NEWS SUMMARY
THE NOTE - After a major presidential speech, there are always news analysis stories and, within them, always there are questions.
From Dan Balz of the Washington Post: LINK
"The question now is how long the public will tolerate continued deployment of U.S. forces in a conflict with a future that appears both bloody and enormously difficult."
From Dick Stevenson of the New York Times: LINK
"The questions now are how many more times over how many years . . . (the President) might have to deliver the same message of patience and resolve - and whether the American public, confronted with a mounting death toll, an open-ended military commitment, lack of support from allies and a growing price tag, will accept it."
For Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times, however (in his news analysis), there is a tentative conclusion:
" . . . (Tolerance for the continued deployment of American troops may depend less on faith in Bush's arguments than doubt that his critics have yet to outline an alternative that would produce a more acceptable outcome." LINK
With all members of the Gang of 500 uniformly taking away the same take-away from The Speech, we don't have much to add, except you should probably re-read Balz's concluding graph if you want to look and act smart today:
"The fact that the public continues to support keeping troops in Iraq has made Democratic efforts to criticize Bush more difficult, as few Democratic leaders are calling for an explicit exit strategy. But it is congressional Republicans who may be most worried now about the course of events in Iraq. They, not Bush, must face the voters next year and they will become leading indicators of how effective the president has been in persuading Americans to stay the course."
The President's speech: headlines and ledes:
ABC News' Diane Sawyer: "New fighting words. The President telling the nation that the war is worth it." ABC News' Jessica Yellin: "It was a clear message: Uncle Sam wants you."
John Kerry was Matt Lauer's guest this morning once again called for getting the training of Iraqi forces "on a real war time footing" and getting serious (perhaps with the help of an international force) about making Iraq's borders less porous.
Reuters: "President Bush acknowledged American doubts about his Iraq strategy but argued it was worth it in a major address on Tuesday night that sought to connect Iraq's violent insurgency to Osama bin Laden and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001." LINK
The Associated Press: "President Bush on Tuesday rejected calls for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq or sending more troops, counseling patience for Americans who question the war's painful costs." LINK
The New York Times: "President Bush, facing a growing restiveness around the country and in his own party over the constant stream of casualties in Iraq, declared Tuesday night that the daily sacrifice of American lives in Iraq 'is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country." LINK
The Wall Street Journal: "Facing doubts at home over the progress of the war in Iraq, President Bush last night defended the increasingly unpopular military operation, calling it 'vital to the future security of our country.'"
Bloomberg: "President George W. Bush urged an American public grown skeptical of the grinding war in Iraq to stay behind him as he fends off calls for a new approach to the conflict."
Knight Ridder: "Trying to rally a war-weary nation, President Bush defended the Iraq war last night by evoking memories of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." LINK
The President's speech: analysis:
"Last night's speech marked the conclusion of the Social Security period of the Bush presidency, and a return to the war presidency."
"Which is as it should be," writes John Podhoretz in his New York Post column. LINK
More: "It was a strong speech — not one of the great Bush speeches but, I expect, a politically effective address — because it took the criticisms of the war and the war effort seriously and sought to advance better arguments than those offered by the critics."
From Bob Novak: "What he did not do was signal any change in his policy or give any hope for a quick withdrawal. Nor did he even suggest Vice President Dick Cheney's claim that the Iraqi insurgence is "in its last throes.'" LINK
"The concern by the president's political team about the rapid decline in his popularity has been intense. This speech was scheduled in response to criticism by Republicans in Congress that he no longer talks about the war."
"The format was carefully planned by Karl Rove, the president's principal political adviser and organizer. That rejected both the sterile atmosphere of a speech from the White House Oval Office and the frivolous mood of the usual pep rally when Bush is on the road."
"Public support for the war and Bush will depend eventually on obvious progress in Iraq and a sign that withdrawal is not that far in the distance. But Tuesday's speech probably kept the political wolves from the door for a while."
From the New York Daily News: "White House political strategists say they understand the dog days of summer are a lousy time to address the nation, but argue the steady slide of support for Iraq left them no choice. It was also the first anniversary of the transfer of power from the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority to the interim Iraqi government." LINK
The Boston Globe's Peter Canellos: "Bush last night seemed to go out of his way to court people who may not have agreed with the original decision to go to war. He included repeated references to international efforts to help train Iraqi soldiers, an obvious plea to those who thought the war lacked global backing. Bush even quoted the resolutely antiwar German chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, on the importance of creating a peaceful and stable Iraq." LINK
From the Wall Street Journal: "Although this isn't the first time the White House has attempted to tie the two together, it is one of the administration's more forceful and detailed efforts to date. The latest attempt marks a slight twist on the theme. The new strategy keys off a leaked Central Intelligence Agency assessment that concludes Iraq has supplanted Afghanistan as the center of organization and training for extremist groups such as al Qaeda. In the past, administration officials had argued that the former Iraq regime's weapons of mass destruction might fall into the hands of Islamic extremists. Now, the administration is depicting Iraq as the home base of the extremists."
"The president laid out a two-track strategy — political and military — that will take the fledgling democracy through the next six months, when the interim government must complete a constitution and Iraqis must ratify the document and elect a new government," writes Joseph Curl in the Washington Times. LINK
From Tony Cordesman: "Key parts of his speech . . . . were driven by spin, rather than a frank effort to warn the American people of the sacrifices necessary to win and the risks involved. The end result was to mislead in ways that can come back to haunt the Administration and reduce longer-term public support."
"One key failure was his effort to explain the insurgency in Iraq almost solely in terms of foreign Islamic extremists. The President correctly referred to hundreds of foreign fighters, their horrifying extremism, and the very real threat they pose. He totally failed to mention the thousands of native Iraqis that make up the core of the insurgency, the fact we have only some 600 foreign detainees out of a total of 14,000, the fact most intelligence estimates put foreign fighters at around 5% of the total, and the fact we face a major native popular Sunni uprising and deep Sunni distrust."
"He implied the liberation, elections and democracy had somehow unified Iraq when they clearly have not, and glossed over the major political turmoil that will accompany the efforts to draft the constitution and elections to come. The President fundamentally misstated the true nature of the threat and risks in Iraq."
USA Today's editorial board: "Bush's half-hour speech outlined a sound, steadfast approach to dealing with the mess that Iraq has become. But whether it can stem erosion in support for the war remains to be seen. There was no acknowledgement of the misjudgments that many Americans now see plainly, but Bush seems unable or unwilling to recognize." LINK
Washington Post: LINK
and LINK
The Washington Post's Tom Shales writes that "[t]his was not a major speech by Bush, nor was it particularly well delivered until the end, when he seemed to be straining to hold back his emotions as he spoke of the U.S. troops fighting and dying in Iraq." LINK
The Los Angeles Times' Paul Brownfield called the speech "disappointingly familiar, featuring only well-worn talking points and themes — repeated mentions of 9/11, of hunting down the terrorists, of advancing freedom in the Middle East." LINK
The Washington Post ed board says the President missed an opportunity to answer questions about Iraq and explain the mission in Iraq of establishing a government. LINK
The Los Angeles Times ed board calls the address "a major disappointment" in which the President "rewrote history." LINK
abcnews.go.com |
