Posted on 12/03/2005 3:17:26 AM PST by StatenIsland
It’s strange to say that a president doesn’t get enough attention — that his speeches and arguments are ignored. But I think this may be true of GWB. Over and over, he speaks clearly about the War on Terror, and other matters, and month after month, people say, “Why isn’t the president saying anything? Why doesn’t he speak out? Has he no defense of his policies?”
Problem is, Bush can give a speech to a few hundred people, and the rest of the world takes little notice (or isn’t given very much).
Poor president, I’m saying: Doesn’t have a big enough megaphone. “Get real, Impromptus guy!”
But consider — consider not just this latest Iraq speech (Wednesday’s), but the one he gave on Veterans Day (November 11). He spoke at the Tobyhanna Army Depot, in Pennsylvania, and I urge anyone interested to read this speech. He says why we are at war; he says who our enemies are, and how they’re related; he says how the war is going; he outlines his vision.
Now, you may disagree with Bush, and you may despise him: but it should be impossible to say that he has no clue.
I wish to highlight a few passages from the Tobyhanna speech.
It has been the custom of world leaders and other politicians to omit the Israelis in lists of terror victims — not Bush. He said,
“In the four years since September the 11th, the evil that reached our shores has reappeared on other days, in other places — in Mombasa and Casablanca and Riyadh and Jakarta and Istanbul and Madrid and Beslan and Taba and Netanya and Baghdad, and elsewhere.”
The presence of Netanya on that list shouldn’t be remarkable — but in our often-disgusting world, it is.
And was he once shy about identifying the enemy? If so — and I think everybody pretty much always got the message — he’s over it. He handles the question nicely:
“Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant jihadism; and still others, Islamofascism. Whatever it’s called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism, subversion, and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom.”
How do you like this, concerning jihadist aims?
“Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. They are fanatical and extreme — but they should not be dismissed. Our enemy is utterly committed.”
He took after Syria for what it does to decent people. For example, the regime “arrested Dr. Kamal Labwani for serving as an advocate for democratic reform.” Countless Russians testified how important it was that Jeane Kirkpatrick named names of prisoners on the floor of the U.N. Very little is more important than this naming of names — and when the U.S. president does it, that is big stuff indeed.
(Might GWB mention a Cuban or two — or 100? I mean, specifically?)
How about the notion that our presence in Iraq is itself the cause of terrorism?
“. . . we were not in Iraq on September the 11th . . . The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse.”
And “over the years, these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence: the Israeli presence on the West Bank, the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we’re not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We’re facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of killers — and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder. On the contrary, they target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response” — you know what that is.
And the guy is not too sheepish about declaring what we’re doing to the enemy in Iraq:
“Two weeks ago, in Operation Clean Sweep, Iraq and coalition forces raided 350 houses south of Baghdad, capturing more than 40 of the terrorist killers. Acting on tips from local citizens, our forces have recently launched air strikes against terrorist safe houses in and around the towns of Ubaydi and Husaybah. We brought to justice two key senior al-Qaeda terrorist leaders. And in Mosul, coalition forces killed an al-Qaeda cell leader named Muslet, who was personally involved in at least three videotaped beheadings. We’re on the hunt. We’re keeping pressure on the enemy.”
As in his October speech at the Reagan Library, he spent some time on the similarities between the Cold War and the Terror War — between Communism and Islamofascism. And then he laid this on ’em:
“Some observers look at the job ahead and adopt a self-defeating pessimism. It is not justified. With every random bombing, with every funeral of a child, it becomes more clear that the extremists are not patriots or resistance fighters — they’re murderers at war with the Iraqi people themselves.
“In contrast, the elected leaders of Iraq are proving to be strong and steadfast. By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress — from tyranny, to liberation, to national elections, to the ratification of a constitution — in the space of two-and-a-half years.”
Yes.
People say, over and over, “Why isn’t Bush saying anything?” He is — but is anyone bothering to listen? It’s not all that hard, even if Dan Rather — or whoever the new guy is — won’t dump it in your lap. Again, I urge you to read the Tobyhanna speech — skip the boilerplate about veterans, and how much money the administration is spending on them, at the beginning. The guts of the speech will take you maybe 15 minutes to read. It will be worth it, if you want to know the president’s view. As I said, you may disagree with him, or think he’s full of it — but you should at least know where he (and, by extension, we as a country) stand.
I have said for many years that Bush should hold more press conferences. Prime-time ones, in the East Room, or whatever. It would give him an opportunity to speak to people — lots of people, not just a crowd gathered in an auditorium. Let the questioning be hostile — the more hostile the better. Bush can handle it, and he would impart information, or opinion, that people should have. The White House staff should feel no need to protect him. He can talk. In his fashion — homespun and unpolished — but he can talk.
I think you know this old song of mine: Bush critics want no imposition in Iraq — no imposition of American values or practices — except when they want such an imposition. You remember when the Iraqis wrote their constitution? Critics screamed, “But it’s not American enough, not Western enough, not liberal enough!” And they were the ones accusing us war backers of imperialism, in every form.
I thought of this when reading this little story: “The nation’s top military man, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, said American troops in Iraq have a duty to intercede and stop abuse of prisoners by Iraqi security personnel.”
