The speech is live and accounted for on all the networks, reports TVNewser. Love this take:
I love how some FReepers believe putting a P.R. speech into context is propaganda: "CNN has not completed a fairly effective if formulaic set of pre-speech programming, intended to twist people's minds so that their mental filters interpret the President's speech as bogus," one person writes...> A blog commenter says: "Er...I think I've heard this record before. Over...and over...and over...again." AP reports Democrats are already jumping all over the speech for its revival of the 9/11 equals Saddam tactic that worked so well for Bush during his first term. Interesting that everyone who is anyone in the newspaper biz is leading with this angle...
WaPo posts as good an analysis as I've seen on the big Bush speech, via an online Q&A with associate editor Robert G. Kaiser. I think he was a bit defensive on the press-related questions, which doesn't exactly surprise me (the media jealously guards its perception of itself as perpetual Nixon-era Woodwards and Bernsteins), but otherwise, the discussion hits all the right spots. Money clip:
Lancaster, Pa.: Hi Robert, I personally would like to hear this administration acknowledge that they were poorly prepared for the aftermath of the initial invasion. I believe it was Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfield who before the invasion predicted that it would take five days, five weeks, or five months but no longer. That statement contrasts sharply with what they’re saying now –- which is up to 12 years. Would it be political suicide for them to acknowledge errors?
Robert G. Kaiser: You know, I think it might be political salvation at this stage for the administration to admit what we all know - that this war didn't go the way our senior officials thought, and said, it would. There's a real disconnect now between public opinion (as measured, for example, in the latest Post-ABC Poll, to which I hope we can link here) and the assertions of the administration. That is a formula for continued political trouble for the president.
In the straight analysis piece, Dan Balz also zeroes in on Bush's focus on 9/11.
'Lessons of Sept. 11' Again Take Center Stage
One year after the transfer of power in Iraq, President Bush found himself in a familiar, if unsettling, position last night, as he sought to reinvigorate public support for his policies in the face of almost daily suicide bombings and continued U.S. casualties that have called into question whether the administration has a workable strategy for success and exit there.
Bush signaled no shifts in policy, as Democrats such as Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.) have called for in recent days. Instead his goal was to reeducate Americans on his view of the stakes involved in Iraq and the consequences to the Middle East and U.S. security if the insurgents prevail.
His clearest message was to argue anew that Iraq is the critical battle in a war against terrorists that began with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He made repeated references to those attacks to underscore that U.S. security depends on defeating the insurgency in Iraq. "After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people," he said. "This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy." He then added, "Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war."
Sept. 11 remains Bush's most reliable argument with the public when he faces political headwinds; it gave him the highest-rated moments of his presidency and helped sustain him through a difficult reelection campaign. Surprisingly, given how effectively he has used the collective emotion of that day in the past, Sept. 11 has been largely missing in the administration's discussions of Iraq this year. His critics
long have accused Bush of falsely drawing a connection between Iraq and Sept. 11 as a way to justify the original decision to launch the war in Iraq. That was not the point Bush made last night. Instead it was that Iraq has now become such a magnet for foreign terrorists that winning the current battle there is every bit as critical as was the fight to depose Saddam Hussein.
Meanwhile, NYT gauges the reaction from military families.
Specialist Worrell and her father did find some things to like in the speech. "That last part was good, telling people to fly the flag, and thanking the soldiers," said Mr. Worrell, a locomotive engineer for Union Pacific Railroad who described himself as a Democrat. Mr. Worrell also seconded the president's position that it is better to fight terrorism abroad than it is on American soil.
"He's right - I agree that we want to fight them over there not here," he said.
Then Specialist Worrell spoke: "But you can't destroy a country because you think they might come over here."
Specialist Worrell said she came to love many of the people she met and was able to help during the 5½ months she spent in Iraq before she was injured. She said she agreed with Mr. Bush that building roads and schools was a positive contribution to the world. "I don't feel it was a waste because of the people I got to meet and help," she said. "But we went over there for war, and now I think he's just telling you what you want to hear."
...including more proof that the Bush administration's mind-meld of Iraq and 9/11 has been very effective with members ofthe military and their families:
Petty Officer Garcia, whose battalion moved heavy equipment around the country, does not want to return to Iraq. In April 2004, he said, insurgents bombed a convoy he was traveling in, killing two members of his battalion. Days later, five more died when mortar fire hit their base. But he supports Mr. Bush's plan even if it means he must go back.
"I didn't watch seven of my buddies die just to withdraw without finishing the job," he said, adding that among other things, that would make terrorists think they could attack the United States again. As a human being, yes, "bring our boys back home," he said. "But this nation was built on standing up for itself. The terrorists came in and trashed our house, and it's on us to take care of them so it doesn't happen again."
...
Does he believe critics of the war who say Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?
"I remember hearing that in the movie 'Fahrenheit 9/11' " he said. "But in the end, it's all one big net. The bottom line is terrorists are everywhere out there, and all this stuff that came out afterwards about whether we should be in Iraq - you know what? What's done is done. We are in there, so let's finish the job and let them get back on their feet."
... and this summation:
Col. David Slotwitski, a former chief of staff for recruiting who retired in 2004 and watched the speech from his home in Olympia, said: "He just did a great rehash of everything that's been said so far.
"The last part of it, where he came out strong and thanked the troops, that was well done. But in the end, there still was not really that call for service. There was no call to arms. He didn't say 'America, I need your sons and daughters to support us in the fight.' "
Heading overseas, the BBC's analysis is charitable, calling the speech"subdued" but probably effective in the July 4 short-run.
Meanwhile the Guardian focuses on Bush's continued use of 9/11 to boost support for the Iraq war, something David Gergen warned could ultimately do even more damage to the president's credibility with the American people. And the Guardian's Leader column offers a sober Iraq assessment.
Ireland online focuses on the troop levels and timetable.
Al Jazeera goes with a wire story that touches on the speech, the politics, the Cheney "throes" and a protest outside the speech by Moveon.org.
...and Germany's Deutsche Welle is short and to the point (this really is the entire story):
Bush says Iraq war worth it US President George W. Bush has acknowledged American doubts about his Iraq strategy but argued it was worth the costs. In a keynote address one year after the US transferred power back to Iraqis, Bush repeatedly invoked the September 11 attacks and cited al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden as a reason for staying the course. Bush also rejected calls for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq or sending more troops. Meanwhile, just hours before Bush's speech a suicide bomber killed a prominent member of the Iraqi parliament, along with his son and three bodyguards. Dhari al-Fayadh was the second Iraqi lawmaker to be assassinated since a new government took power in April.
|
