Bush’s message on Iraq war hits home

Analysis:

This story is based upon the response of those who were permitted to attend the Bush speech on April 20 in East Grand Rapids. There are eight different people who were cited other than Bush. Most of the sources cited supported President Bush and his plan to increase US troop presence in Iraq. There were a few people who “had concerns,” but only one person who was cited was clearly opposed to the Bush plan but non of her reasons were cited. The article did say that she was disappointed that the President didn’t really respond to her question, which was whether or not the recommendations from the Baker-Hamilton Commission would be part of the strategy. The story did not provide any context or explanation of what the Baker-Hamilton Commission recommended.

Those who spoke positively of the President’s comments used terms and statements like the President is “listening better,” “he is firmly committed to supporting the troops,” “that leaving Iraq too soon would create a base for al-Qaida,” ‘We can’t pull out. We’ve got to give Iraq time to be self-governing,” “The reality is we’re there now, and we have to work our way through it,” and “he has a deep, deep mastery of the subject matter.” The Press reporter does not ask follow up questions to the people who made such claims, claims which are quite remarkable. How does someone know the President is listening better? What do people base the claim that the US must stay or that leaving would create a base for al Qaida? Also, why is it that when the President or anyone else says they support the troops that this equates to supporting the continuation of the US occupation? The Press article basically just reported what people said, but did not verify any of the claims made. One other observation is that of those sourced in the story, 4 are politicians, one was a University President, 1 CEO, and 2 were identified as members of the World Affairs Council. Does this constitute a broad representation of those in attendance?

Story:

Whether they agreed with him or not, several audience members who heard President Bush lay out his rationale for continuing his Iraq war policy Friday said he made a compelling case.

“I heard a statement of staying the course, that he is firmly committed to supporting the troops, which is important from where I am with three of my children in the service right now,” said Grand Valley State University President Thomas Haas, a former Coast Guard officer.

“I would have liked to have heard more about a longer-term vision. He was really quite good about talking about the tactics, the operations going on right now. What I would like to have heard was, ‘OK, what about the next steps after that?’ “

The crowd of 500 or so in the East Grand Rapids High School Performing Arts Center listened intently, interrupting the president only a few times with applause. Each time, Bush raised his hand to restrain them.

“This is a sober forum,” he said at one point, then added, “or a forum of sober people, I hope.”

Those who already supported his war policy generally were pleased. Those who opposed it were disappointed.

Lynda Hoving, of Grand Rapids, was among the latter. After Bush’s speech, she asked if he intended to follow the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission and use more diplomacy to resolve the conflict. To scattered applause, Bush noted the commission said it might be necessary to increase troop levels, “and that’s what I did.”

“I was disappointed in his answer,” said Hoving, a member of the World Affairs Council of Western Michigan, which hosted the address. “I still think the attitude he has is more confrontational. He didn’t seem inclined or open to drawing people into the conversation.”

Others said they agreed with the president that leaving Iraq too soon would create a base for al-Qaida to mount future attacks. Some said that, while Bush made a strong case for continuing the troop surge, they still disagreed with him.

World Affairs Council board member Michael Hampton said he sensed Bush is more open to other opinions on the war.

“I’m convinced he’s listening better,” he said. “I think he made a good enough case that says, ‘We can’t pull out. We’ve got to give Iraq time to be self-governing.'”

Fred Keller, CEO of Cascade Engineering, said he had hoped the president would outline a change in direction, such as setting benchmarks for Iraqi forces to assume moe responsibility.

“I was anticipating it was going to be more of a shift in policy than a straight line,” he said. “We’re in Iraq, and we’ve got to find some effective way to extricate ourselves.”

U.S. Rep. Vern Ehlers, R-Grand Rapids, who arrived with Bush aboard Air Force One, said he urged the president to take questions from the audience. “I told him, ‘Be sure to save questions, because that’s when you’re at your best,'” Ehlers said. “He was speaking from the heart.”

U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra called the address “a wonderful opportunity for West Michigan.”

“We didn’t get into why Grand Rapids,” said the Holland Republican, who also arrived on Air Force One. “How often do you have the president speaking for an hour and a half and answering questions? Because most people see the president in sound bites.”

“I think they can see the president has a deep understanding of the issues,” Hoekstra said. “You may or may not agree with the strategies and the tactics he has employed, but he has a deep, deep mastery of the subject matter.”

Grand Rapids Mayor George Heartwell said he still favors removing troops from Iraq, but he was impressed at how Bush “made a compelling case for his plan.”

Heartwell — who did not applaud at points when others did — said the president struck a chord when he spoke about spreading democracy almost on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.

“The idea of democracy through the grassroots is an interesting one,” Heartwell said. “I’ve always been a firm believer in working at a neighborhood level. That’s what we’ve tried to do here in Grand Rapids.”

Another area mayor, Rob VerHeulen of Walker, said he was impressed with the complexity of the situation in Iraq, as described by Bush.

“I think my sense is things have not gone as well as the president had hoped,” VerHeulen said. “The reality is we’re there now, and we have to work our way through it.”