On Tuesday evening President Bush spoke in a somber mood in front of a controlled audience of about 750 soldiers in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Since Bush’s last speech about Iraq in May of 2004, 891 soldiers have been killed. Why has it taking the president so long to level with the American people about the seriousness of Iraq, or at the very least talk to us?
The motivation for this speech was Bush’s tanking poll numbers. A majority of Americans do not support how Bush has handled the occupation of Iraq. This speech was aimed at convincing the public that his strategy will work and no alterations need to be made. Stay the course and we will prevail is the summary.
The president’s speech offered nothing new of face value and it offered absolutely no details in terms of policy or specifics concerning Iraq. I’ve read a hundred times already that the speech was like a greatest hits album of previous speeches. Bush repeated the same tedious words from past speeches in hopes that the American people will catch on. I consider it more of a broken record of greatest hits.
There are two very distinct areas of the president’s speech that quickly jump out at me (and it’s late at night, so I’m sure I’ll have more in the morning): The very fact that it was a speech and not a press conference, and how Bush frantically tried to correlate Iraq to al Qaeda and 9/11.
First is the fact that Bush does not see fit to answer to anyone. The war in Iraq has cost over 1,740 American lives, at least 12,000 Iraqi civilian lives and the dollar amounts are well above $200 billion. Mr. President, when can we ask a question?
This is my spill to the president:
Mr. President, the public is growing weary of your inattentiveness to not only the soldiers you just lectured, but also to the families, relatives, friends and supporters of those soldiers. Not everyone who opposes what this war has turned into opposes the war. We do not want to fail either, and we have given you more than our support for this war. Your policy has given us the current situation, now where do we take it from here? I agree that a timetable for withdraw would be a serious mistake and I agree that we should not leave before the job is done; however, how is staying your course even sustainable and where is the victory in it?
I can guarantee you that I’m not getting any answers from him.
Second, Bush tirelessly tried to link the war in Iraq to 9/11 and the fight against al Qaeda. 26 times Bush mentioned the word terrorist in his speech. It’s as if he hopes by repeating himself enough that people will believe a connection between the two. The battles in Iraq are being waged by an insurgency, not necessarily terrorists. Not all who fight American forces are terrorists. I understand that for a soldier in Iraq to make that distinction is pointless, but for policy and strategy purposes the distinction is a must. But not for Bush. Everything is good versus evil. And all who oppose him are evil, including the opposition Party. This black and white vision of the world is only the beginning of our troubles in Iraq.
One more time, just so we all understand, I will say again that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. There is no definite, smoking gun link between Saddam and bin Laden’s attack on 9/11. No, there is no money trail. No, there are no meetings. For all those who insist that I’m wrong, read the 9/11 Report, that is the official findings of the US government. If we all want to talk about links between bin Laden, Saddam and terrorism, then why can’t we include Reagan in the conversation? Reagan has the strongest links to both of the madmen of anyone else in the entire world. For almost a decade Reagan openly funded, armed, supported and shared intelligence with both bin Laden and Saddam. There's your link.
Bush’s insistence that Iraq had connections to 9/11 is odious and wrong, and it all leads to a very definite credibility gap. This is a war of choice necessitated by 9/11. Until we get the conversation secured, we will never get an edge on the battles being fought in this war.
Just tell me when I can ask a question, cause I’ve got plenty of them.
6.29.2005
The Credibility Gap
Posted by Chris at 12:01 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Actually, I can't remember where I learned this - Oh wait, marketing class in college, but statistically if you repeat something at least 3 times while talking to a person they remember it.
HH6
Great post MJ. I especially liked,
"I’ve read a hundred times already that the speech was like a greatest hits album of previous speeches. Bush repeated the same tedious words from past speeches in hopes that the American people will catch on. I consider it more of a broken record of greatest hits."
Oh yeah and the Reagan connection is pricless. Great stuff.
Yeah, we do think alike. As for Reagan, I learned about all his lovely tactics and actions while studying for my BA in History. You're right, Reagan is really the one who got this whole thing started and the cast of characters are the same. The Bush fam., Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc.
