In my youth in the 1930s and in World War II, back in the days when Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt was president of the United States, when it was announced he would be speaking on the radio, throughout this nation families gathered around the radio and listened to what he had to say. The New York Times printed what he said IN FULL in its next edition.
Yet, it is almost impossible, it seems, for Republican George W. Bush to get the national media to even mention anything he actually says in this so-called "information age." If you really want to know what President Bush says especially if it is upbeat or positive - you have to find it on the Internet.
For example, let’s look at the coverage of the the major speech on Iraq given yesterday by President Bush at the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland. His main point was summed up in the following two paragraphs:
"Some are calling for a deadline for withdrawal. Many advocating an artificial timetable for withdrawing our troops are sincere -- but I believe they're sincerely wrong. Pulling our troops out before they've achieved their purpose is not a plan for victory. As Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman said recently, setting an artificial timetable would "discourage our troops because it seems to be heading for the door. It will encourage the terrorists, it will confuse the Iraqi people."
"Senator Lieberman is right. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is a weak and an unreliable ally. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies -- that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends. And setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorists' tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder -- and invite new attacks on America. To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your Commander-in-Chief. (Applause.) "
Now, if you have gotten this far in reading this article, you have spent approximately one minute in finding out the President’s main point. If you read the entire speech, which might take you 30 minutes, you would get a full understanding of why he said that. Or, you could actually go on the White House website and read the entire document that outlines the President’s 38 page < National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.
On the other hand, you can spend hours or days listening to or reading the opinions of others who may, or may not, have heard or read his speech but almost certainly have not read his entire National Strategy for Victory in Iraq document. For example, in an "analysis" authored by the Washington Post today entitled "An Offering of Detail But No New Substance" some how Peter Baker managed to write a lengthy article without even mentioning ANYTHING the President of the United States actually said in his speech. Baker’s first two paragraphs in "analyzing" the speech were:
"Thirty-two months after U.S. forces invaded Iraq, President Bush's advisers concluded that his message of stay the course’ has been translated by a weary American public as stay forever.’ And so yesterday the president tried to reassure the nation that he has a comprehensive vision for beating the insurgency and eventually bringing U.S. troops home.
"The message was hardly subtle as the White House posted a 35-page >National Strategy for Victory in Iraq’ on its Web site and hung dozens of "Plan for Victory" signs behind Bush as he addressed midshipmen in Annapolis. But it was intended to reshape the argument against critics who have been gaining traction with congressional calls to withdraw troops immediately or at least set a timetable for pulling out."
I could not even find a report on the President’s actual speech on ABC News’ website, although there was an article entitled, "Pace: Message of Iraq Progress Stymied" that mentioned a speech made apparently the same day by General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. President Bush’s speech was summarily dismissed in a couple of sentences:
"Pace spoke a day after President Bush used a speech at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., to spell out what he called his strategy for victory in Iraq.
"Bush's plan contained no new approaches and no start date for withdrawing U.S. troops. But he indicated that by 2006, Iraqi forces will be sufficiently trained to let American troops shift to less visible and possibly less dangerous roles."
CNN, on the other hand, features headlines about a "poll" they apparently took, rather than the President’s speech. Their headline reads: "Poll: Most doubt Bush has plan for Iraq victory" and the first 2 paragraphs of the story reads:
"As President Bush launched a new effort Wednesday to gain public support for the Iraq war, a new poll found most Americans do not believe he has a plan that will achieve victory.
"But the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday night also found nearly six in 10 Americans said U.S. troops should not be withdrawn from Iraq until certain goals are achieved."
Most of the millions of people around the world who get their news from CNN will continue to believe that you and other Americans don’t even think your president HAS a plan than can achieve victory. And, that made me go back and re-read an article in the November 30, 2005 American Thinker that sent to me by Len, one of my readers.
Vasko Kohlmayer, author of the article, entitled "The Left’s Secret Pact: Subverting the War on Terror" puts forth the sobering thought that the media and the political left are not as innocent at the President seems to believe but are, in fact actually deliberately sabotaging the War on Terror to "give relief to the other side."
Whether or not they INTEND to sabotage the War on Terror, there is no doubt in my mind from reading the reports of foreign newspapers and commentators that those who want to destroy us and the political enemies of President Bush do believe they can eventually cause the Americans to "cut and run" as we did in Vietnam and the Sudan with their misinformation techniques.
