Here's an interesting take on what we are about to get shoveled:
Q -- from what was reported in The Wall Street Journal today and other places. What is different about this particular push than the previous three over the past year, and even before that, dating all the way back? He's always highlighted the high stakes involved. He's always highlighted the fact that there needs to be an ability to adapt to the enemy and fight in different ways. What is different about this one?Looks like we are set to witness more propaganda of the same stripe delivered by the W himself. Will he allow any Q & A? And if he does in front of any of these audiences, will it matter?
MS. PERINO: Our nation is heading into the fifth anniversary of the September 11th attacks, and it is important that the President be talking to the American public about this war that we didn't start, but one that he is committed to winning, that means being on the offense against the terrorists.
But you asked me what is different, so we're heading into this anniversary, it's 9/11; these speeches will be -- not so much retrospective in nature, although there will be some of that. There will be a sharp focus on the future, important to remember what has occurred, put that in context because that helps everyone understand the nature of the enemy. It's a bookend of speeches between now and September 19th at UNGA. There's opportunities to remind people about the threat that we face and how we're going to overcome it.
Q The Journal had reported it, though, that there would be less focus on progress on the ground, so much as the greater struggle. Is this an attempt to avoid talking about progress on the ground?
MS. PERINO: I would not say that that was entirely the context for what these speeches are. It will not be speeches only about Iraq; it will be about the global war on terror, including a discussion about the institutional reforms that have been put in place and how those have helped to protect us, for example, the intelligence community reforms, the proliferation security initiative, the Patriot Act, the transformation of the FBI. And so it's a comprehensive look. I don't know if that report this morning was entirely in context.
The W, Rove and Co love to stipulate publically that they are ready, willing, and welcome a particiapative "healthy debate," but we have to ask ourselves: If that is so, why don't they have one instead of subjecting the Amreican people to their speechifying at great taxpayer expense? I, for one, would certainly find it refreshing if they did.
But alas, we can see in the same press gaggle, that I will remain unrequited in that category:
Q Does the President think that the Democratic Party understands the stakes, the nature of this war on terror?That doesn't sound like a debate the W, Rove and Co is willing to engage in. It must be wonderful to always know you are right.
MS. PERINO: I think the President said it best last Monday when what he said in the press conference was that there -- in any democracy, he expects healthy debate and he expects criticism. It makes the country stronger. He said, and he believes, he does not question the patriotism or the love of the country of any other American. He does believe that there are choices to be made, and it is wholly appropriate for the President to define the decisions that he's making and the choices that are before us and how he chooses to address them, and contrasts that with other ones. Those are not arguments that we shy away from, but in terms of the speeches, that's how he will try to draw those distinctions.