When it looked like the presidential campaign would be won or lost on the nation’s perception of who made a better wartime president, George W. Bush was, in his own words “a war president.” In an interview held February 7, 2004 with Tim Russert, Bush declared:
I’m a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn’t true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it’s important for us to deal with them.
Flash forward to July 2004. Public support for the war is at an all time low. Tough position for a “war president” surely. No matter. With the magic wand that is Karl Rove’s pen, we learn Bush is no longer interested in being a war president. From a speech he made July 20, 2004:
“Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president.
[…]
For a while we were marching to war. Now we’re marching to peace. … America is a safer place. Four more years and America will be safe and the world will be more peaceful,” Bush said.
Nobody wants to be the war president when the war is so unpopular he means.
UPDATE: Sully gets to the questions this should raise for everyone:
Bush seems to be changing his tune a little on the campaign trail:
Mr. Bush noted: “The enemy declared war on us. Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president. The next four years will be peaceful years.” He repeated the words “peace” or “peaceful” many times, as he has done increasingly in his recent appearances.
How does he know? What if Iran gets a nuke? What if there’s another major terror attack? The president has obviously been worrying about his hard-edged image with women. But he needs to avoid lapsing into incoherence.
“Four more years and America will be safe and the world will be more peaceful,” Bush said
What?
What?
Remember, he doesn’t read the papers. He may have no idea how he’s perceived in the world.
Sorry, I have read the article, but perhaps am missing something. He’s surely not saying the problems we’re having with terrorism in the world right now will be largely or mostly resolved in only four years from now?
He’s surely not saying the problems we’re having with terrorism in the world right now will be largely or mostly resolved in only four years from now?
Incredible as it seems, that does appear to be his message. Just re-elect him and the WoT will be won.
Be quiet, he’s trying to get his “peace footing”, the damned dirty hippie.
Incidentally, the White House transcript has “I want to be the President — after four years, four more in this office, I want people to look back and say, the world is a more peaceful place. (Applause.) America is a safer country. Four more years, and America will be safer and the world will be more peaceful.”
Less of a promise, but fat chance all the same.
I don’t get your point. Not calling him a war president would be false. He can’t deny being a war president. It’s undeniable.
But,saying that he wants to be a peace president is stating what any president would wish for his term. Stating that he is trying to establish peace after fighting 2 wars is also a fact.
America from his perspective very well could be a safer place without the Taliban and Hussein running their countries and the world very well could be a safer place in the future.
This is a short fishing trip…
I don’t get your point.
My point is he changed his message in correspondence with the polls.
But he didn’t change his message. He stated two differet things that can both exist as the truth at the same time.
I suppose it couldn’t have anything to do with the context of what he is discussing…
If you have any point it is sophomoric. Or maybe better MOOREish.
If only he had said… I really want to be a war president. Would that have made you happy?
Peggy Noonan had a column just a few days ago about how Bush needed to start emphasizing how much he hated war and loved peace, because otherwise he made people nervous. Clearly they took her advice.
MNP is right, Edward. “I’m a war President” and “I want to be a peace President” are neither mutually exclusive, nor particularly contradictory.
I’m a bit surprised you think he should say anything else.
Jon and mnp,
I’d accept your analysis had Bush uttered anything even remotely close to this new (and as noted by Gary) seemingly Peggy Noonan inspired message during his interview with Tim Russert back in February, but given the total absence of this crunchy granola side of Bush back then, I’ll stand by my point.
Noonan’s column is still here today. See what you think.
Here is a version that will be around longer.
I don’t think Edward’s point is terribly huge, by the way; he’s trying to zing a politician for being political, which is not major news. But it is minor news when a politican zigs a bit.
Next week: Bush uses a campaign stop to sing “War! Huh! What is it good for?!”
When his rallies begin with the Fish Cheer, you’ll know he’s really re-positioned.
LOL.
He could say anything and you’d question the timing, the motives, etc. etc. etc. Thank goodness American’s have Mr. Consistency, that hero of principle over poll sniffing, as an alternative to the always evil Bush.
“He could say anything and you’d question the timing, the motives, etc. etc. etc.”
Yes, that certainly would explain the various posts I’ve made praising President Bush when I’ve agreed with him or thought he’d done an exceptional job. Well-researched response there, and spot on target! Not at all knee-jerk, yourself.
Would you like some cites, Mac, or would you care to simply withdraw your statement?
“Macallan,” that is.
Gary,
Sing with me…
“You probably think this song is about you? Don’t you?”
🙂
I was actually addressing the original post from Edward.
Your post directly followed mine. Of course, possibly this is directed at Edward.
People don’t quote what they’re responding to at their peril.
He could say anything and you’d question the timing, the motives, etc. etc. etc.
Nah, I’ve given him credit where due. It’s not my fault that’s such a rare occurence.
I just think the “steady leadership” meme he’s been running on could use a bit of clarification, is all…it seems to waver a bit in response to the latest polls.
I disagree
I disagree
Trouble maker!
Your post directly followed mine.
Look at the time stamps Gary, and you might feel a little silly.
So now we are going to criticize
Bush for not expressing everything in one interview.
Again, I say this criticism is MOOREish.
So now we are going to criticize
Bush for not expressing everything in one interview.
Again, I say this criticism is MOOREish.
Stick with that mpn…you’ll at least set a good example for Bush on how not to bend with the tide of public opinion.
Thank goodness American’s have Mr. Consistency, that hero of principle over poll sniffing, as an alternative to the always evil Bush.
