PDA

View Full Version : FactCheck: Bush's Iraq Speech: Long On Assertion, Short On Facts



scott
06-30-2005, 06:09 PM
http://www.factcheck.org/article334.html

Bush's Iraq Speech: Long On Assertion, Short On Facts
Bush says "progress is uneven" in Iraq, but accentuates positive evidence and mostly ignores the negative.

June 30, 2005
Modified: June 30, 2005

Summary



Standing before a crowd of uniformed soldiers, President Bush addressed the nation on June 27 to reaffirm America's commitment to the global war on terrorism. But throughout the speech Bush continually stated his opinions and conclusions as though they were facts, and he offered little specific evidence to support his assertions.

Here we provide some additional context, both facts that support Bush's case that "we have made significant progress" in Iraq, as well as some of the negative evidence he omitted.


Analysis



Bush's prime-time speech at Fort Bragg, NC coincided with the one-year anniversary of the handover of soverignty to Iraqi authorities. It was designed to lay out America's role in Iraq amid sinking public support for the war and calls by some lawmakers to withdraw troops.

The Bloodshed

Bush acknowledged the high level of violence in Iraq as he sought to reassure the public.

Bush: The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it?

What Bush did not mention is that by most measures the violence is getting worse. Both April and May were record months in Iraq for car bombings, for example, with more than 135 of them being set off each month. And the bombings are getting more deadly. May was a record month for deaths from bombings, with 381 persons killed in "multiple casualty" bombings that took two or more lives, according to figures collected by the Brookings Institution in its "Iraq Index." The Brookings index is compiled from a variety of sources including official government statistics, where those are available, and other public sources such as news accounts and statements of Iraqi government officials.

The number of Iraqi police and military who have been killed is also rising, reaching 296 so far in June, nearly triple the 109 recorded in January and 103 in Febrary, according to a tally of public information by the website Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, a private group that documents each fatality from public statements and news reports. Estimates of the total number of Iraqi civilians killed each month as a result of "acts of war" have been rising as well, according to the Brookings index.

The trend is also evident in year-to-year figures. In the past twelve months, there have been 25% more U.S. troop fatalities and nearly double the average number of insurgent attacks per day as there were in the preceeding 12 months.

Reconstruction Progress

In talking about Iraqi reconstruction, Bush highlighted the positive and omitted the negative:

Bush: We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. . . . Our progress has been uneven but progress is being made. We are improving roads and schools and health clinics and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.

Indeed, the State Department's most recent Iraq Weekly Status Report shows progress is uneven. Education is a positive; official figures show 3,056 schools have been rehabilitated and millions of "student kits" have been distributed to primary and secondary schools. School enrollments are increasing. And there are also 145 new primary healthcare centers currently under construction. The official figures show 78 water treatment projects underway, nearly half of them completed, and water utility operators are regularly trained in two-week courses.

On the negative side, however, State Department figures show overall electricity production is barely above pre-war levels. Iraqis still have power only 12 hours daily on average.

Iraqis are almost universally unhappy about that. Fully 96 percent of urban Iraqis said they were dissatisfied when asked about "the availability of electricity in your neighborhood." That poll was conducted in February for the U.S. military, and results are reported in Brookings' "Iraq Index." The same poll also showed that 20 percent of Iraqi city-dwellers still report being without water to their homes.

Conclusions or Facts?

The President repeatedly stated his upbeat conclusions as though they were facts. For example, he said of "the terrorists:"

Bush: They failed to break our coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war.

In fact, there have been withdrawals by allies. Spain pulled out its 1,300 soldiers in April, and Honduras brought home its 370 troops at the same time. The Philippines withdrew its 51 troops last summer to save the life of a Filipino hostage held captive for eight months in Iraq. Ukraine has already begun a phased pullout of its 1,650-person contingent, which the Defense Ministry intends to complete by the end of the year. Both the Netherlands and Italy have announced plans to withdraw their troops, and the Bulgarian parliament recently granted approval to bring home its 450 soldiers. Poland, supplying the third-largest contingent in the coalition after Italy's departure, has backed off a plan for full withdrawal of troops due to the success of Iraqi elections and talks with Condoleezza Rice, but the Polish Press Agency announced in June that the next troop rotation will have 200 fewer soldiers.

Bush is of course entitled to argue that these withdrawals don't constitute a "mass" withdrawal, but an argument isn't equivalent to a fact.

The same goes for Bush's statement there's no "civil war" going on. In fact, some believe that what's commonly called the "insurgency" already is a "civil war" or something very close to it. For example, in an April 30 piece, the Times of London quotes Colonel Salem Zajay, a police commander in Southern Baghdad, as saying, "The war is not between the Iraqis and the Americans. It is between the Shia and the Sunni." Again, Bush is entitled to state his opinion to the contrary, but stating a thing doesn't make it so.

Terrorism

Similarly, Bush equated Iraqi insurgents with terrorists who would attack the US if they could.

Bush: There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. . . . Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists .

