Bush 9-11 prime-time address "nonpartisan"? Then why the echoes -- verbatim -- of recent campaign speeches?
September 12, 2006 8:40 pm ET
SUMMARY: The New York Times and The Washington Post framed President Bush's prime-time address as part of an effort to avoid partisanship on the fifth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, but much of Bush's rhetoric echoed his remarks at recent campaign appearances and in stump speeches during the 2004 presidential election.
In their September 12 articles, The New York Times and The Washington Post framed President Bush's prime-time address commemorating the 9-11 anniversary as part of an effort to eschew politics and foster the sense of unity the nation experienced five years ago. Further, these reports cast Democrats as the ones responsible for injecting politics into the day's events, as Media Matters for America noted. But a closer examination reveals that much of Bush's rhetoric in his purportedly apolitical September 11 speech echoed his remarks during numerous recent appearances in support of Republican candidates and in campaign speeches during the 2004 presidential election.
- The terrorists will "follow us" if we leave Iraq. At one point during the televised address, Bush assailed those who support some form of U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. He said, "Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. They will not leave us alone. They will follow us." He went on to say that the "safety of America" is at stake in Iraq. This claim -- that redeploying U.S. troops out of Iraq would invite further attacks -- has appeared in numerous speeches delivered by Bush during the 2006 campaign season at GOP fundraisers nationwide:
- "Make no mistake about it. If the United States leaves before the mission is complete, the enemy will follow us here to America. The stakes are high. We will help this government succeed, and we will achieve victory in Iraq." (Max Burns [GA] for Congress reception, 9/7/06)
- "[A]s General [John] Abizaid has said, if we leave before the job is done -- if we leave the streets of Baghdad, the enemy will follow us to our own streets in America." [Orrin Hatch [UT] for Senate reception, 8/31/06)
- "If we leave before the job is done, it will have meant incredibly brave souls will have given their lives for nothing. And if we leave Iraq before the job is done, as General Abizaid has said, they will follow us here." [Bob Corker [TN] for Senate dinner, 8/30/06]
- "If we cut and run, if we don't complete the mission, what would that say to those brave men and women who have volunteered to wear the uniform of the United States of America? If we leave before the mission is complete, if we withdraw, the enemy will follow us home." [Lynn Swann [PA] for Governor reception, 8/16/06]
- Building the "tools" to fight the threat. In the address, Bush also touted his administration's purported success in giving "those who toil day and night to keep our homeland safe ... the tools they need to protect our people." Specifically, he alluded to the passage of the USA Patriot Act ("We have torn down the wall that kept law enforcement and intelligence from sharing information") and cited the controversial warrantless domestic surveillance and bank-tracking programs. In his recent appearances on behalf of various Republican candidates, Bush has repeatedly offered similar lists of the White House's counterterrorism accomplishments:
- "As a matter of fact, part of my job is to assure the American people that we understand the threat, and that people should go on about their lives. Let us worry about it. That's why I've asked to make sure we have all the tools necessary to protect the American people -- tools like the Patriot Act, which Orrin helped get passed. Tools like the capacity to listen to an Al Qaeda phone call. If they're calling in the United States, we want to know why, so we can protect the American people." [Hatch for Senate reception, 8/31/06]
- "So I need members of Congress who understand that we must give our troops and intelligence and those responsible for protecting America all the support they need. See, in order to stay on the offense, we have got to support those on the front line of protecting the American people. We will use all assets to defend this nation." [Burns for Congress reception, 9/7/06]
- "I need people in Washington, D.C. who are willing to give those who are responsible for protecting America all the tools they need -- tools such as the Patriot Act; tools such as programs that say if al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to why [sic], in order to protect the United States of America." [Corker for Senate dinner, 8/30/06]
- I also want to uphold the Constitution, and I will. I'm also expected to defend the United States of America. And when we think somebody from al Qaeda is calling in to somebody in the United States from out of the country, we want to know why. We want to know why somebody is talking to al Qaeda, in order to protect the United States of America. [...] One way to win the war on terror is to starve the enemy of money. I thought that made a lot of sense. And so the Treasury Department launched a program to track the flow of terrorist money. See, we wanted to watch the money that the terrorists were moving around. It's one way to help protect the American people. [...] The American people expect the government to protect them. That's what you expect. It's our most important job. Jim Talent understands our most important job is to protect the American people. And they want our people to have the tools necessary to achieve victory in the war on terror, and to do our job. [Jim Talent [MO] for Senate dinner, 6/28/06]
- America is "safer, but not yet safe." Early in the September 11 speech, Bush asserted, "Today, we are safer, but we are not yet safe." During his 2004 campaign, Bush repeated this line verbatim from the stump on numerous occasions, as the weblog Martini Republic noted:
- "America is safer, but not yet safe." [Wilmington, Ohio, 11/1/04]
- "[W]e are safer, but not yet safe." [Grand Rapids, Michigan, 10/30/04]
- "America is safer, not yet safe." [Davenport, Iowa, 10/25/04]
- "America is safer, but not yet safe." [Second presidential debate, 10/9/04]
- [T]he actions we've take [sic] have made America safer, but not yet safe." [Las Cruces, New Mexico, 8/26/04]
- "[O]ur homeland is safer, but we are not yet safe." [Grand Rapids, Michigan, 7/30/04]
- No attacks in U.S. in five years. In the speech, Bush also asserted that in the five years since 9-11, "our enemies have not succeeded in launching another attack on our soil." Bush's remarks echoed those of Vice President Dick Cheney, who suggested at a fundraiser for Illinois Republican congressional candidate David McSweeney earlier this year that the administration's counterterrorism policies have prevented subsequent attacks. Cheney stated, "Here in the U.S., we have not had another 9-11. Obviously, no one can guarantee that we won't be hit again. But the relative safety of these years was not an accident. We've been protected by sensible policy decisions by the president, by decisive action at home and abroad, by the round-the-clock efforts on the part of people in the armed forces, law enforcement, intelligence, and homeland security."
