One of the most notable aspects of President George W. Bush’s latest speech on the war in Iraq was how in several ways it seemed to be throwing out the old playbook:
- It was from the Oval Office. For some weird reason this President and his staff have underused that setting for his speeches. The Oval Office as a setting tends to envelop its occupant as he speaks (even Richard Nixon at the height of Watergate) in the imagery of the Presidency and all who have served in that post. A speech does not seem as political when it’s delivered from there as opposed to delivered to some political think tank or in settings such as military groups where the charge can made that it’s staged for political imagery.
- He’s continuing the process of admitting shortcomings. This has been a painfully slow process and one that would have helped him if he had started the process some time ago.
- He is (for him) gingerly reaching out. Either someone has edited some of the usual “red-meat-for-partisans” rhetoric out of his speech or he seemed to be trying to take the first REAL steps towards national unity…or at least diminished political polarization…on the war.
Is this too little, too late? Perhaps. And the biggest reasons for this “perhaps” are the facts that so much of how this war plays out is dependent on external events beyond the White House’s military, legal or political p.r. finessing control (much like Hurricane Katrina) PLUS raging controversies over issues such as domestic spying that will continue to make this an administration perceived as determined to do things its way, no matter what others (including some in Congress) think.
Others also noted that Bush seemed to be trying to (in his own way) reach out to critics, including:
Glenn Reynolds aka Instapundit:
I just watched Bush’s speech. Nothing new there for anyone who’s been paying attention to the speeches he’s been giving over the past couple of weeks. But one big thing struck me: In this national televised speech, Bush went out of his way to take responsibility for the war. He repeatedly talked about “my decision to invade Iraq,” even though, of course, it was also Congress’s decision. He made very clear that, ultimately, this was his war, and the decisions were his.
Why did he do that? Because he thinks we’re winning, and he wants credit. By November 2006, and especially November 2008, he thinks that’ll be obvious, and he wants to lay down his marker now on what he believed — and what the other side did. That’s my guess, anyway.
The New Republic‘s Jonathan Chait:
I am not, to say the least, a fan of President Bush. But a portion of his speech tonight genuinely moved me and made me think more highly of him. It was the part where he addressed opponents of the Iraq war, said he understand their passion but asked that they think of the stakes of defeat now that the war had happened and asked that they not give in to despair. I cannot remember this president ever speaking to his political opponents except to mischaracterize their views and use them as a straw man….
This may be easy for me to say because I supported the war and oppose withdrawal….But this moment in his speech tonight really struck me as some kind of symbolic or emotional break from the past for Bush–a genuine attempt to unify Americans rather than polarize them. Bush and his supporters (both inside and outside the administration) have made it so damn hard to support them on this war. It just got a little easier tonight.
But Mr. Bush has a long way to go on that score.
If he truly wants to UNIFY Americans then he needs to strip away suggestions that those who criticize it are trying to undercut troops or tactically cooperating with terrorists in his future pronouncements…and rein in his surrogates. Surrogates are a long tradition in American politics where a political bigwig can remain above the fray while sending out political underlings out to do the slash-and-burn. (Note that this writer supported the war and has not endorsed calls for an immediate withdrawal. But he does not approve of the political tactics used by the White House in defending the war.)
Is this a new playbook?
Will the war now be discussed in serious detail? Will there be an attempt to defuse the political furies unleashed on this issue? Or was this windowdressing that won’t matter once we get past a news cycle or two?
We’ll know more later…but it seems like a start.