Bush outlines Iraq transition

Ok, i'm not gonna be to hard on the guy, considering the fact that i think he had an impossible job, but let's look at the outline of goals for Iraq from tonite's speech:

1. Handing over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government.
--Thanks for the newsflash. we knew this a long time ago. if you ever get around to WHO will get this, what level of control they will have, and what the structure of the government will look like, we'd appreciate it. this reads like someone saying they want to hand over an orphan to 'parents'. um...can we get a little more specific on the qualifications here? please? thanks.

2. Establishing security.
--Um, i think that should have been Job One about 11 months ago. its nice to see you on board with the rest of the planet now, Mr. President.

3. Continuing to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.
--Was there any doubt? Maybe some more no-bid contracts? can we just go ahead and match up donors with projects ourselves or are you going to let that be a suprise?

4. Encouraging more international support.
--So does 'old europe' matter now? i'm glad to see this component. too bad its about a year and 2 months too late.

5. Moving toward a national election in Iraq that "will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people."
Oh really? nice. hope they elect someone that we LIKE. again, obviously not a bad idea, but its something we already know.

if this is what the president calls 'filling us in' on his plan, he's an idiot. i'm sorry. i know i take some pot-shots around here, but COME ON. there should be a better outline than broad, generally assumed 'points' here. that is what makes the public comfortable. the idea that you have a plan beyond what any person walking upright would assume as a basic goal w/o hearing the president speak.

Look at these points. was ANYONE, ANYWHERE ever assuming we'd do the opposite of this? Is he 'clearing this up' for us?

he could easily do better...well, he's not.

fine with me.

ALSO OF NOTE:

"Our commanders had estimated that a troop level below 115,000 would be sufficient at this point in the conflict," Bush said. "Given the recent increase in violence, we will maintain our troop level at the current 138,000 as long as necessary."

If commanders need more troops, Bush said, "I will send them."

It is my understanding that the Generals prosecuting this war have battled Rumsfeld over the number of troops needed, with Rummy sending fewer than needed (note we are occupying an entire nation and we have at LEAST 100,000 fewer troops there now than in Desert Storm.) While we may not have needed as many troops as before to WIN this war, it shows the severe lack of planning that THAT was as deep as Rummy thought this out. As if the battle to overthrow Saddam was the only job the troops would face.

this is incompetence.