Bush's Actual Speech vs. Scottie's Prediction

I was in the car this afternoon and heard Dave Ross do a commentary on CBS Radio on Scott McClellan's gaggle yesterday. He played clips of Scottie saying repeatedly that Bush's speech tonight at Ft. Bragg would be very specific and new.

So I went to the White House website to see the transcript of the press conference and here's a portion of it:

...Tomorrow, the President will also talk about the strategy for success. He will talk in a very specific way about the way forward. There is a clear path to victory. It is a two-track strategy: there is the military and political track. On the military front, it's important to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces so that they're able to defend themselves, and then our troops can return home with the honor that they deserve. And then there is the political track. The Iraqi people are showing that they're determined to build a free and democratic and peaceful future, and we must continue to do all we can to support them as they build a lasting democracy.

So the President looks forward to speaking to the American people tomorrow night. You will hear from him in much greater detail, but I wanted to give you a little bit of a preview to begin with. And with that, I'll be glad to go to your questions.

Q Scott, are there new details in the strategy for success? Is there a new direction, or is the President basically summing up what he has said before?

MR. McCLELLAN: As I said, this is a new speech. And the President will be talking in a very specific way about the strategy for succeeding in Iraq. And he will talk about the two-track strategy that we have in place. He touched on it a little bit last week; he's touched on it in -- many times over recent weeks. But this is going to be the President talking about it in a very specific way, about where we are for succeeding and where we are in implementing that strategy.

Q Well, I guess what I'm asking is, are people going to hear things they haven't heard the President say before? Are there new details?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think many Americans have not heard much of what the President has to say tomorrow night. And the American people are rightly concerned about where we are in Iraq. That's a top priority for this country; it's a top priority for the President of the United States. The American people want to see our troops return home, but I think they understand the importance of succeeding in Iraq. And the President will talk about that in his remarks. I think we all want to see the troops come home sooner than later, and the way to get our troops home is to complete the mission.

Our troops, as General Abizaid was talking about over the weekend, understand the importance of the mission that they are working to complete. This is critical to winning the war on terrorism. A free Iraq will deal a major blow to the terrorists and their ideology of hatred and oppression.

Q The question is, is there a new direction, though, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: You're going to hear from the President tomorrow night. I think we have a clear strategy for success. He's going to be talking in a very specific way about what that strategy is. It's an opportunity for the American people to hear about the strategy. We've all seen on the TV screens the images of bloodshed and violence. They are disturbing. The President is disturbed by those images. The terrorists have inflicted great suffering. There have been tremendous sacrifices. But the cause for which we are in Iraq is an important one, and there is great progress being made on the ground.

(emphasis added)

So what new stuff was in the speech? Here's what commentators have to say about the speech:

Dana Milbank in the Washington Post:

The speech offered little new in the way of policy or strategy but instead reframed an argument that Bush and his advisers believe has not been presented adequately to most Americans.

The Washington Post's editorial reaction:

Mr. Bush's account of his strategy for Iraq, which has remained virtually unchanged in the past year, doesn't answer the worrying questions raised by these facts. How will the insurgency be contained during the considerable time it will take to prepare Iraqi troops? How will the Army and Marines manage years more of heavy deployments while addressing their recruitment problems? And how will continued heavy spending on the war affect the federal budget and domestic priorities? The president's evasion of the hardest facts about Iraq is coupled with a reluctance to candidly describe the likely price of success -- though Mr. Bush did make an appeal last night for military service.

The New York Times editorial response:

We did not expect Mr. Bush would apologize for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war, or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation. But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks. We had hoped that he would seize the moment to tell the nation how he will define victory, and to give Americans a specific sense of how he intends to reach that goal - beyond repeating the same wishful scenario that he has been describing since the invasion.

Sadly, Mr. Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking. He told the nation, again and again, that a stable and democratic Iraq would be worth American sacrifices, while the nation was wondering whether American sacrifices could actually produce a stable and democratic Iraq.

I personally find it very difficult to listen to George Bush for very long. I find the dissonance between his facial and body language and his words to be distracting. I find his cadence to be irritating. When he gives his smirk, I cringe. But tonight's speech was just plain boring to me. Too much of the same blah blah blah September 11 blah blah freedom.

I rarely go there, but I did get curious and looked to see what Powerline had to say. Not surprisingly, they liked it, but even they said nothing new:

Excellent Speech

Clear, confident, substantive. There was nothing in it that we and our readers didn't already know, but the message is one that many rarely hear. And the networks all carried it after all. That's good; President Bush nearly always does well when people see him, instead of seeing Democrats talking about him, as they will on the evening news.

The only thing I thought was odd was the unnatural quiet in the hall. It was like the audience at a Presidential debate, which has been cautioned not to express approval or disapproval. Only at the end, apparently, were the soldiers permitted to applaud.

The touch of emotion at the end was genuine and powerful. His appeal to Americans' pride and determination resonated, no doubt, with many who haven't spent much time understanding the strategic underpinnings of the conflict.