Okay, fine. But what happened to respect for the native way? What happened to our loathing of “ethnocentrism,” or whatever the latest buzzword is? What happened to our fear of imperialism, military and cultural?
Hmmmm?
Imagine you’re a lefty — or some kind of righty, or someone, anyway — and you think the U.S. military is bad (basically). And then the military, in Ethiopia, rescues cheetah cubs, abused for the enjoyment of an audience. It wasn’t the U.N. who rescued those animals, or Bishop Tutu, or PETA — but the big bad American military.
Gosh, I love those stories.
***
The old established/liberal/socialist media is America's most ruthless, relentless, and destructive enemy.
***
Two things at work here:
(1) The MSM not only don't cover most of what he says, but they're the ones negatively characterizing the little they do cover and, of course, are the loudest ones complaining he isn't saying anything.
(2) The average person still relies on the MSM for news, either directly or through their local news outlets, and so this perception takes hold and is hard to shake. To prove what we already know, forget the President for a moment and think about how people talk about gas prices in relation to how the MSM talk about them. I've found that prices can go up 10-15 cents over a few weeks and no one says a word until stories start popping up about it. Then that's all people talk about. Somehow they didn't notice what they were paying at the pump before those stories. If they can only see something that is in front of their faces through the MSM prism, how much more will they see the President through that same overwhelmingly negative MSM prism?
This was a good piece, thanks for posting it. And greetings from Bayonne, NJ, btw, just over the bridge!
The trouble is you are preaching to the choir. It is a great piece, thanks for posting.
So, yes, there's a difference in the way the MSM treats Presidents.
I also notice some people go into listening to the President Speech with "tunnel hearing" -- looking only for that which they WISH to hear. IF he delivers, they love him. If he doesn't delivery it, he's denigrated and criticized. And yes, even on the conservative side.
HA! Maybe there oughta be a McCain-Feingold-Alia act... No MSM/Pundit comments on the President speech 24 hours before, and 24-hours after. ;>
How true. Working hand in hand with the Democrats and academia, the propagandists continually assault our institutions, traditions and culture. I wonder how long the country will be able to resist their assault. Any lie that advances their goal of getting the Democrats back in power is regarded as the truth. The interests of these United States are secondary to the socialist goals of the Democrats.
They are not the loyal opposition, they are the enemy within.
A bit risky? Maybe.
But since this is really a two-front war, and the second front is the media, I think he should do it. Historically leaders have risked their lives to lead their troops into battle. Our troops don't need the CIC leading them in the battles against the terrorists, not on the ground... but they do need his leadership in the equally important battle against the leftist scum-bag treasonous media. I believe he can best do that from Iraq.
They are not the loyal opposition, they are the enemy within.And it will take creativity and imagination to beat them.
yeah. a single utterance by cindy sheehan gets ten times as much hype as some of the best presidential material in centuries. the fool mocks what he doesn't understand.
This is a great article, thanks for posting it!
The MSM, unfortunately, have their own version of "Operation Clean Sweep" going-namely to downplay any success in the war and yap on endlessly about any problems in an effort to sweep GWB from the front pages.
"Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant jihadism; and still others, Islamofascism. Whatever it’s called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism, subversion, and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom.”
How do you like this, concerning jihadist aims?"
But it's the very "Religion of Islam" that specifically commands its adherents to cut off the fingers or hands AND HEADS of non-Muslims! It's printed in the Koran. He still isn't speaking about reality.
Sure the press would fight back. But they would lose.
Righr! Only one half of the country believes the MSM.
The only "problem" with Bush's Lincoln landing is he didn't follow up with a bunch more of them. The press wouldn't have been able to ignore them and all their sarcasm would have been forgotten in the string of enduring images of Bush-with-the-troops.
Get out in front, Mr. President. The only way to defeat the traitors is to take a clear, public and un-ignorable stand with the patriots.
Now I agree with you!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1533079/posts
Captain Jeffery Pool, Public Affairs Officer for the 2nd Marine Division, disputed the claims in the harshest of terms, and rebuked the media for its mis characterization of events. “Today I witnessed inaccurate reporting, use of unreliable sources, media using other media as sources, an active insurgent propaganda machine, and the pack journalism at its worse.”
Cori Dauber, an Associate Professor of Communication Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, looks at how old Associate Press Television Network footage was used to support the case for the faux “Ramadi Uprising” by all of the news networks, and little has been done to retract the charges.
What’s GOOD for the Democrat Party is Bad for the USA!
And maybe instead of a banner reading "Mission Accomplished" (which, by the way, wasn't the WH's idea), it should read "Winning the War, Securing the Peace" (or something like that). Whatever. I'm not the media genius, but I know we have them on our side. They're just not being allowed to bring their full talents to play.
Part of the problem has been Bush himself. He has made the tactical decision over the last year to keep a low profile in the debate over Iraq. He's reversing that decision lately, and that's good. Now I hope he deploys a large force of imaginative and creative conservatives (of which this country has many) against the scum-bag commie-leftist treasonous-anti-American scum-bag media.
What’s GOOD for the Democrat Party is Bad for the USA!And what's bad for America, helps the Democratic Party thrive. That's why the Democrats hate the expanding economy, as well as hating us winning the war on terror in Iraq.
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.