Despite a few public claims to the contrary, however, no solid evidence has surfaced linking Iraq to attacks on the United States, and Bush offered none in his speech. The 9/11 Commission issued a staff report more than a year ago saying "so far we have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." It said Osama bin Laden made a request in 1994 to establish training camps in Iraq, but "but Iraq apparently never responded." That was before bin Laden was ejected from Sudan and moved his operation to Afghanistan.

Bush laid stress on the "foreign" or non-Iraqi elements in the insurgency as evidence that fighting in Iraq might prevent future attacks on the US:

Bush: I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country . And tonight I will explain the reasons why.
Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations.

But Bush didn't mention that the large majority of insurgents are Iraqis, not foreigners. The overall strength of the insurgency has been estimated at about 16,000 persons. The number of foreign fighters in Iraq is only about 1,000, according to estimates reported by the Brookings Institution. The exact number is of course impossible to know. However, over the course of one week during the major battle for Fallujah in November of 2004, a Marine official said that only about 2% of those detained were foreigners. To be sure, Brookings notes that "U.S. military believe foreign fighters are responsible for the majority of suicide bombings in Iraq," with perhaps as many as 70 percent of bombers coming from Saudi Arabia alone. It is anyone's guess how many of those Saudi suicide bombers might have attempted attacks on US soil, but a look at the map shows that a Saudi jihadist can drive across the border to Baghdad much more easily than getting nearly halfway around the world to to the US.

Osama bin Laden

Bush quoted a recent tape-recorded message by bin Laden as evidence that the Iraq conflict is "a central front in the war on terror":

Bush: Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq..."The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."

However, Bush passed over the fact that the relationship between bin Laden and the Iraqi insurgents – to the extent one existed at all before – grew much closer after the US invaded Iraq. Insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi did not announce his formal allegiance with bin Laden until October, 2004. It was only then that Zarqawi changed the name of his group from "Unification and Holy War Group" to "al Qaeda in Iraq."

In summary, we found nothing false in what Bush said, only that his facts were few and selective.

--by Brooks Jackson & Jennifer L. Ernst

Researched by Matthew Barge, Kevin Collins & Jordan Grossman


Sources



Paul Richter, “No ‘Timetables’ for Iraq Pullout, Bush Promises Visiting Premier,” Los Angeles Times, 25 June 2005: A1.

Michael E. O’Hanlon, Adriana Lins de Albuquerque, "Iraq Index; Tracking Variables of Reconstruction & Security in Post-Saddam Iraq," Brookings Institution, 27 June 2005.

US Department of State, " Iraq Weekly Status Report ," 22 June 2005.

National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States, " Overview of the Enemy ," staff statement No. 15 released at Twelfth Public Hearing, Wednesday, June 16, 2004.

BBC News, "US chides Spain for Iraq pull-out," 20 April 2005.

Robin Wright, “European Bitterness Over Iraq Dissipates,” Washington Post 5 Feb. 2005: A21.

PAP Polish Press Agency, “Next Rotation of Polish Soldiers In Iraq Smaller,” 25 May 2005.

“Ukraine ’s Defence Minister Says His Troops Will Be Out Of Iraq By Year End,” BBC Monitoring International Reports 17 June 2005.

Nick Childs, “Iraq ’s Strained Coalition,” BBC News World Edition 16 March 2005.

Sara Toms, “Manila ’s Difficult Dilemna,” BBC News World Edition 20 July 2004.

"Poll shows dissatisfaction with Iraq War," CNN.com, 21 June 2005.
Donna Miles, "Military Tops Public Confidence List in New Gallup Poll," American Forces Press Service, 3 June 2005.

"Few foreigners among rebels captured in Fallujah," Associated Press/USA Today, 15 November 2004.

Susan B. Glasser, "'Martyrs' in Iraq Mostly Saudis," Washington Post, 15 May 2005.

"President Addresses Nation, Discusses Iraq , War on Terror," Transcript, The White House 28 June 2005.

exstatic
06-30-2005, 07:13 PM
I think they should just can that speech, repeat it 24 times, and call it the new season of Scare Tactics, although I'd rather look at Shannon than Shrub.

ElMuerto
06-30-2005, 08:49 PM
Those were dead words talking.

B.AlMighty
07-02-2005, 07:20 AM
Where is TRO's response?

The truth does hurt sometimes.

scott
07-02-2005, 10:13 AM
TRO would never be caught dead in a thread that has "Fact" in the title.

The Ressurrected One
07-02-2005, 02:36 PM
TRO would never be caught dead in a thread that has "Fact" in the title.
What's to say? I don't read regurgitated news articles that are poorly formatted and put in a thread as some attempt to represent cogent argument.

Restate the premise scott and I'll respond. Your original post seemed to just say the same old shit, "Bush lied." What's the point in reading on? Haven't we heard it before? If not, please do point out the 'new' lies.

scott
07-02-2005, 02:45 PM
My original comment was in jest, but now that I think of it - I have never seen you participate in a FactCheck thread - despite the fact that FackCheck articles remain the only ones posted on this board with clearly and properly cited sources.


Your original post seemed to just say the same old shit, "Bush lied." What's the point in reading on? Haven't we heard it before? If not, please do point out the 'new' lies.

