The Story


Questions for Debate:

1.) What is the motive of this suggestion? Is this just an attempt to up ratings?

2.) Would you listen? Why or why not?

3.) Would effects of War on Terror Fireside Chats be beneficial or cause further harm?

4.) Would Fireside Chats bring accountability to the war or would it be a stage to try to reestablish a base among Americans for the administration?

1.) I think it is just an attempt to bring Bush closer with the American people. His rating are dramatically low, critizism concerning the war in Iraq are mounting, some of his leading men in his administration are wrapped up in scandals and U.S. popularity in the world still getting worse every day. If Bush doesn't act quickly, he has the chance that he completely looses his credibility and his grip on the American society. It is self-preservation.

2.) Sure I would listen. It is of course the U.S. president, but I do not think he will change my opinion a lot. It will be a propaganda show of course (The George Bush late night special show) so I won't expect to hear shocking new facts.

3.) Honestly, I do not think that it will make much of a difference. We will hear the same stories and facts over and over again. Besides that, much of its succes rests upon how George presents himself, how he acts, how he says things, how he plays the public ....... knowing Bushes lack of charisma and his lack of rhetorics, this will be a huge obstacle to overcome.

4.) Bush ..... accountability? Those two do not really fit. Why would Bush be held accountable live on air for the problems in Iraq? No, I think that if Bush decides to appear in a show like that, he will make sure that he will (politically) profit from it.
So option number two is, unfortunately, the most likely scenario.

1. Twenty four hour news coverage requires all elected officials be countered if the opinion differs from the administration or the nightly comedy shows will say it is true. Is it an attempt to up ratings... Well, it is an attempt to defend the administration’s position as refuted by other opposing elected officials stated position(s).

2. Yes... Because you have the opportunity to value the administration’s view as opposed to the view of the counter position.

3. Sunlight has never harmed any government effort.

4. Such chats must be based on facts or assumed facts by the administration for the counterpart to refute... similar to this debate site a logical analysis would decide if the administration or the counter administrations is parked in sand. If the message isn’t supported with reason then the American’s will find it reason to support the opposing viewpoint. If, however the information is factual and logical a sane person will dismiss the counter administration viewpoint and the support for the administration will be improved.

[b]Questions for Debate:



I would, if he spoke honestly and sincerely about our enemies and what we are trying to accomplish, I would listen. If it was just about him defending the reason why we are there, I woudl turn it off in a hearbeat.



I believe that it would be beneficial. Peopel want to be informed and want to have the general impression that the president knows what he is doing and that he is aware of their concerns. In addressing those concerns and making his case for patience, a lot of people would have lessened fears. It would be very beneficial for him to do, as long as he adapted to the concerns and didn't repeat himself with the tired old mantras that he usually does about terrorism and threats in general.

1.) What is the motive of this suggestion? Is this just an attempt to up ratings?

In a word, yes. Public opinion is not on Bush's side now; they are trying to make him look and sound statesmanlike--good luck.

2.) Would you listen? Why or why not?

I don't listen to Bush's radio addresses now. Why would I listen to them in a different format? He never has any new ideas, and he never accepts responsibility for things that go wrong. As a matter of fact, he does not show signs of growth in wisdom or maturity.

What George W. Bush does NOT need to do is talk more about the same tired points. Stay the course, stay the course, stay the course--I can train a parrot to say that, and it would mean about as much. As Michigan Senator Carl Levin put it, "Stay the course is not a strategy. It's a slogan."

What George W. Bush needs to do more is LISTEN, listen to the constituency he allegedly represents, the American people. I truly don't think he gives a damn about what we think. The man has a one-track mind and it all has to do with that morass we call Iraq. Bush still thinks he's aboard that aircraft carrier in a borrowed flight suit with the banner "Mission Accomplished" figuring prominently in the photo op. He actually thinks he is going to change the behavior of the Shiites and Sunnis who have quarreled with each other for centuries. Why doesn't he try tackling Northern Ireland while he's at it????

3.) Would effects of War on Terror Fireside Chats be beneficial or cause further harm?

It might salve the somewhat troubled minds of some hawks. It might also backfire big time and come off like Howdy Doody or Charlie McCarthy aping Franklin D. Roosevelt, more fodder for the pundits and late-night comedians. Ronald Reagan could have pulled it off easily, but George Walker Bush? Pretty dicey odds, if you ask me.

4.) Would Fireside Chats bring accountability to the war or would it be a stage to try to reestablish a base among Americans for the administration?

