So I read Bush’s speech, and I re-read it, and, my verdict is that it was pretty uncompelling. I did not find myself very moved by it, nor did my bosom become heavy with patriotism.
That is, when you think about it, not as big of a deal as you might think, because I am really not the target audience for the speech- my knees haven’t gone wobbly, I haven’t changed course, and I don’t want to ‘cut and run.’ IMHO, the worst way to remember and honor our war dead and those who have sacrificed would be to pack our tents, turn, and head home with the job half done. But that is me.
The speech was fine- Bush is no Clinton when it comes to public speaking, but it was sincere, earnest, and, honest. I didn’t see the glossing over ofthe nastiness going on in Iraq that I have seen Cheney and others attempting to do, so that was nice. It would have been nice if Bush had been more blunt- we are facing a manpower crisis, we are going to be in Iraq for a while, and this is going to cost boatloads of cash- a little straight talk would have gone a long way.
At any rate, he made his case, but for me the case was made years ago. I may be wrong, I may be a fool, but I still believe that a stable and secure Iraq can be a turning point in the Middle East.
At any rate, I read the speech twice, so I don’t know what the hell Harry Reid and Howard Dean are thinking:
Congressional Democrats said President Bush’s repeated attempts last night to link the war in Iraq to the September 11 terrorist attacks rang hollow and did not constitute the plan to win the war that they said Mr. Bush needed to deliver.
“They only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and al Qaeda remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat.
Democrats spent the afternoon calling on Mr. Bush to acknowledge mistakes that he made both in the run-up to war and during the war as a way of reclaiming credibility on Iraq. After his half-hour speech at Fort Bragg, N.C., most Democrats said the president fell short.
Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, said Mr. Bush’s rationale for fighting terrorists in Iraq was the third different reason he has given for going to war.
“The first, of course, was weapons of mass destruction. The second was democracy. And now tonight, it’s to combat the hotbed of terrorism,” Mr. Kerry said on “Larry King Live.”
And Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said Mr. Bush’s speech showcased “the darkness of divisiveness, attempting to garner support for his failed policies by pandering to fear, rather than inspiring us with a plan for hope.”
Is there anyone who seriously believes that Al Qaeda today is just as capable as they were years ago? And my apologies to John Kerry if he does not understand or will not understand that there were multiple reasons for invading iraq- true, the public was primarily sold on WMD. But that never was and still isn’t the only reason we went in.
And simply politically speaking- John Kerry should not be speaking for Democrats right now. He just lost an election, he was portrayed as wishy-washy, and every time he opens his mouth it is just going to be seen as sour grapes.
I am not sure what purpose that sort of rhetoric is designed to serve, but it is not going to help the Democrats. I understand many are pissed at Bush, but the argument that Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism is going to fall on deaf ears when the American public sees suicide bombers and car bombs blowing up every night in Baghdad. Iraq may have nothing to do with the agents who actually conducted the 9/11 attacks, but this seems to be a pretty weird argument to come from the ‘root cause’ crowd.
Dealing with Iraq and the rest of the Middle East is dealing with the root causes of terrorism, and September 11th was the eye opener for many people. September 11th is invoked not because the agents behind the attack are the same, but because that is when we decided something had to change. Something HAD to change. I am willing to entertain the notion that we have made a whole range of mistakes in the conduct of the war, including how it was sold and how we entered the war, but I still think it was the right thing to do.
It really does appear, judging the reactions by Reid and Dean, at least, that some people would rather play politics with this issue than deal with the current situation, which by my estimation is a mess- the administration could use the help. That is a shame, and I have cut the Democrats as much slack as possible, lately. But they are going to have to get over their impulse to destroy Bush at every opportunity. He is President, will be for 3 1/2 more years, and they need to learn to work with him rather than appear to be sabotaging his efforts in the war.
*** Update ***
It should be pointed out that many in the Republican party refused to heed this advice themselves, when we were in the minority.
Also, read Jeff Goldstein’s take on the speech.