Bush's No-News Speech On Iraq

Within seconds of President Bush ending his speech and before he had even left the stage, an official Fox voice told us "well there was no real new news" and Fox cut back to it's usual program, Trading Spouses, with nary another word of analysis.

And that pretty much sums up the POTUS speech on Iraq. What a waste of half an hour's airtime.

Most of the speech was simple repetition of previous speeches and soundbites, designed purely to play to those who already support Bush's actions wholeheartedly. We heard five repetitions of the date of September 11th as Bush tried to link emotionally what he could never do factually - the invasion of Iraq and the real war on terror that was sidelined for that invasion. There were the usual score or so of "freedoms" and a half-dozen "hard works". There was only a single "evil" although there was perhaps every possible cicumlocution for that word. Someone must have told the speechwriters that the old "axis of evil" rhetoric actually backfired abroad and for many at home - making the war on terror sound as if Batman and the Fantastic Four should be involved.

I remember learning the same lesson from a manager - tell them what you are about to tell them, tell them it, then tell them what you just told them. One could almost hear the military audience thinking "this is a plan?"

You see, I think Bush made a huge mistake in venue. Military types want a briefing in military style - one with objectives, waypoints, timelines, options to change all of those if things go better or worse than planned. What they got was a political speech to civilians which was devoid of every single one of those things - where Bush even point-blank refused to give them those things! They must have felt like an expensive toy, a backdrop to make the President look good while he spouted substanceless propaganda at the TV cameras. If they did feel that way, they had it right.

The only applause heard during the whole speech was, according to George Stephanopoulas on ABC, started by a Bush staff member in the front row and the soldiers dutifully followed - although many looked confused and half-hearted about it.

In fact the only really definite plans and deadlines allocated by Bush on the night were, as my colleague Elric notes in his UPC post, to the Iraqi government - which was a bit "ex cathedra" of him I thought.

And the real highlight of the night for me (and the military audience, probably) was the announcement that the U.S. Army will now finally catch up with what the British Army has been doing in it's Southern sector for the best part of two years, and begin mixing imbedded "transition teams" with the Iraqi security forces training in the U.S. regions of re4sponsibility. About time.

But Bush passed the buck to senior officers over troop levels - it's not his fault if they are wrong. He blasted the nations that support terror without blinking at the two named that are staunch U.S. allies. He even listed places worldwide where terrorist attacks have taken place since the invasion - "Madrid, Istanbul, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali and elsewhere" - and still expected us to swallow the flypaper theory without a murmur.

Overall, I was not impressed. Nor were many others outside the usual cheerleaders. Here are some other opinions:

Joe Gandelman (Moderate):

it probably won't be enough to win over wavering members of the American public, swing voters, and even some Republicans who have been voicing doubts about the way the war is being conducted. The key reason: It contained NO NEW GROUND...no knock-out development...no overpowering point that was made that is likely to sway those totally opposed to the war or beginning to distance themselves due to growing doubts. He didn't set a timetable for withdrawal, but few expected he would.

Donald Sensing (Right):

Overall, I don’t rate this speech very high - no better than a “B” and maybe B-minus.

Kevin Drum (Left):

That was sure a....ho hum speech. I thought it was supposed to be about our strategy to win in Iraq, but he offered nothing new at all. Our commanders say we don't need any more troops, a timeline for withdrawal is bad, and democracy is on the march. Plus, as usual, no outright promise that we won't leave any permanent bases in Iraq.
Beyond that, nothing but the usual rah rah. No wonder the networks were hesitant about televising it.

Frederick Maryland (Left) had a very cogent and particular critique which I have to say I agree with:

Frankly, the fact that U.S. officials have met with leaders of the Iraqi insurgency strikes me as a positive development. This dual approach of fighting the fight while exploring diplomatic options has been used in previous military conflicts.But for Bush to cast our "mission" in such a deceptively one-dimensional way shows the White House is more interested in spin than it is in leveling with the American people and explaining the broader U.S. strategy.

The very fact that insurgent leaders agreed to meet with U.S. officials suggests that there is at least some degree of pragmatism in the insurgents' calculations. And yet Bush made no mention of these talks as one strategic track that America is pursuing. Instead his rhetoric Tuesday night painted a picture of the insurgents or "terrorists" (W.'s preferred term) that suggests that any such talks would be pointless.

As usual for this President, it's smoke and mirrors disguised as straight talk when the nation wants straight talk in truth - but as the recent poll numbers suggest, the nation has figured it out.