The same trick, over and over again

November 30, 2005

I’ll have more soon on Bush’s latest “major speech” on Iraq, but this line from the AP feed is of particular interest:

Bush’s speech did not break new ground or present a new strategy.

Well, of course not. It’s the exact same description that applies to every other “major” presidential address on Iraq. We’ve seen this before — too many times.

On Oct. 6, 2004, just a month before the presidential election, the White House announced that Bush would deliver a “major speech” about the war in Iraq. Reporters dutifully showed up, all the networks broadcast it live to a national television audience, and Americans heard … nothing new. It was just another pep rally in which Bush attacked John Kerry for the better part of an hour. The networks, as a practical matter, ran one-hour, uninterrupted commercials for the Bush campaign.

Two weeks later, on Oct. 18, it happened again. Bush’s aides billed an event in New Jersey as a “major speech” on terrorism. The networks, once again, showed up, and the president, once again, gave his standard stump speech.

It worked so well during the campaign it seems to have become a standard practice. In June, Bush delivered another speech on Iraq. Sticking to the game plan, the White House told reporters it would be — you guessed it — a “major speech.” It wasn’t.

The Bush gang keeps going to the same well. In October, Scott McClellan said said Bush would deliver “a significant speech on the war on terrorism.” Aside from some unsubstantiated claims about foiling alleged al Queda plots, viewers learned that Bush believes Iraq is central to the war on terror and the president is committed to “complete victory.” In other words, to borrow the AP’s phrase, Bush’s speech “did not break new ground or present a new strategy.”

At this point, I’m not sure why anyone would expect anything different.

Thanks for the synopsis Carpetbagger.

Many of us stopped listening to Ol’ One-Book years ago.

Still, it’s nice to know someone out there is still parsing his sermons and renumerating all the trite nuggets.

Now take two Ibuprofens with a glass of wine and get some rest….

  • Given (1) that there’s nothing worth watching on TV anyway and (2) that the Democrats are incapable of making any news as a real opposition party … I’m not surprised that the “news” people fall for the “major speech” line over and over again. It’s the only action in town.

  • Seeing those “Plan for Victory” signs plastered all over the stage President Bush stood on during that speech, I couldn’t help recall the whole “Mission Accomplished” banner debacle. If memory serves, once it became apparent that the mission had not been accomplished, the White House went on to claim that they were not responsible for the banner – that it had been put up by sailors on the ship.

    I wonder if in a few weeks from now when the President’s ‘Plan’ doesn’t meet with the thunderous applause he hopes to get, will the White House claim that they weren’t responsible for all these “Plan for Victory” banners as well? Maybe it was some enthusiastic janitors who hung them up before the President took the podium?

  • I’m not sure, but I believe this is one of the first times that GWB has even acknowledged that there is an insurgency outside and beyond al Qaeda type terrorists. The Bush team has been loathe to admit that the bulk of the insurgency is local Iraq opposition; one might wonder if these recent military operations along the Syrian border were designed to increase the perception of foreign infiltration as much as to actually affect the foreign infiltration.

    Even with his acknowledgement that there are local insurgents, he minimized their importance by talking about …. how they didn’t take part in the elections!!

    Observant partisans should make note of this admission and not let GWB up for air. I believe that Rep. Murtha found out this imprtant issue during his recent visit to Iraq and that it affected his thinking on our deployment.

  • One blogger appropriately calls it “Groundhog Day” after the Bill Murray movie. The same, over and over and over again, and for the longest time, not learing anything from the past.

  • From NYC’s 1010Wins:
    http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_334075314.html

    He [The President] did not say that the terrorists now in Iraq had anything to do with the 2001 terror attacks in the United States, but he powerfully linked the two, saying they “share the same ideology.”

    There we are ladies and gents — the closest thing we’ll probably ever get from the President to a full-blown admission that 9/11 and Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with each other other.

  • Did he actually say?

    “The terrorists have identified Iraq as central to their global aspirations.”

    If so ACK. I guess so because this is apparantly in the Executive Summary:

    Iraq is the central front in the global war on terror. Failure in Iraq will embolden terrorists and expand their reach; success in Iraq will deal them a decisive and crippling blow

  • I loved what Bush said today. He should say it every day. Come to think on it, he should do a campaign style tour with this – ala Social Security. 3 months of this, and our troops will be withdrawn – by popular demand.

    There’s a good reason they keep BoyGeorge in a bubble. The more he speaks, the more the electorate throws the ‘bullshit flag’.

  • Somebody pulled Bush’s string and he spouted out the same recording Cheney and Rove put in there at the beginning of his debacle. Never ever a mention of the true source of Bin Laden and our most likely future terrorists. The strict moslem beliefs of the Wahabi in Saudi Arabia are being exported to moslem countries worldwide. Their madrassas mix studying the Koran with the use of weapons. These madrassas are financed by Saudi Arabians. Bin Laden was a Wahabi. 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia where only 8% of the country has favorable opinions of the US. The lowest in the Mideast. But then, Bush 1 and Bush the Dumber were always CLOSEto the house of Saud. Too close from all appearances. I hope our experiences with Shrub 1 and Shrub 2 (especially 2) will preclude us from a Shrub 3 with Jeb. With the exception of home grown “terror cells” such as the bombers in London or lone wolf nut jobs like McVeigh, I can almost guarantee our future terrorists will be followers of the Wahabi flavor of Islam or terrorists created in Bush’s Misadventures in Iraq. I am not saying that all Wahabi followers will be terrorists, only that this is the pool of people that Bin Laden and his followers come from. The Taliban in Afghanistan were educated in Wahabi madrassa. They don’t believe in tombstones or images which is why they blew up 2nd Century Buddhist statues. The Taliban also massacred Shia women and children. The Wahabi in Saudi Arabia are the “religious police” that would do things like confront a woman that they deem to not be properly covered. Back in the days when he was Rumsfeld’s assistant at the DOD, Cheney started outsourcing, then left to become head of Haliburton to take full advantage of the outsourcing he started. Now he and his Halliburton connections will undoubtedly make hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars on the blood, suffering and deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis. I wonder what reasons he would have to prolong Bush’s War as long as possible. I believe the phrase is “kaa ching”. Oil deals are almost done. Time to change Bush’s recording.

    • Comments are closed.