The reviews are in on Bush's speech. Well, sort of.
Let's start with the AP headliner: Bush uses 9/11 to argue for Iraq war. Not exactly the headline the White House was looking for.
Every article seems to contain some version of this line from USAToday, "Bush defended his decision to invade Iraq in 2003 even though he said the country's now-deposed leader "was not responsible" for 9/11."
The WaPo leads with an analysis piece framing the speech solely in its politics, littered with negative words, "soured," "falsely optimistic," "undermined," etc.
The NYTimes leads with a straight recounting with opposition quotes, but in a more interesting piece, frames the politics in relation to a specific Colo district. (Oh, and it's a tiny little headline underneath the 9/11 remembrance story.)
It's not even near the top story on Reuters, AFP, or the BBC.
I list all this as example that the speech failed. The press aren't buying it; it's not on the top of every page. This "major address on the anniversary of 9/11" is not being panned. Far worse for the Bush administration, it is being largely ignored.
(By the way, if your record is so bad that you get flustered defending it to a journalistic heavyweight like Matt Lauer, you're in alot of trouble.)
Every article seems to contain some version of this line from USAToday, "Bush defended his decision to invade Iraq in 2003 even though he said the country's now-deposed leader "was not responsible" for 9/11."
The WaPo leads with an analysis piece framing the speech solely in its politics, littered with negative words, "soured," "falsely optimistic," "undermined," etc.
The NYTimes leads with a straight recounting with opposition quotes, but in a more interesting piece, frames the politics in relation to a specific Colo district. (Oh, and it's a tiny little headline underneath the 9/11 remembrance story.)
It's not even near the top story on Reuters, AFP, or the BBC.
I list all this as example that the speech failed. The press aren't buying it; it's not on the top of every page. This "major address on the anniversary of 9/11" is not being panned. Far worse for the Bush administration, it is being largely ignored.
(By the way, if your record is so bad that you get flustered defending it to a journalistic heavyweight like Matt Lauer, you're in alot of trouble.)
posted by mikevotes at
6:53 AM
9 Comments:
Not sure what you're getting at in your update. The last line means what?
By
Anonymous, at 1:18 PM
Attempt at sarcasm. I don't write it very well.
My point was supposed to be that the administration hoped to use this speech as the top tentpole in their efforts to rewrite the understanding of the Iraq war.
This speech was intended to reunite Iraq and terror (at least rhetorically) to form the foundation for the last 60 days of the '06 campaign.
It was supposed to be a big speech. And now, so quickly, it's disappearing into the deep waters as nobody in the media is giving it any weight.
You're right, that's not clear. I may rewrite that.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 1:38 PM
I couldn't really get the point out in a short space, so I just pulled the update down.
Again, I always appreciate that type of feedback. I write as it sounds in my head and sometimes that doesn't come out too clearly.
(Especially when I try to be sarcastic, ironic, or funny. I just don't write funny well.)
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 2:25 PM
Matthews said on Hardball tonight that everybody in the press room thought it was a political speech rather than the commemoration it was billed as. I heard that the press really went at Snow at the gaggle for insisting both before and after that last night's speech "wasn't political."
It only took the press five years to getting around to mention the cyncial political machinations this administration regularly plays with national security issues. I guess we should be thankful they finally got around to it.
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 5:50 PM
Oh, they did. For some reason CNN carried alot of the press conference today, and they didn't let up.
Five years. Really, I think all it took was the probability that the Dems win the house.
And, Helen Thomas got it on record, "the generals have not asked for more troops?" We'll see how that plays out.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 7:28 PM
Oh, did Bush give another 9/11 speech? Doesn't he do that every day? Kind of loses it impact in the endless repetition.
By
Anonymous, at 9:02 PM
I think that's a good part of it, but this one was supposed to be so significant. They got the networks to block out primetime at the start of the fall season, 9/11 commemoration and all.
And it flopped.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:30 PM
Of course, if ever there was someone's speeches that were completely meaningless in terms of content, that would be Bush. I can't bear listening anymore. It's not as if he ever says anything - anything at all. And it's not as if anything he says can't be completely turned around, 180 degrees so that you get what the real picture is. Try it sometime; it's Big Brother talk. It's absolutely chilling. His inverse accuracy is about 85%.
Oh! GROTESQUE!!!
By
Anonymous, at 12:45 AM
He changed speechwriters not long ago. We're getting more flowery language, but everything else is the same. I guess it's because the main points, the tentpoles of the speech are being written by Rove.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 8:47 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home