The President's Speech

I'm working on some other stuff, so let me sketch out some quick comments and I'll keep coming back to this periodically either throughout the night or first thing in the morning.

First: rhetorically very, very strong, in part because of the return to the innovative structure first introduced in the speech to the Joint Congressional Session of September 20, 2001 -- ask the question Americans are asking themselves, then answer for them.

Second: argumentatively, not nearly as strong, because even as he answered the questions he suggests are on the minds of Americans, he fails to address the arguments we know for a fact are being made by the media and by the critics of the administration and the current Iraq policy. This inevitably translates into a weaker speech as particular points will potentially appear less credible. For example, he says that 160,000-odd Iraqis have been trained. Well, Joe Biden has been running around saying fewer than 3,000 of those have been trained adequately. He needn't name names, but he should have said, I know that it has been suggested that few of those have been trained properly. Then when he explains that there are three categories of Iraqi troops, (which he could have done right at that point) he needed to tell people how many are currently in each category. Even if the numbers are disappointing, giving disappointing news actually helps -- because it makes you more credible on all the rest.

Third: I gather that there was talk that the speech coming from Bragg meant it would be a "pep rally." Yet more evidence that people don't understand military ways: this was not going to be an outdoor rally, and the troops would not be treating it as such. If anything, perceptually the President hurt himself by doing this because while he had a live audience of troops, it would look to most people as if they were "sitting on their hands," and why would they be doing that except out of disapproval? (Indeed, Tim Russert on NBC was quick to note that there was "only one" break for applause.)

Comments

[Exguru]

It was clear to me the troops were ordered not to applaud, and I think that was clear to most listeners as well, since everybody knows the troops are wild about George. And I think this was smart of the presdient. The speech was totally and completely devoid of political content, on purpose, and his feeling was hooting and clapping soldiers would change that. So they told them to shut up, they did, and a more serious setting was achieved.

He said almost nothing, except to reassure one and all the present policy would continue so long as he was president. He can't say that often enough for all the Iraqis who now have their lives invested in it. I had the feeling much of it was aimed overseas at people who had been exposed lately to seditious noises from Democrats in the United States, magnified out of all proportion by the MSM, the BBC, Reuters, the Guardian, etc.
The cut-and-run caucus amounts to 6% of the U.S. population right now, led by some big name Democrats of course, who turn sideways and cover their mouths when they say it.

[Exguru]

It was clear to me the troops were ordered not to applaud, and I think that was clear to most listeners as well, since everybody knows the troops are wild about George. And I think this was smart of the presdient. The speech was totally and completely devoid of political content, on purpose, and his feeling was hooting and clapping soldiers would change that. So they told them to shut up, they did, and a more serious setting was achieved.

He said almost nothing, except to reassure one and all the present policy would continue so long as he was president. He can't say that often enough for all the Iraqis who now have their lives invested in it. I had the feeling much of it was aimed overseas at people who had been exposed lately to seditious noises from Democrats in the United States, magnified out of all proportion by the MSM, the BBC, Reuters, the Guardian, etc.
The cut-and-run caucus amounts to 6% of the U.S. population right now, led by some big name Democrats of course, who turn sideways and cover their mouths when they say it.

[Manitou Jack]

It was clear to me that these troops were a lot less enthusiastic about this speech at this time than the troops at Fort Hood were about his speech in January, 2003. Check out what the soldiers and Iraq/Afghanistan vets are sating at Operation Truth are saying, and do not suppose for one second that they all say the same thing or share a single party affiliation. Just because they and their families are doing their duty and supporting the *troops,* that does not mean that they buy everything the President or VP tells them - especially when it is in direct conflict with what they hear from their own command structure and their fellow soldiers. I also found it interesting that even at the last minute, after leaking phrases such as "a clear path to victory" to the press, the actual speech was revised to "a clear path forward." Unlike, as one wag put it, the lack of a clear path from the Green Zone to the Baghdad airport.

[dauber]

I'm not all that sure of the profound difference of fussing with the speech until the last minute, however. It isn't as if the speech doesn't make clear that an ultimate conclusion is the goal.

[Tara]

I wanted to know who is behind this "Operation Truth" so I Googled and found out that the man that started this organization is not exactly supporting the war....

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:tB1L-s5S938J:silentrunning.tv/archives/004119.php+Paul+Rieckhoff&hl=en

He is also aligned with the Democrat Party ..which is his right of course..but I'm just saying that support for the war in Iraq with the Democrats isn't a sure thing.

[soccerbob]

That's "Democratic" Party.