Maybe if USA Today listened more often they'd get it...

I've got some major issues with a USA Today editorial today, ostensibly on the President's speech last night. While explicitly agreeing with him on the undesirability of setting a pull-out timetable, they've loaded it with both mis-information and misleading innuendo.

Two years ago, an ebullient President Bush flew to an aircraft carrier — with its infamously overoptimistic "Mission Accomplished" banner — to celebrate the supposed end of major combat in Iraq.

We've all done this before, but since it's there, I guess it needs to be done again.

1. The White House and the President had nothing to do with the banner


2. The USS Lincoln had accomplished its mission, and was returning home


3. It wasn't the "supposed end" to major combat operations. Major combat operations were over. There was no more Iraqi government, and no more Iraqi army to fight. We had won.

With 1,600 killed and 10,000 wounded since then, Bush on Tuesday again appeared before hundreds of U.S. troops, this time to respond to questions and growing concerns about the mission.

"The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous," he said, acknowledging what Americans watching the news have long known.

And what Americans who have bothered to listen have heard him, and all of the members of his administration, say repeatedly. Over and over again.

"We have more work to do and there will be tough moments that test America's resolve."

They seem to think that this is something new. Just look at the title on the piece, "Bush shifts from rosy to realistic."

But there's no "shift" there at all. Everything he said last night is consistent with everything he's said in the last 4 years.

They must remember the May 2003 speech on the USS Lincoln, the "end of major combat operations" speech:

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people.

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq.

It's what he's always said. Difficult, dangerous, hard, don't know when it'll be done, we'll win, we'll leave when we're done. That's the message. That's been the message. It's been consistent, it hasn't changed.

Bush's half-hour speech outlined a sound, steadfast approach to dealing with the mess that Iraq has become.

Because we all know there was no mess there before, right?

Seriously, does anyone really think that the situation in Iraq is worse for America and Americans and the world than it was 2 1/2 years ago? 5 years ago? 10? Yes, it's more immediately dangerous for American troops in that theater of operations than it was. But on the whole, how can you say, or even just imply, that there's a "mess" there now that wasn't there before?

Tuesday's speech was a belated effort to restore the nation's resolve and buy time. The president tried to link the Iraq campaign to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, even though there is no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in them.

Did he say that there was? No. Did he imply that there was? No. Did he ever state that we went into Iraq to punish Saddam Hussein for September 11th? No.

So what did he say?

The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us -- and the terrorists we face -- murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent.

And

After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy. Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, in Washington, and Pennsylvania.

And

The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September the 11th, if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi, and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden.

And

We're fighting against men with blind hatred -- and armed with lethal weapons -- who are capable of any atrocity. They wear no uniform; they respect no laws of warfare or morality. They take innocent lives to create chaos for the cameras. They are trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September the 11th, 2001. They will fail.

And

After September the 11th, 2001, I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult, and that we would prevail. Well, it has been difficult -- and we are prevailing.

It's very clear, and should be well within the intellectual purview of even a USA Today editorialist - we went into Iraq not because Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11, but because there was reason to be concerned that Saddam Hussein would like to be involved with the next 9/11.

Nor was Iraq a terrorist haven before the U.S. invasion, though it has become one since.

And this, of course, is total and utter nonsense. Even if you ignore the bounties that Hussein was paying to the families of Palestinian terrorists, even if you discount the alleged Prague meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence, even if you discount Ahmad Hikmat Shakir meeting with Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash in Kuala Lumpur, even if you ignore Salman Pak, there are still numerous reasons to call Iraq a terrorist haven.

• Abu Abbas, mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking, escaped Italian police because he had an Iraqi diplomatic passport. He lived in Baghdad as a guest of the Hussein regime from 1994 until captured by American forces in 2003.


• Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian, entered Iraq with the knowledge and consent of the regime, and lived in Baghdad from 1999 until his death in 2002.


• Abdul Rahman Yasin, who actually participated in the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York, escaped America and lived comfortably in Baghdad.

So with all of these terrorists using Iraq as a safe haven, how can USA Today possibly claim that it wasn't one before the US Army got there?

According to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll over the weekend, 53%% said sending troops there was a mistake, 61% said they didn't think the president has a clear plan, and 51% said they want a timetable for getting U.S. troops out

Given the media coverage, it's astounding that those numbers aren't higher. It's just like the Gitmo effects that Heather MacDonald talked about in "False Modesty".

As Bush correctly stated, setting a timetable would be a mistake. It would signal to the insurgents that they can wait out the United States and the fragile Iraqi regime. Also welcome in Bush's speech was his acknowledgement of the difficulties that remain and the sacrifices of U.S. troops. "Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed," he said.

Winning back public support for completing the job in Iraq starts with a more straightforward approach to the public. Tuesday night was a beginning.

Except that he didn't say anything new. He said things that he's said before. Over and over and over again. The fact that the press hasn't covered it that way doesn't mean that this is new. Every time he's spoken to the nation, those are the things that he's said. Every time. No "shifting" at all...