Newsweek contributing editor and "The McLaughlin Group" panelist Eleanor Clift attacked Bush's Speech at the U.S. Naval Academy as well as other important things, such as the banners at the speech and the photo used by the New York Times:
"It’s hard to know which to admire more, the choreography or the chutzpah. White House spinmeisters put up banners that blared PLAN FOR VICTORY in case anybody missed the message in President Bush’s latest iteration of his Iraq policy in a speech on Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy.
The photo the following day on the front page of The New York Times showed Bush bathed in the Navy colors of blue and gold and heroically positioned as though standing on the bridge of a battleship. All he needed were some stripes on his sleeve and he’d be ready for the lead in "H.M.S. Pinafore."
No modern president has been as blatant about putting himself before military audiences, a setting meant to convey strength. But the ploy has run its course. What this latest speech before a captive audience of midshipmen conveys is weakness."
As an "analyst" Clift isn't very impressive either. She states that Bush's speech was "offering nothing new." She says it is the "events on the ground in Iraq that sway public opinion." Obviously, this is why Bush was giving the speech. Someone has to tell the story of the good that is happening in Iraq. (Not only did she miss it the first time around, but she missed it in Bush's speech, too). Publications like Newsweek won't cover the progress, but they will cover phony stories such as the flushing incident, which caused riots and deaths.
A few more gems: Clift also writes that we are merely training Iraqi soldiers to have a civil war when we leave. And this last beauty: "Bush says he won't rest until there is complete victory and the Iraqis can take care of their own security, which nitpickers might wish to point out Iraqis were able to do under Saddam." She says "nitpickers might want to point out" when she is really saying "I want to point out."
I guess this further illustrates the difference between the media elites opinion on the War versus the publics.