Flash back 13 months.... (and why Tues speech signals trouble for W)

Its early May in the run up to the election.

The news coverage for team bush hasn't been great since the one big story - the capture of Saddam the previous December.

The democratic primaries garnered most of the media attention - and the democratic candidates were raising tons of money for an election that was supposed to be a cake walk.

It was about a year after "Mission Accomplished" - and the insurgency was picking up, and support for the war slowly dwindling.

What to do what to do.... Then it was announced - Bush was going to make his plans for Iraq well known to the public. He would give six foreign policy speeches in 20 days - that would regenerate support for his war and emphasis his "commander in chief" status as a War President. (Note here - bushjr biographer - 1999 quotes of bush per being a war president - that if he had the opportunity he wouldn't squander it - but would ride it because people love a strong war president)

Speech #1. Err....and... resolute... train Iraqi troops... elections... stay the course... er... resolute... er...

*flop*

Speech #2-6:

Never happened. The first was so poorly received.

Back to election central. Suddenly from bushco there was less talk about Iraq and bush proxies (Cheney et al) started talking about the War on Terror - and suggesting that if Kerry were elected that an attack on US soil was inevitable... (Note here - by the winter of 2004-05 - bush admin officials started a new meme "the question of another attack on US soil is not if but when...)

Then come the conventions - the swiftliars smears... and... whipping up the Reactionary Religious Right with images of Gay marriage (as if THAT was some sort of threat)... more scary talk of terrorist attacks... but not so much talk about Iraq - except in the debates where bush claimed again he couldn't think of any mistakes made ... oh and for pushing Kerry into a political box after Bush said if he "Knew today (no wmds) what he knew then he would still attack Iraq..." (Note here - of course we now ALL know that he DID know at the time what is known today and wanted to attack all along so that wasn't terribly revealing after all.) Other than that - he didn't run much on Iraq. War on Terror - yes. Some allusions trying to link Iraq with War on Terror - but not straight out Iraq.

Flash forward.

More of the public now has buyers remorse per going into Iraq in the first place, than still supports the decision and think it is worth it.

More of the public is skeptical of the motives of the administration (even if not all are yet familiar with the DSMs.)

The admin has been shown in other big, and rather embarrassing stories, to have intentionally misled the public. (Note here - the EPA report cleansing by a political hack was so bad that it caused something to happen that RARELY happens in the Bushjr White House ... a resignation)

And Dick Cheney is now being referred to as "Bagdad Bob".

Flash forward: Starting Tuesday - we are told - Bush is going to have the first of a number of speeches to the public - to spell out his Vision/plan with the goal of bringing public sentiment back to supporting the war effort.

Do we really think this time we will see speeches 2-6?

Each time he tries to link the effort to 911 - he will lose points with any general audience (Note here - he almost exclusively has talked to hand picked audiences for the past year - ones who aren't skeptical - and in those speeches continues to make those allusions - it would be a shocker if he doesn't do so) Each time he tries to paint a "last throes" type image - he will lose points with any general audience. And if/when he veers off into another pet policy area (say - like - privatizing Social Security) - he will look like he is trying make political points off the backs of the military that he sent to war.

Will he take questions at this speech? If he does - he risks dangerous territory as he is not so swift on his feet (Note here - remember that "it really would have been better if I had these questions in advance" comment (or something like it) at a press conference last year). If he doesn't it looks like he still fears the public and will only do staged, precanned events for a very narrow slice of the population.

Lots of rocks and hard places.

Should be entertaining.

Don't think it will accomplish what Roveco want it to.

However never underestimate this WH - I am sure they have other shenanigans planned for the summer - they really don't like being painted as lame ducks, nor do they like the growing independence of some Congressional GOP. Stay tuned!

be fed up with the jackass by now.

as rabblerousing).

Just silent contempt.

