48 Hours

The Weekly Standard ^ | 03/18/03 | David Brooks

[Pokey78]

The president addresses the nation; the debate on Iraq ends; and the future of two countries now lies just over the horizon.

I DIDN'T THINK the president was at his best tonight. His reading was not smooth. I'm sure that many French, British, and high-toned American viewers will have their opinion confirmed that George W. Bush simply hasn't read enough books to be president, let alone lead the nation into war.

The speech was simple, unremarkable, and direct; more Karen Hughes, I'm guessing, than Mike Gerson. And that is appropriate. For America is not going to war in a moment of high passion, as we did, say, in December of 1941. We're going to war after a long debate and in a moment of sober judgment. President Bush and the majority of the American people have decided that the risks inherent in not going to war to depose Saddam Hussein exceed the risks of going to war.

Here is what this speech signifies: The debate is over. Over the past 12 years, and especially since September 11, we have had a long argument over what to do with Saddam--and with the regime that has flouted the armistice established after the first Gulf War. That debate has run its course. The past few weeks have been like the fifth day of a family reunion. Everybody was getting on each other's nerves. Nobody was persuading anybody. Arguments were used to pummel, not convert.

Looking back, the outcome of the debate has been remarkable. President Bush was incredibly successful at persuading the American people and incredibly unsuccessful at persuading people in most other countries. Domestically, the president enjoys nearly two-thirds support. That's astounding. Abroad, majorities regard Bush as a greater threat to peace than Saddam. That's also astounding.

The newspapers are now filled with dissections of the Bush administration's diplomatic failures. Nobody writes stories about the administration's incredible domestic accomplishment--bringing the American people around to support the war. It would never occur to most editors to assign such a story. You figure out why.

Why was Bush so good at persuading Americans and so bad at persuading everybody else? There are now books on the subject, but the shortest answer is that someone blew up the World Trade Center. Americans are in a mood to hear Bush's arguments. People in most other countries are still living in the 1990s. Whatever slipups the Bush diplomatic team may or may not have committed, the French, Russians, and Germans were simply not going to be convinced.

A U.N. resolution endorsing force was never going to be there.

So now we stand at an epochal moment. The debate is over. The case has gone to the jury, and the jury is history. Events will soon reveal who was right, Bush or Chirac. The best thing to do today is to review what is at stake.

The future of the United Nations is at stake. The future of the trans-Atlantic alliance is at stake. The political career of George W. Bush is at stake, along with that of many Democrats. (I admired the way Senators Lieberman and Kerry swung behind the president tonight, and was appalled at the way Senator Daschle did not do so this afternoon.)

But there are two nations whose destinies hang in the balance. The first, of course, is Iraq. Will Iraqis enjoy freedom, more of the same tyranny, or a new kind of tyranny? The second is the United States. If the effort to oust Saddam fails, we will be back in the 1970s. We will live in a nation crippled by self-doubt. If we succeed, we will be a nation infused with confidence. We will have done a great thing for the world, and other great things will await.

[jammer]

DIDN'T THINK the president was at his best tonight. His reading was not smooth

Lord, what does he want? I'm one of the skeptics, but Bush had me running to the gun cabinet. With the exception of "nucular", which must be genetic with Bush and Carter, I thought it was his best speech and best delivery. Perhaps he objects to 48 hours instead of 4 hours. Okay, fair enough--me too. I had my cookies and milk ready to watch tonight. Hope they'll keep another 48 hours.

[biss5577]

Totally agree--however, you had your milk and cookies, I had my beer and ciggies!

[jammer]

Oh, yes, those ciggies. I just got ten cartons from the reservation, so I'm ready. Damn the torpedoes1

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" I DIDN'T THINK the president was at his best tonight. His reading was not smooth."

We had 8 years of a smooth talker,who couldn't be bothered to take on Osama or Saddam. I'll take a bone tired George Bush,any day.

[thoughtomator]

He slipped on one word in the beginning, but other than that it was a very smooth speech IMO. His face and eyes were perfect and his delivery really showed he understood and meant what he said.

