Worst press conference ever?

[hipdadiddy]

At least this time he doesn't look quite so doped up, but... JEEBUS!! What a pathetic performance! The same pious, egregious, warmed-over crap served up again and again, usually without even a pretence that it has ANY relevance to the question just asked!

So, two topics for discussion: is Bush totally losing it? And is there a sane person out there (with a net worth of under, say, $50 million) who still supports him? And if so (okay, three topics)...WHY???

[Jack Batty]

Somehow I think that from now to November the phrase:

"Maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be," ...

... will be followed most commonly by:

"My name is John Kerry, and I approve this message."

[John Carter of Mars]

Only if you had a pre conceived opinion. Since you posted the OP before it was over.....

[Duggy Fizzle]

I'm paraphrasing GWB in his press conference, but he said somethhing to the effect of "...freedom is the Almighty's gift to humanity and it is our responsiblity to spread that gift around the world." OMG this is a crusade, isn't it?

I once heard that GWB is a born-again christian. Is this true?

[Jack Batty]

I once heard that GWB is a born-again christian. Is this true?
Are you kidding?

Is the Pope Catholic?

[Psycho Pirate]

BBQ Pit in 5...4...3...

[hipdadiddy]

Only if you had a pre conceived opinion. Since you posted the OP before it was over.....

Oh, hell, yeah! I take it all back! He really recovered in those last five minutes -- I thought I was listening to Abraham Freakin' Delano Jefferson!

The man is a JOKE!

[syncrolecyne]

Only if you had a pre conceived opinion. Since you posted the OP before it was over.....


If you heard the first five minutes, you heard it all. I was listening to it over the radio and I swore at one point there was a tape error causing the program to repeat itself.

[E72521]

"We will change the world and make America safer" will be his demise. What a moron.

The man is incapable of giving a direct answer to a simple question. I can't recall him answering any direct question posed. I found his response to the question regarding him and Cheney appearing together before the 9/11 commission priceless.

[flight]

One thing I have to say, those who called for a slew of softball questions (as those would be the only ones allowed to ask), had it totally wrong. They absolutley reamed him. The two worst were his inability to say that anything the administration had done was in any way wrong or even less than ideal (after two direct questions to that effect) and his response to why he would be testifying with Cheney.

She even reitterated the question in no uncertain terms. "Why will you two be testifying together rather than seperately as the commission requested?" He only answered that he was looking forward to answering their questions.

[RTFirefly]

...because Dubya was just blithering, repeating himself, wandering aimlessly in his attempt to give an answer.

The short answer to the 9/11 apology question was 'no' but instead he took a Brownian sort of path that didn't say anything but seemed to mean that in the end.

Similarly to the question about 'was there anything you might have done differently' (this was before the one about 'what was your biggest mistake since 9/11, which was also almost painful to watch).

Yes, the rest of the world, somehow this man became our President. If you don't mind my doing a Richard Clarke, I apologize to you all. We did everything we could in our power to keep this from happening in 2000, but we were unable to prevent it. We failed. We are sorry.

[Zagadka]

Republicans everywhere saying, "But... Kerry looks like lurch..." before running from the room crying.

Is it just me, or is Bush the political version of the rich guy's ugly and retarded daughter they only let out of the basement for her birthday?

Of course, some people won't find anything wrong with his performance, because they were ja- er, wait, I'm not allowed to say that anymore. (Can we call that the Zagadka Rule?)

Bush seems to have this notion that whatever he does is justified because he is doing the "right thing," and that is all that matters. That is pretty damned scary.

[Mehitabel]

I must say one thing I did get from the overall dismal performance (remember, I'm a Democrat, just not a rabid one) is that I don't think he lied. I think he said things that were untrue or ill-considered, but I really don't think he has the brains to concoct elaborate deceptions. I think he believes everything he says. Much of which I agree with. But he didn't say anything new nor did he assure me that his plans can be seperated out from those of the Underpants Gnomes. Hey, I'd like me some Profit, but what's step two?

I also cannot believe how unprepared he was for some of those questions about mistakes and making an apology. Yikes.

[Squink]

Excellent press conference! I couldn't be happier with it. Bush struck just the right tone.

[RTFirefly]

Transcript (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9488-2004Apr13.html) for those who, like me, just can't get enough of this foolishness.

[Zagadka]

Transcript (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9488-2004Apr13.html) for those who, like me, just can't get enough of this foolishness.
It is like a train crash O_o

Makes about as much sense as what a US general said recently:

"Only bite off the head of the poisoned rattlesnake"

I understand what the guy was trying to say, but... man.

[monstro]

I would be sympathetic to his fluency disorder if he wasn't a blithering, amoral maroon. I almost wish he was slicker (like Condi), because then I wouldn't blame some of us for having been bamboolzed. But the fact that he can't even hide the fact that he's a blithering, amoral maroon and people STILL respect him just drives me nuts.

I'm hoping most of us saw the naked emperor tonight.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

With his withering in the face of mere follow-up questions from different press people, I am salivating at the prospect of a give-and-take debate. Perhaps this was a calculated effort to lower our expectations for debates again. I don't think that strategy will be successful, now that we all fully understand the pitfalls of (nearly) electing someone from whom we expect very little.

There were so many, many obvious trips and blunders in his press conference that it is hard to focus on one, but I think that the logic of argument about the PDB doesn't hold water. He claims that the PDB was generated because of his request. I should go to the transcript to quote him, but from memory he said something about his having concerns prior to that time. Essentially, he left it there. My question is, if you had enough concern that you felt you needed a specific PDB, did this PDB reduce your concerns? Damn! I mean, there was that reported briefing in late July that said that al Quada was going to attack within weeks. Then the August 6 PDB. Then ... vacation?

I find the argument that he does not have to take responsibility because bin Laden is the one who is responsible also less than compelling. Yes, bin Laden is responsible for attacking us. Bush was responsible for defending us. One succeeded and one failed. The buck must stop somewhere. At some point, even the most strident supporter has to say, well, you just plain dropped the ball.

[vanilla]

I was glad the press had the balls to ask good questions.
Did he say anything he thought funny?
I didn't listen to it all and he usually tries to make a "joke".

(loved the tie)

[John Mace]

It was marginally better than the Meet the Press Interview. I think most folks here were kind and gave him a Gentleman's "C" on the latter. I think I gave him a D- (didn't get an "F" because at least he showed up). Presidents rarely answer the actual questions asked during a Press Conference, but al least they can dance more like Fred Astaire than like Jerry Lewis.

He did no better or worse than I expected. I suspect he'll have looked fine/terribe to the hard-core partisans on whichever side mose people find themselves. Asking the prez the appologize was a stupid question. But he could have come up with a better answer.

[RTFirefly]

Well, $%#@! The WaPo lied to me. It isn't the complete transcript of his opening remarks yet, even.

[PatriotX]

Where's the debate?

How bout we move this to the Pit so you can say what you really think?

[Zagadka]

"A free Iraq will show that America is on the side of Muslims who wish to live in peace, as we've already shown in Kuwait and Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan"

My jaw is hanging open...

When is Bush's next state visit to Kosovo, Bosnia, or Afghanistan, the bastions of peace, freedom, and democracy? Mission Accomplished!

"Now is the time, and Iraq is the place, in which the enemies of the civilized world are testing the will of the civilized world."

heh, that makes it sound like we are the enemies of the civilized world.

... wait a second, that's not good!

[Zagadka]

Where's the debate?
Same place as the one where Ashcroft is going fundamentalist all over pornography's ass.

...

(aren't you proud I didn't say Nazi? Oh, damn)

[Mehitabel]

I'm dying to see what the papers will say tomorrow. Hmmm. I wonder if it'll come across in print.

Yes, Osama is first and foremost responsible for the deaths of all those people, including a couple I knew, and I do trust that Dubya would have stopped it if they'd been able to put the pieces together, I really do, but what would have been wrong with him preparing an answer for the inevitable demand for an apology with something like this:

"As I've said before, I and my Administration would have moved heaven and earth to stop this attack. But we failed. With the information we had at the time, it is my considered belief that we simply did not have enough information pieced together that would have thwarted it. Some of the structural problems that led to this were inherited by my new Administration, some were not, and I wish I had dealt with them earlier. But that was not to be. Osama bin Laden and his supporters are responsible for their own beliefs and actions, but for whatever I could have done and did not, I apologize, to the victims, to their families, and to the nation."

That might have helped. Oh well.

[MrTuffPaws]

I think I gave him a D- (didn't get an "F" because at least he showed up).

:D

[RTFirefly]

Transcript. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/politics/13CND-BTEX.html?pagewanted=print&position=)

[aahala]

I don't think Bush fumbled the ball, except for that comment about we will find WMD.

What I don't understand is why he wanted the press conference.

I would have thought he might have used the opportunity say state what progress had been made in the last 10 months, what specifically he had done to obtain getting commitments from other countries for troops and those sorts of thing. And some sense of what needs to be done and his plans etc.

As they say, an opportunity is a terrible thing to waste.

[clairobscur]

Transcript (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9488-2004Apr13.html) for those who, like me, just can't get enough of this foolishness.


Thanks! I was about to ask for it...

[RTFirefly]

Second question: QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. What's your best prediction on how long U.S. troops will have to be in Iraq? And it sounds like you will have to add some troops. Is that a fair assessment? He repeated the old dodge: In terms of how long we'll be there, as long as necessary, and not one day more. You know, some specifics would be nice by now. At least a frickin' ballpark WAG, fercryinoutloud. Two years? Ten? How long do we plan to endure at those 'enduring bases'?
We'll also need to continue training the Iraqi troops. I was disappointed in the performance of some of the troops. Some of the units performed brilliantly. Some of them didn't. And we need to find out why. If they're lacking in equipment, we'll get them equipment. If there needs to be more intense training, we'll get more intense training. What units performed brilliantly, where? So far, I've only heard about the ones that refused to fight, or melted away, or switched sides altogether.

"And we need to find out why." Maybe they didn't like the idea of shooting at their own countrymen. Sheez. "If there needs to be more intense training, we'll get more intense training." No, you won't. We had to skimp on their training because it was quite clear that we weren't training enough of them, fast enough. So we sped things up, hired contractors to train them who didn't know what they were doing, and here we are.

Third question:
QUESTION: Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq: that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers; that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction but, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we know where they are.

How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series of false premises? I'm gonna skip to a goodie: I thought it was very interesting that Charlie Duelfer, who just came back -- he's the head of the Iraqi Survey Group -- reported some interesting findings from his recent tour there. And one of the things was, he was amazed at how deceptive the Iraqis had been toward UNMOVIC and UNSCOM, deceptive in hiding things.

We knew they were hiding things. A country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting caught, and that was part of our calculation. And this from the most secretive Presidency ever, including Nixon's?

From your lips to God's ears, Mr. Bush.

Well, gotta go to bed. Back in the a.m.

[hipdadiddy]

Where's the debate?

After his performance tonight, his supporters finally threw in the towel, I guess.

'Bout time!!

[dropzone]

Presidents rarely answer the actual questions asked during a Press Conference, but al least they can dance more like Fred Astaire than like Jerry Lewis.Yeah, John, don't it make you miss ol' Bill? The boy could dance and sing so sweet I didn't care WHAT he said! And I was weaned on the best, JFK's casual, "Mind if I interupt 'Queen for a Day?' I need to flirt with Helen Thomas," matinees.

[Spavined Gelding]

Well, we do know that the President thinks asking him hard questions weakens the morale of our troops who volunteered to serve in Iraq. I think we are going to hear that again--that questioning the President's decisions undermines troop morale. I'm sure that this view is based on his personal experience since his morale was just all undermined and weakened by people doubting Lyndon Johnson and Richard M. Nixon. As I think about it that may be the explanation for the whole Texas and Alabama Air guard thing. His morale was undermined.

