"After observing the spectacle of 9-11's first anniversary, is there any doubt as to the truth of this statement? I certainly wouldn't place all (or even most) of the blame for this phenomenon at Bush's feet, but I do think Steyn has a point — Bush seems to have an unfortunate tendancy of not pressing the advantage when he should for the sake of being a nice guy."
I still think the problem with Bush is that he doesn't really understand the amount of power he has, and how Truman-like he has to become if he's ever going to get the U-S firmly behind this Iraq thing.
The U.S. is known for many things, patience is not one of them. He gave a great speech, but it was directed to the U.N., not to the U.S. And it included almost nothing in the way of new specific information.
Bush, despite all the tales told about him, will never be a manipulator.
He simply has a little trouble making up his mind. And that trouble shows, despite the wonderful speech.
Bush apparently decided against whipping us up into a war frenzy..because there's only one way he's going to do that..provide specific evidence of the Iraqui connection to 9/11. You can BET there is one, he's just not telling us, and Colin Powell is arguing that the country of Iraq shouldn't suffer for the actions of its leaders, and Ashcroft is arguing not to release the information because the prosecutions might be harmed, that it might endanger the intelligence agencies and on and on. All of these points are valid.
But I think the author here is trying to point out that despite the surprises Bush provided at both speeches last week, he still hasn't hit a "grand slam", to use a baseball analogy,either in the U.S., or at the U.N., in terms of making the case to invade Iraq. It seems more like we're in the fifth inning of a game that began Sept.12,2001,and we're behind 3-1.
That to me, is at least the public perception, if the public really looks into its heart.
I think Bush has to be a little more public about some of the evidence he has..not all of it, just enough of it to convince the world (and the media)...that Sadaam not only is a current threat to the U-S, but has actually used his "weapons of mass destruction" on us already, and is planning to do so again, soon.
There is such a thing as honorable propaganda.
For example, if there's any truth to this West Nile virus/terrorism thing, he might say so. And save some lives in the process. I don't think the whole country would freak out, as some alarmists (Ashcroft) might believe. I don't think too many people would be suprised. And it would help his case..as long as there is CREDIBLE evidence to support the allegation.
It's not that people don't believe Bush, they do. They just need something a little more solid to justify a war.
It's not so much that Bush needs to clarify his reasoning --he did that last week. And it's not really that he has to expand all that much on what he said. He simply has to realize that a lot of people in the U.S.on both sides of the aisle are concerned about the constitution, and civil rights in the wake of 9/11, and he needs to address all that in terms of Iraq.
If he expects Americans to put their lives and their children's lives on the line..he should understand that America needs to know WHY.