32 Comments

1. RBMN:

I think the message was just as much for the Iraqi government’s benefit, as for the American public’s benefit. Telling them: no matter what you hear to the contrary, from certain American politicians who love to hear their own voice, we’re not going to flood your country with 200,000 more (un-needed) American troops on the one hand, or cut and run–leaving a civil war behind–on the other hand. I’m still in charge here, and I’m continuing on course.

Jun 29, 2005 - 10:17 am 2. Buddy Larsen:

I agree, though a weekly POTUS speech would–net–weaken the message. Better to keep the next several echelons talking.

SocSec, maybe it goes nowhere from here other than the other party knows it has been put on record with a no-holds-barred defense of the government’s right to control the individual citizen’s affairs.

Jun 29, 2005 - 10:21 am 3. jane m:

I agree, the President needs to speak more often about the Iraq war. And others of his cabinet or advisors need to do so as well. The administration needs to encourage the voters who grow weary of daily counts of dead and wounded GIs. I have noticed the lack of official commentary whilst all the Dems are having a field day questioning our purpose and effectiveness in Iraq right now. The MSM have converted many to the notion that we are now engaged in a quaqmire which is far from the truth.

Maybe once a week would be overkill but every two or three weeks, somebody needs to speak from the administration perspective and counter balance the negative media interpretations of our success in Iraq.

Jun 29, 2005 - 10:54 am 4. chuck:

I doubt anyone could speak to the subject very often. I mean, who would broadcast it? This isn’t the FDR administration, these days the president is likely to get bumped in favor of any number of things; scheduling a time and place convenient to the networks is likely a big deal. Probably the best thing to do is to keep administration officials on the Sunday shows and wait for the papers to come round.

Jun 29, 2005 - 11:10 am 5. Kevin P:

Roger;

Average speech, but I agree that the White House had left the field to the anti-war crowd.If you looked at the press of the last 3 months you would think that the most important story was the famous” koran abuse” myth that was peddled and of course the logical comparisons between Gitmo and the gulag. Bush will never go down as a great speaker but a timely reminder was needed.

Way off topic, but if PeterUK is around I would love to hear his opinion on the Battle of Trafalgar recreation. In a orgy of PC madness they replaced the French and British flags with red and blue flags so as not to hurt any feelings. I know the state of history is in bad shape but the French must know that they lost that one,don’t ya think?

Kevin Peters

Jun 29, 2005 - 11:21 am 6. PC14:

Tom Shales, writing in WAPO, rather than mention the truth that the troops at Ft Bragg were instructed not to applaud during the President’s speech, implies that the lack of applause hints at the troops being unfriendly to the President.

And then gives a backhanded prop to bloggers, the “bellicose” ones, as reason why the three networks carried the speech.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062900035.html

Jun 29, 2005 - 11:22 am 7. chuck:

I know the state of history is in bad shape but the French must know that they lost that one,don’t ya think?

Ah, therein lies the problem. But wait, there is a solution: the Germans got in on the 60′th anniversay celebrations of D-Day by claiming that they too were liberated. So the French just need to make a few adjustments…

Jun 29, 2005 - 11:27 am 8. yama-arashi:

Every so often a speech sure, but generally speaking less talk, more big, big stick. After big stick clubs terrorist then talk. After something good happens a big speech, but not a long one. Make good things happen more. Kill some terrorist on just that side of Syria. Good. And then a speech explaining why. Launch something big in Afghanistan. Then a speech explaining why. More doing, then after a speech. Or a speech explaining the next doing. We don’t need so much explaining or pleading the case, but reporting. Bush is good at that. Pre-empt ten or fifteen minutes every four weeks or so with a big announcement.

After Fallujah was there a speech? After the recent activity near the border of Syria was there a speech? Right before and after the new Constitution is adopted speak, speak. That kind of thing. Words about deeds, but deeds, deeds, deeds.

Jun 29, 2005 - 11:28 am 9. Kevin P:

roger:

AARGGHH! I neglected Spain’s contribution to Britains mastery of the sea

Jun 29, 2005 - 11:33 am 10. Knucklehead:

Jane M,

the President needs to speak more often about the Iraq war. And others of his cabinet or advisors need to do so as well.

There’s a measure of “damned if they do and damned if they don’t” here.

The incessant seditionist schreeching by the Dems and other moonbats has, surely, some negative effect upon “public opinion” towards our continuing mission in Iraq, but it also has negative implications for “public opinion” about Dems and other moonbats.

The Dems and other moonbats are desperate to make Iraq the issue. Responding to them too frequently or too loudly is playing into their hands. I doubt the administration is apt to do that.

