Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

On June 28, President Bush plans to deliver a nationally televised speech designed to assuage American concerns about the success of the war in Iraq. With new polling data suggesting that Americans are as skeptical as ever about our prospects for victory in this war, and with some of his staunchest supporters (such as Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina and National Review founder William F. Buckley) beginning to express concerns, Bush plans to reassure the country that we can win–and reassert that a victory in Iraq is essential to winning the overall War on Terror.

I have just one question: what took him so long?

This should have been done months ago. Apparently, the Bush Administration misinterpreted the results of last fall’s presidential election. Though Bush soundly defeated John Kerry, that was not necessarily a vote of confidence in the way Bush was handling Iraq; rather, it was a vote of "no confidence" concerning Kerry’s ability to be President. The misgivings about our prospects for success in Iraq were still there; they were just overshadowed by Kerry’s Keystone Kop behavior as a candidate (i.e., "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it," his inherently contradictory assertions that he was both pro-choice and a believer in the concept that life begins at conception, his refusal to take Bill Clinton’s advice and come out in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as a means of taking the issue away from Bush). A majority of voters felt that Kerry was "Unfit for Command", but that didn’t mean that they thought Bush was perfect, or even near-perfect. Why didn’t the Bush Administration realize that? Why have they waited so long to confront the anxieties that so many have about Operation Iraqi Freedom?

I do believe that we can’t pull out of Iraq until we establish something that at the very least resembles a democracy. I do believe that a democratic (or close-enough-to-democratic) Iraq will have a positive effect on the Middle East, an effect that will reduce the overall threat of terrorism to the United States. But I don’t believe that the Bush Administration has effectively made that case to the American people.

It says something that the people who are making the most effective case for "staying the course" in Iraq are Bush’s supporters in the conservative media, such as Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and the Weekly Standard. Why is it that talk-show hosts and magazines are making a better case for this war than the administration itself? Why aren’t Rice and Cheney and Rumsfeld defending this war with the clarity of O’Reilly, Hannity and Bill Kristol? Has the Bush Administration decided to outsource the job of defending this war?

Because the Bush Administration has thus far failed to emphasize the importance of Iraq to the overall War on Terror, anxiety and ambivalence are the order of the day. I supported the decision to go into Iraq in 2003, not because I felt Saddam had any involvement in 9/11 (I’ve never bought the subsequent argument by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were in cahoots), but because I felt strongly that Hussein, like Fidel Castro, would without question launch a follow-up 9/11-style attack on America if given the chance–and that the wisest thing to do was to act pre-emptively and take him out first. (I still feel the same way about Castro.)  The failure to locate Weapons of Mass Destruction was a huge embarrassment, though I think the fault for this ultimately lies with the CIA, not Bush per se. I wasn’t thrilled that Bush had to change the primarily rationale for the war, but I do believe that the current rationale–the establishment of a functioning democracy in the Middle East as a means of dissipating the overall threat of terrorism from that region–is a valid one.

But Bush has to make that case firmly to the American people, and he must do so on June 28th. Bush has to deliver the speech of his life–it has to be more rousing, more stirring than even the 1987 Ronald Reagan "Tear down this wall" speech. This is a situation where cannot deliver a lackluster or mediocre performance. In the strongest terms possible, he must assert that a victory in this war is a linchpin in the overall War on Terror, and that the US cannot give up until we achieve this victory. If this speech is flat or uninspiring in any way, he will have effectively lost the war. It’s that serious.

UPDATE: Republican Sens. John McCain and Chuck Hagel get nervous about Iraq.

SECOND UPDATE: National Review Online weighs in.

THIRD UPDATE: Smelling blood, the Democrats turn up the heat.