What we saw and heard was vintage George Bush. He was focused on a message. There were things he was going to say no mater what the question was. Apparently in press conferences the guy who asks the question does not get to object that the answer is non-responsive and ask that the witness be directed to answer the question asked.

I just loved the hope that Saddam's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons will yet be found. We may have to settle for a "capability" to produce chemical and biological weapons--but then your local high school chemistry class has the capability to produce chemical weapons. Any good medical lab is capable of producing biological weapons. You will remember, however, that we knew where just where they were stock piled.

The same old Saddam was a threat (never mind the nature of the threat), Saddam gassed the Kurds, Saddam subsidized Palestinian suicide bombers, Saddam attacked his neighbors, the world is a better place without Saddam. At least the President conceded that he would not like to have his home occupied by a foreign army.

No economic questions. How come?

[Sam Stone]

No, his supporters are smart enough to know that no matter what they say on this board they'll be met with howls of indignation, character assassination, and outrage. C'est la guerre.

Before I came here, I watched a number of roundtable responses by people on the right and left. Hardball, CNN, etc. The reviews were okay. No one thought that this was a disaster, nor did they think it was a slam dunk. I agree with that. He fumbled a few questions, he made some serious points. That's the way it goes.

Those of you aghast that he didn't say "I made a mistake" don't understand politics. One of the things a President has to do in these situation is avoid the 'damaging soundbite'. Bush knows damned well that if he said, "Well, I am willing to say I made a mistake in not being on a war footing," or "Plenty of us made mistakes", or anything even remotely similar, the next day's headlines would be "BUSH ADMITS MISTAKE OVER 9/11!" I'm sure his people told him, "Whatever you do tonight, do NOT say you made a mistake. You can say you wish things had been done differently, or there was a different sense of urgency, or I wish we had not run out of time, but do NOT use the word mistake."

But you know, after I saw all the reasoned commentary on Hardball and CNN, I said to myself, "Oh, I'll bet they are climbing the walls over at the SDMB." Thanks for not disappointing me.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

No, his supporters are smart enough to know that no matter what they say on this board they'll be met with howls of indignation, character assassination, and outrage. C'est la guerre. :rolleyes:

So sorry, this is Great Debates. Do you have a point? Or is the stock response from the right merely "howls of indignation" at their treatment, "character assassination" by ascribing base motives and behavior to other posters, and outrage.


Those of you aghast that he didn't say "I made a mistake" don't understand politics. One of the things a President has to do in these situation is avoid the 'damaging soundbite'. Bush knows damned well that if he said, "Well, I am willing to say I made a mistake in not being on a war footing," or "Plenty of us made mistakes", or anything even remotely similar, the next day's headlines would be "BUSH ADMITS MISTAKE OVER 9/11!" I'm sure his people told him, "Whatever you do tonight, do NOT say you made a mistake. You can say you wish things had been done differently, or there was a different sense of urgency, or I wish we had not run out of time, but do NOT use the word mistake."Personally, outside of politics, yes, I would like to see him stand up like a man with a bit of backbone, do some straight talkin' and say, "Yep, missed that one. But it was my watch. I am the President of the United States."

But you are arguing that we should be more politically astute? Okay. Would being politically astute in this situation be a) pointing out that he is absolutely avoiding the question, or b) not saying anything about it? Who is being politically naive?

The nice thing is that in this case, being politically astute AND also demanding personal accountability go hand in hand.

But you know, after I saw all the reasoned commentary on Hardball and CNN, I said to myself, "Oh, I'll bet they are climbing the walls over at the SDMB." Thanks for not disappointing me.Well, if they are saying so over at Hardball and CNN... Damn liberal media.

And thanks for not disappointing me.

[pantom]

Your welcome. And you can't be serious. Those guys on TV have to try and be reasonable. Over here, we're not being paid by some corporate kumquat to be respectable.
Sorry.

[Rashak Mani]

I thought the "I won't lose my job" part pretty shitty answer.

He certainly is better when he is babbling about his ideals and making set speeches. His answers were sometimes ok to good... but the tone and confidence weren't.

At least he didn't rattle on about War on Terror in Iraq. He just said it was "part of the war on terror" ... only because he invaded the dam place... but correctly NOW a part of the war on terror he is sponsoring.

I hope american voters were tuned in... instead of regurgitating what the media passes along. I doubt the newspapers would criticize him.

[Squink]

I'm sure his people told him, "Whatever you do tonight, do NOT say you made a mistake. You can say you wish things had been done differently, or there was a different sense of urgency, or I wish we had not run out of time, but do NOT use the word mistake." I would hope that the leader of the free world would have enough sense to figure out that particular issue all by himself. Do you doubt the man Sam?

[jshore]

Yes, the rest of the world, somehow this man became our President. If you don't mind my doing a Richard Clarke, I apologize to you all. We did everything we could in our power to keep this from happening in 2000, but we were unable to prevent it. We failed. We are sorry.

Boy, are we ever!

[Tigers2B1]

WOW – looks like Straight Dope is showing its true color as the home of the inbred opinion. Great analysis all!!

[Rashak Mani]

Yes, the rest of the world, somehow this man became our President. If you don't mind my doing a Richard Clarke, I apologize to you all. We did everything we could in our power to keep this from happening in 2000, but we were unable to prevent it. We failed. We are sorry.

Make sure you don't repeat the same mistake !
Get off your asses and start campaigning for Kerry or against Bush !

[furt]

WOW – looks like Straight Dope is showing its true color as the home of the inbred opinion. Great analysis all!!It'll go Onan on.

[Sam Stone]

Squink: Every president has advisors who coach him on things like this. Clinton did, Bush did, Reagan did, Carter did - they all did. If they were doing their job, they had mock press conferences, threw the tough questions at him, and then graded his responses. People who make it to the White House are a professional bunch. It's their job to make sure their guy doesn't get blindsided, and to point out where the mines in the field are.

If Bush didn't take advantage of that advice and effort, he WOULD be a fool.

[Rashak Mani]

WOW – looks like Straight Dope is showing its true color as the home of the inbred opinion. Great analysis all!!

Shit if an ass like that was my president I would be only ranting too... besides what is there to analyse ? He just repeated the same things:

"We are right. God is on our side. America is freedom. Iraq is terror. I am never wrong. Muslims are not terrorists. Its tough but America and Bush never quit (or changes his mind). The UN will help us and will have a bigger role" (though we won't allow them to help us).

So Pro-Bush fantasy boys... do tell us what was relevant in his speech.

[ccwaterback]

Do you folks remember George Sr. coined the phrase, "stay the course"? That was one of his favorite things to say on any subject. Late in George Sr.'s term he was asked about the faltering economy under his administration, his answer included, "stay the course". His "stay the course" parroting was used one too many times and it became the poison pill of his administration. We can only hope GW can "stay the course" of his namesake.

[Eva Luna]

C'est la guerre.



That was, indeed, the point most of us were hoping he would address head-on.

[pantom]

Tigers2B1, furt, the transcript has been posted. Out there for all to see.
Defend it, if you can.

[Tigers2B1]

Shit if an ass like that was my president I would be only ranting too...

Well you are "ranting too" - pay attention.


....besides what is there to analyse ?

So why in the hell is this in Great Debates Mani? Maybe your pro-yap clueless boys should move this to the Pit.

[hipdadiddy]

The reviews were okay. No one thought that this was a disaster, nor did they think it was a slam dunk.

The only reason no one thought it was a disaster is because Bush has lowered expectations of how a President should comport himself so drastically that even I want to cheer when he manages to complete a coherent sentence.

If Kennedy, Reagan or Clinton (or hell, Carter) had ever turned in a performance on this level, "disaster" would've been the mildest word used in the pundits' reviews.

[jshore]

Before I came here, I watched a number of roundtable responses by people on the right and left. Hardball, CNN, etc. The reviews were okay. No one thought that this was a disaster, nor did they think it was a slam dunk.

Were these the same people who gave positive to rave reviews for Colin Powell's phantasmagorical speech before the U.N. early last year?

Maybe we're just a bit ahead of the curve here on the SDMB! :D

[Zagadka]

So why in the hell is this in Great Debates Mani? Maybe your pro-yap clueless boys should move this to the Pit.
Well, in theory, you see, the people who thought it was a fine and proper display of American intelligence and integrity would be stating the find and detailed points and delicate politicking done by the President, while the dissenters pointed out the tripe rubbish and rhetoric.

Unfortunately, terms like "pro-yap clueless boys" are pit-worthy.

Maybe you should head off to the Pit until you're more able to bring up a point and defend it instead of calling people names?

I believe we have sufficiently discussed how much of an ass Bush looked like, including citing his answers and hypocracies.

By the way, I'm awful sick of this holier-than-thou-Republicans-never-snipe-anyone attitude. Please, grow up. All Republicans did for the past decade is snipe Clinton, and all Democrats did was snipe Bush and Cheney and Ashcroft and Rumsfeld. Both sides are partisan knee-jerk reactors, and neither side has the right to complain when the other does it.

So please, bring up a point where Bush eloquently fended for himself and provided insightful answers, or at least danced around a question with subtlety.

[Kimstu]

SS: No, his supporters are smart enough to know that no matter what they say on this board they'll be met with howls of indignation, character assassination, and outrage.

Pretty feeble substitute for an actual rebuttal, Sam. People are sharply and specifically criticizing the performance of your conservative hero, and all you can do is pout "Oh, you guys are just mean Bush-bashers" and "They were much more reasonable over on Hardball and CNN"?

I take it that this means you have no good arguments in defense of Bush's performance. If you do, by all means, let's hear 'em.

[pantom]

:: Drums fingers on desk.::

Tigers2b1, furt:
Still not willing to offer up a defense fellas, huh? Interesting.

On preview, what Zagadka said.

[furt]

Tigers2B1, furt, the transcript has been posted. Out there for all to see.
Defend it, if you can.
Why? W is godawful at going on TV and/or public speaking; didn't think it was news.

[Zagadka]

One point I will give to the Bush Admin is that they are certainly harping on the "most of Iraq is under control," without stating that most of Iraq is a barren desert, and just about every major population center is rebelling. It is a finer point of word use. It is actually kinda the opposite of Afghanistan, where 70% of the population is rural, and the government has no control over that 70%.

I think the "calmest" area is the Kurds, which isn't exactly a feat of amazing success after getting rid of Saddam.

[pantom]

Gotcha. Noted.
Can't speak well, we know he doesn't read much, and most Presidents don't write their own stuff either.
Sooo, what we have here is a .... what? a shadow of a man, I guess. Pathetic.

[Apos]

Asking the prez the appologize was a stupid question. But he could have come up with a better answer.

That's part of what I don't get. So often recently, this administration has stumbled pathetically in the face of things that were telegraphed a mile away. A lot of people have been talking about the apology thing: it was almost certain that he would get asked it. Why didn't they have anything prepared for him to say? They knew about Clarke's book months ago: why did they act so surprised?

This press conference solidified once and for all my suspicion that he has an earpiece feeding him words: that explains the long pauses, and fits the KIND of fumbles he has: even when answering spontaneous questions, he fumbles his words almost as if he were misrepeating something that was just said to him.

And what the heck is this "he'll get the troops he needs" nonsense? Giving the generals what they request would be a major policy change: the administration has been stonewalling their requests from before the war ever started, and tensions between the military leadership and civilian leadership are tenser than they've ever been in recent history, with massive contempt on both sides. How can they with a straight face claim that giving into those requests now is just a matter of course?

