happen all of a sudden, all this looting that took place.'"

The shopowners being looted probably didn't think "the world is better" because of the U.S. invasion, even if only for a moment.

"The battle in Iraq has been longer and harder and more costly than we anticipated — but it is a fight we must win...And as [we've] battled the terrorists and extremists in Iraq, [we've] helped the Iraqi people reclaim their nation."

I've replaced "they" with "we" in the excerpt from the President's speech above because he is referring to 'us' as 'them.'  It is always important to remember that we are fighting Iraqi's in Iraq.  Please don't gloss over that "fact."  We are fighting Iraqi's in Iraq.  We invaded Iraq to fight Iraqi's and that is who we are predominately fighting today.  Iraqi's.

Going back to the analogy of an invasion of U.S. soil.  I'd hope my fellow citizens would join me in being "extreme" in the face of an enemy powerful enough to penetrate U.S. borders.  It seems that today's Iraqi "extremist" could be a very patriotic citizen of Iraq when the circumstances are pondered.

"We have watched in horror as al Qaeda beheaded innocent captives, and sent suicide bombers to blow up mosques and markets. These actions show the brutal nature of the enemy in Iraq. And they serve as a grim reminder: The terrorists who murder the innocent in the streets of Baghdad want to murder the innocent in the streets of America. Defeating this enemy in Iraq will make it less likely that we'll face the enemy here at home."

Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before we invaded.  Saddam Hussein apparently had no interest in forming any ties with al Qaeda; and yet, still the Bush administration still talks about al Qaeda. 

Al Qaeda is the scary guys because they cut off heads and blow up mosques.  They're the enemy, and yet, we're fighting Iraqis in Iraq.  From certain perspectives U.S. actions in Iraq probably cause terror; however, it must be true that Middle Eastern terrorists have targets- in the form of U.S. soldiers stationed in the Middle East- that are easier and cheaper to hit than U.S. shores.

"My administration understood that America could not retreat in the face of terror. And we knew that if we did not act, the violence that had been consuming Iraq would worsen, and spread, and could eventually reach genocidal levels. Baghdad could have disintegrated into a contagion of killing, and Iraq could have descended into full-blown sectarian warfare."

This is very colorful, but it was not among the reasons given for justifying the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

"[T]he surge...[gave]...General David Petraeus command with a new mission: Work with Iraqi forces to protect the Iraqi people, pressure [sic] the enemy into strongholds, and deny the terrorists sanctuary anywhere in the country."

It took President Bush- as Commander in Chief- almost four years to figure out what the hell we were doing in Iraq.  He should be a bit more apologetic about "the surge" and a bit less congratulatory.

"When Iraqi and American forces finish the job, the effects will reverberate far beyond Iraq's borders. Osama bin Laden once said: 'When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.' By defeating al Qaeda in Iraq, we will show the world that al Qaeda is the weak horse."

This may be one of the most interesting parts of Bush's speech.  It seems he touchs on some of the real reasons we invaded Iraq in the first place.  It's been said that by gaining pro-U.S. sentiments in Iraq, we might transform a large anti-U.S. region into a pro-U.S. region (e.g. Iran, Jordan, Syria, Afghanistan, etc...) through essentially a domino theory. 

The most interesting thing Bush said here though, seems to be, that he's looking to bin Laden for advice.  The U.S. invaded to be the "strong horse."  With this thought in mind, apparently, the U.S. invaded to be "liked" in the Middle East.  In the grand scheme of things though, Jesus said something about 'turning the other cheek.'

"To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September the 11th...a day in which 19 armed men with box cutters killed nearly 3,000 people in our — on our soil; a day after which in the following of that attack more than one million Americans lost work, lost their jobs."

He couldn't get by without linking Iraq to the year 2001 during the month of September on the eleventh day.  An interesting twist, he's now using the loss of jobs experience after that day to further justify our feelings of outrage regarding the terrible terrorist attack that took place on U.S. soil.  Isn't the loss of life enraging enough?

"Throughout the war on terror, we have brought the enemy — we have fought the enemy on every single battlefront."

I just think there is something Freudian in that statement and that would mean something is being repressed.

"So we're helping the people of Iraq establish a democracy in the heart of the Middle East. A free Iraq will fight terrorists instead of harboring them. A free Iraq will be an example for others of the power of liberty to change the societies and to displace despair with hope. By spreading the hope of liberty in the Middle East, we will help free societies take root — and when they do, freedom will yield the peace that we all desire."

These are all noble qualities.  I'd like to see all of these things happen in America.

"...the first full-leg amputee to return to the front lines...Spanky Gibson."

I've got nothing bad to say about Spanky Gibson; however, I'd be lying if I didn't say that I thought President Bush made the name up.  Spanky Gibson is real though and doing amazing things.

I'm just not sure how the President feels about "the first full-leg amputee to return to the front lines."  No disrespect to Spanky Gibson intended, but:

Are you supposed to be feel uplifted for one man's courage?
Are you supposed to express awe at the advances made in medicine, so that such a thing is possible?
Should we feel safer because Spanky Gibson is protecting our "freedom?"

As a rhetorical device in a speech, what is the intended affect supposed to be for writing Spanky Gibson into the fifth year anniversary story of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.  I have no negative feelings for Spanky Gibson; however, I feel his name was included to provide the same type of feelings as Bush's later remark,

"The battle in Iraq is noble, it is necessary, and it is just. And with your courage, the battle in Iraq will end in victory. God bless."

It seems President Bush is trying to leave his audience with good feelings for the ride home.  Overall, the speech stands out as being more somber than those of the past.  In the end though, Bush has about eight more months and he's on his way out of the executive office.  The speech had that kind of feel.

Tip of the week

Grow old gracefully.  Let the wrinkles set in and let the gray hairs come.
What are you running from?
Age is a number.
Experience a life.
Who do you have anything to prove?
Maximize the good.
Minimize the strife.

Birthday Shout Outs (Mar. 23rd to Mar. 29th)

3/24
(1925) Norman Fell- It's hard to decide who ripped into Jack Tripper better.  Mr. Roper or Mr. Furley.  Performing on par with Don Knotts is an impressive feat.

3/26
(1874) Robert Frost- Only a poet and yet still remembered as being great.

Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening
Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.
My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.
He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

3/27
(1963) Quentin Tarantino- I'm a big fan of his early work.

3/29
(1943) Eric Idle- Monty Python was as cool as the Beatles.

Belly Laugh

George Carlin is brilliant because he represents the epitome of a comedian as a philosopher.