Thursday Rapid Response: Bush's artificial "strategy" for Iraq

The following media action alert courtesy of the Oregon branch of the Rapid Response Network.

Oregon Report — Thursday, December 1, 2005

1. Bush’s artificial speech on Iraq
2. O. [finally!] gathers reactions from NW lawmakers
3. Pretty good AP analysis deserves a response
4. Bravo, Burl!

1. Bush’s artificial speech on Iraq

Note the new soundbite: “artificial timeline set by politicians.” More lies! It is Bush who is being artificial, in that he still refuses to provide any specific benchmarks or clarity on what victory will mean. Carefully considered, realistic exit strategies like those proposed by Rep. Murtha and other Democrats are what we need—not stage-managed pep talks.

They have posted their “strategy” on the White House website. There are no clear timelines or benchmarks; they insist that “Prevailing in Iraq will help us win the war on terror,” but do not explain what “prevailing” means and of course the issue here is our occupation of Iraq—if we leave, the terrorists lose a major motivator and recruiting tool.

letters@news.oregonian.com
Contact your local paper
Contact your elected representatives

2. O. [finally!] gathers reactions from NW lawmakers

Northwest delegation: Lawmakers differ on an exit strategy
Great quotes from our NW Dems—yeah!!!

Below as an FYI is the letter I sent in on this article; let’s either send kudos to the O., a letter reacting to their comments, or comments to the lawmakers (or all of the above!):
jim.barnett@newhouse.com
edwardwalsh@news.oregonian.com
publiceditor@news.oregonian.com
letters@news.oregonian.com
Contact your elected representatives

Dear Mr. Barnett, Mr. Walsh, and the Oregonian:

Just a quick note to thank you for today's article in which you provide comments from the NW congressional delegation regarding Bush's speech on Iraq. I have been asking the Oregonian to provide this information on a regular basis, and I really appreciate it. These interviews with our delegation should be a regular feature any time there is a major development or big news. It is so important to hear what our lawmakers think, and for those of us too busy to watch the news or track down each lawmaker's website for their statements, the Oregonian is doing a really huge service by gathering their opinions in one article. Thanks so very much, keep up the great work!

Best,
Ruth Adkins
SW Portland

3. Pretty good AP analysis deserves a response

This is the AP analysis of Bush's speech that is in today’s Oregonian. Below is my take on it.

traum@ap.org
info@ap.org

Dear Mr. Raum,

I read your analysis article on Bush's Iraq speech in today's Oregonian-- thank you for this clear and evenhanded assessment of the speech.

I particularly appreciate that you pointed out "the fact" (and called it a fact) that the speech "broke no new ground, mostly restating administration aims put forth in 2003." Rather than casting the Democrats' pointing this out as merely a partisan criticism, making the article the usual he said/she said/we're clueless recitation, and far from simply accepting the White House's talking points as reality, you did your job as a journalist/analyst, and stated that this is a FACT. Thank you!

I do have one quibble, regarding Rep. Murtha's call for redeployment of the troops--you describe his proposal as "the withdrawal of all 160,000 US troops from Iraq over the next six months." I don't think that is entirely accurate. As I understand it, Rep. Murtha had a specific plan involving keeping Marines and others nearby and at the ready to support the Iraqi forces as needed. That to me was a key factor (based on his solid military knowledge and experience) that made a ton of sense. We would no longer be an occupying force (thus inciting ever more violence against us) but we would still have troops close by and ready to strike or support as needed.

For the sake of accuracy, Rep. Murtha's plan might be better summarized as "withdrawal of troops from Iraq and redeployment of troops nearby to provide support as needed." (not great wording but you get the idea--both parts of his plan must be included for accuracy). Murtha's plan was specifically NOT "cut and run" and should not be characterized in a way that lends itself to that misinterpretation.

Thanks so much!

Best regards,
Ruth Adkins
Portland, Oregon

letters@news.oregonian.com
Contact your local paper
Contact your elected representatives

4. Bravo, Burl!

Burl Ross has another wonderful letter published today.

United against Bush

Bush supporter Richard J. DiVincenzo correctly notes in his Nov. 26 letter, "(O)n your President Bush-bashing editorial page, there are many letters critical of the president, while there are very few in support." True. But then he continues, "I do not believe that this is typical of the public sentiment . . .."

Wrong.

[As noted in the weekly letters tally published Nov. 13,] the letters received by The Oregonian [the week before] ran 101 to 3 against the Bush administration.
We aren't a divided nation. We are, in fact, nearly unanimous in our disapproval of the Bush administration. Join us, Mr. DiVincenzo, and your final plea for us to "once again truly become 'The United States of America' " will be answered.

BURL ROSS Lake Oswego

Yeahhh!

Keep up the great work, everyone—I have to leave town for a family funeral but will be back mid-next week.

Never give up.
_____________________________________
Oregon RR is a group of volunteers dedicated to advancing the principles of
balance and truthfulness in the media.
Join us:
http://www.rapidresponsenetwork.org/us/or/signup