[John Mace]

Maybe we're just a bit ahead of the curve here on the SDMB! :D

Or out of step with most of the rest of the coutry. :) Neither one says anything about who is actually correct.

News flash: Bush is terrible at press conferences. Stop the presses!!

If you stop and look at his answers, at least the ones where he actually addressed the questions, they weren't all that bad. How long will the troops be in Iraq? A: As long as it takes. What else is he supposed to say? "Oh, they'll all be back by Christmas this year". Wars don't go according to a script. If you disagree with the war, you'll never accept any answer he gives.

And no president (especially a sitting president) in his right mind would appologize for the 9/11 attacks. What good would it do anyway? FDR, largely recognized as one of the greates presidents, never apolpgized for Pearl Harbor. It's a trick question, a long shot for sensational headline, and I think he eventually gave the best answer there is: ObL is responsible for the attacks. Anyone expecting otherwise has been watching too much Oprah.

[Sam Stone]

I take it that this means you have no good arguments in defense of Bush's performance. If you do, by all means, let's hear 'em.


Sure. Here you go. He came out and made a forceful case for what he is trying to accomplish. Going on the offense, toppling regimes that support terror, oppress their people, and create the conditions that breed terrorists. He is trying to spread freedom through the middle east on the theory that democracies generally don't breed suicide bombers. He didn't blow sunshine up anyone's ass claiming that everything's going great. He said these are tough times, it's a tough war, it's not going to be easy, but it needs to be done. When asked if more troops might be necessary, he didn't waver and say, "The situation is under control" or some such. He said, "That may be the case. And if General Abizaid asks for more men, he'll get them."

He didn't sugarcoat the problem with the Iraqi security forces. Said he was disappointed in them, and wanted better. He said that if they need more money, they'll get it. If they need better weapons, they'll get it. If they need better training, they'll get it. But failure isn't an option. And that was his overriding theme, and what he did exactly right - strike a tone of defiance against terrorists. He basically said, "Yes, it's been a bad couple of weeks. There will be more bad weeks. It may even get worse. But that doesn't mattter, because our resolve is absolute, and nothing they do can cause us to lose this war, because losing is simply not an option."

We're in a war, guys. This is not the time to be handwringing, looking for apologies, or admitting that Iraq may be lost. Not that Bush is Churchill, but do you think after the Blitz Churchill should have said to the British people, "Your government failed you! I failed you! We tried to protect you from the Nazis, and we failed! I'm sorry!"

Or should he have said, "We will fight them on the seas and oceans. We will defend our honor, whatever the cost may be. We shall never surrender!"

Bush gave a wartime speech. He said "we won't quit, no matter how tough it gets." That's the right message to send to everyone. Even John Kerry is starting to get on board with that message, with his op-ed today.

[pantom]

Of course, none of that has a thing to do with what's going on right now in Iraq, with the exception of the possible request for more troops. I sat down expecting to see an actual addressing of the actual situation as it actually exists in the real world, given the near-crisis conditions that occurred in Iraq over the past week.
It was as if the last week never happened, though. This press conference could have taken place last month, which in terms of what's going on in Iraq right now is the same as saying it could have taken place a hundred years ago, because what he said had about that much relevance to the real situation in Iraq today.

[Rashak Mani]

Sure. Here you go. He came out and made a forceful case for what he is trying to accomplish. ... He didn't sugarcoat the problem with the Iraqi security forces.

Bush gave a wartime speech. He said "we won't quit, no matter how tough it gets." That's the right message to send to everyone. Even John Kerry is starting to get on board with that message, with his op-ed today.

- Well its not a War.
- He didn't make a forceful case, he just repeated the same stuff again and less forceful I thought.
- He did sugarcoat the problem by saying some troops are acting brilliantly, nor did he mention desertion.
- "We won't quit" = We never change our minds... nor admit mistakes.

As for the silly comments about "pro-yap clueless boys" I did put forth that Bush is only repeating himself... and then asked you guys to defend the speech and questions.

[da_pope]

"I plan on telling the American people that that I’ve got a plan to win the war on terror."

i suppose the plan is to reveal the plan, say, mid november?



i don't think i'm undecided anymore.

[Squink]

I think the "calmest" area is the Kurds, which isn't exactly a feat of amazing success after getting rid of Saddam.
Oh no, they've been having riots and bombings and curfews, even US troops killed in Mosul as well. (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=mosul&btnG=Search+News) It just hasn't gotten as much play in the press because it doesn't fit in with the story about our troubles being limited to baathists, terrorists and a few malcontent Shiites.

[Rashak Mani]

Were these the same people who gave positive to rave reviews for Colin Powell's phantasmagorical speech before the U.N. early last year?

Who gave rave reviews to that Powell U.N. "case about WMD" ?
That was the biggest let down ever. Poor Powell, sent before the world with a telephone conversation and some false anthrax. Never has so little been shown to try to justify so much.

[El_Kabong]

I didn't watch the whole thing. I'll admit I gave up after this:

Question: One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9-11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism, and do you believe that there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?

BUSH: Well, I think, as I mentioned, you know, the country wasn't on war footing, and yet we're at war.

And that's just a reality, Dave. I mean, that was the situation that existed prior to 9-11, because the truth of the matter is most in the country never felt that we'd be vulnerable to an attack such as the one that Osama bin Laden unleashed on us.

We knew he had designs on us. We knew he hated us. But there was nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.

The people know where I stand, I mean, in terms of Iraq. I was very clear about what I believed. And, of course, I want to know why we haven't found a weapon yet. But I still know Saddam Hussein was a threat. And the world is better off without Saddam Hussein.

I don't think anybody can -- maybe people can argue that. I know the Iraqi people don't believe that, that they're better off with Saddam Hussein -- would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power.

I also know that there's an historic opportunity here to change the world. And it's very important for the loved ones of our troops to understand that the mission is an important, vital mission for the security of America and for the ability to change the world for the better.

Let's see. Ed?

Er, so that's a 'Yes', then, I guess.

I was glad to see that the press for once did not roll over and asked some tough, searching questions of the President. The non-answers they recieved, IMO, say a considerable amount about this administration, and I hope vast numbers of Americans were listening to at least some of tonight's conference.

Unfortunately for him, Mr. Bush has clearly painted himself into a corner on Iraq.
In both his opening remarks and the quoted response, Bush continued, as his administration has done repeatedly, to conflate the invasion of Iraq with the so-called 'War on Terror'. I expect they will continue to do so, and even the harshest press questions will never elicit an admission of error on this issue, especially while an election is at stake. Nevertheless, by stubbornly insisting on the line that Iraq was about non-existent WMD and quashing non-existent support for terrorists, we are forced to confront the fact that, IMO, only two plausible conclusions can be drawn:

1) The President sincerely believes to this day that Iraq was associated with the terrorist activity that resulted in the 9/11 attacks, in which case he and his advisors have shown themselves to be persons of remarkable stubbornness and tragically poor judgement.

2) The President does not sincerely believe that Iraq was associated with the terrorist activity that resulted in the 9/11 attacks, in which case he and his advisors have clearly lied to the American people, caused the deaths of many thousands of American troops and Iraqi civilians, and squandered vast amounts of money and military assets, in a horribly misconcieved attempt to, as the President himself said, "change the world". Hey, the invasion of Iraq has changed the world alright, but has it changed for the better, particularly for American interests? Sorry, but at this point I'd have to say no.

[Sam Stone]

- Well its not a War.


And that, right there, is the difference between what forms my opinions and what forms yours. I happen to think we ARE at war. Not just the U.S., but here in Canada, and in Britain, and Australia, and Europe, and Japan, and the Middle East. This war was declared by Osama Bin Laden. He's been at war with us for years. It took WTC for some of us to realize it and to join the battle. Some of you haven't realized it yet.

But Bush believes it's a war, and so does Tony Blair. It's a different kind of war, against a different kind of enemy. But war it is. This is not a matter for law enforcement. This isn't just a matter of rounding up Bin Laden and a few other bad guys, then going back to business as usual.

There is a large movement of Islamist radicals who have declared war against Western Pluralism. There are millions of them, and they want us all dead. They are trying to get their hands on weapons that could kill us by the millions and destroy our economies. In the era of nuclear and biological weapons, it doesn't take a large nation-state to destroy our way of life. You worried about civil liberties? Think about what will happen if a nuclear bomb goes off in North America. Worried about jobs? Think of the shape the economy will be in if weapons of mass destruction are used in the west.

One other thing Bush said exactly right - there is only one way to win this war, and that's to go on the offense against the very culture that breeds terror. Going after individual terrorists is important, but it's like solving your wasp problem by swatting wasps while leaving the nest alone. Eventually, you'll get stung. Bush is trying to take down the nest.

I don't want to fight a defensive war, because I believe that's the path towards the loss of our civil liberties. Trying to 'defend' a democracy is damned near impossible, and the natural inclination of government is to attempt it by taking away our freedom. And eventually, they'll get you anyway.

You know, a few weeks ago I posted a message about Democratic polls during the primary, in which Democrats asked to name the five most pressing problems in the U.S. picked terrorism LAST. They thought the economy, jobs, the environment, and something else I can't remember were all more important than terrorism. When I posted that here, the result was an amusing mix of people telling me that I was crazy and agreeing that terrorism WASN'T as important as those other things.

Now, of course, those same people are trying to parse every decision made by the Bush admnistration pre-9/11, accusing them of not taking terrorism seriously enough. Hell, you guys don't take it seriously NOW, and you've got the example of 9/11 to refer to.

This is a war. Battles are fought. Battles will be won - and lost. Many more people will die. That's what happens in war. But the key thing to remember is, we didn't choose this war. Bin Laden did. Bush chose to make Iraq one of the battle grounds, for what I think are sound strategic reasons. Plenty of mistakes have been made in the aftermath of that war - and plenty more will be made. War is a messy business, and we're writing the book on how to win this one as we go along.

But it has to be fought. That was Bush's message, and it was delivered forcefully. To me, the nit-picking questioning about apologies, admitting blame, and all that other stuff are annoying diversions, and questions that shouldn't even be asked at a time like this.

[Duckster]

What was the hair all about?

Has Bush been watching The Apprentice and contacted The Donald's hairdresser?

[elucidator]

If Geedubya wanted to be Churchill, then he shouldn't have quit drinking.

The English showed enormous intelligence in thier choice of a leader, Churchill was one of the great leaders of the 20th century, no question. So did the Germans, in the sense of "great" leadership as the capacity to inspire and motivate (for good or ill). But the English were smart enough not to let thier Great Leader make decisions.

"Splendid speech, Winnie, just the thing. But one Gallipoli was quite enough, don't you think, there's a good chap."

[TWDuke]

What about this gem?
Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing or free. I'd strongly disagree with that. We learned Bush strongly disagrees with the racists who disagree with him about his policy. It might seem strange this came in the middle of a response to a question about the predominately American international coalition in Iraq. Some might even call it an annoying diversion. But exposing the bigotry of people who question the occupation was obviously more important than sticking to the subject.

Every president has advisors who coach him on things like this. Clinton did, Bush did, Reagan did, Carter did - they all did. If they were doing their job, they had mock press conferences, threw the tough questions at him, and then graded his responses. People who make it to the White House are a professional bunch. It's their job to make sure their guy doesn't get blindsided, and to point out where the mines in the field are.

If Bush didn't take advantage of that advice and effort, he WOULD be a fool.

I hope -- I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.

Yes, Ann?

[Zagadka]

there is only one way to win this war, and that's to go on the offense against the very culture that breeds terror.
You're joking, right? You seriously think that trying to wipe Islamic culture (and probably a good chunk of their people) from the face of the planet is the best way to win the war on terror? That is scary.

