Article

2007-01-12 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2007-01-12 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I heard a snippet of the speech. He said something to the effect that he understands that after 9/11 the American people have forgotten that we're at war, but that's ok because the members of the Armed Forces never forget what we're doing and why. I think we want to read the text, if someone would be so good as to dig it up. Thanks!

Posted by trailing wife 2007-01-12 06:41|| 2007-01-12 06:41|| Front Page Top

#2 Top o' the morning to ya, TW. Here's the word.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-01-12 06:45|| 2007-01-12 06:45|| Front Page Top

#3 Bush's remarks at Ft. Benning are here.

The passage you're referring to appears to be this one:

"On September the 11th, our nation saw firsthand the destructive vision of a new kind of enemy, and once again the men and women of Fort Benning answered the call to protect our country from that enemy. You know, I knew that right after the attacks, the American psyche being what it is, people would tend to forget the grave threat posed by these people. I knew that. As a matter of fact, I was hoping that would happen so that life would go on. But the fortunate thing for this country is that those who wear the uniform have never forgotten the threat."

Dear God in Heaven... he was actually HOPING the American people would "forget the grave threat" so "life would go on"????

Bad move. MAJOR strategic blunder. Because the American people sure as hell HAVE forgotten the threat, to the point where they no longer even support the war. How the hell do you expect the American people to hang in there through this "long, hard slog", this so-called "generational conflict", this "calling of our time", WHEN YOU INVITE THEM TO FORGET ALL ABOUT THE DANGER THAT NECESSITATED THE WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE???????

I'm gobsmacked. Stunned. Totally, utterly stunned.

Oh, well, at least that solves the mystery of why Bush has made little effort these last few years to shore up public support for the war: he held back so "life would go on".

Jesus...

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-01-12 07:20|| 2007-01-12 07:20|| Front Page Top

#4 Bad message, this is driving me to drink.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2007-01-12 07:23|| www.sockpuppetofdoom.com]">[www.sockpuppetofdoom.com] 2007-01-12 07:23|| Front Page Top

#5 I hope Verlaine sees this item and comments on it; it drives right to the heart of what he's been saying the last couple of weeks about Bush's failure to rally sufficient public support for the war. He "wanted life to go on". Good Lord...

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-01-12 07:37|| 2007-01-12 07:37|| Front Page Top

#6 With Americans overwhelmingly opposed to the increase,

Funny how the reporter just kind of threw this assumption in isn't it.

Posted by CrazyFool 2007-01-12 08:16|| 2007-01-12 08:16|| Front Page Top

#7 Only 26 percent of Americans favor sending more troops to Iraq and 70 percent oppose

Posted by Thavirt Thraiger7304 2007-01-12 09:23|| 2007-01-12 09:23|| Front Page Top

#8 What Dave D. said. There is no sense in which life should go on as it did before the massacre. There is an ocean of blood and fire before us before we should consider resting once again.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-01-12 09:34|| 2007-01-12 09:34|| Front Page Top

#9 I think what CF is getting at is the implication that all 70% oppose the increase because they oppose the war, which is a faulty assumption. Those opposed may include significant numbers of people who think a better solution would be, for example, to stick with current troop levels but toss our suicidally restrictive ROEs, and/or let the Navy & Air Force level Teheran.

And Isfahan, Natanz, Bushehr, and Qom while we're at it.

And maybe also Riyadh, Islamabad, and Damascus.

I'm just sayin, I agree that "overwhelming opposition" isn't necessarily rooted in monolithic anti-war sentiment, as the AP suggests.

Posted by exJAG 2007-01-12 09:43|| 2007-01-12 09:43|| Front Page Top

#10 Atomic carpet bombing of Syria and Iran with the threat to do it again to whoever fucks with us would shorten the conflict.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-01-12 10:56|| 2007-01-12 10:56|| Front Page Top

#11 I certainly agree the AP is spinning poll numbers, but just for the moment, let's assume they're correct.

