Bush's Speech Decent, But Not What We Needed
President Bush took less than a minute before mentioning September 11th in his speech Tuesday night. That was a clear single that this administration was not prepared to change the message they’ve been hitting for the last few years. And, sure enough, nothing all that new came out of Bush’s speech.
That said, I thought the President gave a very strong argument as to why leaving Iraq now would be a horrible mistake. Of course, most Americans already support staying for now. The real question is, how are we going to win?
The best I can tell is that the President believes all we need is greater resolve. There was no hint that mistakes had been made. There wasn’t even a suggestion that new strategies would be tried. No one expected the President to make broad admissions of error or divulge specific strategies, but I think a lot of Americans would have liked to hear some more direct recognition that things hadn’t gone quite as planned and new courses will now be followed.
Few opinions are going to change because of this speech. While Bush made a very rational argument as to why we need to stay in Iraq, there was not much more than a passing effort to acknowledge and address the millions of Americans who are strongly against this war. Perhaps there is nothing Bush can say to calm the anger of those who oppose him. But I think he should have tried.
Instead, this speech was specifically tailored for those who supported the war but whose resolve has recently slipped. It was not designed to win converts, only to retain supporters. And, as such, I think it will do nothing to heal the bitter divisions over this war. Wednesday morning there will be brutal criticism from the left and resounding praise from the right. But we should expect to hear nothing new from no one new.
We needed more than just a strong argument for staying the course. We needed an earnest attempt to reach across the divide—even if those on the other side want no such offerings. Someone needs to try to bring us back together. Usually that task falls to our President. But that’s just not going to happen it seems.
Can any of the great voices on the left make the effort? Perhaps Senator Biden (D-DE) whose comments afterwards were exactly what liberals need—a firm resolve to win this war coupled with constructive critiques on what needs to change. If more on the left had Biden’s ability to be both committed to success and smart in dissent, perhaps we as a nation could pull closer together.
The President did a decent job in his speech. But we needed a lot more. And we need a lot more still.
8 Comments:
Rep. Pelosi (definitely NOT one of my favorite people) got it exactly right tonight: at this point, no matter why or how we got into Iraq, we have to make it work. And unfortunately, Bush showed no sign that he can see more options than "my way, without change, or treason."
The frightening thing about the renewed 9/11 linkage from the President is perhaps it is possible that Chuck Hagel was correct. While most of us simply dismiss it when the President makes this linkage, assuming he knows he's being disingenuous, what if he's not? What if he is actually that disconnected from reality?
If that fear is just ridiculous (as I hope it is) and he just feels like he has to remain consistent with lies already told, isn't that even more frightening? As the death toll mounts, the Commander-in-Chief believes message discipline is more important than success...
After his speech Tuesday night, it was predictable that the critics would be saying he didn’t say anything new and it was just as predicable that all his supporters, (like me) were saying he stayed on message. We are so set in our ways...........
Admiral, my good man, I hope you are just ribbing me by saying I would respect Luntz. While I may often be impressed by the job done by message strategists--I am impressed only in a "how did that magician do that" kinda way. But I don't have a great deal of respect for the men and women who invent these strategies. One of the drums I like to beat around these parts is how marketing techniques debase politics. Luntz is a Fortune 500 consultant and seems to think that what works for GM should work for G. Bush. He's part of a cadre of consultants on both sides who think changing the language (not the ideas) is the way to success. Too often that works. And that's ashame. Reframing language is nothing but propaganda and while I can't claim to have never fallen for it, I can claim to be against it in all its little forms.
Aubrey,
He didn't say anything new to those who've been paying attention. For those who hadn't been paying attention, they probably did hear something new. I will admit that it's incredibly hard for us political bloggers to asses these things. Bush wasn't addressing those who've made up their minds.
Admiral,
Ain't no bother. Always have time to respond to intelligent commenters.
Aubrey,
I understand that critics will say there is nothing new while supporters will say he stayed on message. But the problem is that his message is rooted in falsehoods. I don't understand why staying on message is a good thing in this case.
No falsehoods there Jennifer. None… Listen to what the President is saying. Not to what others say he just said… That’s where I find all the falsehoods to come from. Not from the Presidents lips.
Post a Comment
<< Home