You DO realize that your statement above is the exact same sentence that Osama has probably said at some point?

I'm curious, why do you think that we were attacked?

[Starving Artist]

Has anybody here taken note of, or do they even care while they're in the middle of critisizing Bush for saying the same thing over and over, that the questions were asked over and over in an attempt to get him to admit some kind of mistake. And not even a specific mistake, hell, any ol' mistake would do. Bush refused to answer for the very reasons you're mad that he didn't: to avoid tomorrow's headlines reading:

BUSH ADMITS IRAQ WAS A MISTAKE!

or

BUSH ADMITS HE WAS WRONG ABOUT IRAQ!

or

BUSH ADMITS HE DIDN'T DO THE RIGHT THING!

Followed, of course, by John Kerry trumpeting the same thing for the next seven months.

Poor, stupid Dubya, just wouldn't admit he made a mistake...despite the best efforts of the media to pry one, any one, out of him.

What a crock!!!

And oh, yeah...what Sam said!

[samclem]

There is a large movement of Islamist radicals who have declared war against Western Pluralism. There are millions of them, and they want us all dead. They are trying to get their hands on weapons that could kill us by the millions and destroy our economies. But it has to be fought. That was Bush's message, and it was delivered forcefully. To me, the nit-picking questioning about apologies, admitting blame, and all that other stuff are annoying diversions, and questions that shouldn't even be asked at a time like this. If there are truly millions of THEM wanting us dead, then we're doomed. If you have evidence that they are trying to get their hands on weapons that could kill us by the miliions, then it would be your duty to turn that evidence over to the authorities. Yellowcake, perhaps?

Of course, trying to destory our economies would be just about the worst thing a Republican apologist could envision. :(

Nit-picking questions about such things as invading a sovereign country without sufficient cause and taking away civil liberties, etc. certainly should not be brought up at a time like this. Just ask about it later. :mad:

[Apos]

But Bush believes it's a war, and so does Tony Blair. It's a different kind of war, against a different kind of enemy. But war it is.

Unfortunately, Sam, there are those of us who know it to be a war, but are not so blinded by partisan grudges so as to miss the fact that we've been fumbling the ball. Other people have the luxury of being able to critically evaluate our actual strategy, and find it wildly misaimed and poorly managed.

Just imagine: if the fate of our entire civilization is at stake, do you really want to trust that strategy to a bunch of yes-men for Bush's approach to things?

This isn't just a matter of rounding up Bin Laden and a few other bad guys, then going back to business as usual.

That's exactly what the President is saying it is though. It's just some troublemakers, a couple of evildoers. We'll get them. That's the war, for him.

What he doesn't get is that we are fighting in more than a military engagement against armed terrorists, but against an ideology. And his trite statements about freedom are not going to defeat that ideology. He's expressed only the crudest understanding of our values, the crudest case for why we need to win over the Middle East. It's a vision that is as empty as it is simplistic, and people in the Middle East see right through it. It is NOT the deep and true things that pro-Bush pundits like to pretend he's saying, pretend he's advocating, pretend he's putting a face on. They are utterly blind to his unsuitability to deliver that message. And it will cost us dearly.

In the era of nuclear and biological weapons, it doesn't take a large nation-state to destroy our way of life.

And yet, that was exactly the idea that Bush's administration scoffed at, even after 9/11. Again and again, they've focused on states rather than the dangers of ideology.

Going after individual terrorists is important, but it's like solving your wasp problem by swatting wasps while leaving the nest alone. Eventually, you'll get stung. Bush is trying to take down the nest.

You can't take down the nest, because it's the entire Islamic world. Destroying the nest is not an option. We have to kill the most aggressive elements, but we also have to win over the rest. And so far, Bush has failed miserably to deliver EITHER objective.

If you are so for being aggressive, then how can you possibly explain our utterly timid operations in Afghanistan? And I'm not talking about pulling off all our best troops so we could tilt at windmills in Iraq: I'm talking about the original assault. It was tenative, used few our troops, and it was slow. We telegraphed our punches, and left the major leadership escape easily. And because we have not put anywhere near the amount of time, money, and political effort into catching them, they've had two years to continue their plan and spread their ideas far and wide: beyond merely their own organization.

This is a war. Battles are fought. Battles will be won - and lost. Many more people will die. That's what happens in war. But the key thing to remember is, we didn't choose this war. Bin Laden did. Bush chose to make Iraq one of the battle grounds, for what I think are sound strategic reasons. Plenty of mistakes have been made in the aftermath of that war - and plenty more will be made. War is a messy business, and we're writing the book on how to win this one as we go along.

And with this, you are basically setting yourself up to be uncritical of strategy, uncritical of key mistakes that you would scream your lungs out about if a Democrat was in power. To dismiss some mistakes and harp on others selectively. Is that really wise? Is that really the sort of risk you want to take with a struggle like this?

Iraq was a strategic misstep. It has gained us nothing in the way of security: can you honestly make a case for having done so? We've spent virtually all the money we can spare on it, stretched our military thin, destroyed our moral and political capital with many of the allies we need, made our own military despise its clumsy and ideological civilian leadership, and we've spent almost 700 American lives on it. And what have we gained? We've turned a basically neutralized and contained secular dictatorship into another quietly seething and sometimes outspoken recruiting ground for Islamic radicals. We did EXACTLY what the ENEMY not only predicted we'd do, but have said they'd hoped we'd do.

We liberated Iraq, and Iraq may well be better off, though it will likely always be far from perfect.

Al Qaeda has a strategy. It isn't one note. It didn't end with 9/11. It, in fact, is something they expect to take a century. And so far, we've followed, to the letter, what they had set out as the first few expected moves in that century long chess game. Does that not bother you, even a teensy bit? As someone who cares about fighting them tooth and nail: does it not bother you that we fell into their plans so easily, so quickly, so thoughtlessly with shifting justifications and shifty explanations?

They have their strategy: what is our strategy? We didn't even plan for the occupation of Iraq that we knew was inevitable after conquering it. Our own officials lied to us about how much it would cost, how many troops it would require, evern what it was all about. Where are we going with this? How are we going to win back the faith of the Middle East and the rest of the world with a smirking, fumbly President that nobody trusts, and nobody has reason to trust.

[Master Wang-Ka]

I would be sympathetic to his fluency disorder if he wasn't a blithering, amoral maroon. I almost wish he was slicker (like Condi), because then I wouldn't blame some of us for having been bamboolzed. But the fact that he can't even hide the fact that he's a blithering, amoral maroon and people STILL respect him just drives me nuts.

I'm hoping most of us saw the naked emperor tonight.

I'm there.

In fact, that's my problem. I'm a partisan. I'm no fan of Kerry's, but I hate Bush with a passion that borders on psychosis. I'm one of those guys it's safe to ignore, because I wouldn't vote for the man if he suddenly turned out to be the second coming of Christ.

I have noticed he is not a very talented public speaker.

But tonight seemed particularly... fumblesome ... for the man. Is it just me, or did he seem like he was scared to death? I mean, he was coming across like a comedian whose act was bombing at one point, and, yes, his answer to the question of why he and Cheney were testifying together was priceless...

...and then Dan Rather came on and explained how calm and forceful Bush was. Calm? CALM? The man acted like the narcs were at the threshold, for potato's sake! He jibbered and jabbered like a crackhead trying to explain nuclear physics! His usual nonexistent public speaking skills actually veered into the NEGATIVE for once!

...So... is it just me? Am I seeing this because I wanted to see it? Or was he even weirder tonight than he's been in the past?

[Zagadka]

That's exactly what the President is saying it is though. It's just some troublemakers, a couple of evildoers. We'll get them. That's the war, for him.
Nope, there are exactly 52 evildoers, remember?


You can't take down the nest, because it's the entire Islamic world. Destroying the nest is not an option.
I think that is exactly what Sam is suggesting - the destruction of Islamic culture, as he put it.

At least I understand now why he viewed the entire city of Fallujah as "insurgents" and bragged about the body count of civilians.

Better be careful interpreting what Sam says, though, or Brutus will ask you to cite everything.

[Llama Llogophile]

I did not watch on TV.

I read the transcript, and in text it came out to me that he was desperately veering away from answering certain questions directly. Especially the one about he and Cheney testifying together for the 9/11 commission. He tried to drop that one like a hot iron, and I can only imagine how it appeared to those watching.

About this idea of us being "at war"...

I don't believe we are in a "war" as the term is usually used. And I object to our efforts against terrorism being defined in that way because I feel various political and economic motives are served through it.

Bush obviously has a stake in being seen as a "wartime" president (political motive), and is using this to strengthen his ability to push other policies dear to him (largely economic goals). Some might just call that smart politics.

I don't. I call it dangerous. I feel there is too much to be gained politically for Bush and his ilk by keeping the country convinced that we are at war.

Terrorism is a problem to be dealt with through various means: law enforcement, intelligence, and the military all have a role to play in it. But this is not a war in the traditional sense. Treating it as such is a falsehood. I'm all for fighting terrorism, but it's not a "War". I'm not sure what it is - maybe we need to invent new terminology. But calling it a war is too self-serving to those in power for my comfort.

[Gorsnak]

And that, right there, is the difference between what forms my opinions and what forms yours. I happen to think we ARE at war. Not just the U.S., but here in Canada, and in Britain, and Australia, and Europe, and Japan, and the Middle East. This war was declared by Osama Bin Laden. He's been at war with us for years. It took WTC for some of us to realize it and to join the battle. Some of you haven't realized it yet.

But Bush believes it's a war, and so does Tony Blair. It's a different kind of war, against a different kind of enemy. But war it is. This is not a matter for law enforcement. This isn't just a matter of rounding up Bin Laden and a few other bad guys, then going back to business as usual.
Sam, I've had about as much of this bullshit as I can stomach. Please answer me just two questions.

1) Why are you conflating Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda with Iraq? Huh? What the hell have you been smoking that you still, after all this time, can slide so effortlessly from "9-11 was a declaration of war by radical Islamists" to "We must support Bush and his war on Iraq, that brutal authoritarian secular thug who had as much to do with radical Islamists as Mickey Mouse"? What do the two have to do with each other, besides Bush's misadventure in Iraq predictably creating the greatest Al Qaeda recruitment bonanza since the Soviets invaded Afghanistan?

2) Could you provide us with some examples of radical insurgencies that have been put down by brute force? Could you provide us some examples of popular uprisings where heavy-handed responses haven't resulted in the uprisings gaining momentum. Like, say, for example, the Afrikaaners approach to the ANC. Or Somoza's response to the Sandinistas. Or the British response to the IRA. Except that all of those cases are evidence that brute force doesn't fucking work, but in face exacebates the problem. Please explain either how my understanding of history is wrong, or why this time is different.

[elucidator]

...He's been at war with us for years. It took WTC for some of us to realize it and to join the battle. Some of you haven't realized it yet.

And therein lies the fundamental fuck-up: to a hammer, all problems are nails. To the foremost military power in history, you go to "war" to crush a terrorist. A man attacked by a swarm of hornets elects to flail at them with a five-pound sledge. Stupid. Just plain stupid.


...One other thing Bush said exactly right - there is only one way to win this war, and that's to go on the offense against the very culture that breeds terror...

LIke Tim McVeigh? Or John Allen Muhammed? Who do we bomb for them, Sam?

...War is a messy business, and we're writing the book on how to win this one as we go along....

As of this point, I am entirely unimpressed with improvisational statesmanship.

...questions that shouldn't even be asked at a time like this.

There are no such questions. There are, however, answers that shouldn't be given.