How many people supported FDR's decision to embargo Japanese oil to curtail their adventures in China? Oh, no poll.

How many people supported FDR's Lend Lease program? It was controversial, was it not?*

How many folks supported FDR sending US Navy ships as far as Iceland to protect British convoys in the summer of 1941? Did you know that the USS Rueben James was, in fact, sunk by a German submarine on October 31st, 1941?

What I am driving at here is the difference between a democracy, where the guy with the loudest mouth or best speaking power controls**, and a republic, where we elect someone to lead us. Kerry would be directing a democracy, FDR led the republic into war because it was the only thing to do to protect the republic.

Bush is a leader. Clinton was a follower. Kerry is a blowhard. Kennedy is a ... irrelevant bufoon, yeah, that's it.

*Franklin Roosevelt, eager to ensure public consent for this controversial plan, explained to the public and the press that his plan was comparable to one neighbor's lending another a garden hose to put out a fire in his home. "What do I do in such a crisis?" the president asked at a press conference. "I don't say ... 'Neighbor, my garden hose cost me $15; you have to pay me $15 for it' I don't want $15 I want my garden hose back after the fire is over." (Wikipedia article on Lend Lease)

**To understand how destructive a democracy can be, read Victor Davis Hanson's book, A War Like No Other. I concluded the biggest single factor leading to te decline of Greek civilization is 400 B.C was the self-destructive power of the democratic process.

Posted by Bobby 2007-01-12 13:09|| 2007-01-12 13:09|| Front Page Top

#12 Dave D., think what you want, hate the man all you want but a nation paralyzed by fear isn't good for the econonmy. Right after 9/11 everyone was in shock and consumer spending dropped.

Things could have been much much worse!

Posted by Spomort Greling4204 2007-01-12 13:57|| 2007-01-12 13:57|| Front Page Top

#13 "Dave D., think what you want, hate the man all you want..."

What the fuck???? I don't hate Bush; I think overall he's done a damn good job except for a few things, including the issue I raised above-- good enough, in fact, that I contributed the legal maximum to his re-election campaign.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-01-12 14:07|| 2007-01-12 14:07|| Front Page Top

#14 I believe that despite that actual words GWB uttered, his intent was that the grieving and pain would subside, but his choice of words were unfortunate; an occupational hazard of contemporaneous speech.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2007-01-12 14:54|| 2007-01-12 14:54|| Front Page Top

#15 Right, and his off-the-cuff stuff is not nearly as good as Kerry's!

Posted by Bobby 2007-01-12 15:06|| 2007-01-12 15:06|| Front Page Top

#16 Dave, whether or not the comment in question had precisely the meaning you suggest, I have had a larger problem in mind WRT Dubya's administration and public communication. There has been and continues to be a general passivity in the face of significant distortion by the media - sometimes specific things, sometimes more a pattern of selection and of course the ceaseless devolution of even wire service reporting into mediocre editorializing.

It's the cumulative effect of uncorrected, unanswered, or unchallenged b.s. that seems so important. The public, or a lot of it, has a firm base of false information or understanding on lots of key issues. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who gets it day in and day out, from friend, relatives, strangers we talk with in daily life. It takes a lot of energy, uncommon independence and analytical bent, or sustained exposure to an alternative info source (military relative, etc.) to avoid the misunderstanding fostered by the poor coverage - AND the lack of guvamint response.

I'm thinking here as much of the failure to combat stupid false memes as the failure to, somehow, sustain a war-time mentality among the populace. I still recall the sole time - at least that I'm aware of - it was clear the WH had noticed the distortion. The NYT had a front page story starkly misrepresenting a finding of the staff of the 9/11 Commission (leaving aside how little weight should have been given to that product, anyway) - issue being connection between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. I recall my jaw dropping when I saw the report - and it took me about 2 minutes to click over to the web version of the staff report to confirm that the NYT had clearly misreported the issue.

Next day, Cheney was on an obscure cable news interview. Without much prompting he bristled and - for him - vigorously denounced the inaccurate reporting.

