|
Bush's Speech
With Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 2, 2003; 12:30 p.m. ET
What did you think of President Bush's speech to the nation? Where must the administration focus now that major combat operations have ended in Iraq? What implications will Bush's remarks have, both in the United States and abroad?
Washington Post White House reporter Dana Milbank was online to take your questions and comments on Bush's speech to the nation.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Pittsburgh, Pa.:
I know you are a reporter and not a political analyst (though I used to enjoy your New Republic work), but what do you think the chances are of Team Bush overplaying its hand? I thought that the whole episode yesterday was a disgraceful (not to mention cocky) display of triumphalism, especially since our men and women are still very much on harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. These people are acting very much like they can do no wrong -- when is it going to start catching up to them? And where are those National Guard records from 1972-73?
Dana Milbank: Thanks for the question. I asked a couple of analysts about that while reporting the story yesterday. There really is little danger of Bush overdoing the flag-waving theme. Americans love such displays. In theory, there are limits -- a landing on a different carrier each week -- but it is doubtful Bush would reach them. He has built up credibility as war leader so he doesn't run the danger of being seen as Dukakis-in-tank.
Washington, D.C.:
How can Bush rightly claim victory in Iraq? As I remember, U.N. security council resolution 1441 gave Iraq one last chance to discard its WMD. Before the war, Bush gave many speeches urging Saddam Hussain to disarm otherwise Bush would lead a 'coalition of the willing' to disarm him by force. As each day passes by without the discovery of the elusive WMDs, what exactly has Bush achieved except destroying a fully functioning third world country? Was regime change even mentioned in resolution 1441 which was used by the Bush Administration to launch this war? If WMDs don't turn up, can this war be justified by Resolution 1441?
Dana Milbank: It is no accident that last night's speech devoted little attention to weapons of mass destruction. In fact, Bush dropped any assertion that Iraq had such weapons at all. Another newspaper -- won't name it here -- this morning quoted an anonymous administration official saying it was unlikely chemical and biological weapons would be found because Saddam Hussein "couldn't put them together as long as the inspections were going on."
Obviously, if that proves to be the case, the administration has a real problem on its hands, because that was the main justification for the war in the first place. It's not a domestic problem; polls show Americans are pleased with the removal of Hussein even if weapons are not found. But it would impair the American diplomatic image in Europe and, particularly, the Arab world.
Many experts believe WMD still will be found in Iraq, and I tend to believe them. The interesting question will be whether only trace quantities are found, meaning Hussein did not represent the threat to the world that was claimed.
Laurel, Md.:
Why is the press softballing Bush about Iraq? How come no one is challenging him regarding the fact he still ties Iraq with al Qaeda? And how about the fact that no "weapons of mass destruction" have even been found in Iraq which was the administration's main justification for our invasion?
Dana Milbank: I don't think the press has been particularly soft on Bush about linking Iraq and al Qaeda. I know we have written regularly about the absence of evidence of serious links. It may be that the administration, after hinting at a link, stepped back from such rhetoric in the runup to the war, preferring to focus on Iraq's weapons.
Last night's speech was a dramatic return to the linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda, which is why my analysis focused on that point. If you read the text carefully, the president did not directly assert a linkage. But in the way he juxtaposed sentences and paragraphs, a reasonable person would have concluded from the speech that Saddam Hussein was, in fact, responsible for Sept. 11. The administration's rhetoric has helped to firm this (mis) impression in the public's mind. The Post and others continue to point out the lack of evidence, but most Americans get their news through television and see these linkages being made unchallenged.
Conway, Ark.:
Dana: Is it really seemly for a civilian President with no active duty military record to a don military unifrom? It seems questionable morally, and also suspect politically, as it naturally reminds people that he may not have completed his National Guard commitments honorably.
Dana Milbank: It is interesting that the White House had no concern that the carrier landing would revive the questions about Bush's service in the National Guard. The president yesterday even spoke fondly of his pilot days. This reflects the vast change in Bush's standing on national security issues and the White House's confidence that Bush is untouchable on military matters.
As for wearing military garb, the experts I checked with said it is unlikely any president had done that since Teddy Roosevelt, and that was before such images would be broadcast into millions of homes. Even true military figures, such as Eisenhower, avoided wearing uniform as president.