[Sam Stone]

Zagadka: I would hope that people know me well enough on here to know that I would never advocate a 'war against Islam'. The 'culture' I'm talking about is the culture that breeds terrorism - Wahhabism, Jihadist extremism, etc. What Bin Laden and the Saudis are pushing.

But the reason it has such resonance in the Middle East is because it is a region of failed states that have produced miserable, desperate people. The volatility in the Middle East stems from oppression, high unemployment, poverty, and a leadership that encourages violence against others as a way of deflecting blame from themselves. Almost all of the world's dictatorships are in the Middle East. All of them are failing. This, coupled with great wealth from oil has created a very dangerous region for the world - one which is now bubbling over into worldwide violence. That culture must be destroyed. We need an Islamic Middle East with a thriving, prosperous population investing its oil revenue into its infrastructure and education while the oil is still flowing. We need human rights to be respected throughout the world, because the alternative breeds hatred that, in a world of nuclear and biological weapons, can no longer be tolerated.

Right now, I wonder if we can all agree on two overriding goals: One, al-Qaida must be destroyed. That will require all of our tools - diplomatic, military, intelligence, and police work. Two: regardless of our disagreements over the start of the war in Iraq, can we agree that this effort must end in success? That means committing the resources to it. If Bush won't do that, throw him out. If his strategy is not as sound as Kerry's, make the case and I'll switch my support. I've already said that Kerry took a very good step today, very statesmanlike, to make it clear that a Kerry Administration would be just as resolute as the Bush administration when it comes to determination to succeed in Iraq. That's an important message to send.

The real debate should be over the next step. What do Democrats believe should come next? What's their end game? Give me a strategy to consider. I know Bush's, in broad strokes - Build a Democracy in Iraq, and then start pressuring other regimes like Syria and Iran. Work for a peaceful solution with hard, agressive diplomacy. Move to get China to lean on North Korea. In the meantime, begin moving military resource into the hunt for al-Qaida and Bin Laden.

Bush did a good job tonight because he made his position pretty clear on this issue, and ultimately, that's what matters. He's not as glib as Clinton, but he has one thing going for him: While with Clinton you often felt like he was playing you, Bush speaks from conviction. You'd never see Bush bite his lip in thought. People generally believe that Bush means what he says.

[ccwaterback]

What was the hair all about?

Has Bush been watching The Apprentice and contacted The Donald's hairdresser?

I like the way he walks with his arms kind of pumping popeye-style at his side and that hop-skip-n-jump-rodeo-cowboy gate of his.

[ccwaterback]

If "they" wanted to kill every westerner, wouldn't they have picked better targets for 9/11? A couple college football games for example? They attack symbols of our nation, not our people in mass. The fact is, we kill more innocent people than they do.

[Master Wang-Ka]

Bush did a good job tonight because he made his position pretty clear on this issue, and ultimately, that's what matters.

...he did? Geez, here I was thinking he came across like a very nervous man with a whole lot of questions he didn't wanna answer, desperately trying to claw up some support for a failed agenda. Hell, I'd have had more faith in him if he HADN'T spoken, frankly.

He's not as glib as Clinton, but he has one thing going for him: While with Clinton you often felt like he was playing you, Bush speaks from conviction.

Of this I have no doubt. Precisely what those convictions actually are, I got plenty doubts. He made LOTS of things pretty clear, though, and among those things was that he paid no attention to polls. Translated: "I don't give a damn what the American people think, I'm going to do what I wanna do."

You'd never see Bush bite his lip in thought.

Perhaps he should have. More than once, he sounded like he was free-associating. This is not a good way to answer questions of public policy. And he was sure rackin' his brains when the question came up of "What has your greatest mistake been?" He didn't ANSWER it, but he sure'nuff thought about it...

People generally believe that Bush means what he says.

Yeah. Now, if he'd just say something meaningful. Or provide a straight answer to a thorny question...

[John Mace]

And he was sure rackin' his brains when the question came up of "What has your greatest mistake been?" He didn't ANSWER it, but he sure'nuff thought about it...

Once again, this is really a trick question, trying to get Bush to say claim he made some horrible mistake, that would make a great headline. Really, can you think of a president offering a serious answer to that question while still in office?

Sure, there could have been better ways to deflect that question. He could have said something like "I really can't answer that right now. That's something that I'll be better able to answer when I have time to reflect. Perhaps when I'm writing my memiors." Yeah, he stumbled around and said something rather stupid in response. But to think that he should have actually offered a serious answer to that question is simply naive.

[Master Wang-Ka]

to think that he should have actually offered a serious answer to that question is simply naive.

I must respectfully disagree.

In an administration which has insisted on "privelige" every time anyone's asked them for a straight answer or any kind of under-oath testimony, I sure would like some old-fashioned straight answers. Admittedly, considering the calibre of politician we're dealing with, I expect that's a bit much to expect.

Nevertheless, I would have respected even an unspecific answer like, "There are things I would have done differently, in light of what I know now,".......

.........to "Um, fumfuh, uh, geez, that's a tough one, duh, whuh, I'm, a, sure there musta been sumpthin, but, uh, I'm gonna pertend like you asked a different question, now..."

[Voyager]

Right now, I wonder if we can all agree on two overriding goals: One, al-Qaida must be destroyed. That will require all of our tools - diplomatic, military, intelligence, and police work. Two: regardless of our disagreements over the start of the war in Iraq, can we agree that this effort must end in success? That means committing the resources to it. If Bush won't do that, throw him out. If his strategy is not as sound as Kerry's, make the case and I'll switch my support. I've already said that Kerry took a very good step today, very statesmanlike, to make it clear that a Kerry Administration would be just as resolute as the Bush administration when it comes to determination to succeed in Iraq. That's an important message to send.


And Bush's strategy for the destruction of al-Qaeda is pulling troops and intelligence resources from Afghanistan to Iraq? bin Laden is still at large. Can't you admit at least that the present Administration is not being as effective as it could be? This is like Roosevelt attacking Argentina after Germany and Japan declared war on us in 1941.

The argument that we must support Bush as the wartime president is going to be the standard definition of chutzpah in the future, replacing the one of the child who kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan. Bush either lied or never bothered to check the claims of his handlers. They just assumed that we would be greeted as liberators, and never made contingency plans. They followed Rummy's magic minimal force policy, where it made no sense. If you are the Board of Directors of a company whose CEO has screwed up, plunging it in a nosedive, you fire his ass, not let him keep going because of the depth of the problem.

As for apologizing, there are a few ways of doing it. One, you could say that you did the best you could, but you made a mistake, but you learned. I'm not surprised that this is too much for Bush. But you can also say that you did perfectly, then quietly change direction, and say that was the plan all the time. This is standard CEO strategy. The Administration never even does that. They make the same mistake, over and over and over again. They have such ideological blinders on that they can't even own up to screwing up in private. To hear them talk, they did everything perfectly before Sept. 11. Can't you admit they could have done just a little bit better?

[Desmostylus]

He came out and made a forceful case for what he is trying to accomplish. Going on the offense, toppling regimes that support terror, oppress their people, and create the conditions that breed terrorists.I like this one.

BUSH: I'm going on the offense! I'm toppling regimes that support terror! I'm oppressing their people! I'm creating the conditions that beed terrorists! Why are you looking at me like that!?

[Typo Negative]

Zagadka: Right now, I wonder if we can all agree on two overriding goals: One, al-Qaida must be destroyed. That will require all of our tools - diplomatic, military, intelligence, and police work. Two: regardless of our disagreements over the start of the war in Iraq, can we agree that this effort must end in success? That means committing the resources to it. .Can you agree that all our tools are not being used to fight Al Qaida, or do you insist on equating Al Qaida with Iraq?

[Sisyphus' Stone]

Yes, the rest of the world, somehow this man became our President. If you don't mind my doing a Richard Clarke, I apologize to you all. We did everything we could in our power to keep this from happening in 2000, but we were unable to prevent it. We failed. We are sorry.

Not bloody good enough. Get rid of the clown. Try to elect someone who understands world politics sans the fundamental, bible-bashing, 'down-home' piety.

[Apos]

Zagadka: But the reason it has such resonance in the Middle East is because it is a region of failed states that have produced miserable, desperate people. The volatility in the Middle East stems from oppression, high unemployment, poverty, and a leadership that encourages violence against others as a way of deflecting blame from themselves. Almost all of the world's dictatorships are in the Middle East. All of them are failing.

I agree. But you have to acknowledge that we are unlikely saviors to many in the Middle East: we were the people whom these dictators either threw out originally, i.e. prior oppressors and dictators, or who propped up dicatators against the people.
Our interest in democracy seems to people in the Middle East a passing fancy: we're pushing not because we care, but because it happens to serve our interests at the moment.

Right now, I wonder if we can all agree on two overriding goals: One, al-Qaida must be destroyed. That will require all of our tools - diplomatic, military, intelligence, and police work.

Yes.


Two: regardless of our disagreements over the start of the war in Iraq, can we agree that this effort must end in success?

Yes. Unfortunately, success has to be defined downwards quite a bit. None of our major goals are relevant anymore. What we need in Iraq now is as much stability as we can get. And though we may hate to think of it, we need other nations to get in rather than getting out.

That means committing the resources to it. If Bush won't do that, throw him out.

It's not simply a matter of resources (which, no matter what, are going to mostly come too little too late), it's a matter of diplomatic and authoritative cred. The thing is, no one trusts his administration. The people in Iraq have become radically disillusioned with his ability to deliver and his policies. In world opinion, Bush is like Clinton after the impeachment: whether the impeachment was right or wrong, his credibility and political capital are blown and smoking.

Strip away the "my president do or die" approach, and the fact is that Bush is not a good leader. He cannot clearly articulate American policies in a way that the rest of the world can understand. His grasp of the ideas he is trying to fight for is rudimentary and limited to a few stock cliches which he weilds defensively because he simply cannot speak on his feet. For instance, in this speech, the President not only stumbled badly, but to recover, he ripped down the fourth wall of press conference stage craft to essentially say "uh, I'm going to start taking the pre-arranged softball questions now."

If his strategy is not as sound as Kerry's, make the case and I'll switch my support. I've already said that Kerry took a very good step today, very statesmanlike, to make it clear that a Kerry Administration would be just as resolute as the Bush administration when it comes to determination to succeed in Iraq. That's an important message to send.

The thing about Kerry is that he could never afford to be anything but hawkish on terror. He cannot afford politically to get painted into the corner of a weakling or a dove, because all it will take is a single terror attack on his watch to completely destroy him if there is any sign of appeasement or weakness.

I think Kerry can add a positive note to all this primarily because he can re-brand America. Bush has built up a heck of a lot of distrust and anger across the globe. Some of that was inevitable, and some of it was even credible. But the thing is: a lot of that hate and distrust is with his administration and him personally. His defeat in November would likely not bring on much in the way of radically different policies: we will still be in Iraq, we will still be at war with terror. But Kerry will be a new face, and one that countries in both the EU and the Middle East will see as a chance to restart statecraft and alliances with.

Even if Kerry proposes to do exactly what Bush plans to do, Kerry will be able to get it done better. It's not just that he'll have real experts working for him rather than a cadre of squabbling ideologes and political advisors. He'll simply be a chance for a fresh start with America, to offer our ideas and policies in a new light, with a clearer understanding of what we are fighting for.

Bush did a good job tonight because he made his position pretty clear on this issue, and ultimately, that's what matters. He's not as glib as Clinton, but he has one thing going for him: While with Clinton you often felt like he was playing you, Bush speaks from conviction. You'd never see Bush bite his lip in thought. People generally believe that Bush means what he says.

There's a point where mere repetition degrades meaning what you say to empty rhetoric.

