I don't even think the assumed poll numbers bump will happen to the extent and for the amount of time that many, based on general history, see as inevitable.
We were told this was an important speech.  It wasn't, it was recycled, tired, and cynical.
Even the media types are tired of this, they are now pointing to the fact that Iraq is not connected to 9/11. 
This, if anything, will add to the downward spiral, for cynics, moderates, and true believers alike.  We are in a huge mess with no solutions, and everyone knows it, and everyone who denies it knows that everyone else knows it.
Read Billmon for an interesting take.  Other than that, this was pathetic, and a few new talking heads are willing to say it. 
That, I suppose, is OK.  Faced with a promised counter-attack, I think a lot of media types will see that it is now time to fan the flames of criticism in order to maintain an audience (a generally slow and maleable, but nonetheless subject to facts [when presented] audience) that now knows to tune out the constant happy talk and get back to a mild version of reality.
One can always hope (against reason and experience).

Good observations.  My fear is that, however, the terrorist label does work.  It's tried and true and, yeah, with some of those people in iraq targetting civiliansm it even resonates.

There's nothing new here, except that the "terrorist" label carries exceptional signifigance right now, but, leaders from both sides of American politics have always branded, with success, our battlefield enemies as being exceptionally evil.  Heck, it's not even just us... all leaders, from any country, with any cause, brand their military enemies as being exceptionally evil and, since that kind of rhetoric speaks to humanity's oldest stories, it will probably always work.

Bush's credibility gap, and his vulnerability, is that the situation didn't work as he said it would and that his "rah rah" optimism doesn't reflect the current situation.

If it comes down to our evil foes vs. America, then rhetoric, history and mythology says that Bush will win.  But he's in a weak position when it comes to what he says is happening and what my daily MSNBC email alerts about explosions and dead soldiers imply.

He referenced 9/11 six times according to my count, once indirectly by mentioning New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, so as not to be TOO repetitious.  It was pathetic.

>The name is occultism.  And whether you're talking Aleister Crowley or Pat Robertson or Grover Norquist or Jim Jones or Ariel Sharon circa 2000, it's all of a piece.<

I agree about Costas. Someone get him a daily interview show now. An informed host asking direct questions about serious topics! I'd almost forgotten what that looked like.

An anecdote I recall from "Late Night with Bob Costas," which ended years ago: Best ever interview with Paul McCartney. Costas asked Sir Paul what was the primary or lasting message of The Beatles, or a question much like that, and McCartney, probably believing this was just another entralled interviewer, tossed off "All you need is love." It sounded phony to me, or at least trite and glib, and Costas must have thought so, too. He didn't say a thing in reply to McCartney, kept silent for several long moments until McCartney apparently finally couldn't stand it and says, "Shall I elaborate?" Costas says, "Please."

My point is this: McCartney gave a canned, obvious response that smelled of bullshit and Costas called him on it. It wasn't rude or obnoxious or naive, but civilized and smart and required. We must have more of this, especially in a daily news show format.

PS. I adore Paul McCartney and The Beatles. Not slamming Paul (my favorite bass player), nor the message of love, but simply pointing out that he is occasionally a manipulator of people, a chronic PR man, and such behavior should not be countenanced, whether in musicians or politicians or talking heads.

  The problem with the playground model -- and almost all models that try to personalize a phenomenon as profound in its implications as that so rarely mentioned word "imperialism" lead down a road to failure -- is that it leaves out the truth about Iraq.  You see, the neoCons, were gung-ho about toppling Saddam back in 1998 --while they weren't too concerned about terrorism before 9/11, with, as Dick Clarke points out, some murmurs about 'wag the dog' after the retaliation against Al Qaeda after its murderous attack of 1998.

     The United States didn't attack Iraq because of 9/11; as the Downing Street Memos I and II have shown the world, the idea of a confluence of WMDs and terrorism was the excuse.  What was the reason?  IT'S THE OIL, STUPID!  Just about every third grader on the streets in Baghdad knows that, and the US punditerati should too.  Control over the second largest oil reserves is nothing to sneeze at.  And which country accounted for 40% of the increase in global demand for oil last year?  You guessed it, China.  Leverage is not only against OPEC but against the consumers of oil too. 9/11, Christmas for Tories, provided them with the perfect cover.

       Now -- the Bush speech.  I didn't watch it. Sorry.  I wasted time watching him 'confess' to being direct in speech and having a Texas swagger at the Repug convention. I didn't watch his victory speech or his inaugural or his state of the union (which I read). I follow issues fairly closely, and comment here virtually every day.  By the way, a  specific subthread should focus on reprints of interesting articles, with the site moderators taking articles in and posting them as they see fit.  The issue it seems is what impact the speech will have in politics.
    
