Fearless Leader to Address Nation
So, why has Bush suddenly chosen to address the nation? And what is he going to say? For the professionals’ take on these questions, here are a couple of decent articles: From the Washington Post: In speech, Bush to ask Americans and allies for teamwork on Iraq. And from the Chicago Tribune, via SunSpot.net: Bush responds to pressure from his own party.
So much for professionals. On to my own amateur assessment.
The why is easy: because his poll numbers suck. Bush’s approval ratings are now flirting with the low numbers he was recording just before the 9/11 attacks. They’ve continued the steep drop I talked about earlier (see “The silk purse president“) that has been going on since the “Mission Accomplished” photo op on the Abraham Lincoln.
On what he’s going to say, that’s pretty clear, too, based on the inherent politics of the situation, and the hints his people have been dropping. He’s going to tell us we need an additional $80 billion for the next year’s reconstruction effort. He’s going to assert that we need more international assistance in order to succeed in that effort. (Wasn’t that exactly what the president’s opponents were saying prior to the war, only to be smeared as spineless girly-men incapable of standing tall, Texas-style?)
Most of all, he’s going to assert that what is happening in Iraq is a key part of his administration’s ongoing progress in fighting the War on Terra. My guess is that tonight will mark the official shifting of the war’s primary justification to what has come to be called the “flypaper” theory: that we’re taking the fight to the terrorists, on their turf, so we won’t be fighting the battle in US cities.
For a couple of interesting takes on that, let’s have a little point/counterpoint. From scary conservative David Horowitz, writing in the Washington Times: How to look at the war on terror. And from Warblogging.com: Bush to address nation.
Since I probably will watch the address, despite knowing that it will make me nauseous, I’m going to make some specific predictions. I’m lousy at crystal-ball gazing, but at least this way I’ll have something fun to do while watching. I’m not much of a drinker, so I won’t be downing a shot for each of these that comes true (or that fails to come true?), but feel free to use the following ten predictions as inspiration for your own Presidential Address to the Nation Drinking Game:
- Bush will allude directly to the events of 9/11 at least twice.
- Bush will say “terror” (well, “terra”) at least 6 times.
- Bush will not say the words “Osama bin Laden”.
- Bush will not say the words “Saddam Hussein”.
- Bush will not refer to weapons of mass destruction, or the ongoing hunt for same.
- Bush will refer to the ongoing effort to build “a democratic and stable Iraq,” but only in the context of assuring listeners that the slow pace of the current “steady” (read, “non-“) progress in achieving that result is nothing he hadn’t anticipated.
- Bush will explicitly assert that the ongoing conflict in Iraq is serving to protect US cities from terrorist attack.
- Bush will explicitly state that critics of his Iraq policies are undercutting the men and women of the armed forces currently deployed there, referring to those men and women as “brave”.
- Bush will not explicitly mention the resignation of Mahmud Abbas, or the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
- Bush will not mention the domestic economy, tax cuts, or evidence of economic recovery.
September 7th, 2003 at 12:48 pm
“Allude directly ” to 9/11 “at least twice”? Come on, John. I would say 5-10 direct mentions.
September 7th, 2003 at 6:00 pm
Yeah, 2 mentions was indeed low. What I got out of it:
1) yes – I counted 4 direct mentions, that was admirable restraint in Bush terms
2) yes – I didn’t even count how many times he said terra, but a goddamn lot
3) yes
4) close – once he mentioned “the former Saddam regime” or something quickly
5) er.. was I the only one that heard him say that they were both present and *used*? did I miss that?
6) whoa. he actually went way further and went full-on with the flypaper theory in that we’ve established a big ole red, white, and blue beacon of freedom in the middle east
7) yes
8) not explicity, but he sure waxed poetic about their bravery and sacrifice and resolve and bravery and how brave they are
9) yes
10) big yes.
I love the argument that “the enemy attacks weakness so we have to show them our strength”. Excellent reasoning, that *always* works.
September 7th, 2003 at 6:18 pm
Okay; so how’d I do? I’ll assign a possible 10 points per prediction.
Bush will allude directly to the events of 9/11 at least twice.
I was assuming he’d lead with it, and conclude with it, which is pretty much what he did. 10 points.
Bush will say “terror” (well, “terra”) at least 6 times.
Heh. I originally wrote “10 times”, then backed off to 6 because I thought I was being too extravagant. In reality, I think he probably said “terror” (or a derivation, like “terrorism” or “terrorist”) at least 60 times. At times it ended up sounding like that prediction I saw in the comments at Daily Kos: “terra terra terra 9/11 9/11 9/11…” Anyway, next time I’ll think bigger. But I’ll take the points on this one anyway. 10 points.
Bush will not say the words “Osama bin Laden”.
10 points.
Bush will not say the words “Saddam Hussein”.
Oops. He mentioned “Saddam loyalists” a couple of times, and described Tikrit as the former home turf of “Saddam Hussein”, I believe. 0 points.
Bush will not refer to weapons of mass destruction, or the ongoing hunt for same.
He mentioned “weapons of mass destruction” twice that I noticed, but each time merely as things Saddam had previously had, and had no longer, the implication being that this was a result of our invasion. Tricky move, that. I’m giving myself half credit, since there was, in fact, no mention of the hunt. 5 points.
Bush will refer to the ongoing effort to build “a democratic and stable Iraq,” but only in the context of assuring listeners that the slow pace of the current “steady” (read, “non-“) progress in achieving that result is nothing he hadn’t anticipated.
Hm. I’m not sure how to score this. He definitely referred to it, though it was kind of an obvious prediction. On the “nothing he hadn’t anticipated” part, it was certainly implicit, though not necessarily explicit. I’m giving myself 7 points.
Bush will explicitly assert that the ongoing conflict in Iraq is serving to protect US cities from terrorist attack.
Yeah, he definitely did that. In some ways it was the organizing theme of the whole speech. 10 points.
Bush will explicitly state that critics of his Iraq policies are undercutting the men and women of the armed forces currently deployed there, referring to those men and women as “brave”.
Well, he made a point of calling them brave, and asserting that their country supported them, but he didn’t stoop to accusing his critics of undercutting them. Guess that wouldn’t look presidential. 1 point for the “brave” thing, I guess.
Bush will not explicitly mention the resignation of Mahmud Abbas, or the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Didn’t hear a mention. 10 points.
Bush will not mention the domestic economy, tax cuts, or evidence of economic recovery.
Again, no mention. 10 points.
So, adding it up, out of a possible 100, I give myself 73 points. Not too bad, I guess. At least it made listening to the speech more interesting.
My overall feeling, though, was man, look at him trying to make sure he delivers the words that have been written for him exactly right, as if he actually means them. Look at him trying to remember not to smirk in inappropriate places. Look at him trying very, very hard to look like he really belongs behind that podium.
Look at that visible effort. See, everybody? I’m really trying here. I’m really taking this seriously.
Yeah, you’re really trying, George. And failing.