Yes, he doesn't bite his lip in thought because he's not thinking. He's pre-prepared what he's going to say to an extent that does not permit thinking on his feet in response to new situations. Which is great when he's right, but disasterously when he's not. That's what got us into a lot of the mistakes that even you think are mistakes: there is an arrogance towards policy matters that is just stunning. To simply toss out months of pre-war planning because the timetable would have been pushed back a few weeks, to have scorned the military you claim to be a big booster for... it just doesn't work.

This is why the 9/11 hearings have been illustrative. They have revealed an administration that is not prepared to rethink their positions in the face of new evidence, in the face of questions, in the face of lack of evidence.

There is no great policy that has to be wrong for the administration to be wrong. It's the process that's all wrong for our country, especially in the face of an ever changing morass of terror threats, failing states, shifting alliances. What we don't need are bitter people who demand loyalty and agreement. We need statesmen. We need leaders who actually read and understand the depth and breadth of conflicts so that they can strategize for more than just the next move.

[iamme99]

At least this time he doesn't look quite so doped up, but... JEEBUS!! What a pathetic performance!

So, two topics for discussion: is Bush totally losing it? And is there a sane person out there (with a net worth of under, say, $50 million) who still supports him? And if so (okay, three topics)...WHY???

Yah, that was one feeble performance! But Pat Buchanan and even Chris Matthews were all feeling sorry for him. Said he sounded "hu-man" <lol>.

Even Republicans were bailing on Bush before the press conference. It's not looking real good for him now.

Former Congressmen Assess U.S. Foreign Policy:

A Republican's Case Against George W. Bush: Today, for the first time, I worry deeply about America's future. We are in a deep hole. I believe President George W. Bush's decision to initiate war on Iraq will be the greatest and most costly blunder in American history. He has set America on the wrong course. http://www.wrmea.com/archives/April_2004/0404020.html

[RTFirefly]

Sam, I still can't believe his ramblings and repetitions. But if you want to believe he sounded like a Commander-in-Chief, go right ahead. Wish he was yours rather than ours. I'll just point out that even Lucianne Goldberg's little boy Jonah wasn't exactly keen on how he did, so it isn't just a lefty opinion. I'll link later.

But as you can see, I've made the first small dent in critiquing the transcript. I'll be doing more of that today, as work allows. Feel free to contest anything I say, based on his words and what we already know.

[iamme99]

And that, right there, is the difference between what forms my opinions and what forms yours. I happen to think we ARE at war. Not just the U.S., but here in Canada, and in Britain, and Australia, and Europe, and Japan, and the Middle East. This war was declared by Osama Bin Laden. He's been at war with us for years. It took WTC for some of us to realize it and to join the battle. Some of you haven't realized it yet.

But Bush believes it's a war, and so does Tony Blair. It's a different kind of war, against a different kind of enemy. But war it is. This is not a matter for law enforcement. This isn't just a matter of rounding up Bin Laden and a few other bad guys, then going back to business as usual.

I don't want to fight a defensive war, because I believe that's the path towards the loss of our civil liberties.

It really seems that you are trying to express yourself vicariously through the actions that the USA is taking in this so-called war on terrorism. You desperately want to be part of the "festivities", but your own country, Canada, has disavowed our incursion into Iraq because the U.N. did not support it, and therefore has contributed little to the effort. While Canada committed something like 2000 (WOW! big number...) troops to Afghanistan and a handful to Haiti, as far as I can tell, Canada has just 31 men in an exchange program in Iraq and a few escort warships in the Persian Gulf according to
Link (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1049143771521_130).

Canada, as a country, has almost no skin in Iraq. If you don't like the position of your government on this issue or on terrorism, then why not take that up with them and your countrymen, rather than continually commenting on our politics or trying to tell us how or why we should we should fight Islam, Iraq or terrorism? When your soldiers are getting killed and disabled like ours, then you'll earn the right to refer to "we" or "I" in your comments on our issues.

If you really want to be part of the political process here, then get off your butt and move to the states!

[Brutus]

It really seems that you are trying to express yourself vicariously through the actions that the USA is taking...

That is just silly. Should the Brit or Aussie contingents have to move here before they criticize and/or support America/GW/etc? Are the Americans here not allowed to criticize or support anything outside of our borders?

[iamme99]

That is just silly. Should the Brit or Aussie contingents have to move here before they criticize and/or support America/GW/etc? Are the Americans here not allowed to criticize or support anything outside of our borders?

I disagree. If you don't live here or there but want to make the occasional comment, then I don't see that as a problem. However, in this particular case, when posting on these issues becomes a CRUSADE (and apparently, SDMB is somewhat of a VOCATION for Sam with 8000+ posts), then maybe you're talking too much about things you don't understand. How else to explain the posting of the same junk, over and over, again and again? It's very easy to support/criticize something when you don't "have any skin in the game". OTOH, pay taxes, live in the society, live under and with the politics and government and then you'll have earned the right to comment on how someone else runs their own country.

[yojimbo]

I disagree. If you don't live here or there but want to make the occasional comment, then I don't see that as a problem. However, in this particular case, when posting on these issues becomes a CRUSADE (and apparently, SDMB is somewhat of a VOCATION for Sam with 8000+ posts), then maybe you're talking too much about things you don't understand. How else to explain the posting of the same junk, over and over, again and again? It's very easy to support/criticize something when you don't "have any skin in the game". OTOH, pay taxes, live in the society, live under and with the politics and government and then you'll have earned the right to comment on how someone else runs their own country. Nonsense. This forum is about debating. Once someone is a member they have the right to post in any thread and express their opinion about whatever the fuck they want to once they remain within the TOS.

Sam has as much right to agree with Bush as I have to say he's a danger to the world. Am I to take it that you've never voiced an opinion about another country's politics?

[flight]

I disagree. If you don't live here or there but want to make the occasional comment, then I don't see that as a problem. However, in this particular case, when posting on these issues becomes a CRUSADE (and apparently, SDMB is somewhat of a VOCATION for Sam with 8000+ posts), then maybe you're talking too much about things you don't understand. How else to explain the posting of the same junk, over and over, again and again? It's very easy to support/criticize something when you don't "have any skin in the game". OTOH, pay taxes, live in the society, live under and with the politics and government and then you'll have earned the right to comment on how someone else runs their own country.
I really disagree with you on this. We need the views of everyone here. Sure, he can't vote in our elections, that is a good thing, but he sure as hell can join in the political discussion. Though I disagree with most things Sam says (and I think everything I have seen from Brutus for that matter), they are some of the few people who engage in debate and support the conservative side. There have been comments that this is a primarily liberal board, so we need top hear the conservative side, even if it does come from Canada (how strange is that?).

[bizzwire]

from Gorsnak:
Could you provide us with some examples of radical insurgencies that have been put down by brute force? Could you provide us some examples of popular uprisings where heavy-handed responses haven't resulted in the uprisings gaining momentum.

The expulsion of the Jews from Judea comes to mind.

[Desmostylus]

(and apparently, SDMB is somewhat of a VOCATION for Sam with 8000+ posts)Point of order. Sam has a high post count because he's been here a long time. Your post count is lower because you've only been here for a month. However, your average posts per day count is higher than Sam's. Your attempted criticism on this point is completely invalid.

[iamme99]

Am I to take it that you've never voiced an opinion about another country's politics?

Nope. Since I live in the USA, not somewhere else, I don't know enough about other countries politics or economies to comment from a knowledgeable perspective.

[Brutus]

Nope. Since I live in the USA, not somewhere else, I don't know enough about other countries politics or economies to comment from a knowledgeable perspective.

Well, now I know where the stereotype comes from. :rolleyes:

[iamme99]

Point of order. Sam has a high post count because he's been here a long time. Your post count is lower because you've only been here for a month. However, your average posts per day count is higher than Sam's. Your attempted criticism on this point is completely invalid.

You're correct. I hope I find a job soon in our wonderful economy before my post count gets too much higher <lol>.

Look, I'm not criticizing anyone's right to post. I just don't understand why some people who don't live here feel they have the right to CONTINUALLY spout off about how WE should do things and who we should vote for. Give it a rest! I think Canada is a wonderful country (been up there a few times and the people have always been nice) but I frankly couldn't give a rat's ass as to who they should elect, how their taxes work, how their health system works or in general, how they should run their country. JFK (the first one) said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". It seems to me that if you devote your time to dealing with issues related to your own country, you'll help it a lot more.

[Kimstu]

iamme: I just don't understand why some people who don't live here feel they have the right to CONTINUALLY spout off about how WE should do things and who we should vote for.

Well, they've got the right because it's a free country, yeah? I too admit to feeling a little creeped out sometimes by how passionately Sam seems to identify with the US conservative movement; most people reserve that level of emotional involvement for the political issues of their own countries. However, what Sam does or doesn't have the right to do here has nothing to do with whether it creeps me out.

Give it a rest! I think Canada is a wonderful country (been up there a few times and the people have always been nice) but I frankly couldn't give a rat's ass as to who they should elect, how their taxes work, how their health system works or in general, how they should run their country.

Fine, but if you did happen to have a rat's ass---or even Sam-sized stockpiles of rats' asses---to give concerning Canadian policies, I wouldn't like to hear any Canadian suggesting that you didn't have a "right" to express your views so much.

[SentientMeat]

iamme: I just don't understand why some people who don't live here feel they have the right to CONTINUALLY spout off about how WE should do things and who we should vote for.Because it is the most powerful, and its actions affect the entire world including our own countries, and we believe that if only the US would come closer to the rest of the industrialised democratic world we might do so much more good and so much less harm. And becuase we can't vote in your elections, so all we can do is express our views on a message board.

As I said elsewhere, I begin to wonder what the 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate could get away with if Bush wins this election. Massive tax rises? Kyoto implementation? Universal healthcare? Abolition of the death penalty or the UNSC veto?

Four more years of having to show this aphasic gibbon off as their leader might ultimately bring the US electorate to vote a little more like the rest of the industrialised democratic world, perhaps for evermore.

It might even be worth it!

[moi]

Scariest quote of the evening:
I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country's gift to the world. Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom.Duggy Fizzle was right on; this statement gave me shivers. It wasn't the mention of God that did it, it was just the weird conviction with which he said it. After trying to communicate an understanding/tolerance of Muslim culture earlier in the evening, this seemed a dramatic fumble to me.

This exchange was the second most frightening:
QUESTION: Will it have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?
BUSH: I don't plan on losing my job.Again, shivers.
His statement about the Iraquis being deceptive and hiding "things" was so vague; it suggested threats, but we still have nothing concrete.
I thought it was very interesting that Charlie Duelfer, who just came back -- he's the head of the Iraqi Survey Group -- reported some interesting findings from his recent tour there. And one of the things was, he was amazed at how deceptive the Iraqis had been toward UNMOVIC and UNSCOM, deceptive in hiding things.I don't know whether or not these "findings" could be made public, but just dropping the mention seemed like fear mongering and yet another thing the President is unwilling to offer details on.
Unfortunately, while I think the direction Sam Stone suggests for the country's discussion is worthwhile, I don't think it closes the door on the past.
Zagadka:Right now, I wonder if we can all agree on two overriding goals...<snip> Two: regardless of our disagreements over the start of the war in Iraq, can we agree that this effort must end in success? That means committing the resources to it. If Bush won't do that, throw him out...<snip> The real debate should be over the next step. I believe the mission must end in success, but that success in Iraq doesn't undo going into the country under false pretenses. So, as Apos stated, even if Kerry does as Bush is suggesting we do, I'd still rather have Kerry in the Oval Office making those choices.
Overall, I was once again surprised at what a poor public speaker Bush is. I know some posters have treated this as a non-issue, but I have to say it's not what I expect of a contemporary leader. He's too easily rattled, and he is obvious about avoiding questions (e.g. appearing with Cheney in front of the 9/11 commission, make-up of foreign troops in Iraq). Additionally, he's just unable to say things well. I know others have criticized his handling of the "apology/mistake" questions, but this is what got me:
Look, nobody likes to see dead people on their television screens.
[i]In response to the following question: "Sir, you've made it very clear tonight that you're committed to continuing the mission in Iraq, yet, as Terry pointed out, increasing numbers of Americans have qualms about it. And this is an election year. Will it have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?"
In a speech where he has repeatedly referenced military families and made a big deal of his connection to them, his support and relationship with our troops, this just seemed crass. To me, he earned that last question (re: his communication skills) with this response.

