Bush has repeatedly claimed that “as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” Tonight he said:

At this time last year, there were only a handful of Iraqi army and police battalions ready for combat. Now, there are more than 125 Iraqi combat battalions fighting the enemy “¦ more than 50 are taking the lead “¦ and we have transferred more than a dozen military bases to Iraqi control.

If that’s true, why are there still 153,000 American troops in Iraq, as many as there have ever been? Why can’t 125 battalions replace a single American soldier?

At the outset of his speech tonight, Bush said, “I know many Americans have questions about the cost and direction of this war.”

But the President failed to answer the question that is foremost on the minds of most Americans — when are the troops coming home? Instead, he said the following:

I will make decisions on troop levels based on the progress we see on the ground and the advice of our military leaders – not based on artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington.

Bush has failed to follow his own advice from 1999:

I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn. [6/5/99]

Bush tonight:

If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone.

Who, exactly, thinks terrorists will become peaceful?

Bush tonight:

Reconstruction efforts and the training of Iraqi Security Forces started more slowly than we hoped. … At this time last year, there were only a handful of Iraqi army and police battalions ready for combat.

Rumsfeld, 12/8/04

Their security forces, as I mentioned earlier, are – oh, they’re now up to something like 110[000], 120,000 — up from zero. And they are putting their lives at risk as well…they’re being trained rapidly…

[Ed note: We'll start respecting embargoes when they start telling the truth.]

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________________
EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY December 18, 2005

ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATION

As Prepared for Delivery

Good evening. Three days ago, in large numbers, Iraqis went to the polls to choose their own leaders – a landmark day in the history of liberty. In coming weeks, the ballots will be counted “¦ a new government formed “¦ and a people who suffered in tyranny for so long will become full members of the free world. Read more

It’s not just liberals who are suggesting that Bush’s secret domestic spying program was illegal. Here is conservative Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) this morning on Face the Nation:

SCHIEFFER: The Secretary of State said this morning that the president has statutory and constitutional authorization to do what he did. So I’ll start with Senator Graham. Does he have that authority, Senator?

LINDSEY GRAHAM: If he has the authority to go around the FISA court, which is a court to accommodate the law of the war of terror, the FISA Act was–created a court set up by the chief justice of the United States to allow a rapid response to requests for surveillance activity in the war on terror. I don’t know of any legal basis to go around that. There may be some, but I’m not aware of it. And here’s the concern I have. We can’t become an outcome-based democracy. Even in a time of war, you have to follow the process, because that’s what a democracy is all about: a process.

Graham isn’t the only conservative Senator concerned. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), the chairman of the judiciary committee, said “there is no doubt that this is inappropriate” and promised to hold hearings next year.

This morning, Condoleezza Rice defended the NSA evesdropping program by arguing that congressional leaders — specifically “leaders of the relevant oversight intelligence committees” — had been briefed on the activities.

RICE: It’s been reviewed not just by the White House counsel but by the lawyers of the Justice Department and by the lawyers of the NSA, the National Security Agency, and by the Inspector General of the National Security Agency, and it has to be reauthorized every 45 days. And the Congress, the congressional leaders, including —

RUSSERT: Those are administration lawyers. Why not go to an objective court?

RICE: — including leaders of the relevant oversight intelligence committees have been briefed on this.

This is apparently not true. At the time the program was initiated, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL). On Friday’s “Nightline,” Graham made clear he had never once been briefed by the administration about the program:

There was no reference made to the fact that we were going to…begin unwarranted, illegal “” and I think unconstitutional “” eavesdropping on American citizens.

Read the full Graham transcript: Read more

This morning on Meet the Press, Tim Russert asked Condoleezza Rice a simple question: what is the specific statute that gives President Bush the authority to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant?

She had no answer:

RUSSERT: What Democrats and Republicans in Congress are asking, what is the authority that you keep citing? What law? What statute? Where in the Constitution does it say that the President can eavesdrop, wiretap American citizens without a court order?

RICE: Tim, the President has authorities under FISA which we are using and using actively. He also has authorities that derive from his role as Commander in Chief and his need to protect the country. He has acted within his constitutional authority and within statutory authority. Now, I am not a lawyer and I am quite certain that the Attorney General will address a lot of these questions.

Rice said several times this morning that she’s “not a lawyer.” That is irrelevant. Rice was the National Security Advisor when President Bush authorized the NSA program, and said today that she was aware of Bush’s decision at the time. Shouldn’t she know why it was legal?