Restrictions?

Well, did you watch the President's speech last night? I didn't watch it, exactly. But I followed it via "live blogging" on AMERICAblog (which also published a complete transcript of the address). There's a lot in it that disturbed me but what I want to call your attention to right now is Bush's statement that not only were there not enough troops in Iraq, but that "there were too many restrictions on the troops that we did have." What kind of restrictions is he talking about? Restrictions against more brutality?

Here's a comment written in response to an article called "Bush is right, it's time for America to change course" by someone whose screen name is "kanuckistani":

"He said that not only were there not enough troops in Iraq, but that "there were too many restrictions on the troops that we did have."

So, Abu Ghraib was just a garden party?"

This is the statement of Bush's that needs to be broadcast. "..too many restictions..." is just like after Vietnam, the cry of "If we were only more brutal, we would have won." As if killing 4 million Southeast Asians somehow wasn't an atrocity. Now it's "We need to go house to house in Baghdad and kill every adult male (and a fair number of women and children) until the people stop fighting back."

What do Americans really think is motivating the average Iraqi, that "fewer restrictions" will change? And is Bush now going to unilaterally change the rules of what is and isn't allowed? Just what specific ruthlessness does he have in mind? Any illusions as to if the Geneva conventions apply?

I hope the Dems (and the average U.S. citizens) can stop this.

Peace

We are hated now around the world. If Bush decides to have "fewer restrictions" on the military on how they conduct themselves we will soon be more than hated. We will be utterly despised. We will be loathed. We will be seen as the embodiment of evil. And those who see us that way will be right.