Why such a badly written speech?

[spinbaby]

Why was Shrub’s speech so incoherent? It’s easy to just say, duh, look at who’s delivering it. But this is more than just delivery, the speech itself, when you read it, is just so much nonsense. This man has professional speech writers--the speech should make sense and it should have some kind of point. But when I read the transcript today, I was struck by how unfocused and disorganized it was.

When you pick it apart, this is what the big speech boils down to:
-----
9/11, terra, terra, terra. Terra at the U.N. and in lots of different countries. No neutral ground--If you’re not for us, you’re against us. Iraq and Afghanistan deserved what they got because they sponsored terra. It was okay we invaded Iraq because lots of other countries thought it was okay and we’re bringing democracy. The U.N. is vaccinating and feeding Iraqis and we’re doing our part by killing and interrogating Iraqis. We’re building schools, hospitals, and lots of other stuff, too The U.N. should help more in Iraq so other Arab countries don’t get terra ideas. And as long as we’re on the subject of terra, we really should all get together to fight nucular proliferation. We should all do humanitarian things, too--like fight AIDS, feed people, and put an end to sex slaves. We’re trying to put an end to sex, so why isn’t the U.N. doing anything about sex? Evil, evil, challenges, commitment, ideals, moral law, peace, courage.
-------
We have to ask why the thing was so incoherent. Shrub has certainly delivered incoherent speeches before, but they’re generally speeches made at fund-raising events where all that’s required is a random string of talking points.

But this was an important speech made with a specific goal in mind. And it was presumably written by the best speech writers money can buy. Regardless of who delivered it, the SPEECH ITSELF should have been well written and focused. But it was vague, as if assembled by a committee.


Link to the transcript:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030923-4.html