By this stage of the game those who pay attention, whichever side they have chosen, have formed largely implaccable positions. They may change position over the long run but not on any daily or weekly, or even monthly basis. Changing, if even possible, will require much more hard information than shrieking can ever provide.

The rest of the public are part-time attention payers.

Some of those will interpret the incessant shrieking as evidence that things must be going terribly indeed. These are the folks who figger if there’s a lot of screaming that the sky is falling the, by gum, the sky must be falling and they’d best take cover and warn the neighbors.

Others will wish the shriekers would just shut up for a while and let whatever the program is proceed toward conclusion. These are the folks who will look up, see that the sky is where it always has been and probably will be again tomorrow, and wish Chicken Little would stop squaking already.

Yet others will simply figure the best way to get invited to summer BBQs is to chant whatever the loudest folks are chanting. These are the go along to get along folks who, despite their doubts that the sky is actually falling figure they should at least get in on the fun and do some yellin’ that the sky is falling.

And some of each will waver around among the varous groups.

There’s only a portion of the first group who are subject to being calmed down by gentle persuasion and pointing out that the sky is still up there where it belongs. About the best one can hope for from this group is that they’ll refrain from passing along the sky is falling warnings. This group, however, is very skittish. If there’s too much explanation about how the sky isn’t falling they are as likely as not to conclude that even though the sky is not falling at this very moment clearly even the folks who rightly point out that it isn’t falling now are very concerned that it might fall at any moment.

The second group is not particularly likely to be happy about having the din added to. They really would just like some peace and quiet. This group can be persuaded but one had best do it gently and infrequently.

The third group is the most hopeless of all. They really don’t care about whether or not the sky is falling, they just want to do what everyone else is doing.

The waverers are more or less subject to periodic spine stiffening pep talks, I suppose.

If I were an advisor to the administration (and they are no doubt glad I’m not) I would suggest that, in the course of their important duties they make a point of periodically mentioning a short list of positive progress in Iraq and let the shrieking Dems and other moonbats crank up the volume and challenge it each time – try to expand the second group and anchor some of the waverers there.

Jun 29, 2005 - 11:58 am 11. Steven Mitchell:

The only way to get constant reminders but not have them taken out of context is to go directly to the American people. Even in a press conference, it would have to be mostly speech and limited questions. And no matter how it is set up, the MSM will edit it to make it look as unfavorable as possible. OTOH, the MSM will *not* carry frequent speeches from Bush.

So I think all of this carping about “needing to get the message out more” is misplaced (here and elsewhere). If we had a press that was patriotic (and yes, I do question their patriotism), then the message would be getting out just fine, thank you. Most of it would be getting out with decent Q&A on news programs, released statements, etc.

I’ve noticed that some of this stuff does get discussed by administration officials on talk radio. I think they should talk to bloggers more. Let the damned hypocrits in the MSM wither on the vine.

Jun 29, 2005 - 12:00 pm 12. Syl:

I loved the references to 9/11 because it drives the left insane. But more than that, what needed to be said was that we’re there fighting the same ideology that commanded the terrorists on 9/11. Not that the left or half the Dems understand that.

Naive Barbara Boxer when confronted with the Bush quote from Osama (about the world war taking place in Iraq) countered with the admonition that we shouldn’t be taking the advice from Osama. What advice? Sheesh.

What a dippy woman she is.

She went on to complain yet again about taking our focus away from Afghanistan. This woman hasn’t a clue who the enemy is.

But enough of her.

There are more interesting arguments against Iraq, one given by Wesley Clark last night. He said we are only creating terrorists and giving them training to make them better fighters in the future. You know, scaring the voters into thinking Iraq is a mistake, and ignoring the symmetrical fact that we are learning even more than they are. Not to mention only those jihadis who don’t die have any chance of using their ‘new found skills’ to terrorize anyone else.

As if all those jihadi’s streaming into Iraq would otherwise be teachers, business owners, loving parents, or productive members of their respective societies.

That these potential terrorists exist is in itself reason for our mission in Iraq…establishing democracy, government by consent of the peoples, that eventually spreads throughout the region.

Another anti-Iraq reaction is that though there are plenty of terrorists in Iraq now, there were none before, so that Bush made a calamitous mistake by creating this situation because there was no post war planning.

Well, though ‘None before’ is debatable, it is a fact that jihadi’s are streaming into Iraq. I’m not sure this was a mistake on Bush’s part. Perhaps the sheer number of them was not expected, but Bush was pulling Osama’s chain and it worked. Osama HAD to react to Iraq and exhort jihadi’s to swarm into the country to defeat the Americans and not allow a democratic Iraq to happen.

