Posted on 06/16/2004 10:18:55 AM PDT by pctech
In addition, it's the election cycle. Why not put his unreported thoughts in advertising form. This is major policy. Or how about Q&A speeches that recorded. Or addresses to the nation. Seems we had several during the build up. Didn't hear those words at all. Last I knew, those speeches, especially in the build up days were on all networks and covered from open to close. Can't use liberal media filtering what he did or didn't say in those instances.
Thanks, carton.
I hear you about the timetable and I also hear even good Republicans starting to question the war.
If Bush has facts, he should use them as he gets them.
Color me disgruntled today and angry at the 9/11 Commission and taking it out on anyone in striking distance.
Good points.
...The fact that the Left is making constant demands for 'proof' is proof in itself of an obvious truth: The Democrats are acting as advocates for the enemy.
....
Exactly. Wonder how in the world you deduced that - the press never mentioned it. (/sarcasm)
I think the bottom line in regard to Bush's "inability" to communicate, is that there is a large swath of people in this country -- probably somewhere around 42% -- who simply refuse to listen.
Sort of curious. Why does the President need an air tight case and the VP seems to let go with "there's a connection." Seems that there's a disconnect. Maybe one is simply trying to float a trial balloon to see where it goes. If it works, the administration will use it. If it falls flat, then VP Cheney takes the hit.
Look at the standard you've bought into. Media Reports are not enough!
Duh! Are you even reading the posts in sequence before you start commenting on them? You are making my point...
Salman Pak...
Again...I don't think you are reading my posts...
I believe Salman Pak was used for that purpose. What I am saying about Salman Pak is for every expert you trot forward to agree with us...I could find an expert who would not.
I don't know who convinced you of that, but it is not true.
If you actually read my posts, you would understand that I'm not saying that at all. I'm not speaking about a court of law. I'm commenting to Peach's post.
A better communicator, would not. That is what I'm saying.
Fine... you win! I'm not going to beat this tired, dead horse. The problem is Bush's inability to communicate. That's all it is.
No, but it *can* be based on the *intelligence data* behind those leaks, articles, and conspiracy theories of authors who write books.
I give up... You aren't even arguing the topic at hand.
Because much of it is top secret information which if revealed exposes our contacts or our people in place.
Also, it could have been reported earlier and they did not listen then, it is the same truth, and they will not listen now.
She is saying that the link does exist (based on these things) and she doesn't understand why the President has lost his will to present the case. After all, here is the proof in black and white.
I'm saying that those articles, leaks, and experts aren't enough evidence to base a case on because and this is important for every article, leak, and expert she produces, I could produce articles, leaks, and experts that say the exact opposite.
That the President will need more than this (Peach's) evidence to link the two together. His is going to have to have more "air tight" evidence than the speculation of authors, the leaks of unnamed intelligence sources, and the good ole common sense connection of the evidence that she has presented.
Now, I agree with Peach. I think the evidence is pretty amazing. Where I differ with Peach is that if I were President, I would need more than her collection of links. That's all I'm saying.
"Oh contrare my man, contrare - I have heard and seen the evil..."
Yes, I can see you have now completed the trifecta; see, hear and speak. Beig ignorant might be a reason to exclude someone from the great ranks of journalism, but anti-; war, Bush, Kerry, ... doesn't always = an exclusion. :)
For the record I believe a skillful communicator and effective leader would have done just that.
2. This has never been about the media. The 9/11 Commission doesn't believe it.
The 9/11 Commission is a circus sideshow and if they said the sky is blue, I'd go check. That having been said, "doesn't believe it" is false, this is being totally misreported. Don't believe the headlines.
Bush has used the bully pulpit. He has spoken about why we went to war with Iraq. He does go over the media's head... he did so again today.
This is all true. But he has been unsuccessful, and at times downright inept, when he has done so. I refer for example to the "press conference" he held recently (the one with all the "did you make a mistake?" questions). Or the interview with Diane Sawyer where his most memorable response was "what's the difference". These were unworthy, bumbling performances full of defensiveness, evasiveness, and flippancy, and surely failed to convince anyone who wasn't already convinced. A more skillful statesman and rhetoritician would have done better, that's all I'm saying.
