Will tonight’s speech make any difference?

Bush will deliver a nationally televised address tonight, on the first anniversary of Iraq’s alleged sovereignty, hoping to help turn the rhetorical tide regarding the war. As is always the case, the stagecraft has been carefully planned — Bush will speak at Fort Bragg, N.C., home of the Army’s elite 82nd Airborne Division,, using soldiers as background props.

It’s worth noting, however, that Bush goes into tonight’s address having lost a great deal of support. And since tonight’s speech is about changing the rhetoric, and not the policy, one wonders if the president really understands the level of concern about the war nationwide.

Indeed, two new polls paint a startling picture. A new Washington Post/ABC News poll, for example, shows support dropping dramatically for the president.

A sense of obligation balances negative public views on Iraq: Despite broad concerns and sharp criticism of the administration’s performance, nearly six in 10 Americans say U.S. forces should remain in place until civil order has been restored there.

That expression of resolve works to President Bush’s advantage as he prepares to address the nation on Iraq, as does a slight improvement in some bottom-line measures. But steep challenges remain: Recriminations against his administration have jumped, with a majority for the first time saying it “intentionally misled” the public in going to war, and nearly three-quarters saying it underestimated the challenges involved.

A record 57 percent also now say the administration intentionally exaggerated its evidence that pre-war Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Views such as these cut to the administration’s basic credibility and competence, vital commodities as Bush tries to turn public opinion in a more favorable direction. He speaks tomorrow night, the first anniversary of the handover to an interim Iraqi government.

Bush’s overall position isn’t enviable. Not only do 51 percent of Americans disapprove of his job performance, a record 40 percent disapprove “strongly” (compared with 27 percent who strongly approve). That exceeds career-high strong disapproval for his two immediate predecessors, President Clinton (33 percent strongly disapproved in fall 1994, shortly before his party lost control of Congress) and Bush’s father (34 percent in summer 1992, shortly before he lost re-election).

On Iraq specifically, 56 percent disapprove of Bush’s work, and 44 percent disapprove strongly. (Strong disapprovers outnumber strong approvers by 19 points.) A majority hasn’t approved of his handling of the situation there since January 2004, shortly after the capture of Saddam Hussein. On a more emotional level, nearly a quarter of Americans say they’re “angry” about the war.

A new USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll isn’t any better.

Just one in three Americans now say the United States and its allies are winning the war, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday. That is a new low, down 9 percentage points since February. Half say neither side is winning.

By a record 61%-37%, those surveyed say the president doesn’t have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq.

Bush’s job-approval rating has suffered, too. His approval rating is 45%, equaling the lowest of his presidency. At 53%, his disapproval rating has reached a new high.

The same poll also showed that Americans now see the war in Iraq as separate from the war on terrorism, a majority say we made a mistake sending troops to Iraq, and a plurality says the war in Iraq has made the U.S. less safe from terrorism.

Will tonight’s revised sales pitch make any difference in rallying support and turning the polls around? Recent history says no. As Salon’s Tim Grieve noted, we’ve seen this movie before.

Check out this report from Fox News: “Seeking to allay fears that the Iraq situation is spiraling out of control, President Bush will tell Americans and the world Monday night that he has a blueprint to create a democratic nation out of the Arab country.”

That was May 24, 2004, and the speech Bush delivered then was widely panned for being long and rhetoric but short on specifics.

Four months and about 250 fallen U.S. soldiers later, Bush tried again. His aides told the networks in October 2004 that the president would be delivering a “major policy address” on the war on terrorism. CNN and MSNBC took the bait and covered it live, but what they got was the switch: As Slate’s Fred Kaplan wrote at the time, “The president announced no new policy, uttered not one new word about terrorism, foreign policy, or anything else. . . . In short, the cable networks were lured into airing an hour-long free campaign ad for George W. Bush.”

Expect more of the same tonight.

Any bets that he’ll be wearing some sort of faux military garb? Maybe one of those green satin flight jacket thingys with the seal of the presidency on the left breast?

Seriously, if this was a “real” speech, he would be making it from the oval office, not needing to demean the troops by using them as props.

  • In a word – NO.

    Everyone knows what he is going to say so when he says it there will be no surprises. The people that watch it may get a temporary warm and fuzzy feeling but give it a day or two and the news out of Iraq will erase that feeling. Of course that assumes people will actually be watching. I know I won’t. I mean why watch when 1- you know what he is going to say, 2- you aren’t going to agree and would rather spend your time doing something more productive than yelling at the TV, and 3- give him 2 seconds of my time.

  • This is as staged and phony as everything else surrounding Dumbya. The longer I’ve kept track of the US Deaths in Bush’s Iraq Quagmire, 832 days now, the more I have come to believe that nothing makes any difference at all.

    The deaths mount at a steady pace (actually a slightly higher daily rate than one year ago, a steady upward bend in the deaths-per-month trend line), the military continues to applaud him (which is why this speech is originating at Fort Bragg), the media remain his faithful lapdogs to the point of having become irrelevant (is anyone going to pay the online fee the NY Times hopes to launch this Fall?), and the bloggers have become virtually the only remaining occupants of our “Fourth Estate” (Carpetbagger first and foremost).

    Change will not happen until there is a tsunamic change in Congress, and I’m not even sure about that changing anything, based on Democrat performance to date.

  • It is so foolish for our soldiers to believe in this NON-CARING BASTARD. Have they ever wondered who is getting rich off of their lives?

