BUSH ADDRESS PREVIEW
 |
James Joyner | Sunday, September 7, 2003 |
WaPo/Reuters has a preview of the address, which appears to be carefully timed to take place between NFL matchups. The purpose of the speech, however, is unclear, as it appears he is going to say nothing new:
President Bush will say in a speech to the nation on Sunday night that crushing a guerrilla campaign in Iraq will take time and require sacrifices, and he will vow to spend whatever is necessary for victory.According to speech excerpts released by the White House, Bush also will say members of the United Nations “now have an opportunity, and the responsibility, to assume a broader role in assuring that Iraq becomes a free and democratic nation.”
<...>
“There is more at work in these attacks than blind rage. The terrorists have a strategic goal. They want us to leave Iraq before our work is done. They want to shake the will of the civilized world,” he will say.
Bush will offer a stay-the-course commitment to Iraq, calling it part of the war on terrorism although no conclusive evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has been found and no substantive links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda have been established.
One also has to love the editorializing contained in what’s supposed to be a straight news story.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
Perhaps its a bit of overcompensation. 8 months of swallowing, and then regurgitating, Bush propaganda. Now, a little late, they're making an attempt to point out how completely without basis all of it was.
"no conclusive evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has been found and no substantive links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda have been established"
One also has to love the editorializing contained in what's supposed to be a straight news story.
Those are facts, not opinion. It is not editorializing to include facts that are relevant to the topic in the story. Or is anything that doesn't parrot the (Republican) Administration's talking point now all "spin"?
Flory: The press have hardly been parotting the Bush party line on Iraq.
Mithras: It is true that no WMD have been found (or at least reported), but that's really irrelevant in terms of the GWOT. Whether evidence of Saddam-al Qaeda is "substantive" is indeed a matter of opinion--even though mine is that it's not. Regardless, there are terrorist groups other than al Qaeda, so the war could be tied to GWOT either way.
---
Comments are Closed
