Full Transcript Of Bush's Iraq Speech

President Pledges To Hold Iraqi Government Accountable For Progress Toward Peace And Security

(CBS)  Below is the text of President Bush's speech on Iraq that he delivered on Wednesday night:

---

Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror — and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together — and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.

But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq — particularly in Baghdad — overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause, and they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam — the Golden Mosque of Samarra — in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group — a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents, and there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.

Let me explain the main elements of this effort.

The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad’s nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort — along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations — conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.

This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them — five brigades — will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: To help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents — but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods — and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people — and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace — and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws — and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.

America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units — and partner a Coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division.

We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army — and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

[arthurcl1]

That question must keep McCain's advisers up at night. In Vietnam, the right's advice was never followed and, thus, never came up for a vote. When Reagan called Vietnam a "noble cause" in 1980, he was stoking a myth of national innocence and invincibility for which beleaguered Americans yearned. But he could do so precisely because his preferred policies on Vietnam had never been tried. In 2008, by contrast, Iraq won't be a symbolic issue. Americans will still be dying, and the catastrophe will still be deepening, largely because of policies clearly identified with the likely Republican presidential nominee. McCain can claim that, by sending only 20,000 troops, Bush didn't surge enough %u2014 and, thus, his preferred policy didn't fail. But that will look like quibbling. Already, presidential hopeful John Edwards has dubbed Bush's surge "the McCain Doctrine," and, with public support for a surge near single digits, Democrats will likely make that a central thrust of their campaign to retake the White House.

[alenaae]

I have been speaking with an Iraqi in Najaf. I asked him if we should pull out now. This is what he said:

Jassim: I still believe in american
Karen: yes, many people are asking to force a full American exit from Iraq
Karen: what do you think would happen if the Americans were to leave now?
Jassim: even if I do not agre or understand USA government policy some times I respect soldiers
Karen: Bush is currently planning to send 21,500 troops
Jassim: because I know what they suffer too, I jusy hope them would take care of iraqis
Jassim: yes I know that
Jassim: if usa withdraown from Iraq every one will kill every one else
Jassim: it is like a civil war now but it will be official
Jassim: no one know what would happen exactly but every bad thing is possible
Jassim: may be arabic countries will attack us
Karen: is the Iraqi military part of the solution or part of the problem?
Jassim: Iran also
Jassim: both !!!
Jassim: no one can depend on them
Jassim: they are a wasting formoney
Jassim: for money
Jassim: like most of money spent in iraq
Jassim: just wasting
Jassim: most of it went to private pockets !!
Jassim: or to support militia
Jassim: political parties

more at http://alenaae.blogspot.com/2007/01/6-what-if-americans-leave-iraq-where.html

[marcodele]

From Junior's speech that Karl Rove wrote:
"a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror %u2014 and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror."

Those were Sunnis who attacked the World Trade Center? Apparently there is a stubborn percentage of Americans who will believe every lie this idiot regurgitates.

[thewordengine]

All of the troops in the world can't solve the ideological differences that we face in the muslim communities. You think Iraq is not safe, look around your urban centers in America. Drug cartels control the ghettos, hand gun violence, child molestation, rampant political and corporate corruption. Can anyone understand why pollitically conservative countries don't want to be more like the U.S.? In our own arrogance, we don't see why people in other countries don't just slip on some Calvin Kleins, drink a Pepsi, and post videos of their naked daughters on the internet to make money to invest in Boeing. America may have great millitary power thanks to genocide (Native Americans), enslavement (African Tribes), indentured servitude (Chinese, Irish, and Okies) and the use of nuclear weapons (Hiroshima, Nagasaki) over the last 200 years, but we are a poor example of the moral high road. Let us embrace a bit of honesty. We are in Iraq to build another U.S. base in the Middle East. We will never leave Iraq. We won't stop Middle East expansion until we have solved our over reliance on oil (which is destroying the global environment), and are comfortable enough with Russia and China as allies to stop building towards World War III.

[fitxprt]

I completely agree with dlb_92. The arsenal of the US Military can wipe the entire Middle East off the face of the Earth ten times over... and then some... if we wanted to. Yes, we have used restraint and we need to do more to help Iraq take back control of their country. The insurgents are mainly outsiders trying to create instability in Iraq and because we have shown too much restraint, it is working. Look folks, we cannot go back so we have to move forward. Open your eyes and see the world for what it is and stop hiding your heads in the sand. I can see that the liberal comments I am reading is being made by people who have never left US soil and have not seen what I have seen. Before any of you make any more liberal, pessimistic comments, GET ALL THE FACTS!!! We live in the greatest nation on Earth. Be proud you live here and not somewhere else... because if you did live elsewhere, you'd wish you were living in the United States of America.

[samthetvcat]

Well, dlb_92 you had my ear until that last sentence when you started in on the name-calling...also, I don't think your assumption that we think the military is incapable is correct.

I think where we differ is that perhaps liberals also have confidence in intelligence - the FBI and the CIA...didn't they in fact find that Bush and his war in Iraq had actually increased the threat of terrorism a couple of months ago? I would even go one step farther and question how the neo-cons can even know that its because of the war in Iraq that there's been no other terrorist incidents since 9/11? If the right is going to claim that the last 5 years of safety are due to Bush then the left will just as easily be able to claim the next 5 are due to Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic congress for actually implementing all of the 9/11 commission's recommendations AND due to their pressure on Bush to begin removing troops from Iraq.

