Good Thursday morning,
Following up on yesterday’s post about President Bush’s rhetoric, I’ve taken a stab at the kind of language and attitude that I think it would have taken for President Bush, in his dismissive remarks toward his critics yesterday, to actually get some people (myself included) who disagree with his Iraq policy, to at least listen respectfully. In my new, self-appointed role as a volunteer speechwriter, I don’t presume that I can change Pres. Bush’s position, only advise him on a more humble and intellectually honest approach.
Pres. Bush (as written by the Volunteer Speechwriter): “There are many Americans who thought we never have should have gone into Iraq in the first place, and many more who once supported the war, but have changed their minds. I regret that, of course, but I respect their views.
I acknowledge that the two key premises on which I justified the war before it began have turned out to be untrue. I regret that too. And I sincerely apologize for not being more skeptical of the evidence of weapons of mass destruction and of pre-war connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida.
All I can reasonably ask on that score is that you believe that I did what I thought was best, based on the evidence that I had before me. And if some of you can’t believe even that, I will have to live with your disbelief.
I also acknowledge that some of you have turned against the war because the benefits to the United States are hard to see, while the costs are greater than any of us expected. I respect those who feel that way, too. And I apologize for anything I said or did that led you to believe this would be easy.
I ask those who feel the war has already cost too much to join me at least in this: Nothing that has happened can be undone. As in all things, we must face the situation as it exists today and decide what to do from here.
Many Americans want a deadline for troop withdrawals. As you know, I believe that is the wrong approach. I have stated my reasons on many occasions and will briefly summarize a few of them here.
It is my judgment that the risks to America’s safety and national interests of a premature withdrawal of our troops from Iraq are too high. And, despite the serious challenges we still face with no way to guarantee success, I believe that the potential benefits of our staying until Iraq is stabilized are too great to give up now.
I do not believe we can honorably abandon those brave Iraqis who have risked their lives to cooperate with us and who would face possible genocidal violence if our mutual enemies prevail.
And, fortunately, I still believe that a good possibility exists of achieving an outcome that will make the enormous investment of our blood and treasure worth the cost. I wish I could guarantee that, but I can’t.
I am still the president and commander-in-chief, and I am still trying, with humility, to do what I think is best for our great country. And so, with the powers vested in me by the Constitution, and in full recognition of the powers of the other branches of our government, I am not giving up on the mission. I will not sign — in fact, I will veto — any bill that establishes a binding timeline for withdrawal.
I humbly ask that you join me in assessing the situation as it is now, fraught with peril and uncertainty, and consider my argument that continuing to try to build on the positive momentum that I saw in Anbar Province is worth continuing the fight. thank you for your consideration.”
What think? If Pres. Bush gave a speech like that, would it make it easier to listen to his arguments? Would it be a step in the right direction? Or have I just made him sound like a wimp who doesn’t even agree with himself?
Cross-posted at Minnesota Monitor.
With all due respect, I think you’re going on the wimpy side. I was thinking more along the lines of this:
“Our way of life depends on a certain amount of stability in the world. We can’t have dictators with massive armies and WMD threatening peace-loving people everywhere, because our way of life depends on the global society and economy. We can’t have terrorist groups with access to an amazing amount of force disrupting our way of life either. I know that taking care of these problems is difficult and expensive, but if we don’t do it, who will? If we don’t do it, who will keep the global economy running and the march of freedom moving forward?
It may sound like a lot to ask, but it is asked of every generation. We fought in WWII to keep our way of life, and we won. We made a world in our image with freedom available for everyone who can stand up and make it happen for them. Should we abandon this? Should we allow our way of life based on a global society to crumble? I don’t think so. I think that as President I’d be negligent for letting that happen.”
In other words, a full-on Tedy Roosevelt routine that ties it all back to our ability to drive SUVs and have all the wonders of an Empire at the height of it’s power, Gawblissamerka.
Or is it Hail, Queen Victoria? I’m not sure …
This is under the topic of “Volunteer Speechwriter.” OK.
However, I also envision the President talking this way perhaps one-on-one, or with a small group of dubious or at least semi-opposing politicians from whom he needs support.
Perhaps it could be construed as “wimpy” for a large television audience. However, for a small group of Americans who might be in need long term R&R from swagger, it might be a welcome change.
I dunno, I see all this as a game. I gave up on coherent public policy a long time ago (unless people insist on it, which requires a level of activism that seems utterly lost on the white middle class).
Let’s use the poker analogy, which is very macho. The President is holding bupkiss, and he’s holding out as long as he can. What the esteemed Mr. Black proposed was the equivalent of blinking. Once that happens, it’s game over. He’s played such a tough game that the first sign of weakness will be pounced on. What he has to instead, IMHO, is find a way to actually *raise* the ante. I can’t come up with any other way to do it the way this has gone.
This has nothing to do with my opinion on the War, which I think is utterly idiotic and counter-productive. Nor does this have anything to do with my opinion of Pax Americana, which I also think is ridiculous. But if you take the Machiavellian view of these things, as I do, it’s about power and how to wield it. Right now, the President’s blather has worn very thin and is quite counter-productive to his own cause. After all that, admitting weakness will destroy him as his bluff will finally be called. What else can you do?
(Feel free to call me cynical, I don’t mind)
If it is a game . . .
His Secretary of State said, “You break it; you own it.”
However, GWB went one better. He [may as well have] named it . . .”Bring It On”.
GWB & I are of similar ages. While he was getting his military records “lost” somewhere around Alabama, I, along with others, were in South Vietnam trying to “find” things that made some sense at times.
What else can you do?
You can look for the possibilities that the problems are more embedded in the “Bring it on,” and less in the analysis of “the blink, the bluff, and the bupkis.”
I’m not saying I don’t deserve that, but if you’re writing for Bush you’re writing to preserve some shred of legacy at this point. I just don’t see it as being about public policy. Besides, if we get the government we deserve in a Democratic-Republic, I think what we deserve right now is a horse-whipping. There’s a reason that both parties have such weak leadership and so little vision, IMHO.
Truth be told, he could offer me a lot of money and I wouldn’t write a speech for him. I wouldn’t want to be associated with any of this for a million bucks. He’s in a corner, and I don’t see any good way out.
Now, if they offered about 3.6 million bucks … :-)
You’re totally right in my view. I just don’t think there’s a way Bush can be the man that brings it.