Better Late Than Never

So says Michelle Malkin in reaction to President Bush's decision to finally rebut ridiculous criticism that he knowingly misled the country into war with Iraq despite faulty intelligence.

My question: What took him so long? He could have made this speech while Sheehan was gaining traction outside his Crawford, Tx. ranch this summer with her "Bush lied!" brigades. He could have made this speech while the anti-war movement and the media were busy politicizing the "2000 dead" milestone in the most macabre and dishonest way. He could have made this speech as Harry Reid was jumping up and down like Rumpelstiltskin behind the Senate chamber's locked doors.

She is absolutely right, and it's about time Bush defended himself, and most importantly, our troops in the field doing the fighting. One of Bush's most significant failings to date has been his seeming refusal to keep the war in the forefront, to continually remind Americans why we went into Iraq and why we're staying as long as we are. I know there are people who think Bush won last year's election because it was rigged, but anyone who doesn't wear a tinfoil hat knows he was returned to office solely because of his willingness to confront our enemies. In actuality, I really don't give a damn what Bush thinks of the British royal family or hurricane relief when Americans are being blown apart by idiots who plant IEDs along a road for 500 bucks, and he should be reporting our accomplishments in this war at least once a month.

I took some heat over a recent post where I said that it might be a good idea to start getting our guys home if we're not going to engage in a real debate over the war. Clearly that's primarily a rhetorical comment, but the point remains that we have senior senators trying to convince Americans that their president essentially is a big fat liar who enjoys getting getting people killed (talk about misleading the public). If there's a shred of evidence to suggest this, impeach him; I'll even lead the charge. But their inability to produce such evidence, much less paste together any semblance of a credible case for impeachment, is proof of how disingenuous many of our "leaders" really are.

I've received firsthand information that our soldiers are often led into ambushes by Iraqi "friendlies," and while technically unprovable it's apparently not uncommon for Iraqi military trainees to flip-flop their support between the American troops training them and the insurgents we're battling, depending on which side appears stronger at the moment. Soldiers have also pulled from houses dead terrorists who only two weeks before were actually part of their own training unit. This is not to suggest that our efforts are futile, or that we shouldn't expect such frustrations during war, but at the very least one would think such situations should command enough respect from some of our politicians to be taken seriously and discussed maturely. To fail to do so is to malign the character of those in whom we place so much responsibility. And if some of our friends in the Congress insist on defaming their sacrifice by avoiding meaningful debate, it's Mr. Bush's obligation to lead the right discussion. I would argue he should do so regardless. Perhaps this is a start.