In what was billed as a major address before large group of uniformed soldiers, President Bush made the case that the war in Iraq was worth the sacrifices and tied it into the context of 911 — but was this a speech that will pick up or regain lost public support or simply impress those who already support him?
First, some details, via the New York Times:
President Bush sought to rally the American people behind his Iraq policy tonight, urging them to look beyond the daily carnage, and indeed their own doubts, and see a path to victory.
“The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous,” Mr. Bush said in a speech at Fort Bragg, N.C., to airborne and special-operations soldiers, some who have experienced – or will – the hardship and dangers themselves. “Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying, and the suffering is real.”
Mr. Bush was speaking on the first anniversary of the formal transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis after the American-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in the spring of 2003. But while the president and his top advisers have celebrated the nascent Iraqi government, polls have shown increasing doubts among Americans about whether the situation in Iraq is improving, and whether the sacrifice is worth it.
“It is worth it,” Mr. Bush said, “and it is vital to the future security of our country.” The president was making the case, as he has for many months, that a new Iraq will be a beacon of freedom and stability in the Middle East, and that victory there will strengthen the United States in its wider battle against worldwide terrorism.
As he has many times over the months, Mr. Bush linked the war in Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks, at least in theme. “The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror,” he said. “This war reached our shores on Sept. 11, 2001.”
No links were established between the attacks and the regime of Saddam Hussein. But Mr. Bush said the lessons of Sept. 11 were obvious – “This nation will not wait to be attacked again” – and that Iraq is a battlefield in the continuing battle against terrorists.
Some people doubt that, he conceded. But, he said, “among the terrorists there is no debate.” Anyone who doubts that Iraq is a theater in a worldwide struggle against terror should just note that the insurgents captured in Iraq are not only Iraqis, Mr. Bush said. Their ranks include people from Egypt, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Libya and other countries, he said.
When you read the full text of Bush’s speech you note that it wasn’t a bad speech. In fact, it may have been one of his more solid Iraq speeches in terms of making a case.
But it probably won’t be enough to win over wavering members of the American public, swing voters, and even some Republicans who have been voicing doubts about the way the war is being conducted. The key reason: It contained NO NEW GROUND…no knock-out development…no overpowering point that was made that is likely to sway those totally opposed to the war or beginning to distance themselves due to growing doubts. He didn’t set a timetable for withdrawal, but few expected he would.
Here are some observations:
–The setting was good imagery but a mistake. Did anyone in the White House think the vast majority of Americans believe soldiers are war critics? Presidents from FDR to Bill Clinton have used the Oval Office for a reason.
LBJ used to make speeches on military installations at the height of the Vietnam war, when opposition to the war was growing. But the networks seldom carried those speeches. The key policy statements were always delivered from the Oval Office. And those were always carried on the then (only) three networks because if a President spoke from the Oval Office it was a speech that had a special aura.
The Oval Office adds the weight of the Presidency as a HISTORICAL INSTITUTION to a speech. By speaking from the Oval Office there is no way political foes can say a President is politicizing a speech by the setting. It’s the President’s work place. Even before tonight’s the speech, some radio talk shows and cable shows had people criticizing the setting. Another error: the setting brought back memories of the “Mission Accomplished” speech two years ago (although this time there was no big background banner).
–Any bounce in the polls could be short lived. The speech was a good summary but didn’t advance the case much for being in Iraq. So if the military setting had a positive impact, and if the arguments GWB made tonight do help bring some skeptical Americans back into the fold, these gains can be undone by more bad news from Iraq.
–The use of 911 is a double edged sword. To be fair to Bush and his advisors, they are trying to provide a context for the war — that you can’t separate it from the events of 911 and the new realities out there in the world. But they are also under fire in some quarters for implying Sadaam Hussein was somehow involved in 911 (no evidence supports that). Meanwhile, although GOP partisans may want to constantly raise and tie in 911, there are some who increasingly accuse the administration of exploiting 911 and terrorism fears when it gets into trouble. The 911 tie-in may not have the same kind of impact as it used to have since it has been used so extensively.
–Putting war goals in the larger context of Middle Eastern goals was useful. But, again, it is not what was needed if this speech was to regain public support.
So, in the end, this speech is likely to prove to be either a speech that helped him regain some lost ground — or a dud.
Bush has often talked about having “political capital,” but the real “political capital” any President has is credibility. The poll numbers after this speech and in coming months will measure how much of that he had tonight.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.