Old Speech Teacher Might like Bush's Iraq Speech

Alan Monroe, a speech teacher from the 1930s, would be proud of President George W. Bush. The president, it seems, took some pointers from the old oratorical instructor in preparing his latest defense of the Iraq war. Bush's Thursday night speech used a technique that Monroe advocated called "visualization," drawing images of what the future would be like if the Democrats views on the war prevail.

"If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened," he argued. "Al Qaeda could gain new recruits and new sanctuaries. Iran would benefit from the chaos and ..." - well, you get the picture. It was a line of argument that the old speech teacher would have graded as an "A" performance.

The president also had a couple of other items that would have added to his good grade. For one thing, his presentation skills were excellent. There were some glitches with the new high definition broadcast, the first of its kind from the oval office, but nothing that could be blamed on Bush.

Further, he actually tried to use some facts in this presentation, citing the figure that 1,500 enemy combatants had been killed or captured per month since January. That at least sounds like progress.

It might sound enough like progress to work, too. The speech was probably effective in buying some time for the President. He may not have changed any minds, but he probably performed well enough to keep his Republican support in Congress. His real fear is not lack of support by the American public, but the possible defections of Republican senators who are concerned about re-election. If too many of them drift away, Congress could override his veto of any attempted action by the Democrats.

Still, would that please Professor Monroe? Maybe, but he would be a little upset at another tactic that the president used during the speech - linking the war in Iraq to Al Qaeda. That's been a constant theme in the president's rhetoric. It is also, unfortunately for him, one that doesn't hold water. Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq when we attacked. Those who currently use the title have little or no connection to the group behind the 9/11 attacks.

Further, the public doesn't accept this argument any longer. While American voters believed there was a possible tie to Al Qaeda when the war was launched, they're now highly skeptical about that argument.

Of course, the President has been wrong before. His initial argument for the invasion was that Iraq was a threat because of its weapons of mass destruction. When that argument turned out to be false, the president simply dropped the argument and hasn't mentioned it since. Instead, he shifted to the Al Qaeda justification.

So, why hasn't he moved on to a stronger argument? Maybe he doesn't have a better one.

Now that would certainly both Professor Monroe.