Of course, if Bush is always evil then, a priori, he’s consistent. Weird, huh?
MNP is right, Edward. “I’m a war President” and “I want to be a peace President” are neither mutually exclusive, nor particularly contradictory.
Did Bush, between October 2001 and May 2004, express the sentiment that he wanted to be a peace President? I mean, I’m sure there were routine genuflections to the fact that nobody likes war, everyone prefers peace &c… but I can’t recall him standing up and declaring that all he really wanted was to make his garden grow. In fact, I can’t recall him invoking peace at all, except in a “we have trampled the enemies of unrighteousness” sort of way.
There are likely some quotes like that out there, though, so feel free to post’em if you got’em.
Looking back, could any President actually claim to be a “Peace President”?
People don’t quote what they’re responding to at their peril.
Shouldn’t one assume that comments without quotes, especially from long-time commenters, are indeed directed at the original post?
“Shouldn’t one assume that comments without quotes, especially from long-time commenters, are indeed directed at the original post?”
People can do as they like.
Myself, I’d observe that in all the years on Usenet, and Arpanet before that, if you didn’t quote what you were responding to, you’d generally be chided for having violated netiquette, though I’m not sure there’s an RFC specification.
If I took it back to paper-limited apas, Amateur Press Associations, going back to the invention of the “mailing comment” by Jack Speer, in FAPA, circa 1939, if you commented on someone else’s words, and didn’t refer to what you were responding to, people would be confused.
But, sure, we can all make up whatever new rules we like, just so as to avoid being clear. Whatever works best. Why bother quoting?
Looking back, could any President actually claim to be a “Peace President”?
Perhaps not — and what a sad commentary that is — but some Presidents could clearly claim to want to be a “Peace President”.
It sounds like Anarch and Bush are on the same page at last. Maybe, this will help Edward to understand Bush’s comments.
mnp, if a staunch conservative and supporter of the war like Andrew Sullivan thinks this represents a flipflop on Bush’s part, you begin to look a bit silly arguing otherwise.
Sully is a staunch conservative? Did anyone tell him?
Sully is a staunch conservative? Did anyone tell him?
I think he knows.
Or at least he better discover that before he starts his book on the subject.
He just knows he’s not a knee-jerk progressive, but that doesn’t make him a staunch conservative. Talking about writing a book on what he thinks conservativism should be is rather funny, and not particularly conservative.
See this. Go on, it won’t bite.
Big. . tent. . squeezing. . tight. . can’t. . breathe. .
Nice post Edward but I wouldn’t worry about this
if Kerry is the benchmark.
Reads like a “glory days” minded mid-life crisis if you ask me Mac.
Nice post Edward but I wouldn’t worry about this
But he needs to avoid lapsing into incoherence.
if Kerry is the benchmark.
I know, I know, the GOP said it about Kerry first, so they get to fall back on the comparison each time Bush is guilty of it.
He’s a war president, but now he wants to be the peace president, because of course he never wanted to be a war president – who likes war? He said the UN would be irrelevant if they didn’t rubber-stamp his war, and then came scampering back to them once he was in over his head. He couldn’t wait for Hans Blix to finish looking for weapons of mass destruction before plunging America into a bloody war and a far-bloodier occupation, but now shrugs his shoulders and half-heartedly suggests we wait for another four years of our own inspectors combing Iraq before concluding Blix was right. He supports Texas sodomy laws and the criminalization of gay sex, but now says that consenting adults have the right to do what they want in the privacy of their homes.
Steady leadership alright.
…oh wait, I’m sorry, this is Bush we’re talking about, I forgot that John Kerry is the only pandering flip-flopper allowed in this race, and that Our President is a two-hundred-foot-tall iron-cast statue representing the steadfastness of the Republic.
But, sure, we can all make up whatever new rules we like
Wow, I come back from lunch to find I’m fomenting Blogcommentanarchy ;P
Since you (Gary) bring up past technology and offer me the opportunity to propose a blogging precedent, I’ll just say that it seems to me that the OW folks have been nice enough to use a solution a bit more technically elegant than that which was available in 1939 (thanks y’all, BTW). This technology has provided a specific area after each post that offers us the luxury of commenting without having to reproduce, paraphrase or even identify the post. Unless, of course, we’re commenting on another’s comment when a quote would be necessary so that the commented upon commenter recognizes his/her comment being commented upon by the comment commenter. 😉
I’ll just say that it seems to me that the OW folks have been nice enough to use a solution a bit more technically elegant than that which was available in 1939
Eh. Gimme a threaded newsreader over blog comments any day. Even Scoop doesn’t quite do the trick.
It sounds like Anarch and Bush are on the same page at last. Maybe, this will help Edward to understand Bush’s comments.
Ah, but I was very careful not to specify which Presidents could legitimately make that claim…
See this. Go on, it won’t bite.
Having read it, I have to say that, if we aren’t limiting it to conservatives, the idea of submitting politicians to Carousel and the possibility of Renewal fills my heart with glee.
Eh. Gimme a threaded newsreader over blog comments any day. Even Scoop doesn’t quite do the trick.
I’ll withdraw the snarks and leave this to those who’ve been ’round the virtual block a few more times than me.
Eh. Gimme a threaded newsreader over blog comments any day. Even Scoop doesn’t quite do the trick.
Indeed. Although no more ‘rn’ please; or at least, I’d like an installation that actually works the way it’s supposed to…
[Random aside: I quite like Agent/Free Agent for lengthy threads and XNews for a quick trip through what’s available. Any other suggestions?]