Which side in this conflict between Osama’s minions and the West has more resources to spare? Which side is spending more of its resources by fighting in Iraq?

And the minions will continue to stream into Iraq as long as the Baghdad Bob’s of the al Qaeda organization have voice on al Jazeera, they don’t know they are doomed. What an ally al Jazeera has turned out to be…our own useful idiot.

The benefits of Iraq beyond our oft stated ones, are the light shining on the jihadi nihilism and cruelty which is broadcast to all the world. The combination of a switch in focus to freedom and the new knowledge gained of what jihadi’s actually DO will slowly shift the muslim masses away from their casual acceptance of militant Islam.

And this would not have happened if Osama hadn’t fallen into Bush’s little trap.

Jun 29, 2005 - 12:00 pm 13. Knucklehead:

And see, there’s why they don’t hire me to advise them. Yama’s suggestions are infinitely superior to mine.

Jun 29, 2005 - 12:00 pm 14. TedM:

KnucK,

Keep right on going. You are doing fine.

Boxer and Pelosi make GWB look like a Greek Orator. They not only don’t know what they are talking about, their intonation and body language makes them look and sound like the novices they are.

Sen Warner made some interesting comments last night. He looks and is an elder statesman. We have so few of those.

Jun 29, 2005 - 12:18 pm 15. Buddy Larsen:

Sen. Warner has it straight from the front that the Kennedy-ite rhetoric is troubling the deployed troops–who do not need that added burden–and that it is past time for OIF critics to STFU. And, after all, they’ve made their case, and their case has gone as far as last Nov 2 wants it to. Time to shut up if it’s hurting the troops, hurting the war effort. Simple. Just shut up awhile, and let the soldiers work.

Jun 29, 2005 - 12:31 pm 16. Knucklehead:

Steven Mitchell,

I think they should talk to bloggers more.

Roger, did you guys with PJM hear that? Online Q&A – Blog Conferences rather than Press Conferences – interviews with administration people, maybe even the POTUS himself. I’m sure you could find a way to keep the riff-raff out.

If nothing else it would be worth it to hear the howling from the Credentialed Press when y’all told them, “Sorry, but this a blog conference not a press conference”.

I like it, Steve!

Jun 29, 2005 - 12:35 pm 17. Buddy Larsen:

Pelosi and Boxer are not qualified, intellectually, for their positions. Nothing to do with politics, them gals is just too parochial to understand the issues.

Jun 29, 2005 - 12:35 pm 18. Knucklehead:

Buddy,

If these were cases of cognitive dissonance as some folks seem to believe, the sufferers would exhaust themselves and tend to quiet down as they figured out how to bring their beliefs and behaviors back into better alignement.

Seditionists, on the other hand, will never shut up. They are on a mission.

Jun 29, 2005 - 12:38 pm 19. Doug S.:

Kevn P, the losers have been rewriting the history of the Napoleonic Wars since the exile on St. Helena, so one shouldn’t be surprised if they try to whitewash Trafalgar, too. I’ve never been to the battelfield at Waterloo, but I’ve read descriptions that say that one would never know just by looking at the monuments that the British and Prussians won that day instead of ol’ Boney.

Leaping 200 years forward, I agree that the Administration needs to do a better job of communicating with the public about the present struggle. Bush’s speech last night was long overdue, and only one step in a continual journey. I firmly believe that historians will look back on the MSM barons and the Dem leadership and see them as the neo-Copperheads that they are. But war is always a contentious issue in a democracy. No less an eminence than John Quincy Adams passionately opposed the Mexican-American War; Grant fought in it but disagreed with the justifications. In WWI, Mencken believed that Wilson had been duped by British propoganda, and Dos Passos sneered afterward that it was “Mr. Wilson’s War.” Even in WWII, it is worth remembering that George Marshall advocated dropping the A-bomb in part because he didn’t think the American public would put up with another two years of battles like Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

Since the Napoleonic Wars popped up in this thread, I would suggest vol. 1 of Elizabeth Longford’s bio of the Duke of Wellington to my fellow Roger Simon readers. Longford does a good job of filling in the domestic political context of the war on the British side, describing the battles in Parliament between the Whigs and Tories (and the small but vocal Radicals, who pretty much supported Bonaparte) that followed the ebb and flow of Wellington’s campaigns in Portugal and Spain. That bit of history has been on my mind rather a lot over the last couple of years.

Jun 29, 2005 - 12:40 pm 20. Kyda Sylvester:

Has anyone listened to any of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings today? I’m curious about the Democrats’ tone following Senator Warner’s remarks on Fox last night.

