Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |   E-mail Dan  |  

The Hardest Sell

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, January 9, 2007; 4:16 PM

One should never underestimate the sheer volume of a president's megaphone. But beyond a certain point, it really does matter what he says.

It is clear by now that President Bush has no interest in heeding all the calls to reverse course in Iraq and that in tomorrow night's speech he will call for an escalation, not an exit.

But how will he convince American voters -- and the Democratic Congress -- to give him another shot? The public is so unhappy with the situation in Iraq and so deeply mistrustful of Bush's leadership there that yet another razzle-dazzle PR blitz with the same stale talking points just isn't likely to do the trick.

The big question, therefore, is how Bush will deliver his message tomorrow, and whether he'll respond to all the skepticism out there by being more candid and forthcoming.

Will the president continue with his divisive, dismissive and deceptive rhetoric -- or will he level with the American people, engage his critics and forthrightly explore the risks and rewards of his plan? Because if he does the latter, he just might restore some of his credibility on this important issue and win back some public support.

Here are some of the things to keep an eye out for tomorrow night:

* Will he acknowledge the real, specific concerns that many Americans have with this particular war and the way it's been waged? Or will he once again belittle the public angst by ascribing it to too much carnage on TV and a general aversion to warfare?

* Will he engage and address the actual arguments voiced by critics? Or will he simply fight straw men of his own creation?

* Specifically, will he acknowledge the argument that the presence of American troops makes things worse in Iraq, rather than better?

* Will he acknowledge the message American voters sent about Iraq in November, and explain why he doesn't feel obliged to heed the public will? Will he explain why he and the public seem to have reached such different conclusions?

* Will he agree to engage in dialogue -- not just consultation -- with those who disagree with him, and possibly even in public?

* Will he be up front about the possible consequences of a failed escalation -- specifically, the cost in human lives? Will he acknowledge the human suffering?


CONTINUED     1                 >


© 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive