According to the respected GlobalSecurity.org, there were only 21 nations with ground troops in Iraq as of February of this year. No countries have joined the list since then, and a couple of nations have all but withdrawn their contingents.
In Bush’s speech tonight, he claimed that GIs are supported by troops from 36 nations.
In fact, only two other coalition nations have more than 1,000 troops in Iraq — Britain and South Korea. Seven nations have less than 100 troops in Iraq. Virtually all of these smaller contingents are confined to non-combat operations.
I guess no one had time to fact-check the speech.
Maybe there are 15 nations fighting against the US in Iraq? That would work, and scare the Saudi neighbors into buying up a storm of secret weapons from Bush-Cheney Inc.
Fact checking the President’s speeches. I’d hate to have that job. I wonder if the same guy does Cheney’s…
The truth about his war in Iraq means very little to our rat president, with apologies to real rats.
Oh, but the real rats would be democrats, right? I think I have it right. Not sure. I know one party is rats and the other are snakes or something like that.
Did anyone else notice there was no mention of Islamofascism only a linking of everything insurgent with Al Qaeda
And I almost forgot Al Qaeda aren’t they related to 911
Wouldn’t it be nice if this was the only untruth uttered in Bush’s speech.
The speech was full of whoppers – “today, Baqubah is cleared” or in Baghdad “ordinary life is beginning to return”,or “Iraq’s national leaders are getting some things done,” such as “sharing oil revenues with the provinces” and so on…all false, all contradicted by his own administration’s reports and findings.
Fact-checking a neo-con speech is where you check to make sure there are no facts.
It’s vital that all “insurgent” activity be identified as “al-Qaida”. Listen carefully to these troop “reduction” plans, the “redeployment” plans, being offered on various sides. One thing thaey all ahve in common is retention of US forces in Iraq for “anti-terrorism” operations. If all “insurgent” activity in Iraq is “al-Qaida”, then all US forces engaged infighting “insurgents” are fighting “al-Qaida”, and therefore engaged in “anti-terrorism” effort. Facts, once again, are being arranged around the policy.
After 2008 Election defeat–Bush sobs and blames AL-Qaida operative Ron Paul :-(
The real [really effective] AL-Qaida operative would be Harry Reid, right?
It is a pity such a country with kind and beautiful people to be reduced to the most hated worldwide "WAKE UP AMERICA.Your contry has been set back 100 yrs.
Being blocked am I???
Bill-
When you ask if you are being blocked 6 times in 10 minutes, the spam blocker will think you are spam and blacklist your email. Chill out, we don’t delete comments unless they are offensive. We don’t have time for anymore than that.
Mike Ewens
Antiwar.com
That this man can so routinely lie about things and feel comfortable in doing so speaks as much about his audience as it does about him. There is a substantial enough body of Americans – indeed a much more substantial body of Americans – eager to embrace these lies as there are today in Russia those nostalgic about Josef Stalin. Here is a vision of the future that is fully consistent with such a people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7mkbT6lkvo
Just watch and listen for a minute. The stupendous scale of the thing is as frightening as is the fact of it having been real. Many in the Middle East today regard the United States precisely as menacing as did those in, say, Denmark or the Netherlands a spectacle not unlike that revealed above as the year 1946 dawned. God save the world from the poison of the lies that bring about such things!
John Lowell
The comparison is the biggest lie though, John.
As I’d mentioned, Bush’s comfort in lying is as much a commentary on his audience as it is on him, eh, Roger?
John Lowell
I find it interesting that all of you put down Bush and the war so much, and despise him so, yet you’re more than willing to sit down and watch and listen to his entire speech. I must question if any of you have any flaws. I also must question if any of you have some great proposal to end the war right now. What are you going to do, go lay in the grass by the white house? What exactly does that accomplish? Is Bush suddenly going to pull all the troops just because some idiots are laying in the grass? Next question is what exactly would you do if Bush decided to use nerve gas and various other chemical or biological agents on you and your family? I would hope that some other country would step in and help out our country, and that you would stand up for yourselves. Maybe it’s just me, but I feel that many people that are against the war are not effectively doing something about it. Can you honestly believe that whoever the next president is is going to pull all troops out? We are talking about some of the most crooked people in the world, and people who are really good at keeping secrets. In no way do I agree with any war, but until there is a suitable alternative which makes everyone happy, we don’t have much choice. As long as people can make choices and think for themselves, there will always be some sort of conflict.
Allan Greenspan now says what everyone, outside of America, Britain and Australia, knew all along. The war was not fought for democracy or removing WMDs or biological weapons.”It was the oil, stupid”.This war was therefore neither just nor good.
Now, having reaped the whirlwind, Bush plans to stay on to prevent a tidal wave.How considerate. Imperialists in days gone by have always come up with similar excuses. Britain was loathe to leave India because, they said, chaos would follow. Gandhi had the right answer to that. He said ” Leave India to anarchy and to God”. Of course terrible things happened. There was the sectarian killings of a divided India. Things would not have been better had the British stayed on for ever and ever.
How would he know unless he were outside of America, Britain and Australia. Something smells here. It might be Greenspan …
The bad thing about those foreign troops is that they are actually foreign:
The Sunday Telegraph has learnt that the US commander in Baghdad, Gen Ray Odierno, is furious at British plans for withdrawal and believes that the Defence Secretary, Des Browne, misled him on the reason for the recent pullback from Basra.
An adviser to Gen Petraeus said: “Odierno said: ‘If there’s one thing I hate more than being lied to by an American politician, it’s being lied to by foreigners’. Browne had to come back to him and admit that it wasn’t because the job was done but because the Army can’t do both [Iraq and Afghanistan].”
Being lied to by foreigner is understandably far worse than lying to foreigners. I hope the view is good from up yon Majestic White Horse.
You can tell he was lying his lips were moving!