  • Here’s you’re scorecard for tonight’s speech. How many times will he refer to or use the terms:

    9/11:
    Terrorist/terrorism:
    Liberty:
    Freedom:
    Sacrifice:
    “go shopping”:
    body count, American military
    body count, Iraqi civilians
    body count, 9/11
    Iraq, Saddam:
    Iraq, elections:
    Iraq, half-dead infrastructure
    Iraq, insurgency:
    Iraq, connected to 9/11
    Afghanistan:
    N. Korea:
    Iran, election:
    Iran, elected Islamic hardliners:
    Gitmo/Abu Graib/torture/rendering:
    “bad apples”:
    terrorist beheadings:
    Patriot Act:
    Homeland Security:
    WMD:
    DSM:
    CIA:
    Roadside bombs:
    Armor, lack thereof:
    “Last throes”:
    “Mission Accomplished”:
    “hard work”:
    Jesus:
    the future:

  • my favorite:

    “go shopping”

    AYM, you’ve nailed the entire explicit W policy approach in those 2 simple words; the implicit W policy of course being “be afraid” (hence the uptick in White House references to September 11).

    ET, you are spot on! I know I won’t be watching for exactly the reasons you state; I’d only add that I also know that folks like Carpetbagger and Ed Stephen here have more fortitude than I and thus will let me know the latest rhetorical spin that W employs. Shorter Edo: I can’t stomach watching W speak but know that others will.

    thanks in advance Carpetbagger and Ed!

  • Maybe if the soldiers would stick “No more blood for oil” bumper stickers on their vehicles, they wouldn’t have to listen to the lies.

  • Maybe if the soldiers would stick “No more blood for oil” bumper stickers on their vehicles, they wouldn’t have to listen to the lies.

    I can just see it: 3 decorated officers being forcibly removed by a faux Secret Service “agent” while Bush is speaking at a podium. If only…

  • Nothing new will be said. That’s the one thing we’ve
    come to be sure about – this man never alters course.
    Rhetoric won’t work now. It’s failed before.

    But I won’t be watching. I simply cannot stand this
    man. I loathe him. His insincerity, his smirking,
    his hubris, his faux-folksiness, his arrogance, his
    ignorance all sicken me. He turns my stomach.

  • Does anyone remember when LBJ could only give speeches at military bases because any oyher place would see demonstrations? And he had some very big accomplishments to boast about.

  • The only place that I want to hear Bush give a speech is in front of a tribunal at the Hague.

  • folks like Carpetbagger and Ed Stephen here have more fortitude than I

    I hate to say it, Edo, but I doubt I’ll be watching this one either. Sorry, CB, it’s up to you.

    I have listened to or watched nearly every presidential address since about 1948, I think. I’ve been a political junkie all my life. No matter the political party, I just had to know what was said and how they said it. But I can no longer stand to see Bush in any venue, even a joint session of Congress, certainly not in front of his pre-programmed stooges (anyone who doesn’t think that’s what’s at Fort Bragg doesn’t know military training and discipline).

    I can get much more reality and downright fun watching a taped re-run of Boss Hogg trying/failing to make life miserable for Bo and Luke Duke in Hazzard County. Yee-haw!

  • I agree with Ed. Dukes of Hazzard may
    be pretty hokey, but it never made me
    want to puke.

  • Confession. I did happen to get the last ten minutes or so. Bush did what he always does – mindless reading of the poorly constructed lines written for him, with peculiar semi-smiles where they made no sense at all. I was impressed with audience.

    The soldiers sat in absolutely stoney silence until the very end. They were like automatons whose batteries had died. The rows and rows of dark red berets never moved once. Even when there was applause it was extremely brief. Started up, never attained a high level, not one audible audible out of the entire room, and then, seconds after it began, instant silence again.

    Except for that, I was reminded of the time George Lincoln Rockwell (head of the US Nazi party) came to speak at San Francisco State, in the early-mid ’60s. We were all trying to figure out how to protest his appearance, of course. Finally someone suggested absolute silence. I couldn’t believe it. An auditorium with 600 college students (much like tonight). Rockwell was introduced and came on stage. Utter silence. No matter what he said, utter silence. He finished and asked for questions. Utter silence. He finally left before any of us did. And when we did at alst we left in … utter silence. It was amazing. You could taste it. Tonight brought all that back to me.

  • Thanks, Ed Stephan. I hope the speech is number one
    tomorrow on this site.

    Since I can’t stand to watch this Alfred E. Neuman
    of a president (with apologies to Alfie, who doesn’t
    deserve such a comparison), I don’t really know if
    Bush is still going “nukular” in his speeches, but
    the last I heard is that he still is.

    Has anyone ever wondered why? I mean, his handlers,
    his puppeteers, obviously know he’s mispronouncing
    the word, so why don’t they correct him? It’s jarring
    to many of us, embarrassing that our president makes
    such a fool of himself. We ask: what does the
    rest of the world think of us, who put this
    nincompoop back in the White House for a second
    term? Surely any third year student in English as
    a foreign language knows that “nukular” is incorrect.

    So why don’t his handlers correct him? Surely with
    practice, even this ignoramus could master this
    task. A few thousand repetitions, and voila!
    “Nuclear,” says Bush.

    So I can only conclude that it’s deliberate. It
    appeals to the new know-nothing movement in America.
    I can only believe that tens of millions of Americans
    champion this kind of anti-intellectualism. And
    what does that portend for the future?

  • Comments are closed.