WP: Bush Words Reflect Public Opinion Strategy (wartime propaganda?)

[Pirate Smile]

Bush Words Reflect Public Opinion Strategy

By Peter Baker and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 30, 2005; Page A01

When President Bush confidently predicts victory in Iraq and admits no mistakes, admirers see steely resolve and critics see exasperating stubbornness. But the president's full-speed-ahead message articulated in this week's prime-time address also reflects a purposeful strategy based on extensive study of public opinion about how to maintain support for a costly and problem-plagued military mission.

The White House recently brought onto its staff one of the nation's top academic experts on public opinion during wartime, whose studies are now helping Bush craft his message two years into a war with no easy end in sight. Behind the president's speech is a conviction among White House officials that the battle for public opinion on Iraq hinges on their success in convincing Americans that, whatever their views of going to war in the first place, the conflict there must and can be won.

"There's going to be an appetite by some to relitigate past decisions," said White House counselor Dan Bartlett. But the studies consulted by the White House show that in the long run public support for war is "mostly linked to whether you think you can prevail," he added, which is one reason it is important for Bush to explain "why he thinks it's working and why he thinks it'll win."

For Bush, Bartlett emphasized, the public rhetoric matches the private conviction that his strategy will succeed. But it also leaves Bush in the difficult position of balancing confidence and credibility. The more optimism Bush expresses, the more criticism he draws from Congress and commentators that he is not facing the reality of a tenacious insurgency that, according to U.S. military commanders, remains as potent today as six months ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062902792.html

[kainah]

1. relitigate?

"There's going to be an appetite by some to relitigate past decisions,"

What an odd phase from Bartlett. I would settle for some debate but, then again, I'm all for some war crimes trials, too.

[Pirate Smile]

2. I'm up for "relitigating" it. How about in front of a jury of the Senate?

More:

In shaping their message, White House officials have drawn on the work of Duke University political scientists Peter D. Feaver and Christopher F. Gelpi, who have examined public opinion on Iraq and previous conflicts. Feaver, who served on the staff of the National Security Council in the early years of the Clinton administration, joined the Bush NSC staff about a month ago as special adviser for strategic planning and institutional reform.

Feaver and Gelpi categorized people on the basis of two questions: "Was the decision to go to war in Iraq right or wrong?" and "Can the United States ultimately win?" In their analysis, the key issue now is how people feel about the prospect of winning. They concluded that many of the questions asked in public opinion polls -- such as whether going to war was worth it and whether casualties are at an unacceptable level -- are far less relevant now in gauging public tolerance or patience for the road ahead than the question of whether people believe the war is winnable.

-snip-
In studying past wars, they have drawn lessons different from the conventional wisdom. Bush advisers challenge the widespread view that public opinion turned sour on the Vietnam War because of mounting casualties that were beamed into living rooms every night. Instead, Bush advisers have concluded that public opinion shifted after opinion leaders signaled that they no longer believed the United States could win in Vietnam.

-snip-
But Gelpi, whose studies with Feaver have helped influence the White House thinking, said he thinks the president did not truly achieve what he needed to with the Tuesday speech. As Gelpi described it, the American people remained supportive of the Iraq effort through much of 2004 despite extensive violence in large part because they saw incremental goals being met -- first the handover of partial sovereignty last summer, and then the democratic elections in January.

[Dover]

4. well it's better than Bush's regurgitating. n.t

[Dover]

3. They could have saved money and just hired his daddy.. "stay the course"

"1000 points of light"
"wouldn't be prudent"

Hey it worked for daddy........................oh wait.......

[AndyTiedye]

5. The Decisions Must Indeed be Litigated -- There is a Court Just For That

The Peace Palace, the Hague. Location of the International Criminal Court

[Daphne08]

6. I assume this is ALSO being funded by our tax dollars!

:eyes:

[Straight Shooter]

7. We are paying to be conned by the neocons.

This is bullshit. They hire experts so bush can avoid being upfront and honest with Americans, and we're paying for it.

[Tempest]

8. Bush was "catapulting the propaganda"

And the public (not to mention the soldiers attending) saw right through it.

[Canuck55]

9. typical

"Bush has never been one to dwell publicly on past miscalculations in Iraq, on such issues as weapons of mass destruction,... "

-------------------------------


How easily they forget his folksy improv of 'looking' for WMD under the cushions in the White House.

[WhiteTara]

12. now they're pretending the soldiers didn't

applaud or show enthusiasm because they were "told not to"

Troops' Silence at Fort Bragg Starts a Debate All Its Own

When President Bush visits military bases, he invariably receives a foot-stomping, loud ovation at every applause line. At bases like Fort Bragg - the backdrop for his Tuesday night speech on Iraq - the clapping is often interspersed with calls of "Hoo-ah," the military's all-purpose, spirited response to, well, almost anything.


Forum: The Transition in Iraq

So the silence during his speech was more than a little noticeable, both on television and in the hall. On Wednesday, as Mr. Bush's repeated use of the imagery of the Sept. 11 attacks drew bitter criticism from Congressional Democrats, there was a parallel debate under way about whether the troops sat on their hands because they were not impressed, or because they thought that was their orders.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/politics/30speech.html

[daleo]

10. A better advertising slogan

That's all the Iraq war needs. It's all so simple now.

How about the Nike slogan "Just do it". Bush can change it to "Just win it". The Iraqi resistance will fold when it sees such military and political genius arrayed against it.

[are_we_united_yet]

11. whatever