Also, excellent post, Salin. I ask my RW friends about his series of speeches he never gave, and they never have a good answer.

tends to be collective amnesia on this point. That is partly why I wanted to give this reminder. Make the egg on the face stick a little more this time - if they pull back and don't do the series of speeches.

that's why the speech is at Fort Bragg. They are probably under orders NOT to boo and will have CHEERING DRILLS all day

meanwhile - it's just going to be more spin, fact fixing and lies
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3946236

wonder who the staging will be...

Remember shortly after we went into Iraq he had that Thanksgiving "dinner"? Apparently only those there who supported Bush and was never a democrat could join. I read about it but can't find the article anymore. :( But before the dinner the soliders at the place Bush went to had to fill out a form and tell about their politicial affiliations and if they ever had been a democrat before in the past. So apparently only republican soliders were allowed around and the others had to wait until after they finished to eat. :puke:

uniform in the pic look rather pained as they listen on as props.

I'd be watchful of another "terror" attack in the US.

a) skepticism is higher today that before - and if there were anyway to demonstrate a faked attack - the entire party goes down for a generation.

b) no one else to blame but themselves - while there would be a short rallying around - the image would be even worse than that of Carter not being able to rescue the hostages in Iran - they would look completely feeble and lose the one last general issue for their party - that they are the party that is strong on defense. Finally it would really blow up in their face decision to go after an elective war, rather than shore up homeland security.

They could only do this if they were prepared to go into full scale martial law and really do a military coup. And for many reasons that isn't possible.

What they will do will be more subtle.

Well, I hope you're right that that's not possible, I'm not so sure actually. Depends on the size/type of attack. :scared:

to keep the power after martial law. And we have a long history of being able to speak out... there are simply not enough jails to hold dissenters - and with each dissenter others would be created - as moderates and libertarians would also see this as a threat to the country. This doesn't even beg to question the man power that would be required to enforce a more dictatorship type regime. There is a police station two blocks from my house - and many of those guys may be republicans - but I can't see them going gestap against citizens. Just don't see it happening.

That is why they are trying to subvert our institutions - so that they keep the facade of our system up - while they are able to dominate it and bend it to their desired will. Note the move to create PBS as Pravda Broadcasting System and the Corporation for Pravada Broadcasting.

They made a big stink about voting for the "right" person or you'd get attacked again. My dad has even said "we haven't been attacked again since 9/11" when I bring up his low polling numbers. I always say "not yet anyways." So there are some pro's and some con's.

I personally believe they all have their rave reviews already written.

But we'll see...

perhaps afraid of looking even more foolish than bush is finally catching up to them?

Nah no raves - just not as harsh of criticism and no pointed analysis looking at all the lies that will be dished up is about as smoochie smoochie to bush as they will go - save for the usual suspects.

:puke:

"We drew all the terrorists into Iraq so we could take care of them there and not over here."

of a growing civil war) is about all that they have left.

But darn those are weak arguments for all save those who have continued to rally blindly behind him. That doesn't reassure a single person who has moved into the "I no longer think we should have gone in the first place" camp. We also have heard it so often that it has lost its impact and credibility (as if it ever had credibility - but for some, at one time, it did.)

that we didn't "draw" the terrorists into Iraq, we "created" terrorists in Iraq. It's almost as if we "recruited" terrorists into Iraq. I can expect I'll need to be debating the point as I know plenty of people who love bush and his war.

and who gives better material than bush, himself. Just repeat a few of his gaffes, and suggest that perhaps bush needs a better speechwriter (and if they agree on that point - throw in a "or better material" - the nice dig at bush's policies and practices of his admin).

I am still waiting for a Democratic response.

that the repubs spouting this are starting to sound more and more absurd in their own right. It is a wierd thing - when folks themselves get ooked out by the increasingly absurd statements (as in... unbelievable! I can't believe they think we will believe that!) - it seems to be more lasting of a sentiment, than being temporarily swayed by rhetoric. In part, this is why bushco is having such a hard time. They used rhetoric that kinda sorta sounded good on the surface - but over time - reality strikes folks as being something quite different...