WHAT ACCOUNTABILITY??? Of course it won't bring accountability; you'd have to have more than one person talking with more than one opinion expressed, an unscripted conversation, if you will! This is propaganda, pure and simple.

1.) What is the motive of this suggestion? Is this just an attempt to up ratings?

My guess is that Warner wants to see Bush act more like Roosevelt (just a guess) and to garner support the way Roosevelt did. I don't think it is a particularly good idea, considering that the President is on the radio every Saturday right now and very few listen.

The times are different now. In WW2, we didn't have 24 hour news like we do now. If the President sneezes, everyone knows. It isn't as if there is some deficiency of information, the country is absolutely awash in it.

2.) Would you listen? Why or why not?

I don't listen to the normal Saturday broadcast. Why is this any different.

3.) Would effects of War on Terror Fireside Chats be beneficial or cause further harm?

None. Those that don't agree wouldn't listen and those that do would simply agree. Nothing accomplished.


4.) Would Fireside Chats bring accountability to the war or would it be a stage to try to reestablish a base among Americans for the administration?

How would this happen exactly? It isn't as if the term "Fireside Chat" conveys magical powers on the President. He isn't a good speaker and although he does connect with people, if they aren't listening now, I highly doubt that they would if they simply renamed the President's Saturday afternoon briefing to "Fireside Chat".

Would Fireside Chats bring accountability to the war or would it be a stage to try to reestablish a base among Americans for the administration?

The medium and style don't accomplish accountability. Taking responsibility accomplishes accountability, so no, Fireside Chats have no inherent power on this matter. I don't see how this administration can possibly turn the perception of accountability, the lack thereof, around. It is in extreme denial in the face of public records, so it doesn't have the benefit of keeping the nitty gritty secret for 50 years.

The base thing is interesting. Was it simply an SC nomination that lost it? Was it the slow response to Katrina? Does the 2006 election season have something to do with this? Could it be that the public consciousness has finally caught up with the documented facts of the matters? How did Howard Dean's anger and exuberance effect the way Democrats are working these days? Could returning vets have an impact?

When President Bush declared his base to be the Have Mores, it struck me as being an extremely narrow base, only one to five percent of the population. But he was kidding at the time, or at least I'll give him the benefit of that doubt. How could anyone really mean that? Eh, I can imagine . . . .

In any event, Fireside Chatting won't accomplish anything to win over the base that he lost. I see this like beginner's luck -- he didn't have a base majority to begin with, and 9/11 was his surprise political lottery winnings. Yep, he won big time but lacked the skill and experience to keep the winnings. As with most, the political capital leaked away with very bad gambles and big purchases.

I would not listen to them if offered, and yes, this would be seen by most as trying out something from the FDR playbook by a political party that is dead set against the FDR playbook.

You know, I had a thought about this after mulling over whatever good could possibly come of having the President cover the progress (or whatever) of the war in Iraq via "fireside chats."

Maybe the President might learn something about what is really going on if he had to regularly look at and report on the hard data, and he had to say something other than soundbites about "the brave troops" and "stay the course." Maybe he would gain some perspective that the "yes" men and women in his administration are unable or unwilling to provide.

But then, maybe not...

I just wanted to interject something here. In the late 1970s when Jimmy Carter was president, he did a Fireside Chat about the energy crisis. Know what happened? He was made fun of by the media and people thought it was a stupid stunt to get publicity.

However, Carter hadn't gotten us into a senseless war and threatened the entire planet with annihilation. Perhaps GWB's motivation could be called more "urgent."

What is the motive of this suggestion? Is this just an attempt to up ratings?
It could very well be a genuine attempt to change Bush’s image, but why now? It’s pretty late in the game. The White House may linger about ‘staying the course’ and all that, but it’s pretty clear we’re going to be withdrawing troops on one scale or another.

Would you listen? Why or why not?
I wouldn’t listen regardless of who was in the White House. I think the only ones interested are those people who spend a lot of time on the road and naturally tune in. I’ve never gotten into radiotainment news and commentary.

Would effects of War on Terror Fireside Chats be beneficial or cause further harm?
It can’t cause harm except making Bush appear a wannabe. He called himself a “war president” in the 2004 election. I think this is where Warner got the idea. Really arrogant, imo. The title was bestowed on Roosevelt, he didn’t claim it. I can’t picture Bush doing anything other than speechifying the “chat” into a state of the union likeness and characterizing everything in stark black and white terms. Bush has said this isn’t Vietnam II, and I agree with him, but I think he wouldn’t stop from making unwarranted comparisons to WWII as he has done in the past and turn people off right quick.