[ShibbOleth]

I didn't get a chance to watch this last night. I don't like Bush at all, and I'm sure I would probably have some of the same views as what a lot of folks are saying: that the guy is a fumbling maroon.

BUT, I did go and check out what USA Today wrote. Okay, it's not world class journalism, but it is about as much as what most Americans will see/take away from this. It's not dissimilar to what is distilled into sound bites on CNN or Fox or World News Tonight with Jennings/Brokaw/Rather or anything that makes it into the local news channel or papers. And what I saw, rather than stumbling answers to tough questions, was a distilled version of what was said, boiled down until it more or less made sense, that showed a concerned if somewhat (and ONLY somewhat) beseiged president. The Democrats here, or other people who are just concerned that our national leader is a putz, who think this will be a wake up call for the American people are a) overestimating the majority of the American people and b) overestimating the will of the National Media to attack this president (or show him in a true light, per your own POV). Maybe it's that once this gets past the reports to the editors that the spin is spun a different way. I don't doubt that Stewart will lambaste the guy on the Daily Show tonight. I don't doubt that those who are hardcore will see what they want to see in last night's performance by Dubya, both left and right. But the vast majority of Americans will likely see stuff like:

U.S. 'must not waver'
Or
Analysis: Staying firm key goal
Or
Vows to 'finish the work' despite violence
Or
Bush promises to finish job in Iraq

And that's about it. And they think, "yeah, that makes sense". That's as deep as it gets.

[Rashak Mani]

I see Sam's post has been sufficiently battered... and I guess it might be a question of perspective rather than logic. We see a world in turmoil and Bush stirring trouble... Sam sees a world in turmoil and Bush reacting forcefully against it.

I would say Sam and Bush are looking for a medium term solution with excessive force use... while most would view it as a political struggle against extremist views that are only long term "winnable". Terrorism isn't a spontaneous creation of wacko's... or it doesn't survive only through these extremists. World politics and economics help boost these guys... and Bush is not fighting the sources... only the symptoms.

I think not even the US can go against the world... with troops alone you don't change the world. Bush has failed to demonstrate leadership in the international scene and isolated allies and neutrals badly. Bush himself said the UN and NATO must take a greater role... but Bush is the biggest obstacle to that. Cheney especially hates multilateralism. So even when Bush says something accurate his handlers in fact are going against it.

So Sam you see Bush as a man of his word and convictions... I see him as stubborn and prideful.

[athelas]

Scariest quote of the evening:
<snip>
Duggy Fizzle was right on; this statement gave me shivers. It wasn't the mention of God that did it, it was just the weird conviction with which he said it. After trying to communicate an understanding/tolerance of Muslim culture earlier in the evening, this seemed a dramatic fumble to me.[/snip]

So...are you saying that 1) you would prefer that he said it without any feeling or conviction at all, and 2) Muslim culture is fundamentally inassociable with freedom?

[quote]This exchange was the second most frightening:
Quote:
QUESTION: Will it have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?
BUSH: I don't plan on losing my job.

Again, shivers.

These words, put in Kerry's mouth, referring to any of his positions, would be simple campaigning confidence. Suddenly, because Bush said it, he is hinting at a military coup d'etat.

Seriously, many of these foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Bushies (not necessarily referring to you, o'course, but those who might say similar things) have such "weird conviction" in his inherent evil-ness that they'll twist anything Bush says into an acknowledgement of his Hitler-ness. (Bush=Hitler! No proof, it just sounds cool!)

Look, for example, at the OP which formed an opinion before it was over, and admitted that he formed an opinion long before the thing had played out. Again, they are so convinced of their correctness that they needn't bother with some petty things like giving the guy a fair chance.

[athelas]

Incidentally, rejecting Sam's arguments on the basis of his nationality is narrow minded and essentially bigoted (You don't live here; your opinion doens't count.)(That's an interesting argument against multilateralism, incidentally, since the countries that opposed war were not struck by catastrophic terrorist attacks recently, their opinon doesn't count). (Am I allowed to make so many consecutive paranthetical remarks?)

The source of an argument does not affect its validity.

[Engineer Dude]

Transcript (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9488-2004Apr13.html) for those who, like me, just can't get enough of this foolishness.

Here's one that doesn't require registration. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html)

[Desmostylus]

Again, they are so convinced of their correctness that they needn't bother with some petty things like giving the guy a fair chance.Um, hasn't he kinda already had a fair chance? And fucked up every single thing he's done so far? The source of an argument does not affect its validity.Yes it does. The source's track record of lying and total incompetence does affect the validity of the argument. Particulary when the same lies and absolute stupidity are repeated as part of the argument.

[PatriotX]

Again, they are so convinced of their correctness that they needn't bother with some petty things like giving the guy a fair chance.


I gave the guy a fair chance. I even voted for him.

He's given me cause to regret the chance I helped give him.

It's been a few years. How long does a "chance" have to last before it's "fair?"

[Chicago Faucet]

To get back to the topic that the OP started, I'm a registered Libertarian, who has already decided to vote for Bush. Presidential elections are always about voting for the lesser evil, I just happen to feel that Bush is the much lesser evil. So, I am no more prejudiced than anyone else in the three pages before me. I just happen to be prejudiced the opposite direction than three-quarters of this board, so I'm expecting, and will accept, a good partisan trouncing.

One of my major annoyances with public speakers is the use of Corporate Speak. Politicians seem to be the biggest offenders of this, next to the local sheriff who suddenly gets thrust into the limelight because a high profile murder recently happened in their small town. Bush uses very little Corporate Speak, and I believe that this is because he is prepped and preened very little for these press conferences. In other words, when he is asked a question, it goes no further than his immediate concious. He answers it directly from his concious. The Democrats refer to this as, "Shooting from the hip, like a Cowboy." I refer to this as, "Being genuine."

But there was once where this went too far. That was the Mistakes question. He stammered a little, paused, and made excuses for it.

[PatriotX]

Yes it does. The source's track record of lying and total incompetence does affect the validity of the argument. Particulary when the same lies and absolute stupidity are repeated as part of the argument.


Even if the world's most compulsive and pathological liar, (who I dated briefly), says that water is wet, it doesn't mean that water is not wet.

[PatriotX]

Bush uses very little Corporate Speak, and I believe that this is because he is prepped and preened very little for these press conferences.


It'd be pretty poor judgement not to be "prepped and preened" for such important events.

[Algernon]

Setting aside for a moment the content of his prepared remarks and responses to questions, from a pure performance perspective it was hideously pathetic.

I interview college students who can better handle tough questions. It was so embarrassing I almost felt sorry for the President.

Politics aside, I want a leader of my country who at least appears intelligent; who can think on their feet; who can project an image of being in control; who can inspire; and can deftly handle difficult questions. I don't want a President who appears stammering, forgetful, and confused. It is not irrelevant to have the proper leadership skills to lead our country.

I can respect an effective leader even if I disagree with his politics. Bush's performance last night was about as ineffective as I could possibly imagine.

Pathetic.

[Desmostylus]

Even if the world's most compulsive and pathological liar, (who I dated briefly), says that water is wet, it doesn't mean that water is not wet.I believe the word used was "affect", not "negate".

[flight]

Bush apologists often state that his speaking ability is not an important issue. I have wondered, though, why it is necessary to elect someone who has "vision" but cannot speak or think on their feet. This is a very big country. We have a lot of citizens. Is there no one out there who could do the job with the same vision and policies yet does not embarrass the country when he speaks?

[Rashak Mani]

I'm a registered Libertarian, who has already decided to vote for Bush. Presidential elections are always about voting for the lesser evil, I just happen to feel that Bush is the much lesser evil.

One of my major annoyances with public speakers is the use of Corporate Speak. Politicians seem to be the biggest offenders of this, next to the local sheriff who suddenly gets thrust into the limelight because a high profile murder recently happened in their small town. Bush uses very little Corporate Speak, ... I refer to this as, "Being genuine."

But there was once where this went too far. That was the Mistakes question. He stammered a little, paused, and made excuses for it.

Ok instead of trouncing your position... lets analyze it instead:

- Why is Kerry the greater evil ? I see more reasons to criticize what Bush has done... vs a lot of criticism only against what Kerry said. Even if you don't like Kerry is Bush so "much lesser evil" ?

- So you don't like Corporate Speak ? You prefer "openess" and "genuine". Is that a GOOD way of chosing a president ? Is his likability more important than his views ? Yesterday Bush seemed a regular "politician" too me. Avoiding answering questions and going around tough issues.

- He apologized for stammering... but not for underevaluating the Iraq quagmire, nor for keeping the UN isolated, nor for failing to stop 9/11 (which Clarke did). I felt Clarke was much more genuine about it. Bush never makes mistakes ?

[Desmostylus]

Bush apologists often state that his speaking ability is not an important issue. You sure that's true? I got the impression that the only thing Bush had going for him was the "good ole boy" image. How he spoke to America's heartland and didn't sound like an elitist liberal motherfxxxxx.

[Kimstu]

athelas: Seriously, many of these foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Bushies (not necessarily referring to you, o'course, but those who might say similar things) have such "weird conviction" in his inherent evil-ness that they'll twist anything Bush says into an acknowledgement of his Hitler-ness.

Leaving aside the hyperbole of terms like "evilness" and "Hitlerness", the reason many of us feel especially suspicious about Bush isn't some "weird conviction"; it's simply our experience that his Administration is unusually manipulative, secretive, deceptive, and arrogant. Even for politicians.

Many Bush supporters try to cast this as mere partisanship, but it isn't; it's a character issue. There are plenty of other Republicans and conservatives (e.g., Bush's own father GB I, Bob Dole, Tommy Thompson, etc.) whose positions I might disagree with equally strongly, but whom I basically trust to respect the rules and engage honestly with facts. If I don't trust Bush in the same way, it's not because I've got a "weird conviction in his inherent evilness", it's because he's amply earned my distrust.

[Rashak Mani]

You sure that's true? I got the impression that the only thing Bush had going for him was the "good ole boy" image. How he spoke to America's heartland and didn't sound like an elitist liberal motherfxxxxx.

I've seen this "one of the guys" act before. The governor of Brasilia uses the same ruse. The poor and simpletons love him for it. He makes a few portuguese mistakes... uses some regional expressions and makes the whole "I'm one of the people act". He isn't. He is dirty rich and apparently speaks good portuguese... not perfect... but he puts on the show in public.

[aahala]

With reasonable certainty, a President facing reelection will try to put his best foot forward.

The issue on Iraq is "progress". What have we accomplished, what is left to be done, and the general steps we will take to end it.

There were hardly any specifics but platitudes concerning these matters. Either Bush and his advisors are tone deaf to the public, or there was nothing concrete to report.

Whichever the case may be, the conclusion is clear. The US is in a mess.

[Uncommon Sense]

Nope, there are exactly 52 evildoers, remember?



I think that is exactly what Sam is suggesting - the destruction of Islamic culture, as he put it.

