The Bush Speech
I just have a few thoughts on the President`s speech last night:
1. It was a good speech, and he made a pretty compelling case-John Tabin agrees in his article at TAS today. Still, I don`t understand why the President refuses to address the border issues; most of our recent military operations have occured in westernmost Iraq, where we have been attacking terrorists trying to get across the border into (and out of) Syria. I maintain that we will not be able to secure the country as long as Iran and Syria act as sanctuaries for Jihadists. For some maddening reason Mr. Bush does not want to point this out, or deal with it.
2. The Media once again showed their arrogance by threatening to boycott the speech. They whined and cried about the fact that Bush was not giving it at the White House, and Bryan Williams stated that they ``did not think this was the appropriate venue``. Just who the hell do they think they are! Who are they to decide what venue is appropriate! I thought the media`s job is to report the news; they seem to think they can decide the details of news reporting, and can boycott if they don`t like the arrangements. What gall! It`s small wonder that these monsters of vanity and arrogance can`t figure out why they are hemmoraging their audience.
3. It should come as no surprise that the ``post analysis`` was merely an attempt at spin. At CBS, Madam Botox Nancy Pelosi was given rebuttal time (they used to only do that with the State of the Union speech) and she launched into a completely incoherent diatribe against the President. (It`s pretty clear that the networks only carried the President`s speech so they could do ``damage control`` on it.) She stated:
"The American people now know that the war in Iraq is not making our country safer," says Pelosi. "Let's forget the rosy scenarios and the reminders about how tough the job is. Let's not divide our country by saying who's for the troops and who are not. We're all for the troops, and we view our support for the troops to be measured by not only the equipment we give them, the intelligence, but by a level of planning, again, to meet their level of sacrifice."
Let`s see, the War is not making us safer? She sites the numerous terrorist attacks which have hit the United States since the beginning of the War. Ooops, it looks like she forgot to do that! She pleads that we not divide the country by talking about who is for or against the troops. I hate to point out that SHE is dividing the country by her opposition to victory and the troops. Hey Nan, you can`t launch hysterical attacks on our war effort then blame the other side for dividing the Nation! You can`t claim support for the troops when you destroy their morale and embolden the enemy, sweetheart! And don`t talk to me about planning-you have yet to give us an exit strategy for Bosnia, you have yet to offer any concrete proposals of your own (other than inserting tail between legs and scampering off), you have yet to make ANY constructive efforts. Your best idea is to retreat; but you guys will make us stronger at home!
Meanwhile, PBS dragged out every moth-eaten relic from Vietnam who managed to deny reality in ways I didn`t think possible. They denied Jihadists were working in Iraq, they denied we had made any plans, they denied we were gaining any ground, they claimed that the President`s use of the word terrorism was wrong because these were locals fighting for liberty (an echo of Michael Moore-on`s Minutemen comment). Even Rich Lowery from National Review seemed to have the life sucked out of him, making weak and innocuous comments so as not to disagree with the `60`s love in. It was disgraceful.
4. The President`s speech may help in the short term to boost public support, but he has got to develope a better communication team for his administration. This has been the problem Bush has had all along, and he doesn`t seem to get it. Condi Rice is not the person to use as a point-man for the Administration`s media face. Clinton, ever media conscious, had a slew of people whose sole purpose was to put a happy face on his misadventures. Carville, Begala, Morris, et. al. hovered about to deal with the media in times of need, while Bush tried to use Powell (he is a nice man, but has the personality of a stone), Rice, and other, well, DOERS. They are not professionals at manipulating the media, and it has always shown. Couple that with the fact that President Bush has an easygoing management style (he does not crush dissent in his administration) and you have a recipe for propoganda disaster. The President just can`t overcome the bias in the press with a group of amateurs. He needs a professional staff which is media-savvy-and he needs to reinforce his message regularly.
All-in-all, I would say the President helped his case last night. However, he still has much to do.
1. It was a good speech, and he made a pretty compelling case-John Tabin agrees in his article at TAS today. Still, I don`t understand why the President refuses to address the border issues; most of our recent military operations have occured in westernmost Iraq, where we have been attacking terrorists trying to get across the border into (and out of) Syria. I maintain that we will not be able to secure the country as long as Iran and Syria act as sanctuaries for Jihadists. For some maddening reason Mr. Bush does not want to point this out, or deal with it.