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
George W. Bush's presidency is in a shambles. The Iraq adventure , despite warnings from even people inside his administration, blew up in his face. For three years he has not been able to outrun the questions about the reasons for invading Iraq. He was unable or incapable to admit mistakes and to correct course. He has drawn heat for an unprecedented presidential power grab. And, as reflected in his poll numbers, the American public has lost confidence in his administration. Now he is scrambling to rehabilitate the trust that Americans previously placed in him.
As to why he is politicizing 9/11 look no further than Karl Rove. This administration has a well documented record of politicizing everything and, as the President's political guru, Rove has always been the architect of these campaigns.
Bush is worried about his legacy and the Republican Party is worried about the '06 elections.
Just my opinion...
Which also scares me about the next 8 weeks.
This administration is capable of almost the unimaginable to hold on to power for the Republicans.
Not that I would expect Bush and his GOP buddies to he honest with the American people, but it would be refreshing. For example, it would be refreshing if the GOP, when calling for unity, actually came out and admitted by what means they would like this unity to be achieved. We all know the unity they seek is not achieved through compromise (as ity should be), but through concession, coercion, and denial.
Basically, Bush is calling on Americans to ignore the atrocities of the Iraq war and the lies that led us there. He is calling upon Democrats in congress to give up their fight to challenge illegal administration tactics performed in the name of national security (illegal wiretaps, torture, tribunals, propaganda). And he is giving congressional hopefuls a stern warning that they had better fall in line with the President if they hope to be elected to office in November. We all know that making Democrats appear weak on national security is the ONLY way the GOP can retain the majority. They're likely churning out carbon copy dishonest smear campaign ads stating, "Democratic party candidate, _____________ (fill in the blank) wants to cut-and-run in Iraq, is against monitoring terror suspects, against secret prisons, wants terror suspects to have rights, and therefore doesn't care about national security and is not a true American." Throw in some 9/11 images, and the GOP could basically run that ad in any county in America and have a decent shot. Good thing for us Americans are smarter than that. Right?
Basically, by "unity," the President means "unquestioningly supporting a president and his policies, no matter how illegal, ineffective, or backward."
There is no such thing as non-partisan with Bush - every speech, appearance etc is a chance to go back the ol' talking points of Bush's wondrous Iraq adventure and, after all the carnage he has unleashed there, that he needs to stay to continue unleashing more carnage.
the whole foundation of the GOP and their media tools for the past few years, to hijack vague slogans and platitudes as their "value system" , while painting anything at odds with their program as against those values.
Once you've established "freedom" and "Victory"and "safety" and "Democracy" as your territory (never mind reality), it becomes pretty tough to get on the opposite side.
Of course, this depends on a majority of the people buying the act, which hopefully is a waning trend for the Repubs.
Early on he said
Yet on that awful day, we also witnessed something distinctly American: ordinary citizens rising to the occasion, and responding with extraordinary acts of courage. ...
Of course, he was not one of those people.
Pearl Harbor is doin' just fine! Great job, Bush!
The smirk & the swagger are gone. All that is left is an "Oh, sh*t, they're on to me" paralysis that you'd normally expect to find on a teenager trying to exlpain the bag of weed that mom & dad found under his mattress. He's busted. He's lost the American people, & he knows it.
The viscious, twisted lies that we've come to expect from the pugs is only going to get wilder & more desperate from here on. If they fear anything on this earth, its that the Democrats will gain the power of supoena, & the ability to unmask their gluttonous coruption & murderous lies. Rove thought that he was building a permanent congressional majority for them, but they now risk suffering minority status for a decade or more. They won't go down easily.
