Wild Speculation

I try not to watch the speeches. The smirk drives me nuts. I got lucky with this last one, I had been up since 3:15 that morning, and my body didn't really give me the choice. I slipped into a restless coma well before he even started.

But I read the transcript the next morning. I prefer to do it that way. I'm a little more level headed when I'm reading it instead of listening to it, or worse, watching.

The internet is flooded with dissections and critiques. And even if I added my drip to that flood, it wouldnt' be a good drip. It'd jsut be more of the same.

What I'd like to do instead if lay out a conspiracy theory. Just for fun. At least i hope it's just a conspiracy theory.

I did run a little microsoft word script that breaks down a document into the words used, and how often they are used.

Here are the top words (I took out the ones pronouns, conjuctions, and more or less meaningless words. If you want to see the full list it's on my yahoo group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thisredrock/ Under the "Files" section. I think I made it public, if not let me know and I'll happily send it to you)

72 will
46 we
45 our
37 iraq
31 iraqi
28 their
24 have
20 american
18 help
17 iraqis
17 they (A lot more "we" than "they")
16 new
16 forces
13 troops
13 baghdad
12 security
12 people
12 government
11 would
11 violence
10 al
10 iraq's
10 can
10 not
9 strategy
9 qaeda (not sure how "al" got 10 and qaeda got 9.... i think my little script might have messed up)
9 sectarian
9 them
8 at
8 terrorists ("terror" only got 4 hits this time)
8 military
8 america
8 support
8 make

Between Iraq and Iraqi there were 68 hits. Which is as you'd expect. It was a speech about Iraq after all wasn't it?
But what gave me shivers were the 6 hits for Iran. What does Iran have to do with any of this?

I happened to notice the 1 hit for Patriot as well. The twisting and perversion of the concept of "patriot" is near to my heart. So I looked this one up in context of the speech.

"We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region."

We that's a little weird. Why is he talking about a Patriot defense system? The insurgents don't have missiles or aircraft. And where the heck did "Turkey" come from? I don't even remember where Turkey is for pete's sake. Thank bob for google maps.



Oh, there it is. Way up there on the other side of Syria, and to the west or Iran.

I still don't understand why the need Patriot Missiles. So I googled "Patriot Missile" in google news.

"Reyes (U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas), who met with Bush on Tuesday to review the plan, said sending more troops removes any incentive the Iraqi government had to take responsibility for the safety of its own citizens. He added that Bush was continuing his "go-it-alone" approach, rather than trying to find diplomatic solutions.

Reyes said there was no mention during the meeting of sending Patriot units, which are stationed at Fort Bliss. "That's the first I ve heard of that," he said."
-Link

"Bush has sent an aircraft carrier battle group and some Patriot missile defense batteries to the Persian Gulf to calm Sunni Arab nerves. But he has largely ignored recommendations to open talks with Iran and Syria and to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks."
-Link

"We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria," he warned. "And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

The U.S. President said that Patriot missile batteries would be deployed in friendly countries in the region, signalling a preparation to ward off a possible Iranian missile strike.

Patriot missiles were used in the first Gulf War to counter Iraqi missile attacks. Condemning the raid, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, said the "provocative U.S. action" was contrary to all international laws.

"By doing this, the Americans are following two aims, firstly to continue their pressure on Iran and secondly to create tension among Iraq's neighbours"."
-Link

Well that is odd indeed... just strange... Almost as strange as say... putting a naval officer in charg of a war being waged in a dessert. Putting a man with virtually no expereince in ground combat in charge of the military in a nation with 36 miles of coastline.

*Sigh* back to google news....

"At a time when the United States is engaged in protracted ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the worst moves the Bush administration could make is to appoint someone with no background in land warfare to oversee these operations. In another baffling move, President Bush has decided to do just that, by replacing retiring Army General John Abizaid, the current head of Central Command, with Navy Admiral William J. Fallon."
-Link

"The Bush administration’s selection of a career naval aviator to be the top commander of American military forces across a region where they are engaged in two ground wars is, at first glance, odd....

... Senior Pentagon civilians and military officers said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates’s recommendation of Admiral Fallon, currently in command of all American forces in the Pacific, reflected a wish for seasoned eyes on Afghanistan and Iraq as well as a new focus on regional initiatives to reassure allies and deter adversaries, in particular Iran."
-Link

Iran has 1516 miles of coastline.

If it wasn't for the calm reassurrance of the president himeslf I'd be inclined to think that maybe Mr Bush was setting up a war with Syria and Iran.

"President Bush said Monday that force is not necessarily required to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon, and he dismissed reports of plans for a military attack against Tehran as 'wild speculation'."
-link