Wake up America has the full text from President Bush’s speech last night.

I fully support and believe in every word of it. My favorite paragraph came right near the end:

In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary – and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American – and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.

Extraordinary and selfless men and women — for the most part, better men and women than most of us — who believe in what they are fighting for. They believe it because they are there, and they see and know the truth of what they are fighting for and what they are accomplishing. They also know the consequences of failure and of defeat.

If only the Left and the MSM were on their side and believed like they do.

Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post

  6 Responses to “Bush Speech: Extraordinary and Selfless Men and Women”

  1. Robbie, we all agree about the sacrifices that our men and women in the military. But I don’t know how you don’t regard the President’s praise of the troops as empty platitudes if he can’t provide a suggestion how increasing troop numbers by 10% without an accompanying change in strategy is going to have different results than what we’ve seen in the past 4 years.

    Keep in mind General Shinseki’s estimation that a counter-insurgency in Iraq would require upwards of 400,000 troops even before the civil war broke out.

    Also, the recent Military Times poll of the troops seems to belie your statement regarding the troops belief in this war.

  2. I think we can all agree on one thing. The President is the Commander in Chief. It is his call and I believe we all hope that his plan works for the sake of our troops, the people in Iraq and our future and the future of our offspring. It’s not a sure thing but it’s going to happen so let’s pray for the best outcome.

  3. I suspect the Military.com poll came out the way it did because the troops have been wanting a larger and more unfettered military present in Iraq, not because they want to raise the white flag and run away ‘over the horizon’.

  4. Partially true, Jim, but perhaps more nuanced than that:

    Almost half of those responding think we need more troops in Iraq than we have there now. A surprising 13 percent said we should have no troops there. As for Afghanistan force levels, 39 per cent think we need more troops there. But while they want more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly three-quarters of the respondents think today’s military is stretched too thin to be effective.

  5. Jim, if I can elaborate, it’s to be expected that when polled soldiers and marines would be in favor of using decisive force: that’s what they are trained to do and that’s where the career and peer rewards are to be found.

    This Atlantic Magazine article describes the resistance that General Petraeus had in elevating the prestige of training, for instance:

    The first U.S. ambassador to postwar Iraq, John D. Negroponte, was sworn in as Bremer left. And a new American Army general arrived to supervise the training of Iraqis: Dave Petraeus, who had just received his third star.

    The appointment was noticed throughout the military. Petraeus, who holds a Ph.D. from Princeton, had led the 101st Airborne during its drive on Mosul in 2003 and is one of the military’s golden boys. What I heard about him from other soldiers reminded me of what reporters used to hear about Richard Holbrooke from other diplomats: many people marveled at his ambition; few doubted his skills. Petraeus’s new assignment suggested that training Iraqis had become a sexier and more important job. By all accounts Petraeus and Negroponte did a lot to make up for lost time in the training program.

    Had the training units avoided the “B Team” taint? By e-mail I asked an officer on the training staff about the “loser” image traditionally attached to such jobs within the military. He wrote back that although training slots had long been seen as “career killers,” the importance of the effort in Iraq was changing all that. From others not involved in training I heard a more guarded view: If an Iraqi army emerges, the image of training will improve; if it doesn’t, the careers of Petraeus and his successor Dempsey will suffer.

  6. I believe that this surge in troops was done far too late. 4 years into the war and only now is the Bush Admin. considering increasing the number of troops. Over the years we have seen other countries pull their troops out(Italy, Sweden, Thailand, etc). This troop increase should have been done in 2003. maybe alot of what we are seeing could have been prevented. Unfortunately since it is too late, i doubt that anyone will see much of a difference, except for a higher US casualty.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

© 2010 UrbanGrounds

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha