What's the consensus on Bush's speech last night?

[TOAD6147]

I didn't watch it but it's interesting to read some of former Sec. Of State Madeline Albright's reactions to it with Paula Zahn on CNN:

Quote:

CNN) -- Monday evening President Bush outlined to the American people his plan for transitioning Iraq into a free and democratic nation.

Madeleine Albright, who was secretary of state during Bill Clinton's presidency, watched the speech and shared her thoughts with CNN's Paula Zahn.

ZAHN: How plausible is this plan that the president laid out tonight?

ALBRIGHT: Well, he laid out five points, but they raise as many questions as he provided ideas about.

First of all, there's still no guarantee that the Iraqi people will accept whatever interim government -- the sovereignty that we are going to turn over something to somebody -- but we're not clear yet what is what.

The other question is whether the security will really be adequate because [these are] the same points that were made before: the Americans will train the Iraqis. How long will that take?

Will there be help, in terms of the reconstruction of Iraq? Where will it come from? Who will do it? We have to let contracts [go] to somebody other than American companies.

Will there, in fact, be international assistance, generally, on providing a multi-national force? And will these elections really take place?

So there are many, many questions, and I don't think there was anything particularly new. It was a little bit more organized than the ideas that we've heard before. And I'm glad that the president decided he had to talk to the American people.

But there is no timeline. And just because the president says it is so, doesn't mean that it really is based in reality. So I think there are a lot more questions that we still have to answer.

She went on to say how she is glad that he now sees the importance of the involvement of the UN in any resolution in Iraq. Personally, I would tell him to go pound salt if I was UN secretary General. But then he's a bigger man than some.

[Theophylact]

What I've generally seen is that (except for ultrapartisan sources such as Tom DeLay), there was practically no enthusiasm whatsoever, even among Republicans: according to the New York Times,

Quote:

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said that over the next few weeks the president would have to continue trying to communicate his vision for Iraq in an atmosphere when much of the news that reaches the public from Iraq is bad.

"I think the point he is trying to make is that there is a plan and the plan if implemented — and I am confident it will be implemented — will really be in record time," said Mr. McConnell, referring to the span between the fall of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a sovereign new government.

I wouldn't characterize that as a positive reaction: "continue trying," "point he is trying to make," "if implemented," "really be in record time" all suggest a lack of confidence, despite McConnell's disclaimer.

Even the audience at the Army War College applauded only infrequently during a 30-minute speech.

Subtracting out the political reaction, commentators generally said this: no answers to the real questions being asked (how long, how many troops, who are we handing the reins over to, what real powers will the new government have); goals and intentions, but no plans; continued claims that the reason for the war was to fight terror; lack of specifics about the future.

The one real novelty was that he spoke for the first time of the US "occupation" of Iraq. Before, he's always spoken of US troops as "liberators," not "occupiers."

[TOAD6147]

Theophylact wrote:

Quote:

...he spoke for the first time of the US "occupation" of Iraq. Before, he's always spoken of US troops as "liberators," not "occupiers."

So, does that imply he's going to stop misdleading the American public and start telling the truth?

[Theophylact]

Don't hold your breath...