Hmm, Hell got a little colder. Not frozen over, but still...

Originally posted 12-14-05 and transferred here.

Georgie finally did it- sort of. He finally admitted some responsibility for going to war with faulty intelligence. Of course he bracketed the comment with the usual line of we were right to go, we're right to stay, and we're going to stay until we're done. But it's the first time I've "heard" him take any responsibility. (Unless someone can correct-me and please do if you have an example, I'd like to read it.)
The link in the title goes to the CNN.com transcript of the speech, but the following are a few excerpts that stuck out at me, complete with my own sketched-out initial impressions:

B:"In an age of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, if we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."
Me: So rumors will do just fine? Where do you even begin to draw this line in the first place? And wasn't that the problem with the intelligence to go to war in the first place- too many rumors and too many mis-drawn conclusions?

B:"When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities."
Me: Remember my "Random thoughts" post about "political oopsies"? Granted that was more of a reaction to the Libby-Cheney-Plame debacle, but this kinda applies as well. Pseudo-kudos to Georgie's advisors for getting the guy to take responsibility, but does he have give it in this back-handed manner? Yes, other governments jumped on the WMD bandwagon, but some of them have since expressed sorrow and regret at the mistake, while still remaining resolute to "stay the course." Taken in context with the rest of the speech, this is almost like he's saying "I was responsible, the info was wrong, but I don't care."

B: "This is an enemy without conscience. And again, such enemy, there is only one effective response. We will never back down, we will never give in. And we will never accept anything less than complete victory."
Me: And neither will they- that's the problem with a "war on terrorism". How do you define your victory when there's no one border that contains your enemies? Do we call it when we've chased all the terrorists out of Iraq and into neighboring countries? Do we follow them if that's what happens? Here's an interesting take on that conundrum: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/morton.victory/index.html

B: "It used to be that after American troops cleared the terrorists out of a city and moved on to the next mission, there weren't enough forces -- Iraqi forces -- to hold the area. We found that after we left, the terrorists would re-enter the city, intimidate local leaders and police and eventually retake control.
This undermined the gains of our military, it thwarted our efforts to help Iraqis rebuild, and led local residents to lose confidence in the process and in their leaders."
Me: Ya think? And it only took what, over a year for us notice this was happening? Yup- here's a quote, "Our troops liberated Najaf in 2003. Yet about a year later, the city fell under the sway of radical and violent militia."

There's a lot about this speech that bothers me, but some of it is encouraging. It seems that Georgie is actually taking the time to listen to his nay-sayers, instead of ignoring them outright or attacking their patriotism. (Bottomed-out approval ratings will do that, I guess.) In more of his recent speeches, he's actually taken the time to answer some of the endless questions he's been asked. And while his answers aren't wholly satisfying, at least to me, he is finally engaging in the debate.

And for the record (in case anyone cares) I don't like that we went in using faulty intelligence as a prop, but the regime was horrible (and there are many others as bad or worse out there) and needed to be dealt with. I HATE that we went in almost half-assed and misjudged everything from the strength of the insurgents, the weakness of the existing infrastructure, and the number of soldiers it would take to take and hold positions. It is getting better (slowly), but only after how long? As cheesy as the comparisons to the WWII mobilizations are, there are points to be made. And I have to (grudgingly) agree with one point Georgie makes- while a firm withdrawal date would be heavenly, it's not practically possible.