Iraq speeches have done little to buoy war support

[deadparrot]

WASHINGTON — Like a man on a treadmill, President Bush has gotten almost nowhere making speeches over the past seven months to boost public support for the war in Iraq.

Since Bush began a round of Iraq speeches last fall, approval for his handling of Iraq has remained stuck, with about a third of the nation approving what he's doing.

Shortly before the speeches began in late September, 32% of Americans approved of Bush's handling of Iraq, according to a Sept. 16-18 USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

The rating inched up as high as 39% in the ensuing months, but the latest poll, taken April 7-9, showed that approval had dropped back to 32%.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-13-iraq-speeches_x.htm

[Journeyman]

1. Couple that with his record influencing people through speeches. . .

about Social Security and any reasonable person would conclude that stupid people have very little influence on the important debates of their day. But don't let that deter you, George. The more people realize they can't understand you, the more they realize your policies are dimwitted, too. Good for you, George. You are succeeding! Don't let the "librul press" stop you.

[cliss]

2. The reason for that -

is what a clever poster wrote: This man is still trying to sell us on a war he started 3 years ago. Bush should have called me. I would have set him straight. Here's how our phone conversation would have sounded:

Bush: Well, what's the problem? Why am I not getting anywhere?

Cliss: Because you still promoting the war, George. You seem to still be in the "campaign" or "selling" mode. It's three years later, George. People have already formed opinions about the war.

[K8-EEE]

3. Oh Please, More Speeches, MORE MORE!!

Every time his handlers let him out in public his support drops lower. He sounds like such a delusional idiot. Even a lot of the freepers are coming into the light at this point.

[Supersedeas]

10. he is running out of receptive audiences

[Roy]

11. No not running out of receptive audiences...

But the audience budget may be running a little tight. Many of these people will only cheer when paid.

I think the paid disruptors that were posting here are waiting for their checks also, haven't seen many of them around lately.

[rodeodance]

4. Initially, I think people gave him the benefit of the doubt-thought there

would be some substance--that would make a difference. But gradually, they started to know there really was no change in his speeches nor is the course of the war tactics. I talk to people-listen-many are so angry that we are leaving the people of Iraq in such a mess. They know we started this but have some hope we can somehow fix it.

[NeoConsSuck]

5. The Crawford Coward strikes out again!

In every one of his speeches, it's always in front of Freeptard kool-aid drinkers. He wets his pants every time a moderate challenges him on his bullshit.

The sheeple have finally started to wake up and realize what a facist this little prick is.

[pinniped]

6. 'Almost' makes it sound like monkeyboy's made some sort of progress.

What a bunch of losers.

[dbt]

7. Flashback to 1998:

Every time Bill Clinton spoke on TV, HIS ratings went UP. Suck on that, bu$hler.

:evilgrin:
dbt
Remember New Orleans

[Javaman]

8. Wow, does it appear that his "catapulting the propaganda" isn't working???

The old rovian tactic of repeating something over and over till the morons in the pop believe it true, seems to be no longer working. Perhaps, the speeches are not working because of the scandals that are hitting the WH weekly now, that shows moron* to be out of touch, not giving a shit about anyone and it being all about greed that have finally woken up the mass of sheeple in this country.

You know there is the thing of repeating things over and over until it becomes part of the mass conscious, but then there is the term "crying wolf", that is the extension of the rovian tact, where people stop giving a shit about anything he* says. We have reached that point. All I can say is, "not soon enough".

[UpInArms]

9. Check out those comparisons to Johnson/Vietnam

from the OP article:

Bush is not the first president to try to win public support for a war by speaking to the American people - and he's not the first to find that difficult.

Lyndon Johnson made a series of optimistic speeches about progress in Vietnam and visited there twice.

"We will stand firm in Vietnam," Johnson asserted in his January 1967 State of the Union address.

"We are making progress," Johnson declared in a November 1967 televised address to the nation.

During a Dec. 23, 1967, visit to Vietnam, Johnson reported, "The enemy is not beaten, but he knows he has met his master in the field."

A month later, the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong launched their surprise Tet offensive. While the offensive was repelled, it demonstrated that the enemy could mount widely coordinated attacks. Media reports and a growing chorus of critics questioned Johnson's credibility.

<snip>

"It didn't work for Johnson, and it's not working for Bush," Johnson biographer Robert Dallek says.