The Ashford Zone Blog

Applause to Attytood for pulling this together — a comparison of LBJ’s State of the Union speech (given exactly 40 years ago today), and Bush’s speech tonight:

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: We have chosen to fight a limited war in Vietnam in an attempt to prevent a larger war–a war almost certain to follow, I believe, if the Communists succeed in overrunning and taking over South Vietnam by aggression and by force. I believe, and I am supported by some authority, that if they are not checked now the world can expect to pay a greater price to check them later.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror – and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America’s course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: I wish I could report to you that the conflict is almost over. This I cannot do. We face more cost, more loss, and more agony. For the end is not yet. I cannot promise you that it will come this year–or come next year. Our adversary still believes, I think, tonight, that he can go on fighting longer than we can, and longer than we and our allies will be prepared to stand up and resist.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: Our South Vietnamese allies are also being tested tonight. Because they must provide real security to the people living in the countryside. And this means reducing the terrorism and the armed attacks which kidnaped and killed 26,900 civilians in the last 32 months, to levels where they can be successfully controlled by the regular South Vietnamese security forces. It means bringing to the villagers an effective civilian government that they can respect, and that they can rely upon and that they can participate in, and that they can have a personal stake in. We hope that government is now beginning to emerge.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: This forward movement is rooted in the ambitions and the interests of Asian nations themselves. It was precisely this movement that we hoped to accelerate when I spoke at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore in April 1965, and I pledged "a much more massive effort to improve the life of man" in that part of the world, in the hope that we could take some of the funds that we were spending on bullets and bombs and spend it on schools and production.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: We have chosen to fight a limited war in Vietnam in an attempt to prevent a larger war–a war almost certain to follow, I believe, if the Communists succeed in overrunning and taking over South Vietnam by aggression and by force. I believe, and I am supported by some authority, that if they are not checked now the world can expect to pay a greater price to check them later.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time…In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy – by advancing liberty across a troubled region.

LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: A time of testing–yes. And a time of transition. The transition is sometimes slow; sometimes unpopular; almost always very painful; and often quite dangerous. But we have lived with danger for a long time before, and we shall live with it for a long time yet to come. We know that "man is born unto trouble." We also know that this Nation was not forged and did not survive and grow and prosper without a great deal of sacrifice from a great many men.

GWB, Jan. 10, 2007: Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship…A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them – and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.

Not much to add here — the words of Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush pretty much speak for themselves.

Sadly, No’s predictions (with checklist) is right on the monry:

Yup.

• [ ] President walks out and makes the serious-and-earnest expression.

• [ ] First long section of speech is timeline of successes in the War on Terror which does not resemble any known sequence of events in the world.

• [ ] “But America is not yet safe,” says the President. “There are those who envy our freedoms and seek to destroy us.” (Phrasing is approximate.)

• [ ] A list of measures that are being taken to ensure America’s safety, by the President and under his orders, that do not resemble any known events in the world.

• [ ] Challenges ahead. Identify enemies foreign and domestic, according to requirements of the political moment.

• [ ] Transition: variation(s) of the phrase, “I have a plan — and it’s a plan that will work.” Invoke generals, suggest having studied Baker-Hamilton plan, give impression of sober deliberations.

• [ ] Lengthy passage on the troops, including at least one concrete invocation of a specific troop, specifying his place of origin. Alternately, this may be a family member. Perhaps a letter has been sent to the President, or he has met this person in his travels.

• [ ] “Sacred duty of the Commander-in-Chief to ensure the safety of the troops,” or variation thereof.

• [ ] Reveal escalation plan, with specifics of action that do not resemble any known strategic or tactical challenges in the world.

• [ ] Brief refrain to one or more of above topics, stressing need for action, safety of troops, advice of generals, etc.

• [ ] Folksy homily, uplifting message, other Reagan-style cadence suggesting that America, despite struggles in these perilous times, is in ascendancy with flag flying high.

• [ ] Make weird face, scratch ass, walk offstage with hand already extended for tumbler of bourbon, or otherwise provide impression that President has already forgotten everything he has said.

Pentagon insiders say members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have long opposed the increase in troops and are only grudgingly going along with the plan because they have been promised that the military escalation will be matched by renewed political and economic efforts in Iraq.

And I agree with everyone else — it’s not a "surge".  The proper word is "escalation".

Bush wants to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq.  Where will they come from?

The dead, apparently:

US Army urges dead to re-enlist

The US Army is to apologise to the families of officers killed or wounded in action who were sent letters urging them to return to active duty.

The letters were sent to more than 5,100 Army officers listed as recently having left the military.

But this figure included about 75 officers killed in action and about 200 wounded in action.

FUBAR, obviously.

RELATED:  The No. 2 U.S. military commander says the "surge" won’t save Iraq (even with live soldiers).

ALSO RELATED:  Here’s another guy who thinks sending more troops to Iraq is a bad idea.  Specifically, he said:

Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don’t you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders.

– Pres. George Bush, June 28 2005 (video here).  Guess he was against troop increase before he was for it.

Terry Jones — yes, that Terry Jones — has an interesting observation about the wasteful spending that is the Iraq War:

Early this year the Bush administration is to ask Congress to approve an additional $100bn for the onerous task of making life intolerable for the Iraqis. This will bring the total spent on the White House’s current obsession with war to almost $500bn – enough to have given every US citizen $1,600 each. I wonder which the voters would have gone for if given the choice: shall we (a) give every American $1,600 or (b) spend the money on bombing a country in the Middle East that doesn’t use lavatory paper?

Of course, there’s another thing that George Bush could have done with the money: he could have given every Iraqi $18,700. I imagine that would have reduced the threat of international terrorism somewhat. Call me old-fashioned, but I can’t help thinking that giving someone $18,700 brings them round to your side more quickly than bombing the hell out of them. They could certainly buy a lot of lavatory paper with it.

Ollie North.

Now, if Bush can’t hold Ollie North, he’s really out in left right field.