       From what I hear, unsurprisingly, it won't be enough to win over the public.  But then again, neither was his campaign or the debates.  A lot of sycophancy in the press (like the Bai Lie and its propagation, without being exposed, while now the same pundits who were silent then are all shocked shocked at the same spins coming from Rove that were the Republican/press full court press in Oct 2004, in the face of deafening silence.)
So the question is, can and will the press do the same now? The mood seems different, and the urgency of laundering greater than the urgency of selling the president for next month nil.
OK, so opinion polls ain't skyrocketing.  Then what?

(I) It appears that one or more Supreme Court appointments are coming up.  The Democrats simply don't have the votes to stop anything that isn't another Bolton.  So there's a big victory in the pipeline.  Orrin "the Bourbon" Hatch a real possibility -- he'd slide like nothing doing.

(II) Tax cuts -- always something trotted out to boost morale, mostly in 2006

(III) An 'offensive' in Iraq, replete with "victories" a la Falluja.  Will the peace movement be authentically free enough to start the kind of door-to-door mobilizing group I advocate?  The scapegoating of the Democrats and the Peace movement, as 2004 provided a convenient and unchallenged dredging up of the Vietnam War s**ting down of the blame for the failures of the elite -- has already begun.
   Today, Kondracke at Roll Call provided the most extensive most prominent closest to admitting failure in Iraq and pointing the finger for it at the 'negativity' of the Democrats and the peace movement that I have seen yet.
[This program will not accept the URL for the article at RealClear Politics, so I'll reprint the text in a follow up posting]
Read it &
Tell me what you think!
         *        *          *         *           *          *          &nbs
p;      Never underestimate the ability of the Right to profit from war, including from defeat including wars that they start.
 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

(IV) The conditions listed above seem ideal for another wave of heightened repression (mainly or exclusively underground, hence unmentionable) in the US, sometime between now and
election day 2006.  Any apparent thaws during that time beforehand are likely to be an 'Indian Summer'.

(V)  The Mediscam kicks in in 2006.  People will be pissed as hell.  What will the Democrats do?  Well they've gotten with the program and justified the lying batting 1000 up till now.  Hmmm, I wonder what they'll do in the absence of a  powerful grass roots movement this time

(VI) Wild Card -- the economy.  Will the real estate bubble burst, and if so, when?  If the economy turns sour, today's troubles will be remembered fondly.  The mood of the country could sustain passively if resentfully a war of Iraq's scale for a long time.  But economy never recovering and then turning sour -- BIG problems.  Social Security cuts will come through of a gradual incremental nature without transforming the system, even if they can't get wholesale transformation through, like partial privatization.  Diet COLA has been pushed by Concord Coalition types for years (COLA = cost of living adjustment)

(VII) What about the imposition of a CIVILIAN national service? It might not be popular, but it wouldn't be a "draft" per se.
National Service for two years with an opt-out for ONE year in the military would solve the military's recruitment problems, as well as a lot of unemployment issues in case of economic crisis.


     These are the main politicards left in the deck.  There are always unpredictable elements, like Tarot Major Arcana cards that just plop in from nowhere, unexpectedly, but of what we can know, all these variables will matter in terms of what will happen in public opinion and politics, the only thing of interest in anything that might be emitted out of Bush's mouth.

    The only thing that progressives can do is focus on building progressive organizing, about which I will be posting a major essay by the end of the week (about the peace movement's internal debates).

It appears that the Bush speech had one purpose ... to make it seem that Iraq is a terrorist version of the gunfight at the OK corral, and that he and his troops are the men in the white hats who will fight them in the street so that they won't break down the door and invade our homes.

It also appears that some Republicans are beginning to distance themselves from Bush a bit, and are aware that backing Bush could be a losing cause by the time the 2006 election rolls around. Likewise, the calls for bi-partisan support from several prominent Republicans during followup interviews show that the public's loss of confidence in Bush and the war is making them nervous.

One poll result announced on CNN struck me as a good indication of the depth of Bush's Iraq problems. CNN polled and found 1000 people (mostly Republicans) who said they were going to watch the speech, and afterwards found that less than a third had tuned in. This means that many people are beginning to feel that Bush has nothing of importance to say on Iraq, or that perhaps what he says has nothing to do with reality, and that spells credibility gap.

