If Bush's speech is going to have more than a temporary effect on the trend going against him then he's going to need a far smarter speech-writer than Karl Rove. Bush's second-term inaugural speech was a disaster for him.
As you know, I think that Bush is now being influenced by a much more intelligent (and experienced) team than previously. I mean Negroponte, Zoellick and Bernanke. I think it is certain that Rumsfeld is being increasingly frozen out, and maybe Cheney, too (there are one or two straws in the wind that suggest this to me, but I'm not convinced yet). But whether Karl Rove is being frozen out is a moot point. I suspect he might be, but both the contents and style of Bush's speech at Fort Bragg will clearly indicate whether Rove is still influential or not.
Interesting!
Keith
At 12:23 28/06/2005 -0700, you wrote:
Tonight, Pres. Bush will deliver an important speech, once again from within the friendly confines of a military base, about his Iraq war policy and objectives. Many of us, because his poll numbers continue to drop to historical levels, anticipate it will be something like Nixons Im Not A Crook speech. It also appears that he has reached a fork in the road moment, one calling for reflection that seems to be on the endangered list for this administration, always blaming low level soldiers, low level civil servants, opponents, instead of looking at the problems theyve created, assuming some accountability, often with constructive criticism from within their own party. Will he proceed as before, and go off a cliff, or stop short and demonstrate some real leadership (he has been quoted saying leaders dont apologize)?
Several have taken the opportunity to rebut and refine the message Americans will hear. One, not surprisingly, is Sen. Kerry, the dragon slayedby the Rove Smear Machine, currently dba Policy Advisor but using the same playbook as the permanent campaign chief. Another critic is Peter Beinart, one of the signers who wrote the President encouraging a larger military force in Iraq.
Here is Beinarts commentary and the link to Kerrys follows. I dont agree with Beinarts assumption that Iraq isnt already in civil war, or that it is an established state at this time in its history, and doubt, like military experts whove allowed themselves to say it, that the Iraqi Army will be sufficient to the task created for them in approximately two years. But his comments about conduct unbecoming make it impossible for those few diehards left who believe every word said in the past to ignore that leadership doesnt come in a bottle, and it isnt vaccinated by a born again experience, either. The charade must end.
Time For Some Humility, Mr. President
By Peter Beinart, in The Oregonian, June 28, 2005, page B7
President Bush and Democratic Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California deserve each other. Woolsey is a founder of the newly created Our of Iraq Congressional Caucus. She recently told Roll Call that Success for us is two words: Troops. Home.
Thats breathtakingly irresponsible. Of course, success means eventually bringing American troops home. But it also means ensuring that Iraq doesnt dissolve into civil war. Preventing Iraq from becoming a failed state that exports a new generation of jihadists killers is vital to American security. And making sure we dont abandon the Iraqi people to Lebanon-style slaughter is vital to American honor. Woolsey doesnt seem to understand that.
But the Out of Iraq Caucus didnt come from nowhere. Its the result of President Bushs ongoing refusal to speak honestly about the war. All but the most die-hard sycophants now acknowledge that before the war the Bush administration exaggerated the threat from Saddam Husseins weapons of mass destruction and terrorist ties. And that it lowballed the costs in money, troops and time of building a stable, liberal government in Baghdad. Yet even today the president keeps playing the same dishonest games. In his June 18 radio address, Bush said, in the context of Iraq, that we went to war because we were attacked, Hes still implying a connection between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11, 2001 even now!
A plurality of Americans now believe they were deliberately misledbefore the war. When the president talks to the country about Iraq tonight, he needs to address that. Otherwise, hell never have the credibility to tell Americans the harsh truth: that Iraqi troops wont be ready to defend their government for two years or more. And until they can, brave young US soldiers will have to keep doing the job.
A good way to begin addressing this credibility gap is by dumping John Bolton. The nomination of Bolton is a giant declaration that the Bush administration still thinks it did nothing wrong on prewar intelligence. As undersecretary of state for arms control, Bolton tried to hype the threat from Cuba, Syria and Iraq. And when intelligence analysts opposed him, he tried to fire them. Now the Bush administration wants to send him to the United Nations so he can opine about US intelligence on Irans nuclear program and be laughed out of the building.
Then Bush should dump Donald Rumsfeld whose continued employment signals that the Bush administration still thinks it did nothing wrong on prewar planning. Rumsfelds refusal to listen to the Army, the State Department, outside experts and even conservative pundits who said that America needed more troops to secure postwar Iraq constitutes, in the words of Larry Diamon, a former Coalition Provisional Authority senior adviser, criminal negligence. How can Bush offer credible strategy for winning peace if he relies on an utterly discredited defense secretary to carry it out?
President Bush famously hates admitting mistakes. And he generally plays to his base. But on Iraq, those instincts are driving his administration off a cliff. The vast majority of Democrats, and most independents, now think Iraq was a mistake. And the calls for withdrawal are moving from the fringes of American politics to the center.
Congressional Democrats must resist those calls. As retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, a fierce critic of the war, recently explained, even a timetable for withdrawal is a terrible idea. Knowing America was on its way out would embolden the insurgency and undermine Iraqis risking their lives to build a free country.
But if Bush wants to stem the rising sentiment for withdrawal, he needs to do something he has avoided for more than two years: He needs to make this a national war, not a partisan one. That means appointing independent figures to key jobs people like Richard Lugar or Sam Nunn, who come from outside the conservative cocoon. And it means speaking about Iraq with a humility that this administration has richly earned.
For America to win in Iraq, President Bush first needs to win back Americas trust. Lets hope its not too late.
Peter Beinart is editor of the New Republic and a guest scholar at the Brookings Institute.
Sen. John Kerry: The Speech the President Should Give http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/opinion/28kerry.html? and http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/062805Y.shtml
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