Interesting HH6. Bush repeated 9/11 seven times and terrorist 26 times. We shall never forget.
For some reason James we just aren't allowed to take the debate back to Reagan. It stops at Clinton, and that's wrong. Actually we could take the debate all the way back to Nixon, seeing how half of Bush's staff used to work for Nixon.
I agree OK Dem, Bush has a lot of explaining to do. He just isn't believable anymore.
Did anyone notice how he spun the terrorist attacks to declare victory?
Note the following from the transcripts of his speech:
"We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who behead civilian hostages and broadcast their atrocities for the world to see.
These are savage acts of violence, but they have not brought the terrorists any closer to achieving their strategic objectives.
The terrorists, both foreign and Iraqi, failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty. They failed to break our coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies." - George W. Bush
Of course that begs the question: Who can afford to wait the other side out? Just some food for thought.
Note too, how Mr. Bush glossed over the political disputes:
"The other critical element of our strategy is to help ensure that the hopes Iraqis expressed at the polls in January are translated into a secure democracy.
The Iraqi people are emerging from decades of tyranny and oppression.
The challenge facing Iraqis today is to put this past behind them and come together to build a new Iraq that includes all of its people.
They are doing that by building the institutions of a free society -- a society based on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and equal justice under law.
The Iraqis have held free elections and established a transitional national assembly. The next step is to write a good constitution that enshrines these freedoms in permanent law.
The assembly plans to expand its constitutional drafting committee to include more Sunni Arabs. Many Sunnis who opposed the January elections are now taking part in the democratic process, and that is essential to Iraq's future.
By taking these critical steps and meeting their deadlines, Iraqis will bind their multiethnic society together in a democracy that respects the will of the majority and protects minority rights.
As Iraqis grow confident that the democratic progress they are making is real and permanent, more will join the political process.
And as Iraqis see that their military can protect them, more will step forward with vital intelligence to help defeat the enemies of a free Iraq.
As Iraqis make progress toward a free society, the effects are being felt beyond Iraq's borders." - George W. Bush
Splendid. And we know all of those who are now at the Constitutional negotiating table have that same goal.
Uh-huh. Whatever.
By the way, here's a rhetorical question.
Did the Vietcong kick us out or did we quit, pack our bags, and leave?
"The terrorists, both foreign and Iraqi, failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty. They failed to break our coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies." - George W. Bush
Again, who can afford to wait? Who is more likely to wait this out? the ones who live there or our troops?
Perhaps we need a new strategy so we don't have to wait the terrorists out.
Very true Heretic, our plan seems to be to wait the terrorists out. Though they are not all terrorists. It's an insurgency, which means that they live in Iraq and their families live in Iraq, and their families before that lived in Iraq. It goes back thousands of years. I wonder who is staying in Iraq and who is leaving?
There is absolutely progress being made in Iraq and it would be wrong to totally ignore it. I think it's also just as wrong to totally ignore the negative side as well.
Bush wanted Saddam gone, and that is exactly what we have. Anything beyond that Bush doesn't have a clue about. To me that is no way to treat our brave men and women who have given everything for this war. We owe it to them to make this work.
Um...MJ and Heretic,
I don't know about the whole, just because it's their country and they are not going to pack up and leave, that we should then figure out an exit strategy idea.
We could say the same for Kosovo, or even Nazi Germany (do I lose for invoking a Nazi comparison?)
Obviously, this isn't an idea of erradicating every last terrorist, because that will never happen. Just like they never got rid of the Nazis. The idea is just to make them understand that we will not give up, so they should give up first.
It's a poker game. Apparently, it seems like a lot of people are bluffing, but I resent it that people are calling the US's bluff, and saying that the terrorists have a full house.
CVG, you are right. But an exit strategy is vital. And again I must say, not all people fighting US forces are terrorists. This is an insurgency.
Oh, wait, you do lose for invoking a Nazi comparison. Sorry babe, but I win this time :)
Post a Comment