| Home | About Us | Off The Wires | Login/Register | Email News Tips |

A liberal dose of news, national and local politics, commentary, opinions and common sense conversation…

Senator Jack Reed Responds to President Bush’s Address on Iraq

by Pamela Leavey

In his address to the nation tonight on the Iraq War, Bush claimed that “The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is ‘return on success’ — the more successful we are, the more American troops can return home.” More too little, too late from Bush. Ed Henry of CNN’s Washington Bureau said tonight, “Bush buys time with speech full of contradictions.” Same old… Same old from Bush despite his claim that he will begin to roll back the ’surge’.

Senator Jack Reed delivered the Democratic response to Bush’s speech:

Transcript as follows:

Good evening.

I’m Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island, and I was privileged to serve in the United States Army for 12 years.

I opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. It was a flawed strategy that diverted attention and resources away from hunting down Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network. And since then, too often, the President’s Iraq policies have worsened America’s security. Hundreds of billions have been spent. Our military is strained. Over 27,000 Americans have been wounded, and over 3,700 of our best and brightest have been killed.

Tonight, a nation eager for change in Iraq heard the President speak about his plans for the future. But once again, the President failed to provide either a plan to successfully end the war or a convincing rationale to continue it. The President rightfully invoked the valor of our troops in his speech, but his plan does not amount to real change. Soldiers take a solemn oath to protect our nation, and we have a solemn responsibility to send them into battle only with clear and achievable missions.

Tonight, the President provided neither.

As a former Army officer, I know the great sacrifices our soldiers and their families make. Our military can defeat any foe on the battlefield. Yet, as General Petraeus has repeatedly stated, Iraq’s fundamental problems are not military, they are political. The only way to create a lasting peace in Iraq is for Iraqi leaders to negotiate a settlement of their long-standing differences.

When the President launched the “surge” in January, he told us that its purpose was to provide Iraqi leaders with the time to make that political progress. But now, nine months into the surge, the President’s own advisers tell us that Iraq’s leaders have not, and are not likely to do so. Meanwhile, thousands of brave Americans remain in the crossfire of another country’s civil war.

So tonight, we find ourselves at a critical moment.

Do we continue to heed the President’s call that all Iraq needs is more time, more money, and the indefinite presence of 130,000 American troops — the same number as nine months ago? Or do we follow what is in our nation’s best interest and redefine our mission in Iraq?

Democrats believe it is time to change course. We think it’s wrong that the President tells us there’s not enough money for our veterans and children’s health care because he is spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. We have put forth a plan to responsibly and rapidly begin a reduction of our troops. Our proposal can not erase the mistakes of the last four and a half years, but we can chart a better way forward.

That is why our plan focuses on counter-terrorism and training the Iraqi army. It engages in diplomacy to bring warring factions to the table and addresses regional issues that inflame the situation. It begins a responsible and rapid redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. And it returns our focus to those who seek to do us harm: Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

An endless and unlimited military presence in Iraq is not an option. Democrats and Republicans in Congress and throughout the nation can not and must not stand idly by while our interests throughout the world are undermined and our Armed Forces are stretched toward the breaking point.

We intend to exercise our Constitutional duties and profoundly change our military involvement in Iraq. We ask Americans of good will of whatever party to join with us in this historic effort to restore the strength and security of the United States. I urge the President to listen to the American people and work with Congress to start bringing our troops home and develop a new policy that is truly worthy of their sacrifices.

Thank you.

Check out The Gavel for fact checking on Bush’s speech, his latest version of the Iraq War plan “is just another stay-the-course strategy that puts us on a path for 10 years of war in Iraq.”

IN THE BLOGOSPHERE: Todd Beaton has a clip of Edwards response to Bush and Obama’s response is here. Michael Stickings has a great post on The Moderate Voice: “The lies and exaggerations of George W. Bush.” And Rick Moran on Right Wing Nut House says, “Bush’s Iraq Unrecognizable From The Real Thing.”

2 Responses to “Senator Jack Reed Responds to President Bush’s Address on Iraq”

  1. [...] iën Gazette, The Moderate Voice, Los Angeles Times, Right Wing Nut House, The Democratic Daily, PoliBlog (TM), Taylor Marsh, The Reaction and Comments From Left Field Technorat [...]

  2. I hope that this was not all concidental, because my initial reaction was that the Reed speech was a masterful stroke. Lord knows that the Bush speech has been replayed enough over the past several years that crafting a response to it should certainly have been a task that received careful consideration.

    It would be wonderful to find out, over the next several weeks, that this was just the first in a comprehensive Democratic “surge” towards ending our Iraq involvement. That was as eloquently as I’ve seen phrased the linking of the Bush name and the debacle he has brought about in Iraq. Repeatedly bringing that responsibility back to it’s true source seems to be a very important part of ultimately making the situation better.