Bush may not be a glib, scripted speaker, but he is able to get his point across.
Evidently not; look at any poll. Don't get me wrong, I'm on Bush's side, I believe in what he is doing. But he is most certainly not communicating well to the masses. It's not just a matter of not being a polished speaker. It's not knowing how to construct a persuasive, forceful argument for anything. This could be done with simple words; again Reagan is a great example.
I'm not even saying it's Bush's "fault" for not being a good communicator. He is how he is. It's just a shortcoming he has, which may bite him in November. Denying that the shortcoming exists serves no good purpose.
Heck, he's President... he was able to convey something.
LOL... if only that were good enough.
I don't think the President's communication is something the American people get all up in arms about. They recognize that he has integrity even if he does have a fractured syntax.
I agree. I am not saying the American people are "up in arms", and I do think they generally believe he has integrity.
What I am saying is that he fails as a communicator thus leaving his listeners with little confidence, or ammunition, to use against the constant media attacks. In other words his communication failures leave the typical person "undefended", their "immune system" weakened, against a neverending media assault on Bush's decisions, statements, etc., thus making a significant fraction of them easily swayed and likely to buy into "Bush is stupid" nonsense they see on late-night comedy shows or "Bush messed up" nonsense they read in Newsweek.
A better communicator would be able to "inoculate" more of the public against the media's propaganda, making them less easily swayed.
Ronald Reagan? come on... stay on topic.
I'm sorry, what do you think the "topic" is? The article is about Bush's ability to communicate as a President. If you don't believe Ronald Reagan is an appropriate example in this context, I don't know what is.
We are talking about the post I responded to...Not comparing Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush.
Well, I *was* comparing Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush. Hope that's ok....
You're right...no intelligence is "rock solid." The WMD are proof of that... but, after the WMD debacle, who can blame the President for not storming forward on the evidence of intelligence leaks...
I can. Even the WMD situation is not as Bush has allowed the media to paint it. The WMD were there too, yet Bush has allowed the idea "Saddam had no WMD" to stand.
When he does come forward, I think he will want to make sure that his evidence is as "rock solid as possible."
Of course he will... of course he will.
It's just that this will not help at all.
Believe me, I hope I'm wrong.
One other option...
If he keeps on trying to appease a non-appeasable media, he puts them in the position of authority. They are the ones that have to be made to see.
We know this is not true - they have an agenda and will not see.
Do you really think he could present anything that would make them jump on the bandwagon? Any proof would be discounted or ignored. They are out to get him and he knows it.
I can't see Bush in an appeasement mode. Intelligence is subjective and as such has a bunch of pot holes that the press could latch on.
He had to make a decision based on the best intelligence. He did act because Saddam was out of compliance. Bush was not willing to sit back and risk the next attack with nuclear/chem/bio. If we don't like that - vote for a democrat who will never act.
That is our choice. Vote for one that WILL PROTECT this nation or vote for one that must be forced to act to protect us.
...How many times now has the White House scheduled a prime-time speech by Bush, and the major networks have blown him off?...
Exactly - we know who the enemies are and they are here.
Bush has my vote. I've never voted for a Democrat and would never vote for one, ever. I hate Kerry. Detest Clinton. They are the Neville Chamberlains of their time. And that's putting it kindly. Most of them are treasonous b******s.
I do not think Bush has to give the Democrats the talking point that AQ and Iraq did not have a relationship. He has done so and it frustrates me because I don't think it's necessary.
It was good enough for the Clinton administration to cite those relationships and the press accepted it.
He could mention that little tidbit. Not in an ugly partisan way because I know it's not his manner to do that. But as a simple statement of fact.
The lefties that I work with have already started their pre-emptive attack on the June 30th power hand-over.
They've already started saying that Bush has stolen Kerry's plans for post-war Iraq (I actually heard a coworker say this today...I am NOT making this up!). So, if the transition is relatively smooth, they give credit to Kerry, and blame Bush for "stealing" his ideas.
