Could Bush’s Speech On Iraq Backfire?
Could Bush’s Thursday night TV speech on Iraq prove to be a big political blunder and actually backfire?
Time Magazine says there is indeed a risk — and it confirms what we noted here last night about cable news networks indicating some key Republicans were not happy Bush gave the speech at all:
But Bush’s trumpeting of what he called a “return on success” could end up backfiring. Bringing the war into America’s living rooms is never a safe political bet. And if news of a slow drawdown may be popular, Bush himself still is not. Some key Hill Republicans, in fact, were upset that he returned front and center on the issue at a time when the White House had so carefully ceded the selling of the surge to Petraeus and Crocker. “Why would he threaten the momentum we have?” says one frustrated Capitol Hill Republican strategist with ties to the G.O.P. leadership. “You have an unpopular President going onto prime time television, interrupting Americans’ TV programs, to remind them of why they don’t like him.”
It’s the old story that the message can be obscured or bolstered by the messenger. And the bottom line is that, to all but his most loyal supporters, there is a huge epidemic of Bush fatigue throughout the line — tiring not just Democrats but independent voters and some Republicans. Perhaps particularly those Republicans who are facing tight 2008 re-election races. Time goes on:
Republicans in Congress who were finally breathing a sigh of relief after months of bludgeoning on Iraq felt Bush was risking the progress he had made with those closely following the war by thrusting it in the faces of those who may not be paying attention. It didn’t help that Bush said American forces would be on the ground in Iraq, as part of an “enduring relationship,” well past the end of his term in office. Even conservative stalwarts like Newt Gingrich felt Bush was the wrong man for the job. “The right two people to talk about Iraq were Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus,” Gingrich said on Friday. Asked why Bush took the risk, he responded, “Call and ask [White House political honcho Ed] Gillespie.”
It’s a bit ironic, but Gingrich is evolving into the highly public voice of GOP non-spin and bluntness.
Republicans are especially frustrated because they feel what many progressive Democrats are arguing: that the Democrats’ Congressional leadership is in disarray and de-facto retreat on the Iraq War issue after seemingly being outsmarted and outmaneuvered by Bush and his Republican supporters since the Democrats took control of Congress:
One thing keeping the spirits of Hill Republicans up is the fact that their Democratic counterparts are in retreat over the war. Centrists are running for cover, adjusting to the relative progress on the ground by trying to lie low. At the same time the left is putting targets on its back, particularly with ads personally attacking Petraeus in the New York Times. Rhode Island’s respected senior Senator Jack Reed tried to profit from Bush’s prime time foray in the Democratic response Thursday night, but had difficulty differentiating the Democrats’ proposal from the President’s without sounding defeatist.
Or is this all about his legacy?
They claim he’s “hitching his wagon” to the popular and respected Petraeus because he knows his place in history is at stake. “He’s more concerned about his legacy than he is about helping his Capitol Hill Republican colleagues,” says the Republican strategist.
He may be right. White House aides respond to the Republican concerns by saying: “Regardless of what the news was going to be [from Petraeus and Crocker], the President was going to speak to the nation. He’s the commander in chief and it’s his responsibility. It’s his war.”
But it’s a bit of an eye-opening political situation, like watching a death-defying act at the circus:
Bush is walking a political tightrope while Democrats seem to have tumbled off of it and are grasping to retrieve it.
When they grab the rope and it invariably shakes, who will finally go down?
UPDATE: We see that Ed Morrissey, a top conservative blogger, had the same reaction regarding the timing of Bush’s speech:
When I first heard that George Bush would address the nation this week after the testimony of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, I wondered who had made that mistake. The Republicans had put the Democrats back on their heels after the MoveOn debacle on Monday had revealed the low character of their base, and the news from Iraq made their rush to abandon Iraqis just when they had started to fight our enemies look even more craven. Momentum has shifted away from the defeat-and-retreat caucus.
Why interfere with that, unless President Bush had a heretofore unsuspected piece of good news that would provide a conclusion that surpassed what Petraeus had to say? Why not let the best voices on this issue resonate a while longer? If President Bush wanted to top Petraeus and Crocker, then he needed enough substance to make it worthwhile — and he didn’t.
He has a bit more to say and ends it with this:
It seems superfluous to rehash the Petraeus testimony, especially given Petraeus’ excellent delivery this week. The White House should have let Petraeus resonate and saved this for a daytime Rose Garden appearance.