THAT was, to my knowledge, the high-point of administration response to media malpractice. Of course Rummy had frequent and entertaining jousts with the Pentagon press, but that was about it. I noticed that just as I left Iraq DOD had started to put some counter-fire on their website. The WH has had, for some time, an email that goes out to government offices - oh great, that will ensure the public knows! - in which they counter specific false memes; some of these have appeared as op-eds in the WSJ.

Anyway, there is no doubt that, unfortunately, the administration's greatest failure may be in the area of public communcation, in its simple absence from the playing field. During a war - a war that's relatively hard to understand and follow to begin with - and in which there is an astounding if not totally unprecedented tsunami of political sabotage from the press and the mainstream political opposition.

I guess I have to toss in the failure to jettison the politics-centric strategy we followed in Iraq following the first elections as the other major blunder. And that's not hindsight - there were people of all statures scratching their heads and calling for adaptation long, long before February 2006, and specifically under the rubric of "security first", which somehow is now being treated as though it's an innovative thought or new strategic approach.

I wish someone would finally address the rhetorical confusion about "open-ended" commitment. This desire to signal that our commitment may start to decline soon - the same sort of stuff Casey started peddling in early 2006 - is simply insane. You can try to soothe the public, boost your poll numbers, and avoid some of the pressure of leading during war - OR, you can fight the war. The enemy - and as importantly, the neutrals and the regional allies - CANNOT be allowed to think they can wait us out. All this body English about reducing troop numbers "if so and so happens" is as incompetent and harmful as publishing a damn timetable - it's a timetable without the calendar.

Ironic that the US president with arguably the strongest will in decades is diluting the critical real-world value of that grit by trying to mollify the weakest and silliest political class in living memory .... (speaking of which, while we were all surprised by Dubya himself after 9/11, is anyone here NOT incredibly depressed about the prospects for the next presidency?).

Posted by Verlaine 2007-01-12 15:19|| 2007-01-12 15:19|| Front Page Top

#17 Thanks for responding, Verlaine; not much for me to say except, "I concur". I fear that the Administration's failure to fight the war at home may well be the undoing of this entire enterprise.

"...is anyone here NOT incredibly depressed about the prospects for the next presidency?"

I think we're going to be staring disaster in the face two years from now-- whether it's a Rep or a Dem. Just my opinion...

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-01-12 15:43|| 2007-01-12 15:43|| Front Page Top

#18 A belated thank you to Nimble Spemble and Dave D. for finding the text.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-01-12 16:10|| 2007-01-12 16:10|| Front Page Top

#19 Far too much hand wringing and over analysis here. Bush's comment can be interrupted in many ways.

By definition, "terrorists" want to terrorize the populace. They aspire to have an overriding influence on how we Americans live our lives.

My take is that Bush would and we should) not want to let terrorists have what they covet: our abiding attention.

Thankfully, we have a powerful military that provides for our security and make incredible sacrifices for our benefit and welfare.

I believe that's the correct way to view Bush's remarks.

Posted by Captain America 2007-01-12 16:31|| 2007-01-12 16:31|| Front Page Top

#20 I wish someone would finally address the rhetorical confusion about "open-ended" commitment. This desire to signal that our commitment may start to decline soon - the same sort of stuff Casey started peddling in early 2006 - is simply insane.

I agree with what Verlaine has written, but...

Overall, Bush's media and public diplomacy strategy has been a mystery to me. I suspect this is in large part thanks to MSM efforts to bury and mischaracterise his message. But he also fails time and again to get his message across unambiguously. I suspect the above may have been said to threaten Maliki. But better to do that in private. The domestic penalty for misleading people about our ultimate intention is not worth the price of telegraphing a punch to Maliki publicly.

What is funny is that any candidate who advocates the immediate withdrawal from Iraq will be as successful as George McGovern. The American people do not want to leave Iraq, they want victory. And that word was missing from Bush's speech. He needs to talk about doing whatever is necessary to achieve victory in this theater of the war.

If the American people see actions taking place that are leading to victory they will support the war. They will not support defeat and that is what Bush's generals and diplomats have delivered so far. I hope we start to see changes in the conduct of the war that indicate that the ROE have been changed to those that assure victory and not warm feelings. First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-01-12 16:52|| 2007-01-12 16:52|| Front Page Top

#21 The biggest cheese of part of Bush not fighting back against the press is that a little bit would go a long way. When he speaks, the average American listens.

A comment here in a radio address, a statement there in a prime time interview, a press release here's and there correct the most egregious errors would help. Combine that with some Sunday morning appearrances by his cabinet and a statement or two in a State of the Union and I think this war could be sitting better with the American public.

All blame is not his however.

Would it be too much to ask for some war supporters to take out a Sunday ad? Or pitch in for a tv commercial? Hell, America used to see war highlights when they went to the theatre.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-01-12 17:02|| 2007-01-12 17:02|| Front Page Top

#22 Agree with everything just added by Mike, Nimble, and even Capt. A. - I didn't want the administration to let AQ run our national life, I have been more concerned that Dubya and Co. have been so invisible, and particularly when the media and the opposition are so far off the rails.

I understand the knife-edge problem of wanting to scare the Iraqis straight while also presenting a determined face to our adversaries. I think, however, that the admin. and MNF-I engaged in something close to fantasy in thinking Iraqis were anywhere near being ready to take over. I think they also forgot that you can, indeed in this case MUST do both things at the same time - destroy the enemy, while brining the Iraqi forces along. The lack of offensive pressure on the enemy, the lack of serious approaches has been the wrong way to prep the battlefield for junior to take over (after the Haifa Street dust-up this week, was martial law imposed on central B'dad? Doubt it. Heck, I watched martial law on black-and-white TV from Watts in the 1960s - KTLA, first helicopter coverage I ever saw - but such conditions are hard to find in the Iraqi "war" zone).

Owens has CSM op-ed today in which he refers to a series of offensive operations. Sort of misleading. None of them aside from Fallujah featured sustained, and massive, pressure (heck, even at Fallujah they failed to effectively cordon the place in a timely manner, judging by the reported skeedaddling of many hard boyz). From sitting in at the daily briefings since spring 2006, I'd say offense was a rare and welcome thing in Iraq. I know special ops and others do their raid thing out of sight, but it's remarkable how little pressure we've seemed to put on our enemies. Could be wrong, but I think a large swath of discouraged Americans has it right when they say we haven't really been serious for some time.

Posted by Verlaine 2007-01-12 17:30|| 2007-01-12 17:30|| Front Page Top

#23 The soldiers also must realize that Dubya-USGovt is much a valid target of Radical Islam as the WTC , etal. was, AND THAT AMERICA MUST FIGHT "OVER THERE" NO MATTER HOW MANY NEW 9-11's/AMER HIROSHIMAS TAKE PLACE INSIDE AMERICA. OUR WARRIORS WANNA FIGHT AND WANNA FIGHT "OVER THERE", NOT OVER HERE, NO MATTER WHAT THE MSM + DEMOLEFTIES IN CONGRESS PC SAY TO THE CONTRARY.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-01-12 20:10|| 2007-01-12 20:10|| Front Page Top

23:48 Mike N.
23:41 newc
23:40 Shieldwolf
23:32 newc
23:05 Frank G
23:01 trailing wife
23:00 Mike N.
22:49 trailing wife
22:40 Frank G
22:22 Procopius2k
22:18 Mark Z
22:17 USN, ret.
22:14 Mike N.
22:11 Procopius2k
22:10 USN, ret.
22:04 DarthVader
21:54 Frank G
21:53 Alaska Paul
21:52 3dc
21:50 USN, ret.
21:23 Pappy
21:20 djh_usmc
21:13 bruce
20:59 Anguper Hupomosing9418