2. The Media once again showed their arrogance by threatening to boycott the speech. They whined and cried about the fact that Bush was not giving it at the White House, and Bryan Williams stated that they ``did not think this was the appropriate venue``. Just who the hell do they think they are! Who are they to decide what venue is appropriate! I thought the media`s job is to report the news; they seem to think they can decide the details of news reporting, and can boycott if they don`t like the arrangements. What gall! It`s small wonder that these monsters of vanity and arrogance can`t figure out why they are hemmoraging their audience.
3. It should come as no surprise that the ``post analysis`` was merely an attempt at spin. At CBS, Madam Botox Nancy Pelosi was given rebuttal time (they used to only do that with the State of the Union speech) and she launched into a completely incoherent diatribe against the President. (It`s pretty clear that the networks only carried the President`s speech so they could do ``damage control`` on it.) She stated:
"The American people now know that the war in Iraq is not making our country safer," says Pelosi. "Let's forget the rosy scenarios and the reminders about how tough the job is. Let's not divide our country by saying who's for the troops and who are not. We're all for the troops, and we view our support for the troops to be measured by not only the equipment we give them, the intelligence, but by a level of planning, again, to meet their level of sacrifice."
Let`s see, the War is not making us safer? She sites the numerous terrorist attacks which have hit the United States since the beginning of the War. Ooops, it looks like she forgot to do that! She pleads that we not divide the country by talking about who is for or against the troops. I hate to point out that SHE is dividing the country by her opposition to victory and the troops. Hey Nan, you can`t launch hysterical attacks on our war effort then blame the other side for dividing the Nation! You can`t claim support for the troops when you destroy their morale and embolden the enemy, sweetheart! And don`t talk to me about planning-you have yet to give us an exit strategy for Bosnia, you have yet to offer any concrete proposals of your own (other than inserting tail between legs and scampering off), you have yet to make ANY constructive efforts. Your best idea is to retreat; but you guys will make us stronger at home!
Meanwhile, PBS dragged out every moth-eaten relic from Vietnam who managed to deny reality in ways I didn`t think possible. They denied Jihadists were working in Iraq, they denied we had made any plans, they denied we were gaining any ground, they claimed that the President`s use of the word terrorism was wrong because these were locals fighting for liberty (an echo of Michael Moore-on`s Minutemen comment). Even Rich Lowery from National Review seemed to have the life sucked out of him, making weak and innocuous comments so as not to disagree with the `60`s love in. It was disgraceful.
4. The President`s speech may help in the short term to boost public support, but he has got to develope a better communication team for his administration. This has been the problem Bush has had all along, and he doesn`t seem to get it. Condi Rice is not the person to use as a point-man for the Administration`s media face. Clinton, ever media conscious, had a slew of people whose sole purpose was to put a happy face on his misadventures. Carville, Begala, Morris, et. al. hovered about to deal with the media in times of need, while Bush tried to use Powell (he is a nice man, but has the personality of a stone), Rice, and other, well, DOERS. They are not professionals at manipulating the media, and it has always shown. Couple that with the fact that President Bush has an easygoing management style (he does not crush dissent in his administration) and you have a recipe for propoganda disaster. The President just can`t overcome the bias in the press with a group of amateurs. He needs a professional staff which is media-savvy-and he needs to reinforce his message regularly.
All-in-all, I would say the President helped his case last night. However, he still has much to do.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:04 AM
1 Comments:
You make some wonderful point, Tim - I'm going to post a link to you along with some quotes in lieu of making my own comments, which pretty much echo yours.
I wish, for instance, that the Bush administration would make better use of Dick Cheney, who always makes a convincing case and does it with a sense of calm and competent authority which is sorely lacking in any of his other representatives. Even during last night's speech there were more moments than not when the Bush seemed to be delivering his speech by rote -- without his heart being in it. On a few occasions he actually seemed to get engaged and seemed to wax passionate on a few of the points he was making, and actually seemed to be talking TO the audience, rather than simply reciting a prepared text robotically.
It makes me feel uneasy that my Commander in Chief is somewhat disengaged and uninterested in the progress of a war which is still underway. I'm afraid Bush's speech didn't do much to allay that sense of that I have that his heart is no longer really in it, and that he is content to let the generals finish the job while he moves on to other issues. He should be framing the issues on the war on a daily basis, either personally or through competent surrogates, as you said -- we need a media war to match the war on the ground.
Good job!! As you said - it was a start -- but the President has a long way to go.
Post a Comment
<< Home