It probably wouldn't hurt if Democrats started using that term in interviews from now on. Senator Hagel opened that door with his statement about the Bush White House several days ago, and Bush walked through it tonight by giving an empty speech. We need to do everything we can to help widen the gap in the days to come.

I was surprised to see that the speech wasn't a bigger draw.  It'll be interesting to see what the ratings show.  Going to Fort Bragg may have turned some folk off since it was so clearly exploitive.  Seems to me it would have had more impact and, possibly, more draw if it'd been an oval office speech.  When any pres speaks from the oval, it's more impressive and intimate.

They may not get much out of this after all.

sorry if I misunderstood you.

I don't agree that a full-out peace movement would be well accepted among the general populace.  I think dem pols are in a pretty tough spot, in a lot of ways.  Criticizing any president about a war during that war is a dicey affair.  They walk a fine line.  IMO, it needs to be finessed.  But if citizens want to march, great.  Personally, I don't think protest marches have much impact these days other than to bring up bad images from the past.  And with this president, protests would just be entertainment for him.

I do think you're right on target Re:  W's bloodlust.  I think sending troops to their deaths (not to mention dismemberment) is a thrill for him.  Recently, I heard him assert that "I grieve" and it sounded so phony and defensive.  And it was pretty clear from Tucker Carlson's old interview that he got off on executing Carla Faye Tucker who, allegedly, was his 'sister' in Christ.

Expecting anything new out of this speech was absurd in the first instance.  It is out of character for Bush to admit defeat or change course.  Even when the WMD wasn't found and the entire justification for the war was exposed as a sham there was not change in direction - the talking points just changed without explanation to human rights, evil dictator, freedom, democracy etc. 

Thus we received what we expected: platitudes and rhetoric which not only missed the point but also missed the mark in terms of what people wanted to hear. 

Note: Erasmus - excellent point above: a full out peace movement goes nowhere in terms of broad based support.  Not that I think its not a good idea - I just think it is a basic non-starter in terms of major support. 

There is a growing movement to have something good happen in Iraq - to have a plan - to have a timetable to leave.  I don't believe there is a real ground swell for just picking up and leaving. 

I hate to say it, but Bush's schtick will work.  All he ever needed was the thinnest of margins to plug his "mandate," and the fear of 9/11 coupled with the mantra of liberal treason will keep Americans divided enough to sustain conservative Republican political domination and kill whatever value for public community that may remain in America.  To close the deal, watch for Congressional Republicans to ride to the rescue (just in time for midterm elections) and pass legislation overturning the Supreme Court's recent privatization of eminent domain.  Just watch. You'll see.

The capacity of this administration for baldfaced lying is breathtaking.  First, the continued conflation of Iraq w/9-11, which has been much commented on.  But Rumsfeld still insists that "the generals" refuse any more troops in this war.  If that is technically true, it's only because of what they saw happen to Gen. Shinseki when he spoke the truth about needing "several hundred thousand" troops pre-invasion.  According to the Frontline "Rumsfeld's War," they went through three or four generals before finding one (Tommy Franks) gullible enough to accept the invasion force we went with.  Even then, he had to negotiate upwards, because Rumsfeld was relying on a colonel who said we could do it with fifty thousand!

We must stop the administration apologists and revisionists who are seeking to blame this war's failures on its critics in their tracks.  If this war is lost, it is because of the decisions made by Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush in how to prosecute this war, and by their utter lack of planning for its aftermath.  There are no other reasons. 

Tomorrow a high school friend of my 26 year old son will bury his 21 year old younger brother, a Marine who died in Iraq. Being a Marine and serving his country were lifetime goals and he was proud. He trusted his government and his fellow citizens to not squander his life on adventures that did not honor the profound  committment he, and many others make, when they join the armed services and put their lives on the line for their country. His government did not honor that trust, and contrary to the President's speech and actions, this tragic breach of trust has harmed not only this Marine and his family and his community, and thousands like him, it has wounded the basic trust of citizens of their government. There is no good spin for this breach, there are no easy solutions, attacking the strawman of immediate withdrawal, does not persuade a public whose trust has been violated. My anger and outrage at this administration is very personal today and nothing in this speech has soothed. My country was better than this and I despair that it can regain its idealism or reputation in the world.

I realize that every death in war has these same components of loss and sacrifice, but it is very personal today. I cannot imagine the President comforting families at Fort Bragg and then coming out and making this speech. The arrogance and denial of responsibility is staggering. The strking feature of the speech for me was the dignified silence of his military audience. They're not looking for a cheerleader, they want a leader.