Expect the corporate media to also rev up their efforts for the reichwing, for they have almost as much to lose. They have BILLIONS laid out on the table, & depend upon the pugs to guarantee thier monoploistic investments. ABC, this week, completely whored themselves out the pugs, & we can safely expect they rest of the corporate propaganda machine to follow suit.
As a great American once said:
SAVE DEMOCRACY
VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!!
Doesn't contain SOME [partisan] political message. This goes for ALL Presidents.
Bush's 9/11 address to the nation INCLUDED perfectly acceptable topics...the ONLY one I would personally OBJECT to is Iraq. It did NOT belong there.
Iraq, as has been said here by MOST of us did NOT have a friggin thing to do with 9/11.
Keep in mind NOT everyone in the U.S. is politically active, or even remotely interested in partisan politics, or politics in general. When the President of the United States addresses them they don't take into account whether he's Republican, Democrat, Conservative, or Liberal.
On the 5th anniversary of 9/11 they want to hear the President pay tribute to the fallen. AND they want to know IF & HOW the government is keeping them safe from a repeat of a similar attack. It is NOT uncommon for ANY administration to attempt to tout their "accomplishments"....nor is it unusual for the opposition party to question those "accomplishments". I put "accomplishments" in quotation marks because there are arguments from EACH party on just what those "accomplishments" might or might not be.
There hasn't been an attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. It is perfectly natural for Bush to state this FACT. Of course he will tell the American people it is due to the EFFORTS put into operation on his watch. Do ANY of you seriously believe a Democratic President wouldn't also CLAIM the same thing?
It's a FACT there have been no attacks. The reason of course are debatable...
We don't KNOW why there's been NO attack. Could be Homeland Security, the F.B.I., C.I.A. and OTHER government agencies are in fact coordinating their efforts [unlike pre-9/11] and have thwarted terrorist plots.
Could be LUCK.
Could be the terrorists just haven't ATTEMPTED anything....yet.
Bottom line: Bush's address to the nation on 9/11 should NOT have included ANY mention of Iraq. THIS was NOT the time or place to TRY and convince us that this DISASTER, this COLOSSAL mistake, was part of the "War on Terror". It did NOT belong in a speech on 9/11.
The rest of it was nothing more or nothing less than I'd expect from ANY other President.
I'm pretty much in agreement with your comments, Jeter.
IMO it's politically risky for Bush to even talk about Iraq. A majority of Americans now believe the Iraq invasion was a mistake and I think people are generally tuning out what Bush says because so many times the picture in Iraq painted by the administration is completely different from the reality they see and hear about. Americans want results, not more speeches. What Bush is doing, IMO, is trying to rally support from his base... preaching to the choir, so to speak. I can't imagine that Karl Rove is so naive as to think Bush is going to change minds with speeches.
But, keep this in mind; the Democratic response to such speech by Bush is predicatble. Rove knows that Democrats will respond; and when Democrats respond Rove can always get FOX, Limbaugh, et als. to say "Ahaa! The Democrat Party is politicizing the war on terror again." It's all so predicatble and even childish in a way. And speaking of childishness what's this with right wingers, even the President, now referring to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party"? Silly... and dumb.
You claimed that Bush was "correct" to note the "fact" that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. Wrong! People have very short attention spans!! Did I imagine those anthrax letters? Remember those. That was a terrorist attack. That happened on Bush's watch and AFTER 9/11. Why isn't the media pointing out this misinformation?
If you want to be perfectly accurate, but petty :), "American soil" has been attacked multiple times since then - namely US embassies around the world.
Well thought out comments as usual, thanks.
However, one point > Bush would really be damned if he did and damned if he didn't here. He mentions Iraq, he is accused of politicizing his message. But if he hadn't mentioned Iraq, he would be accused of trying to distance himself from such a drag on his presidency.
That's a stretch, Tommy. The fact is that Bush's presidency is married to Iraq... and Bush is so resolute in his defense of the Iraq fiasco that it's impossible for him to distance himself from it even if he hadn't mentioned Iraq.
Had Bush simply commemorated the anniversary of 9/11 in a somber and quietly dignified way without mentioning Iraq the only risk he ran was of being statesman-like.
I don't disagree with you, but you know that some would have said this "I cannot believe that on this day, 9/11, the fifth anniversary of the most tragic day in our history, that the President made a speech without even mentioning the Iraq War - it is creating more terrorists and has made us less safe since that day five years ago. Why did he not reference it? Because he does not want to remind the American people of this disaster!"
Either Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi would have led with that, you can be sure.
Sorry... still disagree.
No. No one knows that. Speaking of damned if you do...It appears you are willing to condemn the Democrats for something they haven't even said, but for what you speculate they would say.
Besides, it isn't Democrats who obligatorily bring up Iraq as a part of the War on Terror. It is the President himself. If he can't seem to find a way out of the corner he painted himself into, why on Earth do you blame the Democrats?
