The most remarkable thing about Bush’s speech last night, honestly, wasn’t the majority of his comments concerning the war itself, Al Qaeda, 9/11, sacrifice, etc. We’d heard all that before. No, what really struck me and a few in the media was his sudden decision that Iran and Syria are actual targets and will be dealt with. Obviously, though, that wasn’t anything other than tough-guy talk.

Or so I thought. Then I caught the story today of the Iranian Consulate in Iraq being stormed by US forces.

US forces have stormed an Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized six members of staff.

The troops raided the building at about 0300 (0001GMT), taking away computers and papers, according to Kurdish media and senior local officials.

…

Reports say the Iranian consulate there was set up last year under an agreement with the Kurdish regional government to facilitate cross-border visits.

So they were there with the Iraqis’ permission, for a non-military/militia/terrorist purpose. And the United States stormed in and took six captives. Basically a complete, utter, and unmistakable act of aggression towards a dangerous nation that Bush has absolutely no authority to make such at act towards at this point.

Apparently Joe Biden (and presumably much of the Senate) agrees, hence the declaration of a “constitutional confrontation” should any real aggression into Iran begin.

“That will generate a constitutional confrontation in the Senate, I predict to you,” Sen. Joseph Biden, D- Del., told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Thursday.

See? Told ya. Anyway, what does that mean? Constitutional confrontation sounds a little hazy, I’ll agree. I’ll say this much, though: President Bush has no authority to attack Iran in any way. Period. No arguments. As I’ve referred you so many times, let’s go there again: HJ Res 114, the Iraq War Resolution.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to–

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Okay? Read that. Internalize it. Memorize it. Congress authorized Bush to defend the US against threats post BY Iraq. Iraq does not pose a single threat to the United States at this point. Number 2 is a no-brainer, because obviously the UN resolutions are moot. All Bush was authorized to do was protect us from Iraq.

I’m going to repeat that. Protect US from IRAQ. Iraq is not a danger to me, you, or anyone else reading this unless you’re actually IN Iraq. “By Iraq” refers to the threat posed by the state of Iraq itself, not foreign bodies within its borders. Strictly speaking I’m not sure we have the authority to fight foreign terrorists on the Iraqis’ behalf.

This is a bad situation, folks. Check out DailyKos and TPMcafe for some more info.

Well, you knew it was coming, so here it is. I’ll be using the full text of Bush’s speech for reference here. Not a lot of frills, and I’ll avoid being overly verbose in the interest of clarity (or at least try). So let’s get started!

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

This is the part everyone’s going crazy over. “Bush admitted mistakes! Amazing!” No he didn’t. This isn’t an admission of anything. Rather, it’s an attempt to concede that things have gone wrong while appearing the strong leader who’s willing to accept responsibility for OTHER’s failure.

It’s what I call the Triangle Illusion Principle. Bush never actually SAYS he made mistakes, nor did he actually ever say Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Rather, he shaped his comments so all but the most careful observers would make the connections themselves, just as in the following illusion:

You see? There’s no triangle, but the bites taken out of the circles make you see one. If you don’t look carefully you may even see the lines between circles. Similarly, Bush doesn’t outright say the Iraq-9/11 connections were there or that he made mistakes, but by shaping his comments just right, you’ll hear the implied statements, getting the message across while still giving him the freedom to deny.

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

Emphasis mine. Now, keep in mind that prior to 9/11, Iraq wasn’t a refuge for terrorists. It may have been for a few, but certainly not in the way Afghanistan or Iran were. It only became a “haven” because of the war, the elimination of Saddam left a vacuum that extremists are attempting to fill.

By Bush’s own argument, had we never gone into Iraq in the first place, this problem wouldn’t exist. If we’d just focused on Afghanistan, all would be fine.

I’ve made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people — and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: “The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.”

Another TIP moment. Without benchmarks and a timeframe, there is no way to know if they haven’t followed through. Bush refuses to set dates, refuses to set solid markers of success. More importantly, though, he refuses to offer any kind of true consequences for the lack of follow-through. Up until now, as long as we were needed, we’re told, American forces will stay in Iraq.

As Dick Durbin said in the Democratic response, America is not Iraq’s 9-1-1. Every time they need help we can’t send more of our troops. It’s unfair to us and it’s counter-intuitive. If, when things get bad, we send in MORE troops, the message we’re giving them is that they’ll never need to stand up on their own, we’ll continually bail them out.

This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

Bush crowed earlier about following the Iraq Study Group report. Well let’s remind ourselves of what that had to say about this particular issue.

However, the review recommended that the US “engage directly with Iran and Syria”, and that Washington should “consider incentives and disincentives” for the two nations.

Speaking ahead of the report, Syria repeated its willingness to co-operate with the US, and said it was in Syria’s interest to help Iraq.

Good work, George. Blatantly go against the report you claim to be following. Anyway…

We will use America’s full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists and a strategic threat to their survival.

I’d like to take this moment to point out that 15 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the pilot Mohammad Atta was from Egypt, most of the rest from the Gulf States, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (as well as his terrorist group “Al Qaeda in Iraq”) were from Jordan. So the reasoning behind this paragraph eludes me.

All right, this is getting depressing. Bring it on home, Dubya:

We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night.

And there you have it. Bush trusts that simply be virtue of championing the cause of liberty, we will win. This is why I’m not a fan of national leaders being men of extreme faith. They say things like that, and act based on things other than reason and a grip on reality.