|
=======
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
|
|

Jan 9th, 2007, 06:07 PM
There really hasn't been so many leaks as there have been the media buying their own conjecture. I did hear that the speech might contain some long needed presidential illumination of some key concepts in the War on Terror, or whatever he plans on calling it.
That to me is the single most important thing that needs to change: The administration needs to spend more time selling what they are doing to the people that are paying for it. Any debate on the issue is useless since the side with all the actual information generally just smiles and says, "Trust Us." I don't like it. I've never liked, though I have gone along with it so far. At this point, however, that political strategy has failed here at home moreso than any military strategy has in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Just as we have done in our discussions here, Bush needs to be defining the terms used in describing this war. What is the War on Terror? What does winning it or losing it look like? What is peace? To make decisions, his administrations has already had to define the terms. Why not share them? By not doing so, detractors are left to argue against the war using whatever definitions of these key concepts they wish, which makes honest debate impossible.
I hope this serious misunderestimation is rectifidoodled with tomorrow night's addressification, though I've grown pretty damn pessimistic about any hopes I might have had that Bush would ever start actually communicating effectively. When it's all said and done, I suspect I'll be agreeing with Max that it was a waste of air-time.
|
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?
How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
|
|
|