Posted on 05/27/2004 8:22:14 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
F.Y.I.
I, for one, do not think it fell flat at all.
how many people saw it? there was a thread about the cable news ratings for it - about 6 million total I think?
Sorry, John, but this is not a helpful column. I think you are mistaken.
You clearly worked hard on this piece, and it has real meat, and for that I salute you. You are a bit vague however, as to what Bush should have said, that it was prudent for him to say, to please the crowd. What should he have prudently said, that he did not say, and what did he say that he imprudently should not have said. Lawyers want particulars. Generalities are for the madding crowd.
BTTT, anyway...
CD
I disagree. Although I think its importatant to point out the flaws in this speech, since it is part of a series. The president IMO didnt need to spell out new things immediately, it was a far more important speech in the fact that he spelled out the future in Iraq in his own words and not let the press or the talking heads define it for him. Also I think Bush would have been more upbeat in it if it wasnt for his bike accident, that probably more than anything distracted both him and the audience.
It was a workmanlike speech.
It's too early to start revving up the base and going after the undecideds.
People can only keep a high emotional pitch for a limited time, and the time to start serious speechifying will be after the Olympics.
Only hardcore Bushbots do not recognize the truth that he has lost his way.
About the Author: ... lawyer ...
That disqualifies him for being a human being.
The "helpful" litmus test, is not the right one, IMO. The right test is the the "truth" or "thought provoking" test. This forum would die, if we could not honestly express where we found Bush wanting, in good faith. But I have my own questions, which I posted.
Well-written, Congressman, but I don't necessarily agree. I think the President did a good job delivering a speech accessible to both his War College crowd and his broader audience. He very much needed to appeal to Mr. and Mrs. Joe America that night, and I think he pulled it off without shortchanging the live audience.
I'm a lukewarm Bushbot and I thought the speech was servicable.
If Bush loses, you lose. Next thread.
Bush needs a lot of prep, or a lot of raw emotion, to ramp up the delivery. He is not naturally an effective speaker. But then we all already knew that. When he does get into the zone, we are all delighted.
The first rule of journalism is: don't write about something you know nothing about.
Students at the war colleges aren't only general officers and military historians.
The vast majority are officers returning from overseas assignments who are being reassigned to teach ROTC. They are being given basic lesson plans and educational material to present to college ROTC students. They are being taught how to grade papers and use the teacher's edition of text books.
And I stick by my conclusion that a heavy dose of history was entirely appropriate before the War College community, and to force the press -- some of it, anyway -- to DO THEIR D*MNED HOMEWORK.
John / Billybob
Nope. Bush hasn't "lost his way". He is still focused on the goals he set after the 2002 State of the Union speech. He has never waiverd from those goals. He has done exactly what he said he would do. The ones that have "lost their way" are those on the "conservative" side that have lost their guts and are running for cover. The American people are starting to make Spaniards look heroic.
I don't want to pick nits, but this statement is misleading and is not really correct. The War College which is in Pennsylvania is the Army's War College. It is attended primarily, but not exclusively, by senior Army officers. The Air Force has a War College too, and it is in Alabama, attended primarily by senior Air Force officers. The Navy also has one, which, if I recall correctly, is in Rhode Island, attended primarily by Navy officers. Then there is the National War College in Washington DC, which all services utilize, and is generally considered to be the gold standard of senior service schools. There is yet another senior service school, the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, but it is another story altogether.
While it is well nigh impossible to be selected for flag rank without having attended one of the senior service schools, it is not at all accurate to state that all flag officers have attended the Army's War College.
For what it's worth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.