Would Fireside Chats bring accountability to the war or would it be a stage to try to reestablish a base among Americans for the administration?
(1) FDR brought accountability to the White House and the war without fireside chats. (2) Bush hasn’t lost his base. He disregards the middle ‘cause Turd Blossom says he can.

But did anyone ever consider that there IS good news from Iraq? We never see it on US Media because that wouldn't sell advertising or push their agenda.

I would venture to guess that a fireside chat type format would not be the most effective way to show the positive things happening in Iraq. Americans not in agreement with the President simply wouldn't tune in, or would denounce the creditibility of the reports. (Which would've naturally happened during any polarized part of US history... i.e. Mr Clinton)

The thing is that this administration has in-effect caused a disconnect from the American people, partly due to political pressure and partly possibly out of poor strategy.

Consider this blog (found on multiple sites).
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/

I would LOVE to see a piece done by NBC/ABC/CBS that takes a weekly account of successes by a military leader. This would probably give us a more "accurate" account of true successes/failures, then it could be coupled with the strategic mission of our nation's military in this campaign.

Many of us, Republicans as well, are fed up with the overwhelming "smoke and mirror" act in respect to the war and it's financial and human expense.. particularly because we're not sure what the heck is going on and our taxes are still feeding it and our neighbors and family are still being deployed.

Would a "fireside chat" be effective? Maybe if we had a weekly update from General Pace that candidly discussed how our military has done well/poorly, and what the "game plan" is for our nation. I doubt that many would take such a broadcast by GW seriously...

I always thought that good, positive news encouraged people to buy cars, vacations, etc.

Good news is a wonderful thing. So is comparing the amount and importance of good news vs. bad news from Iraq. Can there be any balance?

Remember the Sinclair Group prohibiting its affiliates from carrying the Ted Koppel program in which he read the names of fallen soldiers killed in Iraq without comment? That was supposed to be anti-war propaganda, but it was only naming the names so they could be remembered.

How many schools being built, Iraqi children getting candy from soldiers, and how many roads being built and towns supplied with power and potable water will it take to offset the losses that the American people have seen and experienced because of this war that the President said we just HAD to get into? Just how much is an American soldier's life worth? Is that soldier's life worth an early pullout so other soldiers don't have to die?

Has the President lost anything in this war besides "face"? Just what can he talk about in a fireside chat that is news and won't cast his administration in a worse light?

Well, you're assuming that good news to NBC/CBS/ABC would be positive news coming from Iraq. I sincerely don't believe that it sells to their market.

If ABC aired a nightly special that highlighted every city in Iraq that doesn't experience insurgency and how many hospitals, schools, and businesses are flourishing in post-war Iraq, they just might alienate some of their viewership. This is the very reason your local station spends more time talking about murders as opposed to local highschool students that got scholarships. Why, after all, are shows like COPS so successful? We all like to slow down for a good accident...

The reality is that all of Congress voted for a war that our nation is now involved in, with the same intelligence at hand that the President used to make his case. Our nation does not operate solely at the whim of the President, regardless of the administration. Let's not begin to beat the "war is wrong" drum with GW's face on the top... that's another debate.

Many Americans don't agree with the current form the war has taken, but this debate isn't about that paladin. We're discussing whether a regularly-aired broadcast by the President discussing the state of the war would be prudent... (in essence)

Simply put, the President has begun to alienate even "true conservatives" and the good news is there, but frankly, it would be tough to swallow without some apprehension coming from the White House (is this a theme in contemporary America?? seems to be a repeat of the Clinton admin... I know, I know.. maybe a new thread)

As I stated, I believe that in order to truly portray the war in a "fair and balanced" essence, we have to show all the caches of weapons found, all the lives saved, interview anti-Saddam factions that have been freed, etc.

Talking about lives lost when most of the nation doesn't even know that the US military found caches of Uranium and missles doesn't necessarily prove to be fair or balanced.

Maybe a Fireside Chat (as stated before) from a military official could become a welcome addition to the broadcasting. (PLEASE don't start the rhetoric about military officers being brainwashed, etc... many are very objective professionals!)

Well, they can certainly try it.

But I do take exception to your assertion that the Congress was given the exact same intelligence information that Bush received. Senator Carl Levin refuted that, as have other Senators. He's on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Military officials are objective professionals, like Colin Powell, who know when they are expected to be frank and when they are expected to follow orders. I have never suggested that they are brainwashed, okay?

Edit:

You're right--WHERE did they find these caches of uranium? The aluminum tubes were demonstrated to be too small. Did Rummy sniff the uranium out?