It is fair to ask whether the presentation of the civilian commander-in-chief in military clothing is wise. My belief, though, is the public will generally not question it.
Arlington, Va.:
Remember the flap over Bill Clinton's airport haircut? Just how much did Bush's photo op cost last night?
Dana Milbank: Unlikely we will know. Much of the cost is in security, which is classified, or absorbed by the Pentagon. Presidential travel is expensive; the California trip Bush is now taking is certainly in the hundreds of thousands. The actual carrier landing probably was not the major cost, because only a couple of aides traveled with Bush.
Vienna, Va.:
First of all, why do we have to pick the speech apart and analyze it word for word? Unlike Clinton, Bush doesn't talk in circles -- He means EXACTLY what he says and says EXACTLY what he means. For instance, the reference that Iraq is now free from a brutal tyrant does not mean maybe -- it means just that. Iraq IS free from this brutal regime. When he says that this war was necessary, he doesn't mean maybe -- he means exactly that. It was in fact necessary. If the public doesn't understand what this man is saying, that is not his fault. They just aren't listening -- especially in notoriously anti-Bush places like Berkeley, Calif. or Boston, Mass.
Dana Milbank: Here's why we analyze it. Consider this excerpt from the transcript of Bush's speech last night:
"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass
destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. (Applause.)
"In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got. (Applause.)"
Does Bush mean exactly what he said? If so, he certainly seems to be blaming Saddam Hussein for the "cold murder of children" on Sept. 11. The task in an analysis -- and the job of the press generally -- is to sort through the assertions and implications and assess them for their accuracy.
Cebtreville, Va.:
I guess we can regard the display yesterday as the beginning of the 2004 campaign -- right?
Dana Milbank: Probably so. The Democratic candidates are scheduled to debate in South Carolina tomorrow night, so that part of the campaign is well underway. Bush, with no primary challenge, won't campaign in earnest until late 2004. But yesterday's event, by associating Bush closely with military strength and victory, is central to the theme that is being developed for the president's campaign. Ultimately, the question is whether the campaign becomes more about that military/security theme or, as today's employment numbers underscore, the economy.
Alexandria, Va.:
A flight suit such as what the President was wearing is NOT a "military uniform" in the sense that a dress uniform is. A flight suit is a utilitarian jumpsuit with all the storage and attachments that pilots and aircrew require for the mission of flying the jet. It's also a key element of the survival gear, being fireproof, fairly resistant to the elements, and durable. And they're easily available to civilians, whether in military green or other colors. So this question of the "appropriateness" of Bush wearing said flightsuit is moot.
Dana Milbank: Quite true about the uniform. I was trying to use ther more general term 'military garb' but may have misstated it. Not sure I agree on the final point, though. Presidents commonly wear bomber jackets on Air Force I or at Camp David, but those are not the sort of thing that would be used in combat and therefore don't provoke question. This clothing was combat gear, and therefore provoked questions.
Arlington, Va.:
Obviously those of us who see Bush as a crook and a liar are inclined to see last night's event as a massively cynical display of hubris, while those who think he can do no wrong see it as the commander in chief looking strong and proud. What about the people in the middle? Is there any indication that aircraft carrier speeches do much to sway the people in the middle one way or the other?
Dana Milbank: Time, and polls, will tell. As the Post-ABC poll today shows, Bush got a nice boost in popularity out of the war, though not as great as his father had after the earlier Iraq war. Also, the popularity did not extend to Bush's standing on the economy and the budget. One thing is safe, though: The vast majority of Americans, those not participating in political web chats such as these, paid little attention to the speech and will be little affected by it.
Thank you all for being part of that group of Americans that does care about our civic life. And with that, I'm off to work on the next story.
washingtonpost.com:
That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
Stay Tuned to Live Online:
Bob
Levey: Speaking Freely, 1 p.m. ET
Style
Invitational Cartoonist Bob Staake, 1 p.m. ET
Author/Publisher
Stephen Brill, 1 p.m. ET
Wall
Street Settlement: N.Y. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, 2 p.m.
ET
Redskins:
Vinny Cerrato, 2 p.m. ET
White
House on Bush Speech, 3:45 p.m. ET
Keep up with the best Live Online has to offer and special breaking news
discussions. Sign up for the Live Online
e-mail
newsletter.
| |
© Copyright 2003 The Washington Post Company | 
