There’s nothing wrong with a presidential speechwriter using quotes, with citations, to jazz up a speech, but it’s important that the citation make sense. Speechwriters learn not to quote embarrassing sources or to take quotes out of context, because, especially when writing for the president, you will get caught.
Regrettably, the Bush gang is not only dishonest; it’s sloppy.
In his much-discussed speech before the VFW’s national contention this week, Bush told the veterans, “You know, the experts sometimes get it wrong. An interesting observation, one historian put it — he said, ‘Had these erstwhile experts’ — he was talking about people criticizing the efforts to help Japan realize the blessings of a free society — he said, ‘Had these erstwhile experts had their way, the very notion of inducing a democratic revolution would have died of ridicule at an early stage.'”
It wasn’t too hard to track down the historian Bush quoted. And wouldn’t you know it, he’s not pleased.
A historian quoted by President Bush to help argue that critics of the administration’s Iraq policy echo those who questioned the U.S. effort to bring democracy to Japan after World War II angrily distanced himself from the president’s remarks Thursday.
“They [war supporters] keep on doing this,” said MIT professor John Dower. “They keep on hitting it and hitting it and hitting it and it’s always more and more implausible, strange and in a fantasy world. They’re desperately groping for a historical analogy, and their uses of history are really perverse.”
Bush took the quote from Dower’s award-winning book, “Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II.” But the wordsmiths who tell the president what to say probably should have looked a little closer: Dower believes the White House’s analysis is “a misuse of history” and told the Politico that his views have been “misrepresented” by the president.
And as it turns out, that was only the second most offensive citation in Bush’s speech.
The other has to do with “The Quiet American.” From Bush’s speech:
“In 1955, long before the United States had entered the war, Graham Greene wrote a novel called “The Quiet American.” It was set in Saigon and the main character was a young government agent named Alden Pyle. He was a symbol of American purpose and patriotism and dangerous naivete. Another character describes Alden this way: ‘I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused.’
“After America entered the Vietnam War, Graham Greene — the Graham Greene argument gathered some steam. Matter of fact, many argued that if we pulled out, there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people. In 1972, one anti-war senator put it this way: ‘What earthly difference does it make to nomadic tribes or uneducated subsistence farmers in Vietnam or Cambodia or Laos whether they have a military dictator, a royal prince or a socialist commissar in some distant capital that they’ve never seen and may never heard of?'”
Apparently, Bush wanted his audience to believe that “The Quiet American” offers us modern-day clues about the dangers of troop withdrawal. But as the Chicago Tribune’s Frank James explained, Bush got it backwards.
…Greene wrote his book about the way America bumbled into Vietnam, not how it left it.
By reminding people of Greene’s book, Bush was inviting listeners to recall the mistakes his administration made in entering and prosecuting the Iraq War. Did he really want to do that?
Even more astonishing is that Bush’s speechwriters included in the president’s speech a mention of the very fictional character some of the president’s critics have used for years to lambaste him for what they consider a major strategic blunder.
The thinking goes, Bush may have been well-intentioned like Pyle but, also like the Greene character, Bush’s efforts are ultimately doomed.
I realize this White House can be a little slow on the uptake, so let’s summarize this for them: Bush is Alden Pyle. He’s the one who may have had noble motives “for all the trouble he caused.” The book is a refutation of Bush’s argument for war. This is a reference the White House should want to avoid, not include in a high-profile presidential speech.
Ugh. Can’t anybody here play this game?