Thanks for kind words :-)
As far as Bush being Dammed either way, I did think of that [and have heard it mentioned by a few people] AND I believe it would have been brought up--BUT only by the MOST extreme left-wing Bush haters that would FIND something, anything, to ATTACK him for.
I don't believe ANY reasonable Democrats would have suggested it. They would have come off sounding ridiculous. Even though I dislike BOTH Ted Kennedy & Nancy Pelosi, I don't know that either would have tried that tactic. AND if either did, I think it would have been greeted with a deafening SILENCE from other Democratic lawmakers. At least I would HOPE so....
Reasonable Democrats, you are correct. However, at the risk of being slammed here momentarily, Kennedy and Pelosi are anything but that, in my opinion.
Tommy, from time to time I have heard Kennedy and Pelosi complimented by Republican law makers for their cooperation in the passage of certain legislation. They are not unreasonable... you just don't share their political point of view.
You are correct, I do not share their political point of view. However, there are many Democrats whose views vastly differ from mine that I respect and find reasonable > i.e. Bayh, Feinstein, Biden, Edwards, Clinton, etc.
The reason I find them unreasonable is their hurriedness to make political hay and score points whenever and whereever they find it politically expedient. Their overriding objective, in my opinion, is to regain or retain or remain in power, even at the expense of civil discourse and reasonable opposition.
But it's my opinion, and you have yours.
like both sides aren't trying constantly to score points. and nobody is better than the republicans at trying to portray the other side as not only wrong, but totally unprincipled. when the truth is it's the gop that's more than willing to lie and smear.
So, President Chucklenuts spoke to.......hmmm.....to the citizens of America? No, he was speaking to his dwindling number of followers, the corporate zealots, and those that have no ability to have an independant thought! Dittoheads, Bill Bloviators, and Coultergiest zombies!!
Throughout his VERY political speech on 9/11/06 it was obvious he was not speaking to the 71% of us that know his days are numbered, he wasn't talking to the roughly 12% of us that could care less and don't bother with any of this political crap!
Which means that he was speaking to what, 17% of this country.....hmmm.....about the same amount of people that still think that Tricky Dick II (Cheney) is doing a good job!
I admit, Democrats aren't always right or are always on our side, but these last 6 years might well be the lesson that the Democrats only need to look upon to know what to do for whats right for the MAJORITY of America!!
The lists compiled clearly mirror the Bush speech. Perhaps we can expect any president to boast of his administration during a speech addressed to the nation, but the commemoration of 9-11 deserves more tact and grace than what this POTUS delivers.
The whole Bush presidency has been one loooong campaign, all sloganeering propaganda, no REAL leadership. He makes US all look like fools for having such an inept, inarticulate, and divisive "leader". Bush can heal a nation about as well as he can chew and choke down pretzels. I think he can't wait to retire (wish we had one 6-year term limit presidency--- and no K street-style gov't). I think he'd rather light farts and clear brush, that is his forte!
Whatever.
I think this interview speaks to the realities post 9-11 much better than the prez does:
"The World After 9/11", By Amy Davidson, The New Yorker,
Monday 11 September 2006
"Amy Davidson talks to Seymour M. Hersh, Jon Lee Anderson, and George Packer about Iraq, Afghanistan, the war on terror, and whether America is stronger now."
[link to www.truthout.org]
Is it my runaway imagination or is it true that the 1, 3 and 5 year anniversaries were the only years, so far, in which Bush made a point to commemorate 9/11? Years that are, coincidentally I'm sure, all elections years. It couldn't be that Bush is using the worst attack on US soil, again and again, for political gain, invoking the memory of 9/11 so people will develop a bad case of "fear goggles" and vote Republican only to awake on November 8 with the coyote ugly likes Katherine Harris at their elbows. No, that would be distasteful as calling Americans who don't agree with his policies appeasers or un-American, and certainly no one in his Camp has ever lowered themselves to attacking the patriotism of the dissenters. Why, that would be like a campaign commercial showing a one-armed veteran Democrat incumbent's face juxtaposed to those of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
Oh, wait a second…
When will Bush stop milking his biggest mistake, aside from Iraq, tax cuts for the rich, vetoing stem cell funding, cutting and running from Afghanistan, outing a CIA agent, cutting veterans’ benefits, and so on, for political browning points? And when will people stop genuflecting at the altar of reckless spendthrift policies and faux prescience guised as the messianic conservatism of the Reagan years? Bush 43 is no Ronald Reagan. He isn’t fit to fill Reagan’s frequent costar Bonzo’s maladroit shoes. The best way Bush 43’s could have served the interests of America is in a perpetual state of intoxication, just him and Jim and Jack communing with the Porcelain God every morning then back to a hard day’s hard drinking.
When I think of the lives that would have saved, it drives me to drink.