It’s like a football coach who only knows how to call one play.
[tag]President[/tag] [tag]Bush[/tag] will launch another major [tag]public-relations[/tag] [tag]offensive[/tag] to strengthen support for the [tag]Iraq[/tag] [tag]war[/tag] — this time likely emphasizing the high stakes and changing nature of the battle more than the progress being made. The series of speeches begins tomorrow at the annual American Legion convention in Utah and will continue through the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and on into the middle of next month.
The new campaign is aimed at framing the Iraq debate over what the [tag]White House[/tag] considers the vital stakes involved in the war and reinforcing public sentiment that favors sticking it out. The speeches will be aimed at rebutting mounting public calls — from Democrats and even a few Republicans — for setting some kind of timetable for at least a limited troop withdrawal.
As the WSJ noted, this latest series of speeches will be “the president’s third major round of Iraq addresses in less than a year.” Indeed, the whole strategy is looking awfully familiar. Consider this item from the Washington Post, under the headline, “Bush Goes on Offensive To Explain War Strategy”:
President Bush plans to begin a series of speeches next week again explaining the administration’s strategy for winning the war in Iraq, as the White House returns to a familiar tactic to allay growing public pessimism about the war that has helped keep the president’s approval rating near its historic low.
That was from March, though it might as well have been from this morning.
To be fair, there are subtle differences between these “major public-relations offensives.” The first round of speeches — let’s call them the “don’t believe your lying eyes” series — sought to convince Americans that the war effort really isn’t a disaster. The second round tried to emphasize that the president really does have a plan to succeed; we just have to be patient.
This third try will emphasize what [tag]Republicans[/tag] everywhere will be saying between now and the first Tuesday in November: this is bad, but the alternative is worse. (In other words, expect to hear “If we leave before the mission is done, the terrorists will follow us here” quite a bit.)
It’s worth noting that neither of the previous “major public-relations offensives” weren’t particularly effective. Polls showed small and temporary gains among Republicans who had grown weary of the war, but the limited uptick was always short-lived. Reality kept intervening.
As strategies go, the repetitious reliance on these p.r. campaigns seems misplaced. In the Clinton White House, presidential aides had a belief that whenever there was a serious political problem, the answer was to get Clinton out in front of people, delivering speeches, answering questions, and letting his communications skills carry the day. It usually worked. Bush, however, lacks similar gifts — he’s not a great communicator, he’s not adept at answering questions, and he’s dealing with a crisis for which he has no answers. He can talk about Iraq every day indefinitely, but no one’s buying what he’s selling.
Besides, this entire idea seems premised on the notion that the public will come around if only they hear the White House’s side of things. This, for lack of a better word, is silly — the administration has been aggressively touting their carefully-crafted talking points for more than three years. We’ve heard it all before.
The public doesn’t want reassurance, they want this disaster to end. It’s a shame the president doesn’t understand that.