The speech

Well that’s all the media is talking and writing about the speech. It’s seems rather certain that there’ll be a surge. It sound like it won’t be enough troops to really get the job done. But everything planned by the Bush administration regarding the war has been half assed. Why should this be any different.

Here are a couple of articles putting forth some very important questions. The first from the Post

I think Mr. Meyerson asks some very important questions. This new resolve by Mr. Maliki is a leap of faith. It’s sometimes very hard to bite the hand that feeds you. And the consequences in Iraq are usually you get blown up.

The second is an editorial from USA Today.

This paragraph really hits home to me:

He has refused to ask the American people to share in the sacrifice that the war on terror and our commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq have placed disproportionately on the volunteers in the armed forces. But it’s either everybody’s war or nobody’s war. At a minimum, he should have proposed a broad-based special tax to refurbish the military and create a global network of anti-terrorist operatives.

There’s a long list of additional things Bush should have done or for that matter any politician from either party. How do the terrorists have so much influence and what is the means by which they are supported? The answer is oil. Why the hell do not launch a Manhattan Project for riding us of our dependence on oil. I’ve done a great deal of thinking about that and I’m going to post something about it very soon.

One final article to read is also from the Post. It’s from the vice-president of Iraq urging us not to give up on Iraq yet.

Now all that’s left to do is tune in and see what Bush says.