Thursday, January 11, 2007

AP ANALYSIS OF BUSH'S 20-MINUTE IRAQ SPEECH-IMPEDIMENT

AP-UNIVERSE (BIzaRRowORld)--I've got to hand it to the AP, they know how to preserve their jobs in times of concentrated media-ownership. So, maybe all that stuff they taught them in their journalism classes was a formality, who knew? Ownership, of course. Today, they have an "analysis" of President Bush's speech (impediment) from last-night, and without a hint of irony, they make two conflicting-statements in the piece:

If, even if [Ed.-their grammatical-error, not mine.] with the help of some Republicans, Congress is able to pass legislation, such as that proposed this week by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., to require Bush to get congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq, Bush will surely veto it. And, given the slim margin of Democratic control, such a veto would almost certainly be sustained. (AP, 01.11.2007)

But then, further-down in the piece: "More and more Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Bush and the war." (ibid) Granted, they cover themselves with the cachet, "almost certainly", but this second quote is the unknown-factor. How will they vote? They don;t even know yet, but it's likely they'll vote in a way they don't want to. This is why the AP goes to great-lengths to under-emphasize it in the analysis. How will these GOP incumbents vote? True, we don't know, but we do know nothing will change in Iraq, so...this will preserve their loyalty to Bush's strategy in Iraq, how? There is also an overemphasis on how-divided the Democrats are, with little to their counterparts in the GOP. So, yes, the article is correct in stating that the Democrats aren't united on where to go next, but there seems to be too-much assurance that GOP incumbents are going to go-to-bat for the President irregardless of the conflicting-trends and the potential political-costs if they vote with the Bush administration on continued-funds. I think defunding is inevitable, it's just a matter of when.

Confused? I'm not. I think the defections will be pretty-shocking to most observers, and they will be GOP ones. The problem is, the Editors in the mainstream media don't fully-realize that the context has changed, but institutions have their own inertia. They don't seem to understand the implications of the November elections yet, or how this affects the political dynamic. Politicians like being reelected, and Iraq is a minefield for anyone who has supported it in-the-past. What is being attempted is to provide some damage-control for everyone who voted for the war in Iraq--this would include Speaker Pelosi. It was a tiny-minority who voted-against the war, and Ted Kennedy was one of them, Russell Feingold another. The GOP's support was practically unconditional. After that, those like Hillary Clinton, Lieberman, and all the others who still back the administration's war-aims will move where the political-winds are blowing--this is what you can count on them to do.

I think the Democrats are going to do what I would, and in some cases already have: voice-concerns over the direction of the war, oppose funding of any further- escalations, and let it fall-apart while Bush is still in-office. The public tends-to-forget that the GOP loves to place the blame on someone else with their own fictitious-narrative (as with Vietnam). Anything is acceptable as an alternative to the GOP being in-power again, and it's horrible to play God with the lives of soldiers, but that's exactly what the GOP has done from-day-one in Iraq. But I believe the Democrats will also do what I would do--begin hearings and investigations, examining every red-penny going into Iraq. In fact, they are doing so now, Secretary of State Rice is being grilled as I write this. Genuine scrutiny will reveal ongoing-corruption and practices that were never given any oversight under GOP-rule.

We know the paper-shredders are working overtime now, but when you have policies and approaches that are legally-unsound, it's just a matter of picking what to sink the Bush administration with. The problem might be evidence of greater-complicity by Democratic leaders, both former and present. It's not openly-implied in AP's analysis, but the President's speech last-night added nothing to the dialog, nor any new-ideas in the strategy in Iraq. The phony war is ending. Aren't you glad you didn't throw-in-your-lot with the President? A lot of Democrats and Republicans are wishing that right-now...especially the GOP ones who now find themselves in the private-sector. Some Democrats can look-forward to this as well.


AP's "WTF?!"-Analysis:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_analysis

A More Sound-Analysis from Bloomberg:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070111/pl_bloomberg/aft8qmbrvons

3 comments:

Karl said...

M-

Any response to Bush's speech from Donnelly?

Also, do you know which committees Donnelly has been assigned to? (I heard agriculture from the southbendforum.com crowd...)

Matt Janovic said...

It wouldn't be signicant, he's a rookie. I'm waiting on progressive taxation, some big-big ones, the war--I think we know he's voting with the majority not to escalate. It's unlikely he'll vote against where his party is heading. It's normal for a new rep. to vote with their party almost 100% of the time. I haven't noticed any coverage of Donnelly yet on the speech. I don't think the speech merits a verbal or written-response. We should start shutting-him-down now. The groundswell is beginning.

Matt Janovic said...

PS-Be sure to sign the petitions (you agree-with) against escalation! I am.