I think uncertaintly is just part of the 'new normal'...like we all just have to do the best we can and if something's not working, our leaders need to have the courage to put results ahead of personal pride...jmo

[dlb_92]

People seem to think our military are 'sitting ducks', and call them 'sheep to the slaughter. They do, on occasion, defend themselves and just happen to kill a few terrorists from time to time. Please give me a small break, people. We have the strongest military power the planet has ever seen, and people cry that we are losing this war. Our country, if anything, has shown nothing but great restraint. Just think for one minute, even you liberals, what our military could really do to Iraq, and other countries. But somewhere along the way it was decided our military must fight nice. If Saddam was still in power can you see that regime arguing over giving Constitutional rights to American POWS. So go on and keep insulting our leaders, just remember that the cost of doing nothing would be 10 times greater than the cost that is currently being paid. Keeping these islamic radicalist on offense is the best way to keep us safe here. If a dirty bomb were to explode here in the homeland you tree-hugging, anti-military, liberal, know-it-alls would be the first people to call for our leaders to be hung for not protecting us and you know it.

GW Bush:

"Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."

Finally, some honesty from the Whitehouse.

Impeach the SOB.

[samthetvcat]

SamTheTVCat.

Laugh now, but I'll see you over there inteh trenches

Kiss my American dreams goodbye
Posted by emtak1 at 01:11 AM : Jan 11, 2007

yeah, scary isn't it . . .

[samthetvcat]

Something else that caught my attention:

"The violence in Iraq %u2014 particularly in Baghdad %u2014 overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause, and they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam %u2014 the Golden Mosque of Samarra %u2014 in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today."

I thought this mosque bombing had always been attributed to solely to Al-Quaida (how do you spell that - for some reason this doesn't look right . . . ) and Abu-Mousab Al-Zarquawi (sorry spellings probably not right with this one either). Does he have any facts to substantiate this or is this just a convenient rationale he's concocted to make siding with the Shiites in the civil war more palatable to himself? This troop surge is starting to sound like it has a real danger of in fact escalating the civil war rather than quelling it over the long-term . . .

[emtak1]

SamTheTVCat.

Laugh now, but I'll see you over there inteh trenches

Kiss my American dreams goodbye

[emtak1]

TehGanboo

I agree, but 20,000 wouldn't likely do it. In my little-fellow opinion you would need 100,000.

And then we would need luck, because, frankly I don't think the military leaders we have now are up to the level they used to be.

[samthetvcat]

. . . as for the speach itself . . .

"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity %u2014 and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

OMG - Bush ins't planning on invading Iran and Syria now is he!?!

[emtak1]

"The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people...." Bush last night

I don't understand how all this could be so clear to him. Can the man see the future or something? And if so, how come he couldn't help us avoid the imminent defeat we're facing now?

[samthetvcat]

"Katie and Bob were good."
Posted by haley04062 at 10:33 PM : Jan 10, 2007

Yeah, I don't know how they were able to maintain their neutrality when they had to mention Bush as the 'benefactor' of Iraq. I would not have been able to even hold a straight face with that one . . .

[frankly6]

TehGanboo

Put your dictionary away little one. It's not helping you to sound mature. Go ask your mommy if you can talk on the adult board mmmkay?

[tehganboo]

Wow.. the word impeach in all capital letters. I'm fourteen, and I feel immature just reading that. Please, try to use even the tritest of sense. If you could kindly think for a moment without being completly manipulated by tendentious media, hopefully you would come up with something containing atleast a modicrum of intelligence. I for one realize the sheer neccesity of sending more troops. Imagine the aftereffects of simply pulling out now; we would be left with civil war of the upmost. It is absolute imperitave to deal with the situation deftly and quickly, for small forces will never be able to quell the insurgent threat.

[grazinggoat]

This is exactly pouring more fuel on the fire. This guy is insane. IMPEACH him. No one can believe what he says. He's a real catastrohpy. This guy needs to go now. He has to change those advisors that only see evil people in front of them, while they are defending the only objectives that are not pro-american. Our soldiers are being made an occupying force. They are put in the forefront of fire, to serve others' interests. The interests of the USA are not in danger in the region with most of our allies firmly standing... Those insurgents who are fighting for their freedom from our occupation troops are provoked and will react even further with more violence. The peace our Walking-Liar president promises is only hypothetical. He proved he was lying to us in the past, there is no firm commitment from his part. He just cannot. Nothing of what he said has been realised in the past. He has to go, before it's too late.

We should rather pull out our troops so the local forces can equilibrate, on their own. Inserting a foreign body in the Middle East has been painful since the last 50-some years. Adding up our troops (indefinitely; no time limit mentioned in the Bush's speech) will render the situation even worse. A lot of suffering will ensue the deployment. A lot of killing and destruction, one can unfortunately foresee. Please, Democrats, don't let this vicious liar ruine our immediate and our kids' future. Just Impeach him.

[haley04062]

Katie and Bob were good.

[SunshineDaniels]

I really cannot fathom WHY on God's earth Bush cannot stop sending troops over there into that madness. It's only going to add more fuel to the fire. He needs to step back, and take a REALLY good look at what's happening and ask the real HELPER--GOD--for the right answer. Pray a little harder! Bush is not physically over there in the midst of the fighting: he's on the outside looking in and day by day more and more lives are taken. This war is not affecting him directly, so he's not feeling it. Why can't the troops stay on our soil and protect us over here where we need it? They can be deployed in the areas that need help like Louisiana where Katrina victims still need homes; in California; Colorado where it snowed terribly; we've got homeless people that need shelter & food all over the country; drug trafficking is in our neighborhoods, etc. There is so much going on in our own back door that needs to be fixed that we can help ourselves with, yet he sends our service people overseas to help other countries when we have our own problems that need fixing. Something is very, very wrong with this picture, don't you think!?!?!?!? Come on, Bush, wake up and smell the coffee, man! Keep your nose in your own business and Run your own country!