Read it in its entirety.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
6 Responses to “Could Bush’s Speech On Iraq Backfire?”
This is largely irrelevant theater because there are no elections coming up (except in MS, LA and KY) and the facts on the ground will dictate sentiment on the war over the next few months – as they always do. Even if Petraeus had come out and said that the surge was a disaster, as long as Bush still supported, there was going to be sufficient votes to filibuster the Dems or, failing that, sustain a Bush veto. This war will not change until the next President is elected.
Oh and for the greatest quote of the Bush Presidency:
“You have an unpopular President going onto prime time television, interrupting Americans’ TV programs, to remind them of why they don’t like him.†Couldn’t have said it better myself.
At least one Israeli security expert thought Petraeus was too involved in the promotion of the policy and not enough in the execution of the policy, if I understood him correctly.
Using that logic, it should actually have been Mr. Bush who gave the progress report – not because it might have been the most expedient thing to do politically, but rather because it is the appropriate separation of roles.
It’s a bit ironic, but Gingrich is evolving into the highly public voice of GOP non-spin and bluntness.
The problem I have with Newt is that some years ago he was front and center calling this World War Three. Remember that? Even going so far as to illicit response from Al Quaida about this being World War three.
Now suddenly as the unpopularity of the President continues to plague the GOP, Newt has backed down and became one of his critics as he seperates himself from Bush and his policies.
While this might be the right thing to do I find it a bit too Political and too Give the people what they want while really not believing that in my heart speech.
Its why Fred Thompson is a breath of fresh air for the GOP. He tells it like it is and yes he has baggage. Who doesnt. I for one dont think I could find it in my heart to support a Newter.
He has found his place. A weather vain for the GOP. Our version of “Finger in the Wind” Politics.
Does Ed Morrissey not understand that George W. Bush is George W. Bush and that this is all about politics for him? Of course he’s going to “steal” the limelight. He still thinks people like him.
Gingrich is the epitome of a political opportunist, ginning up for his presidential campaign as another Washington “outsider”. But if you investigate his activities prior to the Iraq invasion, you find that he was hawkishly pushing the necessity of taking out Saddam, and vigorously supported and promoted Rummy’s disasterous “leaner meaner” military to do it.: From Salon:
Beyond advocating for the war, Gingrich was also advocating for the specific way it was fought: the Rumsfeldian strategy calling for a smaller invasion force and “footprint.” Gingrich has long been a proponent of this kind of change in the military. In 1981 he, along with Al Gore and others, began the Military Reform Caucus to explore those types of changes. In a speech to the Hoover Institution in the summer of 2002, he praised Rumsfeld’s tactical decisions in Afghanistan, saying, “The standard plan in Afghanistan was either Tomahawks or five divisions, and that’s why Rumsfeld was so important. ‘Cause Rumsfeld sat down and said, “Well, what if we do this other thing? You know, three guys on horseback, a B-2 overhead.” And it was a huge shock to the army … because it worked.” In December 2002, speaking to the Washington Post, he criticized senior military officials for wanting to fight a bigger, more conventional war and praised Gen. Tommy Franks for having a “more integrated, more aggressive and more risk-taking plan.” And after the war began, he praised the administration for sticking by its decision to go with a light, fast invasion, telling the Post that there was a “‘moment when the old Army was pounding away, saying that we were out there and facing the Republican Guard with too small of a force … That was the moment of optimum danger. A less confident administration might have paused and waited for another division to come up.”
He made numerous trips to Centcom, with Rumsfeld’s approval, to aid in planning the invasion.
The Republican party seems to have an overload of brilliant ideologues like Wolfowitz, Perle and Gingrich, whose ideas fail in the real world.
Gingrich who insisted in 2006 that he’d only run if America demanded it, and sought to be an idea man, has evidently decided that America can’t live without his creative solutions, and is on the brink of declaring his candidacy. Somebody is correct that he blows with the prevailing political wind, on the war and on his adulterous affair, which he cynicallt apologized to James Dobson for after many years of silence.
The transformation of the military that Rumsfeld pushed too hard is only possible if you create another force to complement it that would basically be cleanup. Their training would be different and their goals are different. It is not possible to fight a quick war with limited objectives and leave a broken state behind without causing worse problems for ourselves and any allies we have nearby in the long run.