[sissyjane]

Great article! Dashole should be ashamed... I guess the chances of that are the same as the chances of Hussain going into exile.

[Aria]

Ditto. Substance over style. Why don't some people get it!

[20yearvet]

"you had your milk and cookies, I had my beer and ciggies!"

Milk and cookies might last 48 hours but Beer and Ciggies never do. Time to get the guns out. We may get hit on the home front. Those who are ready do not nead to fear

[Torie]

It would be nice if Bush were a better speaker. But he gets his message across. He is good enough to get the job done. And for the job to be well done, requires good judgment, particularly in choosing whom to listen to when, and whom to ignore, or put on the back burner. Bush so far has been better with that than with his mouth, and if one had to choose which area one would want their president to excel, I would pick the latter each and every time, as would most who are level headed.

Having said that, if we could put the best of Blair and Bush in one body, that would be grand.

[zeaal]

43 hours and 15 minutes to go.

[Lijahsbubbe]

First let me state, before I get flamed, that I love President Bush.

BUT, I have to agree, I don't think he was at his best tonite. He seemed almost scared, unsure of himself, not confident. What that's attributable to, I don't know, I just don't think he was in very good form.

[zeaal]

Mr. Hussein, your tickets are ready for pick-up at GATE 6.

[witnesstothefall]

No, the Russians know better. They've been fighting this war, and losing it, for a long time now. They understand perfectly well what Sadaam represents. But their stance is simple - they are happy to have NATO divided to the point of veiled threats, duking it out with little or no help from the PuppetMaster Putin. He's just being a sensible Russian.

No, it's the French who are truly deserving of American anger at this unhappy juncture. They have stabbed us in the back, in plain sight of our enemies, in the run up and even on the eve, of battle. And this is only the beginning you watch.

[jammer]

This brings up a point, wherein Jammer once again gets flames for an idea against the mainstream: I expect Bush to slip up. That's just him. Doesn't mean that he's not intellectual, any more than the cocktail party delivery of Clinton made him an intellectual (he is WAAAAY overrated).

Anyway, my point is that Reagan was called the "Great Communicator", implying that his delivery was the reason for his success. My contention is that that was and remains tripe. Reagan stumbled over words, couldn't even read his note cards properly, etc. Reagan was a communicator because Reagan could see to the heart of an issue (example: evil empire), could and would say what he meant without equivocating, could say it with humor ("there he goes again"), and made people identify with him!

That's as opposed to the glib technique practiced by Clinton that is a great help in picking up women in bars and getting elected, but no indication of anything else. Bush is more like Reagan in that way. I'm not that much of a Bush fan, but he certainly has "it". Sorry for the run-on rant. Just had to get it off my chest.

[two23]

Old But Goodie (Click--and give it a few seconds)

[marron]

Anyone who thinks the president is an unschooled cowboy doesn't get it. This president speaks for me. I don't follow him because he persuades me, rather I am with him because he says what I have been saying all of my life. And I can tell, by things no one can fake, that he believes what he is saying, and means what he is saying. Which means he believes what I am saying, and a million others of us.

Unfortunately, there aren't many of us. But there are enough, on a good day, to spin the world around on its axis. And I have a good feeling that a good day is coming.

You know, God doesn't depend upon plaster saints to work out his will on this earth. He uses flawed men who manage to right themselves just long enough, and to pull together the grit to face down evil.

Thats you and me, brother. And Bush. And a couple of hundred thousand decent if profane men gathering on the borders of Iraq tonight. They are prepared to back up their beliefs with their bodies and all they possess. The least any of us can do is to back up the man who commands them.

They say that for evil to triumph, you need only for good men to do nothing. But the flip side of that is that when good men finally find their footing, and rise up, dragons are slain and kingdoms overturned.

[Greybird]

The president addresses the nation; the debate on Iraq ends [...]

Like hell it does. It simply now deals with an invasion that has become a certainty, not a possibility. Its propriety is not assured for all time by his decision. Nor should it be.