I don't think that isn't why there hasn't been a response, however. Think it is more that there has been such a media bruhaha over Durbin's remarks, then Rove's remarks - and that is primarily what is being covered.

If a democrat responds in the woods and the media refuses to cover it....

The easy response, of course, as another pointed out upthread is: How many of these folks would have been willing to suicide themselves before the Iraq war?

He will mention Social Security and the need to "save" it for the young folks and the need to get Congress "off the dime" and get an energy policy and keep our economy growing. Make the taxcuts permanent, etc...Mostly it will be an attack on Congress. As per his entire lifetime, he will blame someone else.

due to the need to resell it to the public.

These arrogant jerks still think they can PR us into believing what ever they want us to believe. You can bet they have been testing out phrasing with focus groups for the past week.

too bleak for der Dumkopf.

and express why in post 6.

Once people are on to a defective product, there's no selling it to them anymore.

The thing about "W" is, he was sold in an "Ad Hominem" style. Jes' a straight shootin', straight talkin', re'glar sorta guy. The lies are starting to pile up and the real Chimpy is coming through; the bottom feeding, snake oil salesman. There's no going back from there once people "get it".

Great post! :thumbsup:

and in a historical sense may end up being very ironic.

Bush is also arrogant as h*ll - and believes he has to win every fight. So he bullies the rest of the GOP (in congress) to follow him on point after point.

So they guy they recruited b/c they thought he would "market well" for the party and stage a long-term one party rule system... may be the one who takes down the party for a very long time.

See - his bully gotsta win - never admit defeat - self-superiority complex doesn't get that he ain't being bought any more. THus he is going to keep going after "one more win" which he thinks will make him sellable again. But in doing so - it isn't just that folks will be glad to see him leave the WH - lots of folks will take the disgust out on the whole dang party - due to the fights he has picked and WILL pick over the next short period.

Or - so it appears at the moment.

The cynic in me however says public opinion and silly things like elections are irrelevant to these thugs maintaining their grip on the country. :shrug:

Winning the war of public opinion is only part of the battle I fear, and probably the easiest part since they do much of the job themselves just by being such evil scumbags.

way, His Fraudulency is the boy in the plastic bubble, he would have a complete and utter meltdown with people actually dissenting in his face. He can't take it, he's been bailed out all his life. Have them boo, and then in unison scream out 'The Emperor has NO Clothes." Blivet probably won't even know what that means but the boos will be enough to push him right over the edge. If they all booed or lots of them, there might not be a way to find out who had done it, or the others who hadn't booed might not be inclined to strike out or give up their fellow soldiers. Somebody has to say in some way, 'at long last sir, have you no decency,' Who better than the military, who Bush has screwed every step of the way. The media would have to cover it too.

...while standing in front of the military?

The only ones I remember from past presidents were always from the White House and Congress.

The fact that he's using soldiers as props while simultaneously sending them off to die needlessly is beyond disgusting.

a) see - the troops support the mission - and they are the ones fighting it..

and

b) these are the faces going to war - voice any criticism and you are betraying these faces (in other words another attempt to shut Americans up.)

then there is the bonus point: Would I come here and lie to these guys?

Bah!

Not supposed to see the endless similarities!

Every time the simian speaks these days his stock plummets. Themore he's out there for the real people to see the worse he fares.

I hope he does lots and lots of speeches that all can see.

Julie

Is when gwb does a speech or press conference.

Generally, my husband and daughter duck and cover when I go on my frequent rants about the bfee, et al.

However, they enjoy joining me in front of the television to MST3K our esteemed leader :sarcasm: wheevre he speaks, at length.

MKJ

my father and yell back at the TV (he used to do that during the Watergate hearings, and later during the news during the Reagan years.)

Novak & Milbank.

With psot-speech TV commentary by Krauthammer & Hannity.

it wouldn't be that shocking, would it.

I'd say. It's hard to make political jokes in America anymore because reality keeps trumping your efforts.

he and his crew are simply brilliant.