Comments on: Why Didn’t Bush Say that to Begin With?

By: odograph

odograph — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 15:39:53 +0000

You talking to me, Crazy?

I read something this morning that made me very sad, as an American, and (as it happens) a Republican:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/30/224147/85

If that's correct, the guy the President quoted was back in Iraq for his 3rd tour:

"I kind of predicted this," Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. "A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."

That, incredibly sadly, is what "support the troops" has come to mean. We send them back, again and again, in a 200X version of "limited war." We learned that didn't work in 197X, that you go to win or don't go.

S.N.A.F.U.

By: Dean's World

Dean's World — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:04:44 +0000

Bush On Human Rights & Other Things

James Joyner points to some old Bush speaches.

By: Crazy Politico

Crazy Politico — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:16:48 +0000

You are correct that he hasn't said them enough. As a couple of your comments prove, the democrats "telling lies often enough and they become true" strategy is working. Which means he needs to be drumming the truth louder, more often.

By: bRight & Early » The President at Annapolis III

bRight & Early » The President at Annapolis III — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:37:50 +0000

[...] Many are asking why hasn't the president said this before. Well, he has. James Joyner (Outside the Beltway) points out President Bush's remarks at the United Nations General Assembly on September 12, 2002 and his "Democracy will succeed" speech in London in November 2003 as two examples. James makes the point that, "Bush hasn't said these things often enough or perhaps eloquently enough. But he's certainly said them." [...]

By: odograph

odograph — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 02:41:54 +0000

The polls show a democrat/republican bias, but they don't show a clear cut democrat/republican division.

People cross party lines to believe in the war or to call it a mistake. Recent polls have been close to 2:1 calling it a mistake.

It will be interesting to see to what extent this speech changes that.

By: Crossroads Arabia » Arab News on President’s Speech

Crossroads Arabia » Arab News on President’s Speech — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 02:11:34 +0000

[...] Here’s President Bush, on Sept. 12, 2002 (thanks to Outside the Beltway): In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities — which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored. Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime’s repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents — and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state. [...]

By: Bithead

Bithead — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:18:32 +0000

The answer to why he didn't say that earlier is basic politics and timing. If he'd said this right off, what would have happened? Would the Democrats NOT been complaining?

No, they simply would have been complaining about something ELSE. As it is, they now look like they're simply being political idiots, and they're being exposed as such.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:58:34 +0000

I'm basically in agreement with you, but think that Bush's UN speech was not actually about the "why" of the war so much as the legal basis for the war. He was speaking to an international audience that he knew was not crazy about the idea of war. Europeans, in fact, have grown allergic to the concept. He had to demonstrate that the war was authorized and legitimate, as the consequences of the first Gulf War which only ended in a ceasefire, not a peace treaty. Iraq had constantly been in contravention of the terms of the ceasefire, had been given numerous opportunites to change its ways as ordered by various UN resolutions, and had even refused to respond adequately to UNSCR 1441. This was the authority that the US and UK used as their "permission slip" to undertake their action.

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:07:46 +0000

James,

I agree with you that this was a problem of the Bush Administration emphasizing the WMD issue at the expense of others. That's why I said in my original post that I thought that this was as much a problem of public relations as anything else.

The other part of the problem is that Bush is not, quite frankly, that great of a communicator. He's had his moments, most notably after 9/11, but on the whole he just doesn't seem to be able to use the bully pulpit as well as other Presidents have. Personally, I always thought Tony Blair did a much better job communicating the justifications for the war than Bush did.

By: odograph

odograph — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:30:40 +0000

Re. emphasis not omission.

The nice thing about the change in emphasis is that we never would have haWBÃis war, and would not be in this position.

By: odograph

odograph — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:28:30 +0000

Bush and his backers picture themselves as tough guys, but they have always been weak. This is not hyperbole. They never had the guts to stand foursquare and ask the nation for the resources for a "total (conventional) war" and "total success." So we've had a war on the cheap, with "oh no, we don't need a draft" and recycling and abusing the troops we have. This takes S.N.A.F.U. to a new level. From up-armoring Hummers to hiring "contractors" that are both out of control 2-3 times the price of a soldier. Someone on TV last night said they planned for "flowers in the street" and had no back-up plan! They've drifted and tried to find things that work, but for every success there is AT LEAST one failure. You show me an Iraqi readiness report and I'll show you a guy with holes drilled in his body. If we were really going to do THIS, and stay the course for a decade, we should have had a draft and filled the pipeline with solidiers, not "trophy video" whack jobs. And if we are not going to do this, we should stop pretending.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:26:23 +0000

Doug: Can't disagree with you there. I thought it was a bad idea at the time and was on his case about it in the early days after the war. (See this May 2003 post, for example.) The problem was one of emphasis, though, not omission.

By: Below The Beltway

Below The Beltway — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:18:58 +0000

Redefining The War

Update @ 4:00pm: James Joyner points out that Bush has mentioned the themes he touched on today in the past, both before and after the war started. While this is true, the problem I see is that the Administration based its entire pre-war argument alm...

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:00:13 +0000

I agree that Bush talked about these issues before the war, but what the public remembers about the run-up to the war is the WMD issue, and that, along with Saddam's refusal to cooperate with meaningful weapons inspections, is what the Bush Administration used as the principal justification for war. There were other reasons to go to war against Iraq, but the Administration choose not to emphasize them.

By: ken

ken — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:56:56 +0000

There was nothing new in what Bush said today.

We've heard it all before; we didn't buy it then, we don't buy it now.