There were some pretty odd remarks in President Bush's speech last night. It's was late when I finished listening to the pundits (Chris Matthews was good) and the pols, so I picked out the most obvious, and the easiest to fact check. This stood out.
No matter how you define "fighting on the ground", I can't come up with any source with 36. I found 21 from two sources. That includes Latvia with 2 people, and seven other countries with 50 or less. Did someone join since February? I know the Brits are pulling out soon. I haven't heard of anyone who signed on since then.
Non-US Forces in Iraq - February 2007
The size and capabilities of the Coalition forces involved in operations in Iraq has been a subject of much debate, confusion, and at times exaggeration. As of August 23, 2006, there were 21 non-U.S. military forces contributing armed forces to the Coalition in Iraq. These 21 countries were: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.
I checked wikipedia. They also list 21.
OK, so he was off by a dozen or so. I guess it happens.
But that wasn't all that struck me as really weird.
The administration has been playing up al-Anbar for a while. So you know he was going to use it, despite the fact that the reduction of violence in al-Anbar is largely a result of the tribal chiefs deciding to change course. I thought he'd drop al-Anbar, since Sheikh Abu Risha got blown up outside his house the day before Bush's speech.
"Our tomorrow starts today"? Perhaps not for everyone, except maybe in a transcendental sense. But he used it anyway. I guess you go with the talking point you have, not the one you wish you had.
Bush's remark about the quality of life for most Iraqis being "far from what it should be", may have been his most unfortunate.
He doesn't mention the 4.7 million refugees and internally displaced, or the cholera outbreak. He sort of glossed over the dead people, too. And nothing about the wall. Seems they don't like it.
What Bush did last night was to again hide behind the troops and General Petraeus, and mislead the American people, instead of facing up to his failed policy. Honestly, who didn't know that was going to happen?
Senator Kerry's statement:
Bush Iraq Policy Still Wrong After All These Years
"Only President Bush could applaud a race back to the starting line when the finish line should be in sight. This is proof positive that the Bush escalation has been a failure. President Bush should acknowledge that the Iraqis have squabbled while American troops fought, squandering the political opportunity our brave soldiers died to create. "This is more of the same flawed strategy in the face of overwhelming evidence that there is no military solution to Iraq’s civil war. We must change this disastrous Bush policy, and we must change it now."
Comments (3)
Posted by Violet | September 14, 2007 8:16 AM
Marty Kaplan at Huffington Post had a similar reaction.
Posted by wisteria | September 14, 2007 11:47 AM
In regards to the "36" nations supporting our involvement in Iraq, knowing that our president jumbles words, doesn't understand geography, and often uses a word in the wrong context, is it possible Mr. Bush misunderstands the definition of nation?
Posted by mbk | September 16, 2007 12:10 PM
David Kurtz takes on the fuzzy math at
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/053233.php
Violet, thanks for snippet by Marty Kaplan. I think he's right on the money with this one: "Sometimes it's just too hard to suppress the suspicion that all of us are just bit players in a delusional son's deadly Oedipal psychodrama." And "deadly" is all too accurate, backed up by very non-fuzzy math.