Today on Blogcritics
Home » How Bush Bushwhacked Himself, Nation Too

How Bush Bushwhacked Himself, Nation Too

President George W. Bush told us the war in Iraq was over too soon, which gave the wrong impression, because it’s really just beginning. The result? His opponents can easily bash him on his Iraq policy, the American people have lost faith in him for his lack of candor with us, and it makes it much harder for the President, himself, to do what he must do to make America succeed in Iraq: sell the idea of continued occupation to the American people. Want more proof?

Click here (requires registration to read). Here’s a snippet:

“I don’t care if the public is buying an automobile, a drug that cures allergies or a foreign policy,” said Donny Deutsch, an advertising executive in New York. “It’s basically `Give them the facts.’ ” On Iraq, Mr. Deutsch said, “forget whether this was the right or wrong move, and in their hearts, most Americans were behind it. Good selling starts with complete candor.”

Given these parameters, interviews last week with historians, advertising executives, pollsters and Democratic and Republican image-makers turned up this consensus: Mr. Bush has to do a better job — or at least a more extensive job — of selling Americans on Iraq and the American occupation, no matter what anyone might think of the policy itself.

Many of those interviewed, including some Republicans, said Mr. Bush’s speech two weeks ago, when he said he would ask Congress for $87 billion to pay for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, has turned out to be one of the biggest political eggs laid this year.

From an advertising point of view, Mr. Bush was perhaps too successful, or inadvertently sold the wrong product. The most famous number in America right now, pollsters said, was that stunning $87 billion, a symbol of how entangled the United States is in Baghdad nearly five months after Mr. Bush declared major combat at an end.

Certainly various polls conducted after Mr. Bush’s speech, a prime-time address on Sept. 7, show that his words did not reassure the public. In late August, a Gallup poll found that 59 percent of Americans approved of the job Mr. Bush was doing. But that number dropped to 52 percent in a Gallup poll conducted from Sept. 8 to 10, right after Mr. Bush’s speech.

Reagan was right, government isn’t the solution to our problems, especially when government isn’t honest with the people it serves.

Cheers.

About Mr. Real Estate

  • debbie

    “President George W. Bush told us the war in Iraq was over too soon, which gave the wrong impression, because it’s really just beginning. The result? His opponents can easily bash him on his Iraq policy, the American people have lost faith in him for his lack of candor with us, and it makes it much harder for the President, himself, to do what he must do to make America succeed in Iraq: sell the idea of continued occupation to the American people. Want more proof?”

    I don’t know that I would still call the current situation a “war” in Iraq.
    They are not fighting against an “army” anymore, it is against a small minority (when compared to the population) of Iraq. That and the influx of terrorist coming into Iraq that are determined to halt any progress being made for the Iraqis.

    I don’t see where Bush said anything “too soon” he has always said that there is “still much to be done”. He has never said that the aggressions are completely over, that there aren’t still some attacks against us. Just as I don’t think that you are actually saying that the level of fighting is the same as when this war started.

  • http://www.homeintampabay.com John Mudd

    Bush’s problem is that he says contradicting things at different times, plus, he was dishonest about the uranium thing, so I wouldn’t trust him anymore than I would Bill Clinton, who I would actually trust more thant President Bush, since at least he’s honest about his philandering these days. Clinton’s a lot more authentic to me than President Bush is, a lot more human.

    By the way, that reminds me of something.

    More Americans will support a president, as seen with Clinton, who can take care of the country, even if they’re dishonest, than they will an honest president who fumbles the country’s needs.

    Bush has been dishonest with the nation about the uranium thing, but he fumbles the actual needs of American citizens.

    Are we better off than we were four years ago.

    Are you?

    Am I?

    Two out of three answers, at least, are “no”.

    So, as I’ve posed the question before:

    “Why should I vote for Bush in 2004?”

    Why not vote for Hillary? Her husband governed the nation as a centrist-conservative, so why wouldn’t she?

    Why not vote for Wesley Clark? He seems more conservative than Bush.

    Maybe Democrats are re-aligning to be more conservative to fit the nation’s preferences. Maybe Republicans are re-aligning themselves to become more liberal fiscally.

    Since we’re clearly not better off than we were 4 years ago and since we’re stuck on international affairs, I am reminded of 1980 and Bush reminds me of Jimmie Carter.

    Bush campaign insiders really should be worried since I’m saying that, being a Republican and all, and I’m not the only one, either.

    All the Democrats need is a Ronald Reagan, and Hillary does fit the bill in many ways.

    I still predict, as I did a long, long time ago, that Bush, Jr. will become “One Term, Jr.”

    Cheers.