Well .... we've had the speech now and it was much the style that most expected -- that is, without any sort of plan -- though the rhetoric was not as way-out as it might have been. I suspect that Karl Rove wrote the speech initially, and some of his usual jingoistic phrases were retained, but there were some turns of phrase and a balance of sub-themes which suggests others had a hand. Three things struck me about it:
1. A great deal of time was spent on how the Iraqi forces are shaping up. He implied that there were 160,000 -- though that is plainly nonsense. In the minds of the speechwriters, this figure was probably arrived at as 130,000 Americans + 30,000 Iraqis. But this exaggeration once again suggests to me that he's preparing for some significant withdrawals fairly soon. (I am increasingly convinced that some very serious talks are now going on with Sunni extremists and Al Qaeda terrorists. The sticking point probably is that America will still need to leave some secure bases there even if they never appear in the streets again as an "occupation". But, as with the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War, even totally quarantined bases will not be entertained by the Sunnis in Iraq.);
2. In his peroration he is obviously recognising re-enlistment and recruitment problems;
3. He used a phrase: "Setting an artificial timetable" which struck me as being slightly odd. Now there's nothing artificial about a timetable. It's either sensible or it isn't. What I think it meant was "It isn't convenient yet to announce substantial troop withdrawals."
Altogether, the speech didn't strive too strenuously in an attempt to turn back public opinion in his favour. Bush would obviously want that to happen and I guess the speech will have a temporary effect but I think Bush and his script writers can clearly see the writing on the wall and that something much more radical will be required in the coming weeks or months if Bush's presidency is not going to be wrecked completely by the decision to invade.
One huge lack of mention which I think is extremely significant. This is the Kurdish region. One might expect Bush to have referred -- as signs of hope -- to the peaceful areas of Iraq, such as the Kurdish region or the Shia-dominated south. But there was nary a mention and nor is there ever in White House press releases. The reason is, I think, that they are both close to breaking away from Baghdad -- the Kurdish region particularly.
Keith Hudson
At 13:48 28/06/2005 -0700, you wrote:
Keith wrote: Karen, 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
It doesnt matter who is frozen out or not, but will the policy be realistic and will the messenger be honest? I agree with Beinart that until Bush talks straight with the American public, it doesnt matter how lofty the words are now. Only a direct attack on our shores will shock the wishy washy from seeking shelter in the web of deception again. The déjà vu factor is growing.
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
