ROGER SIMON COLUMN
NOVEMBER 30, 2005
WASHINGTON - - I don't know how many times President Bush can announce a "major" speech on the Iraq war that turns out not to be major, but he seems to be going for a record.
Wednesday's "major" speech at the Naval Academy was so un-major, only CBS carried it live among the big broadcast networks.
ABC decided that "Live with Regis and Kelly" was more important than live with George Bush. ABC may have been right.
The president spoke yet again in front of an all-military audience, which the White House believes guarantees him a sympathetic crowd. But he does this so often, it is beginning to look as if the president is afraid to present his views to anybody but soldiers in uniform and fat cats at fundraisers.
Since the president is trying to win over the American people, what would be so wrong with allowing a broader cross-section of the American people into one of his speeches? Would they not clap loudly enough every time the president pauses?
In any case, it doesn't matter much how much applause President Bush gets during his speech, when the analysis both before and after he speaks resembles nothing so much as a yawn.
After the speech Wednesday, the Associated Press ran a story that said: "Bush's speech did not break new ground or present a new strategy."
And NBC News White House correspondent David Gregory was exquisitely frank on MSNBC when, moments after the speech ended, he said: "In many ways, this was a spin job by the president, a re-packaging. Not a lot new here. He is trying to regain control of a debate that has gotten away from him and the White House. It's difficult for him because his popularity has fallen with the American people. A presidency once defined by 9/11 has now been taken over by Iraq….It's a mess."
To supplement the speech, the White House even released a 35-page document titled, "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," but there was nothing much new in that either.
The media usually like hard numbers in speeches, and President Bush obliged: $3.9 billion more next year to train and equip the Iraqi army and police.
But MSNBC's Chris Matthews sneered at that amount, pronouncing it a "Filene's Basement price tag."
Unfortunately, he is correct. Nearly $4 billion just isn't what it used to be, when, according to the New York Times: "The Pentagon now spends $6 billion a month to sustain the American military presence in Iraq."
The Times went on: "A senior administration official said Mr. Bush's ultimate goal, to which he assigned no schedule, is to move to a 'smaller, more lethal' American force that 'can be just as successful.' "
Just as successful as what? The insurgency (which now, according to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who apparently has never read "1984," must not be called that any more) has grown stronger, not weaker. The daily attacks against U.S. troops, Iraqi troops and civilians have increased over the last year. And the number of Iraqi forces actually able to fight for their country without U.S. support seems to be a shell game.
Nothing has really changed since October, when U.S. senators bristled after being told that the number of Iraqi battalions ready to fight on their own had shrunk from three to one. Which would mean about 750 men were ready to defend the country.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, that "things have not gone as we had planned or expected nor as we were told by you, General Myers."
Myers, who retired a few weeks ago, replied: "I don't think this committee or the American public has ever heard me say that things are going very well in Iraq."
But we've heard President Bush say it several times. He said it again Wednesday: "As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists."
He also said: "Most Americans want two things in Iraq: They want to see our troops win, and they want to see our troops come home as soon as possible. And those are my goals as well."
I don't doubt it. I just want to know how he intends to do it.
But maybe he finally will tell us. In his next speech. Which I am sure will be "major."
Posted by rsimon at November 30, 2005 03:17 PM