Jun 29, 2005 - 12:51 pm 21. Kyda Sylvester:

Maybe once a week would be overkill but every two or three weeks, somebody needs to speak from the administration perspective and counter balance the negative media interpretations of our success in Iraq.

An idea with merit, but who would broadcast these speeches? It was only at the last minute that everybody agreed to carry last night’s speech. There are daily briefings at the Pentagon (I think–correct me if I’m wrong)–does anyone in the media besides Bill Gertz pay any attention to those?

I think Bush gets a bad rap on this issue. He talks about this stuff all the time, everywhere he goes. It’s not reported because the message doesn’t change. It’s not “news” (and besides everybody’s busy in Aruba). Other than hijack the airwaves, I’m not sure what he’s expected to do. More frequent press conferences would be helpful but only to an extent because the White House correspondents will fill the time with questions about torture in the gulag and Koran abuse and “say, Mr. President, are you ever going to admit that you’ve made some mistakes?”.

The information is out there. The messengers just aren’t interested in delivering the message.

Jun 29, 2005 - 1:12 pm 22. Kyda Sylvester:

…them gals is just too parochial to understand the issues.

You’re being much too kind. What they are is stupid. They’re playing a game that’s way over their heads (and they’re not the only ones) and they use partisan politics as cover for their inadequacies. What is wrong with the voters in this freakin’ state?

Jun 29, 2005 - 1:36 pm 23. Kyda Sylvester:

I think they should talk to bloggers more.

Absolutely. Come to the blogs.

Jun 29, 2005 - 1:38 pm 24. JenLArt:

Blair is no Churchill, he just plays one on TV and while Bush may not possess the rich oratory skills of Churchill, I believe that Sir Winston would claim him as a “child” proudly.

President Bush talks the talk and walks the walk as did Winnie.

Blair’s a good ally in the war, but otherwise, c’est une autre histoire.

I though the speech was terrific and from the howling on the Left and the resolve it’s inspired both at home and in Iraqis like Omar (Iraq the Model) I’d say it was a home run.

Onward to Victory, the only “exit strategy” there should ever be.

Jun 29, 2005 - 2:07 pm 25. Kyda Sylvester:

Onward to Victory, the only “exit strategy” there should ever be.

Nice. Very nice.

Jun 29, 2005 - 3:17 pm 26. Buddy Larsen:

Hear hear!

Jun 29, 2005 - 5:05 pm 27. richard mcenroe:

Doug S — and if you read the history of Wellington’s Spanish campaign, you’ll see he had plenty of “crokers”, too, opportunistic opposition politicians actually cheering battlefield reverses against their own troops because they could use them against the sitting government.

Jun 29, 2005 - 5:20 pm 28. Ed Poinsett:

“Onward to Victory” is the exit strategy. Bush should close every speech with it.

He should open each speach with a 5 second clip of the 9-11 jumpers. “Let there be no confusion, this is what the War on Terror is all about”.

Those points need to be consistently pushed by the administration. I don’t care how often or loud the left screeches.

Jun 29, 2005 - 5:24 pm 29. Dymphna:

Buddy– and other knowledgeable commenters:

Not having a TV, I didn’t hear the Prez speech. Sometimes, if I can make myself turn on NPR to see if they have it I do, but not last night…

Sooo, anyway: I went to Google news to find a transcript. What is with that place? Try putting in “Transcript President’s speech” and see what you get…oozing hatred. Here’s the first hit:

***Democrats hit Bush for repeatedly raising Sept. 11 in speech ***

Here’s another jewel:

***Bushís Speech: Letís Count the Lies***

Can you guys tell me what’s up with Google???

Jun 29, 2005 - 5:41 pm 30. Doug S.:

Richard:

Yes, and ‘croaking’ is such a wonderfully evocative term, too, isn’t it? “There is a system of ‘croaking’ in this army” is how Wellington put it. Thank God we have such thoroughgoing professionals in our army.

Jun 29, 2005 - 7:05 pm 31. Doug S.:

Follow-on, for clarity: Richard was talking about opposition politicians, but Wellington had bum officers in his army, too, who were always backbiting and carping. Many of them were gentlemen who had bought their commission, not professional soldiers. Some of them were cronies of the Duke of York, sent to Spain as a political favor. Hence my comment about being thankful for the professionalism of the US Army today.

Jun 29, 2005 - 7:08 pm 32. Buddy Larsen:

Dymphna, Google has some sort of problem, alright. I use their news site for a homepage–lotsa news there–but the headlines are bad news for Bush & OIF, and sweetly-written for the you-know-whos.

Jun 29, 2005 - 7:45 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: