Finally.

Finally, President Bush gives the speech that I've been awaiting.  It would have done a lot more good right after the election; still, better late than never.

UPDATE:  It's worth noting that the pressure is now on the Democrats.  Iraq is a fight that we cannot afford to lose; yet, certain Democrats give the appearance of delighting in every purported setback (real or perceived).  This is serious business, folks.  It might make you feel better to dispense your "told you so's."  But it won't make us safer.

UPDATE THE SECOND:  A chorus of angry denunciations and snide remarks provides the expected accompaniment to my brief remarks -- as well as a pop-offs about my purported pro-torture propensities.  [Hi.  My name is von.  I wrote this and this and this. Thanks for playing.]  All in good fun, I suppose.  But here's the rub:  it's not just another talking point to say things like "we can't afford to fail in Iraq."  It's the truth.  It remains the truth regardless of whether the decision to go to war in Iraq was stupid, smart, or somewhere in between.  If Iraq slips into chaos, we and our children will suffer.  You will suffer.  And your wise words, smart remarks, and deep insights won't matter at all.  The world is more Bowles or Camus -- more Lovecraftian even -- than it is anything else.

The only question we have to answer is what to do now to give us the best chance of winning (or, at least, not losing) Iraq.  Some say that pulling out will give us the best chance of victory.  I disagree, and not just because it sounds like a stupid idea.*  Although I've been deeply critical of this administration's policy on Iraq, there have been some hopeful signs that the present course is finally starting to work.  We just had an immensely successful election.  The army and police are beginning to be rebuilt.  The outcome is not yet certain -- for all we know, the Iraqis just elected Sauraman as their leader -- but there's room enough to keep from despair.

Does this mean we airkiss "bygones" and rally behind the President?  No; this ain't an episode of Ally McBeal (which, for good reason, has been canceled for quite some time).  But it does mean that we rally behind the mission. 

We have to succeed in Iraq.  We will not succeed if we preemptively declare defeat and go home.

UPDATE THE THIRD:  By criticizing some commentators for missing the big picture, I do not mean to criticize them all.  But you probably knew that already.

UPDATE THE FOURTH:  Mmmgghff, mmgfagfagf, mmmsahfgih.  Hold on.  You know, they're right:  It is easier to speak with it out of my mouth.

Anyway, I'm only following The Editors' suggestion, who helpfully propose that I remove President Bush's Ying from my Yang.  Why?  Well, because of the "Pesky Consitution."  Or something like that.  (Frankly, I thought that the Constitution granted President Bush the right to put his Ying in my Yang, but maybe that's a discussion for another day.**)

The Editor's point seems to be that Democrats shouldn't be asked to get in line behind the mission in Iraq because Republicans control the Presidency and Congress.  I suppose that if you believe that the national good flip-flops depending on who's in power at the moment, that's a colorable argument.  I ain't that person but, hey, it takes all types.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm a bit busy at the moment .... Mmmgghff, mmgfagfagf, mmmsahfgih ......

UPDATE THE FIFTH:  Shorter HellBlazer:  Drop dead, von. 

UPDATE THE SIXTH: Liberal Japonicus finally posts a Hating on Von thread.  I have arrived.

UPDATE THE LAST:  I'm out of town tomorrow, although I'm taking comfort in the fact that I'll be home on Wednesday, and not en route to Omaha (long story).  Still, they'll be no more comments from me.  I will try to read every comment that's posted, however, when I get back.

*There's room to argue over footprints and whatnot. 

**Given the nature of our readership, someone will doubtless take that as anti-gay bigotry rather than as intended, so:  Everyone who's done pro bono work for the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, raise your hand.  [Hand raised.]  Support gay marriage?  [Hand raised.]  Now, are you a politically-correct schmuck?  [Hand down.] 

Comments

[Gary Farber]

Here is the links to many of bin Laden's statements/interviews/speeches. (There are surely other collections out there; I haven't gone searching since finding this one back in the 90s.)

Whether you might be referring to this 1996 interview, I have no idea.

[liberal japonicus]

Anarch, I think the two western journalists who have gotten interviews were Fisk and John Miller. Fisk's site has some stuff, though this bbc piece says he has interviewed him 3 times, and miller's interview is here. Do those ring any bells?

[Gary Farber]

Oh, and: "Also, I believe (though I'm sure you can correct me) several notable science fiction writers have had problems with substance abuse...."

Plenty. It's sad each time. (I don't mean people who are heavy drinkers; I mean people who drink themselves to death, some more slowly than others; the list of writers who are/were simply heavy drinkers/alcohol abusers, is vastly longer.)

And if Fitzgerald's life, at least the last years, wasn't sad, whose was?

"Just as long as you don't go off on Faulkner."

A bit too windy for my taste, but I don't recall clearly ever actually finishing a full novel by him, so odds are I haven't.

[liberal japonicus]

he found his second act with the Checkers speech

My feeling, reading about Nixon's maneuvers in the Checkers speech from Garry Wills Nixon Agonistes, is that the Checkers speech doesn't reveal a rebirth or a free pass, but a very very sly operator.

I think the notion that there were "no second acts" appealed to Fitzgerald as an obvious excuse for self-pity, but doesn't relate well to general American reality at all.

If that's the case, I look forward to the candidacies of Gore and Kerry. Though I am thankful that Jimmy Carter got a second act.

[ajay]

I thought 'second acts' didn't mean second chances, but second acts out of the classic three-act structure, which is Introduction-Challenge-Resolution. IE, no one gets challenged; people just move from success to success.

[russell]

Most of the substantive issues involved here have already been beaten to death, so I'll simply address you directly.

You have a hell of a nerve laying responsibility for a good outcome in Iraq at the feet of the Democrats. This war belongs, lock stock and barrel, for good or ill, to George W Bush, and noone else.

I give Bush no credit for "taking responsibility" by saying it was his decision to go into Iraq. I will give Bush credit for "taking responsibility" when I hear him give a speech beginning with the words "I was wrong".

I can think of no Democratic leader who, publicly or privately, would take pleasure in failure in Iraq. It's likely, however, that there are several who take some satisfaction in the decline of the President's political fortunes. I find it hard to blame them. Many have spent the last 3 or more years being called cowards, appeasers, traitors, and supporters of terrorism. They have been subject to insanely defamatory political attacks, on themselves and their families. They have, basically, had their nuts gleefully crushed by the most spiteful political organization in my living memory, which includes the presidencies of both Johnson and Nixon, so that's saying something. And, all for saying things that, as it turns out, were true. It would take a much, much bigger man than I am to resist the urge to say "I told you so". And, many if not most of them do resist it.

You are correct to note that failure in Iraq will be disastrous for the US and for the world in general, and also correct to note that it's a real possibility. Right you are. Just remember who you have to thank for that state of affairs.

We will be safer when George Bush and his reckless, irresponsible crew are no longer behind the wheel, and not one moment before.

[Bruce Baugh]

One more question for Von:

Von, is victory in Iraq worth Bush's imperial presidency, as a matter of policy and precedent? Must we in fact destroy the republic to save Iraq? And what if we destroy the republic and it turns out we can't save Iraq?

[NeoDude]

The Iraqis are dying for Bush's sins.

He is a depraved man and his supporters are deranged sheep.

[kiche]

Hi, I surfed on over from the Editors' place.

I think you've completely missed his point.

It doesn't matter how many "great speeches" Bush gives. He's incompetent. His incompetence is driving America (and Iraq) straight to hell.

Maybe he should, y'know, do his job and -i reallize this is hard- not trample all over the constitution.

i realize that this will be hard and that we are living in different times than have ever existed; everyone knows we have never been at war before. But still, Bush should at least make an attempt.

Also, you should stop whining about how democrats and liberals should try to reach out to Bush. He has spent the last 5 years trying to drive us away. If he wants to reach out to us, we're here. But if he does it, he will have to make a real attempt. with policy, not some well written speech by karl rove.

[Gary Farber]

"My feeling, reading about Nixon's maneuvers in the Checkers speech from Garry Wills Nixon Agonistes, is that the Checkers speech doesn't reveal a rebirth or a free pass, but a very very sly operator."

Nixon Agonistes, and Garry Wills, are both wonderful. That was an early-on, my favorite book about Nixon, bar none (haven't reread it in more than fifteen years, to be sure).

But we may be using "second act" differently. Nixon was considered to be through when the fund hit the papers. Eisenhower was sure to drop him from the ticket. And that was, in fact, the case. There's no argument there. He survived only because of the success of that speech, which no one, except maybe Pat, expected. (Even Richard Nixon had no idea if he could pull it off.) If that's not a "second act," I don't know what is. I'm not talking about something spiritual, or inner life, and I don't know how "free pass" wandered in here.

Hardly an important topic, of course. But my head and heart bursts with important, depressing, topics, and so I like to squeeze out some light friendly chat where I can.

[Gary Farber]

"If that's the case, I look forward to the candidacies of Gore and Kerry."

A limited case for "at the beginning of the 21st century, there may, for some time, be no second successful Presidential campaigns after a first failed campaign," I wouldn't argue against. :-)

Although I'm still quite fond of Al Gore (I must be that sort of "conservative"; how strange!), and would happily work to elect him, vote for him, and see him in office. And stranger things have happened, not that I'd advise betting the house on his comeback, let alone the House.

[ral]

Anarch & Gary: the interview that came to my mind is the 1997 one by Peter Arnett (then of CNN).

[Slartibartfast]

He is a depraved man and his supporters are deranged sheep.

Neodude, normally I just skim over whatever you put in comments as being just as devoid of anything valuable and interesting as the last, but this sort of thing will get you banned if you continue. If you're confused as to why, please click the link called "posting rules" and read.

[blogbudsman]

Actually I was thinking along the lines of Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy and Reid. But if the shoe fits...

[NeoDude]

Yeah, I have spent my imagination...time for a vacation.

[Dantheman]

"I have spent my imagination"

Someone paid cash for it?!? I thought scientific research budgets were shrinking.

[NeoDude]

I am spent...I ain't got nuthin'...mind is tired...and the right-wingers are becoming the very thing I thought, only existed in the world of Pacifica Radio stereotypes.

[liberal japonicus]

Sorry, I missed this thread in all the excitement (family birthday this morning), but I did want to note that I think ajay puts us (or at least me) to shame by suggesting a deeper meaning of second act. Thanks to him for pointing it out.

I'm also one who think that Gore would be an excellent candidate and would support him strongly, though that might be me thinking of things that might have been.

[lily]

The results of the vote are coming in an it seems clear that the Shiites did win big and that the secular parties lost big. The Shiite coalition might get enough seats to form a government on their own. If not, they won't need to bargain for very many seats. What do you all think of this?

I think all the talk of staying the course to victory may become irrelevent since we are going to be more or less at the beck and call of the Shiite coalition. They might tell us to go home. In any case I don't think we will be fighting for a secular, pro-American democratic government. More like a religious, pro-Iranian, increasingly undemocratic government. Even No End But Victory has a link to an pessimistic article from the Christian Science Monitor.

[Dantheman]

"What do you all think of this?"

It is entirely the fault of the whiny, defeatist, and traitorous Democrats. Had they not been criticizing the Administration, of course the Iraqis would have turned out in overwhelming numbers for Chalabi and Allawi, and we would again be welcomed with candy and flowers.

< /Redstate >

[dutchmarbel]

And there's something more: the concept that you follow through on what you start. It's not just eagle scout crap. It's the light that will burn across the universe. Finishing what you start (or at least trying to) sends a signal to your allies and enemies. That you will support them. That you will exact a cost (in life and filthy lucre) if they trouble you.

Von; If you really believe that, why are you not more concerned about Afghanistan?

[Jon H]

von writes: " You will suffer. And your wise words, smart remarks, and deep insights won't matter at all."

Bunk.

Von, the GOP simply isn't acting like it. The hawks simply aren't acting like it. The Pentagon sure as hell never acted like it.

Is there a draft? No. Therefore, there is no threat.

[DaveC]

Is there a draft? No. Therefore, there is no threat.

The US servicemen in the volunteer armed forces are better educated, more motivated, and more effective than the population as a whole. So they havent had to rely on disaffected malingerers from the general population, is that what you are unhappy about? Or is it that when people say minorities and the poor are overrepresented it is no longer true? John Conyers who wanted to bring back the draft is an anti-war Democrat wants to do so in order to cause resentment against the military. It must bother him that our armed forces are by and large conservative.

[Jesurgislac]

Von is Charlie Brown. Bush is Lucy. This speech is yet another football.

What's to discuss? Schulz already drew it.