George Bush has made three speeches in as many days attempting to roll back the growing tide of opposition to the war in the country. Although public opinion has been slowly turning against the war, Cindy Sheehan’s campaign caught the public mood. Bush’s refusal to meet with her only strengthened her message and caught her up in a media frenzy.
Now, it’s noteworthy that’s he’s addressed her by name (though not in person) in rebuting her views of the war. This is an acknowledgment that his previous ‘duck and cover’ policy when it came to Cindy failed miserably. And the three speeches seem to be part of a broader attempt to rally the patriotic, pro-war forces and the American middle ground which hasn’t yet made up its mind about the war.
Tammy Pruett: the anti-Cindy? (credit: Reuters/Jeff Mitchell)Part of the desperation inherent in the speeches is pulling Tammy Pruett out of his rabbit hat. She’s meant to be the patriotic counterpoint to Cindy Sheehan. A mother who has four children and a husband serving (or who served) in Iraq. The New York Times described this portion of his speech thus:
“There are few things in life more difficult than seeing a loved one go off to war,” Mr. Bush said [how ’bout seeing a loved one DIE in war, George?–TK]. “Here in Idaho, a mom named Tammy Pruett, I think she’s here, knows that feeling six times over.”
Mr. Bush quoted Ms. Pruett as saying, “I know that if something happens to one of the boys, they would leave this world doing what they believe, what they believe is right for our country. And I guess you couldn’t ask for a better way of life than giving it for something you believe in.”
Mr. Bush said that Ms. Pruett had four sons in the National Guard now in Iraq, and that last year her husband and another son returned from Iraq, where they had helped train Iraqi firefighters in Mosul.
Then, as the crowd roared its approval, Mr. Bush declared, “America lives in freedom because of families like the Pruetts.”
Honoring America’s Heroes: but what about Casey & Cindy? (credit: Reuters/Jeff Mitchell)Ah, such noble sentiments! But of course there is one glaring difference between Pruett and Sheehan. The latter actually lost her son while Pruett has not. I don’t wish death upon anyone and certainly not Tammy Pruett. But I’d like to see what she’d say a few months after one of her loved ones dies in Iraq.
What’s also pernicious about Bush’s comment is that it implies that if the Cindy Sheehans of the nation had their way we would not live in freedom.
“As long as I’m the president, we will stay, we will fight and we will win the war on terror.”
“One of the most important battle fronts in this war on terror is Iraq.”
Rhetorically, one of the aspects of his speeches I find interesting is that he refers less to the war in Iraq and more to the war on terror. Whenever he speaks of the war it is always in the context of this. Bush, Rove et al. know that the last time they held the American consensus was after 9/11. Most Americans were with him (if momentarily) as long as he was fighting Al Qaeda and the 9/11 bombers. We stayed with Bush when he attacked Afghanistan as it seemed a logical outgrowth of the war on terror.
But many of us parted company with Bush in the lead up to the war. And millions more Americans have turned against the war since then. So what Bush has to do is frame Iraq not in the terms that everyone now does (dead GIs, roadside bombs, suicide attacks, etc.), but in the terms of 9/11.
But it won’t wash. He didn’t carry along many of us when he announced the war and he won’t carry along many of us now that he’s trying to put it back in the 9/11 context. “That dog won’t hunt,” as Bill Clinton said.
Progressive bloggers have been saying this till they’re blue in the face–but it bears saying again: Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. For Bush, the war had everything to do with Sadaam and finishing the job Daddy didn’t in 1991. Al Qaeda was a convenient peg on which he could hang the war. So don’t fall for Bush’s current sleight of hand trying to make you believe that all our boys are dying in Iraq so that Al Qaeda won’t get us and there won’t be any more 9/11s. It’s a lie as has everything Bush told us about this war been.
I’m delighted to read in the Washington Post that Sue Niederer, whose son Seth Dvorin was killed in Iraq, is taking to a campaign trail of her own: she will be shadowing Bush’s travels around the country as he drums up support for the war. She’ll be there to remind the media and the American people that there’s another side to the story that needs telling. Niederer’s own tale of loss and her attempt to confront Laura Bush and the military brass is as powerful and moving as Sheehan’s.
I find this current round of speeches rather desperate and frantic on Bush’s part. They remind me of similar speeches Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon used to give to buck up the American people about how the Vietnam war was going. Remember “peace [or was it ‘victory’?] is just around the corner?” “There’s a light at the end of the tunnel?” They were mere words attempting to conceal what most Americans knew: that the war was going badly and we had to end it.
Is our current situation any different?
Sure it’s different. We could – albeit at great moral cost – lose Vietnam and still win the Cold War. We can’t lose Iraq and win the War on Terror. You can check out my blog for details. (Start with the June 2004 entry.)
This is a preposterous statement. In fact, BECAUSE we are pursuing a chimerical war in Iraq this could cause us to lose the War on Terror. Without the Iraq war we certainly had a much better chance to win the War on Terror much sooner.
There were terror demons let loose in the world before our invasion of Iraq, but nothing like those that exist now thanks to the hundreds of thousands of enemies we’ve created both in Iraq & throughout the Arab world.
And guess what, fella…we’re losing the war in Iraq and there’s no way we can win it. Even if you dispute the notion that we’re losing the war, no one–not even the most Pollyana of Pollyanas can say we’re winning it (except perhaps Don Rumsfeld, George Bush & Dick Cheney but their delusions know no bounds).
“There were terror demons let loose in the world before our invasion of Iraq, but nothing like those that exist now thanks to the hundreds of thousands of enemies we’ve created both in Iraq & throughout the Arab world.”
Good lord! As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.” Just because these things are more prominent in the news doesn’t mean that matters were not worse before the arrival of American troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.
The judgement that we are “losing the war in Iraq” is certainly premature, if not (in the eyes of U.S. soldiers) demonstrably wrong at this stage. Sure, I know you believe it. But that’s only because you are closing your eyes and ears to a great deal of knowledge, or are putting your faith in the mainstream media.
Why not come to Washington and attend a few congressional hearings? Observe how the media works, and decide for yourself.
Another thought: intellectuals must always beware of following a line of reasoning without checking their motives as well as their facts. Here, Dr. Sanity can help.
If a person attaches pride to his/her intellectual honesty of HOW they come to a decision, rather than the decision itself, that removes many blinders.
Ah, it appears Solomon2 is a right-wing D.C. policy wonk which explains much. Lord protect us fr. the DC ideologues! They’re the ones who got us into this mess in the first place. Now they tell us we just have to stay the course & somehow miraculously things will work out, Iraq will be free and terror will be dead. Delusions and lies! And the American people are now beginning to see these pipedreams for what they are–sheer fantasies.
And you are NOT entitled to quote Pat Moynihan saying I have no facts on my side in saying terrorism has been far worse after 9/11 than before. Because, in fact you quote none to support your own opposite contention. You don’t get a free pass here w/o proving your claims. As far as I’m concerned your claims are empty w/o proof.
Again, you claim the judgment we are losing the war is “certainly” premature and the only fact you marshall in your support is it isn’t lost “in the eyes of U.S. soldiers.” I wouldn’t say the best judge of whether we’re winning the war is the judgment of the grunts fighting the war. Even then, I’m sure both of us can find equal numbers of line soldiers who’d support each of our perspectives. So you don’t get a pass on this one either & have proven nothing.
And I certainly don’t need to attend Congressional hearings to know whether or not we’re winning the war. In fact, you’ve attended too many “happy hour” briefings with Don Rumsfeld and his merry band of brother generals & imbibed too much of the happy juice they’re distributing to anyone who’ll listen (& the number keeps shrinking).
Perhaps, the most important statistic is that a majority of Americans believe that we shouldn’t be in Iraq. Even 53% in the latest poll say Bush should meet w. Cindy Sheehan. You guys are losing the real war AND the propaganda war. But you won’t give up the ship till it goes down w. all hands lost (our fighting boys among them).
Richard, you are resorting to an ad hominem attack: trying to shoot the messenger instead of absorbing the message. Your lack of initiative at discovering the truth points to something worse than sheer laziness; you are too certain of your own convictions to be trusted to reason otherwise when presented with opposing facts.
Remember, Tikkun Olam? To make the world a better place, you actually have to do something. And KNOW , as best as you can, that what you are doing is making the world a better place. You aren’t doing those things, and you refrain from doing so on purpose! How can you think of yourself as a good person? How do you know that you aren’t actually serving the cause of evil?
Ah, gwon! I asked you to provide proof. You provide none. I know what the “truth” of the war in Iraq is. I don’t have any need to discover your “truth” because it is based on a tissue of lies which you imbibe from the Bushite CoolAid you all drink there in DC.
No lessons please on Tikun Olam. Killing thousands of Iraqis (civilians & terrorists) along with our own troops while making virtually the entire world unsafe for Americans is NOT my idea of making the world a better place.
And I’ll be the judge of whether or not I’m making the world a better place and being a good person. You can keep your judgements on those scores to yourself.
You’ve aired your thoughts quite sufficiently here and have said nothing new. That will be your last comment on this post.