If it doesn't go smoothly, then they resort to the same lines they've been using for over a year.
Again, no they haven't: "the commission also found "no credible evidence" that al Qaeda collaborated with Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq on the Sept. 11 strikes or any other attacks on the United States"
Not collaborating with AQ on attacks against the US,
and
Not being "linked" to AQ at all,
are not the same thing.
[Media Reports are not enough! ] Duh! Are you even reading the posts in sequence before you start commenting on them? You are making my point...
When I said "Media Reports are not enough!" I was characterizing your POV, not mine... (and then exploring the ramifications of that POV). sorry for confusion. It should read: "So you think that Media Reports are not enough, eh? ..."
What I am saying about Salman Pak is for every expert you trot forward to agree with us...I could find an expert who would not.
That's obvious and I'm not disputing that. But in terms of mobilizing the country, there's only really one "expert" who should matter:
The Commander-in-Chief.
A strong, persuasive one would be able to swat contrarian "experts" like flies. Bush, unfortunately, is not.
The problem is Bush's inability to communicate. That's all it is.
That's not "all" it is. Obviously (like I said in my original post) he's got a hostile media. His inability to communicate well just means he is not able to overcome that, as Reagan was. And we are all the worse for it.
[No, but it *can* be based on the *intelligence data* behind those leaks, articles, and conspiracy theories of authors who write books. ] I give up... You aren't even arguing the topic at hand.
????
What exactly is the topic at hand, if not, Things Bush should be saying? I'm saying that Bush should be making his case based on intelligence data - the same intelligence data which *others* have been using for months now, to build a case for a connection. How in the world is that not relevant? *puzzled*
You have jumped into the middle of a conversation between Peach and me about the evidence linking Iraq with Al Qaida. We were not having a discussion about whether Bush is able to communicate.
That is the subject you have introduced. And according to you...ad naseum and in length... he is not. I get it... to you, he can't. Spare me your tired posts about the subject.
But again, my conversation with Peach wasn't about Bush's ability to communicate.
Hopefully, that clears it up.
Have a nice day...
And therein is the problem...that rock-hard 42% of doubters will believe Kay.
But I would use Kay's own words, delivered in his interim report to the CIA last August, to point out that Saddam had 1) the infrastructure and equipment, 2) the expertise, 3) the precursor chemicals and growth media, and 4) the will, to have an active WMD program. But then Kay came out later and said there were no *stockpiles* of WMDs in Iraq, the media and the Democrats went ape over this statement, and the Administration said nothing, not even pointing to the interim Kay report which clearly outlined evidence of Saddam's active WMD program, his capability to crank it up and produce "stockpiles" whenever the heat was off of him, and, therefore, his continuing threat. But the Administration didn't do this, not in a concerted way. They continue to take the hits from the media, and do little in the way of a major defense. It's frustrating.
Sorry. As the posts were public on a discussion thread I didn't realize it was a private conversation. I responded to a comment which looked respond-worthy. As is my habit on FR.
We were not having a discussion about whether Bush is able to communicate.
I see. Nevertheless, I (probably) made the point to you that Bush is not able to communicate. In responding to me and arguing with me, you gave me the impression that you do indeed think he is able to communicate just fine. If that's not what you think then perhaps indeed we have no disagreement.
But again, my conversation with Peach wasn't about Bush's ability to communicate.
Look, whether Bush is able to communicate is totally and completely relevant to the issue "What Kind Of Evidence Can Bush Use To Make A Public Case".
A good communicator can Make A Public Case successfully with less evidence.
A poor communicator needs far, far more evidence to make the *same* case.
This is generally well-understood and indeed most people realize that being able to communicate well is an important skill for lawyers to have.
So, I saw you making a point about the evidence not being good enough for Bush to make his case. I am supplying you with a possible explanation: Bush simply isn't a good enough communicator to be able to make the case with the (rather good) evidence that he has.
If you disagree with that explanation, then fine, but don't tell me that it's irrelevant - because it's not. Best,
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.