And the people of our nation supposedly "knew" that Iraq was somehow connected with 9/11, even though no proof, not even those fire-resistant Saudi Arabian passports in the WTC ruins, was found to connect it to Iraq. But that didn't stop the Bush administration from capitalizing on this misconception. Indeed, Bush still mentions Iraq and 9/11 in nearly the same breath.

Mr. Bush and military professionals can chat away on the radio, but I don't think it will improve the quality of the rhetoric or provide much useful information to the non-partisan people of this country.

Doesn't sell to their market? Their market is The American People aevans. Do you seriously think that no one watches NBC/CBS/ABC except for the liberal elite left? Please. These are network channels and they are piped into the homes of millions of Americans every day. Only the people that can afford cable can watch stations like CNN and FoxNews and I guarantee you there are plenty of "conservatives" that can't afford cable. Even if you nhave cable it doesn't guarantee you'll watch cable news, many people don't. They watch the local news and then leave it on the same station to catch the national news right afterwards.

Perhaps your problem with NBC/CBS/ABC is that they are trying to paint an honest picture of the situation in our country instead of broadcasting the President's propaganda. It is the job of the media to keep our government honest. They have certainly failed to do that recently but it appears they realize that and are trying to correct it.

Want a credible link to the Urainium story? How about the BBC?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm

Are you insinuating that Colin Powell has mislead the American public? I'd love to see links to that one. Please show me when he was "following orders" and lead us astray.

The reality is that liberals often cry out for "fair and balanced" reporting (i.e. the debate referencing Rush on the Armed Forces Radio) but we rarely see anything discussing military and civil successes in reference to the Iraq war.

I understand that news stations are businesses, and that reporters are paid for the stories that sell the most, in which case Americans often want action. However, if we had a weekly broadcast on NBC for a meager 15-30 minutes in reference to the war, I'm confident that a military officer would be more objective than a major network reporter or the President, as their agenda is largely more apolitical. The military is charged with meeting political objectives, so if there are questions as to motive, even high-ranking brass can defer to congressional or Presidential mandate.

Finally, the reality is that the President felt like Iraq was planning on using WMD's. From commentarymagazine.com;
"George Tenet, his own CIA director, assured him that the case was “a slam dunk.” This phrase would later become notorious, but in using it, Tenet had the backing of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. In the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with “high confidence” was that

Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and—yes—France all agreed with this judgment"

No, I saw Colin Powell, with George Tenet behind him, giving testimony at the UN with a disgracefully meager amount of evidence to justify the Bush administration's case for invading Iraq. It was almost a convincing performance. Secretary of State Colin Powell was a loyal soldier following his Commander in Chief, who didn't even bother to include him in the cabinet level talks during the buildup to war, but just told him when it was decided they were going to do it. They didn't ask Powell for any insight or advice; when the word got to him it was already a done deal.

By the way, you were quoting my post, not Cube Jockey's.

George Tenet's notorious "slam dunk" aside, the CIA did inform the administration prior to Bush's 2002 State of the Union address that there was a problem with the intelligence that led to the famous "sought quantities of uranium from Africa" sentence. But Dubya, or Dubya and his cronies, went ahead with it anyway, CIA objections notwithstanding. He was out to make a case for war, and verification of the "facts" he was using to build that case didn't seem too important to him.

So let's do have those fireside chats, eh? They couldn't be much worse than what our beloved President has done in the past!

Edit:

From your link:

But did that prove that Saddam "recently sought quantities of uranium from Africa" the way that the discredited secret document said? No.

Did they find any manufactured weapons? No.

Did the U.S. use depleted uranium in the bombs they used to shell Iraq? Yes. Does that mean we are terrorists?

There is no proof that Saddam Hussein was involved in any way training terrorists. It was only after we "won" and the borders became porous to every terrorist wannabe that there was a problem with terrorists getting hold of any uranium in Iraq. In that case, I am relieved that this uranium was picked up and shipped away by the U.S., but as far as I know it is not a crime for a country to have enriched uranium. I might be wrong, though.

Saddam's regime was never a threat to the United States. It was a potential threat to Israel, but that is the subject for another thread, and I doubt that George W. Bush would own up to this in a fireside chat.

aevans176,

So your take is that radio and possibly political blogs are better outlets for positive news from Iraq than the bully pulpit. I guess because there isn't as much advertising money at work? Okay, let's go with the radio slant.

President Bush already does a weekly radio spot. What will make this a different thing if it's called Fireside Chats? Do you think people will find President Bush more credible with the title?