The article doesn't assert or suggest Bush lied about anything. It takes his speech from the other night, and checks the facts behind it. Myself and maybe only a few other people who regularly post on this board like objective sources containing facts, rather than relying on the spin-riddled comments of our politicians and talk-show hosts of choice. Where you like to get your information from Ann Coulter, I like to get it from objective sources.


I don't read regurgitated news articles that are poorly formatted and put in a thread as some attempt to represent cogent argument.

No argument is being made. Maybe that's the problem with society these days. Instead of digesting facts and coming to ones own conclusions, people rely on dramaticized rhetoric from Ann Coulter or Michael Moore to tell them what their opinion should be.

The Ressurrected One
07-02-2005, 03:02 PM
My original comment was in jest, but now that I think of it - I have never seen you participate in a FactCheck thread - despite the fact that FackCheck articles remain the only ones posted on this board with clearly and properly cited sources.

The article doesn't assert or suggest Bush lied about anything. It takes his speech from the other night, and checks the facts behind it. Myself and maybe only a few other people who regularly post on this board like objective sources containing facts, rather than relying on the spin-riddled comments of our politicians and talk-show hosts of choice. Where you like to get your information from Ann Coulter, I like to get it from objective sources.

No argument is being made. Maybe that's the problem with society these days. Instead of digesting facts and coming to ones own conclusions, people rely on dramaticized rhetoric from Ann Coulter or Michael Moore to tell them what their opinion should be.

To be fair, you should also note it isn't only "FactCheck" articles to which I don't respond. I generally avoid any thread that contains lazily posted articles where the main point isn't immediately clear. I don't have time to sift through much of the nonsense. If that's my flaw, I'll live with it.

However, you'll note that I take particular care is re-formatting and emphasizing the points I want to make when posting articles or long dissertations.

But, let's take one paragraph of Factcheck's article, at random, and dissect it.


"But Bush didn't mention that the large majority of insurgents are Iraqis, not foreigners. The overall strength of the insurgency has been estimated at about 16,000 persons. The number of foreign fighters in Iraq is only about 1,000, according to estimates reported by the Brookings Institution. The exact number is of course impossible to know. However, over the course of one week during the major battle for Fallujah in November of 2004, a Marine official said that only about 2% of those detained were foreigners. To be sure, Brookings notes that "U.S. military believe foreign fighters are responsible for the majority of suicide bombings in Iraq," with perhaps as many as 70 percent of bombers coming from Saudi Arabia alone. It is anyone's guess how many of those Saudi suicide bombers might have attempted attacks on US soil, but a look at the map shows that a Saudi jihadist can drive across the border to Baghdad much more easily than getting nearly halfway around the world to to the US."

What FC.org fails make clear is that nearly, if not, 100% of the most deadly attacks (suicide bomber attacks) have been perpetrated by imported terrorists, not Iraqi Insurgents.

Insurgents merely outnumber foreign terrorists because of the simple mathematics of it, they're were more of them to start with.

Most people believe the Iraq Insurgents are looking for a way out believing they've actually grabbed a tiger by the tail by hooking up with the foreign terrorists.

Numbers 16,000 vs. 1,000 isn't as impressive as who is actually doing the damage. Think.

Their response also underscores the assertion made by President Bush that it is easier to fight them over there than it is to fight them over here. And, just because it is harder for them to get here than it is for them to get there doesn't mean that by enticing them to go there isn't keeping them from attempting to get here...for the time being anyway. << Have your mother explain that one to you. Okay?

scott
07-02-2005, 07:02 PM
generally avoid any thread that contains lazily posted articles where the main point isn't immediately clear. I don't have time to sift through much of the nonsense. If that's my flaw, I'll live with it.

However, you'll note that I take particular care is re-formatting and emphasizing the points I want to make when posting articles or long dissertations.


Well it is good to know that you have more time than me to make your posts on the internet look pretty. It took me 4 minutes to read the regularly formatted text. If you want prettier formatting, feel free to click the link. English and proper grammar seem to serve me though, even with out bolds letter or italics.


What FC.org fails make clear is that nearly, if not, 100% of the most deadly attacks (suicide bomber attacks) have been perpetrated by imported terrorists, not Iraqi Insurgents.

They made a similar point pretty clear to me.


To be sure, Brookings notes that "U.S. military believe foreign fighters are responsible for the majority of suicide bombings in Iraq," with perhaps as many as 70 percent of bombers coming from Saudi Arabia alone.

Maybe it just wasn't formatted nice enough for you to catch that part. But you were the one who quoted it...


Their response also underscores the assertion made by President Bush that it is easier to fight them over there than it is to fight them over here. And, just because it is harder for them to get here than it is for them to get there doesn't mean that by enticing them to go there isn't keeping them from attempting to get here...for the time being anyway. << Have your mother explain that one to you. Okay?

See, you can even use some facts to help your point of view. Good boy! Good boy!

I know it probably seems odd for you to read something that is only about facts, and not proving a point or substantiating a bias - but such articles do exist.

Cant_Be_Faded
07-02-2005, 08:47 PM
i love gitmo
lol