At least I understand now why he viewed the entire city of Fallujah as "insurgents" and bragged about the body count of civilians.

Better be careful interpreting what Sam says, though, or Brutus will ask you to cite everything.
Islamic culture isn`t the problem. Just like the German culture wasn`t the problem, the Nazis were. The problem is that they were so embedded in the German society that it was very hard to extract them. The same could be said about the Islamic extremist.
Would you have been against the toppling of the Nazi regime?,-knowing now what had to be done to accomplich the task?

[Master Wang-Ka]

Could you provide us with some examples of radical insurgencies that have been put down by brute force? Could you provide us some examples of popular uprisings where heavy-handed responses haven't resulted in the uprisings gaining momentum.

The Cherokee Trail of Tears. Most of the expansionistic policies of the Roman Empire.

Yes, there was resistance. Yes, there was terrorism. Yes, there were massacres. And ultimately, sheer ruthlessness, combined with the military machine of the Americans and Romans, and the steady flow of resources to the front, crushed each and every resisting organization or regime.

The problem here is that we don't wanna do that. I believe Bush was telling the truth about not wanting to conquer Iraq. I think what he'd really like is a nice safe democratic government that is willing to be chummy with us and undercut OPEC on oil sales. Hell, he'd probably even settle for a friendly dictatorship at this point. By the time the next dictator gets up to dickens, Bush'll be out of office, and it'll be someone else's problem.

We don't want to become Roman Emperors. Are we prepared to take the kind of measures they did? Because every day we don't sends a signal to the bad guys: The Americans Lack Resolve.

In short, Bush has painted himself into a corner, as previously mentioned. And the rotten bastard has painted you and me and Uncle Fred in there with him.

If I don't trust Bush in the same way, it's not because I've got a "weird conviction in his inherent evilness", it's because he's amply earned my distrust.

I don't think Bush is evil. I think he's stubborn to the point where either the government is going to run his way, or it will not run at all. He wants what he wants, and the blazes with everything else. What worries me is that I have begun to think he may well have begun to think he's right even in the face of plain evidence to the contrary.

Is he nuts? I doubt it... but he wouldn't be the first sane man to be undone by his own denial of the obvious.

In other words, when he is asked a question, it goes no further than his immediate concious. He answers it directly from his concious. The Democrats refer to this as, "Shooting from the hip, like a Cowboy." I refer to this as, "Being genuine."

Yeah, well, perhaps. More than once since last night, I've found myself imagining an argument between Bush and his handlers:

"Look, boys, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I am the President, and I can address the American people. Just get on the line, and feed me answers over the earphone when I stamp my foot."

"Sir, I really don't think this is a good idea. There are too many questions that could undo your whole image. I really think we should just cancel this press conference, and issue a statement to the press. We could claim reports of an assassin among the reporters; that'd play well right now..."

"I appreciate your views, Condi, but I am the President, and I am going to address the people. They have served me well for four years, but soon they're going to have to vote me back into office, and I should give them some reason to do that. This Iraq thing should do the trick."

"Sir, are you nuts? They're going to tear you apart out there! At least let us set up the teleprompters!"

"I'm the President, Colin, and I can handle these news jockeys. The American people know that I know what's best. They'll believe what I tell them."

"Look, dummy, with all due respect, if you screw up out there, it'll be the election from hell!"

"They've always believed me before, Dick. They'll believe in me again. How could they not? I'm the President, and I have made up my mind. Now cue the cameras. I'm goin' out there."

[dropzone]

The expulsion of the Jews from Judea comes to mind.While it took the wind out of the rebellion's sails for a while, it still had enough momentum to affect Mideast politics to this very day. And is even Pres Bush willing to use tactics as heavyhanded as the Romans? THOSE guys knew how to put down a rebellion! :eek:

[RTFirefly]

There was a thread that ran through a number of Bush's answers to questions, that of his proper role being to wait around on others - Abiziad, the 9/11 Commission, Brahimi of the U.N., the FBI - before it was his place to act.

I thought that merited a discussion of its own, hence the thread GWB's Strangely Passive Presidency (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=250892).

[grayhairedmomma]

Bush uses very little Corporate Speak, and I believe that this is because he is prepped and preened very little for these press conferences.


I agree that he is prepped very little. I think he is wrapped in the idea that people trust him and all he has to do is get out there and talk straight to the people. I think he decides what he's going to focus on and that's that. As much as I dislike Bush - I think that he is making a critical error in not using his staff's experience to make this go better.


It would be very simple for him to get re-elected if he made the following statements (which he almost got to last night):

re Mistakes: I made the best decisions I could with the information I had available at the time. As we all are learning, some of the information I've been given has not been 100% correct. For instance, in the August 6th PDB, there was the statement that there were 70 field operations being conducted about the terrorist threat. Today we learned that that number was not in fact correct. I am the President and I expect that when I am given information critical to making decisions, that that information is accurate. I apologize to the american people and to the world community for us having been mislead in anyway, and I intend to do everything in my power to make sure it doesn't happen again.

[John Carter of Mars]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly
Yes, the rest of the world, somehow this man became our President. If you don't mind my doing a Richard Clarke, I apologize to you all. We did everything we could in our power to keep this from happening in 2000, but we were unable to prevent it. We failed. We are sorry.

I hope you don't presume to apologize for all Americans. I don't recall giving you a power of attorney authorizing you to apologize on my behalf. I voted for Bush because he was a better choice than Gore. Given another Bush/Gore election today, I'd vote Bush again. No is apology coming from me.

If you want to apologize for your Democrats not offering a better candidate in 2000, I'll accept that.

I'm as yet undecided about this November because:
1) Bush hasn't been all that great.
2) Kerry's turn under the microscope hasn't come yet.

It's gonna' be a fun six months.

[hipdadiddy]

There is a large movement of Islamist radicals who have declared war against Western Pluralism...there is only one way to win this war, and that's to go on the offense against the very culture that breeds terror.

AGREED!! So why the HELL do you attack the one SECULAR state in the whole region?! Immediate disclaimer, as required by the Internet Convention to Avoid Ad Hominem Attacks by Idiot Right Wingers: Saddam Hussein ate a whole baby for breakfast every morning. I'm glad he's in jail.

But who or what do you suppose is going to take his place? A streamlined, 21st-century democracy? Not bloody likely! Maybe the worst thing about having a bunch of jokers who don't believe in evolution running this country is they thought they could graft an eagle's wings onto a frog's ass and make it fly by divine edict of the Imperial Presidency.

Saddam was a monster, but apparently he was at least somewhat amenable to sanctions, as the absence of WMD would indicate. And he had the crazies under control! Why not recruit the UN to pressure, punish and, yes, engage him and try to squeeze a little lemonade out of Baghdad's Big Lemon? It would've been far, far preferable to the horrible, bloody quagmire dubya's pushed us into.

[Uncommon Sense]

AGREED!! So why the HELL do you attack the one SECULAR state in the whole region?! Immediate disclaimer, as required by the Internet Convention to Avoid Ad Hominem Attacks by Idiot Right Wingers: Saddam Hussein ate a whole baby for breakfast every morning. I'm glad he's in jail.

But who or what do you suppose is going to take his place? A streamlined, 21st-century democracy? Not bloody likely! Maybe the worst thing about having a bunch of jokers who don't believe in evolution running this country is they thought they could graft an eagle's wings onto a frog's ass and make it fly by divine edict of the Imperial Presidency.


And the problem with having a bunch of pro-choice jokers running the country is that no-one would care if Saddam ate a baby every day for breakfast.

[vibrotronica]

huh?

[Uncommon Sense]

huh?

Most likely.

[CTB]

I just wanted to add a sample of a president admitting a mistake (http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/editorial/8397217.htm?1c):

The word spread quickly around the globe that the United States had made an unprovoked attack on a tiny Latin neighbor. It was a fiasco, the worst defeat of JFK's career.

Yet Kennedy did not pretend that all was well and walk away from his obligation to the fighters and to history.

He issued stern warnings to Castro to keep the prisoners alive and launched negotiations to free them. Twenty months later, they were freed in exchange for $53 million in American medicines and other provisions.

At his press conference accepting full blame, Kennedy uttered one of his most famous statements: "Victory has a hundred fathers, and defeat is an orphan." Then he embraced the orphan with words that Bush has yet to utter: "I am the responsible officer of the government."
How truly astonishing to have someone take responsibility as the leader of a nation. Kennedy had his faults, no one can deny it, but this is an example of doing it right.

[RTFirefly]

Q Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers, that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we know where they are. How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents, who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series a false premises?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me step back and review my thinking prior to going into Iraq. First, the lesson of September the 11th is, when this nation sees a threat, a gathering threat, we've got to deal with it. We can no longer hope that oceans protect us from harm. Every threat we must take seriously.

Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders. He was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States. That's the assessment that I made from the intelligence, the assessment that Congress made from the intelligence; that's the exact same assessment that the United Nations Security Council made with the intelligence.

I went to the U.N., as you might recall, and said, either you take care of him, or we will. Any time an American President says, if you don't, we will, we better be prepared to. And I was prepared to. I thought it was important for the United Nations Security Council that when it says something, it means something, for the sake of security in the world. See, the war on terror had changed the calculations. We needed to work with people. People needed to come together to work. And, therefore, empty words would embolden the actions of those who are willing to kill indiscriminately.

The United Nations passed a Security Council resolution unanimously that said, disarm or face serious consequences. And he refused to disarm.

Saddam had used WMDs on his own people back in the 1980s; damned if I can figure out why that suddenly made him a threat in 2003. (Compare, for instance, with Iran next door, which was known in 2002 to be just about ready to join the nuclear 'club'.) Whatever it means to 'coddle' terrorists, he had little working relationship with them. (Compare with Iran again, which was behind a number of terrorist attacks on us in the 1980s and 1990s. Since Libya got out of the game a number of years back, Iran has been the clear leader in terms of state-sponsored terrorism.) Saddam didn't fund suiciders, although he was a benefactor to their survivors. While hardly a repudiation of suicide bombing, that's not the same as making it happen. And if the UN Security Council concluded that Iraq was a threat to the US, I sure missed it.

And of course, Bush conveniently forgets that when the UNSC said "disarm or face serious consequences," they specifically avoided language saying "disarm or be invaded." They wanted us to come back and get another resolution before they'd back the invasion.

"See, the war on terror had changed the calculations." Yeah, sure. Before 9/11, plan Iraq invasion and occupation. After 9/11, plan Iraq invasion and occupation. And take advantage of Saddam-bin-Ladening to get US behind the invasion.

Well, the oil revenues are -- they're bigger than we thought they would be at this point in time. I mean, one year after the liberation of Iraq, the revenues of the oil stream is pretty darn significant. One of the things I was concerned about prior to going into Iraq was that the oil fields would be destroyed. But they weren't, they're now up and running. And that money is -- it will benefit the Iraqi people. It's their oil, and they'll use it to reconstruct the country.

OK, so if there's more oil revenue than we expected, and we expected the oil revenues to fund the reconstruction, why isn't the oil revenue funding the reconstruction?

[rjung]

Geez, now I wish I hadn't skipped the darn thing. Though I'll admit watching Sam Stone bob and weave in his attempts to defend Dubya is almost as amusing.

As for the suggestion that most Americans will only get a distilled, President-safe version of the conference, I think the easy way to counter that would be to simply replay portions of the video. Let his (stammering, evasive) words speak for themselves, as it were.

Bush uses very little Corporate Speak, and I believe that this is because he is prepped and preened very little for these press conferences.
Nah, it just means his handlers tell him to avoid the ten-dollar words in order to fool people like yourself into thinking he's "jus' plain folks".

Either that, or Bush simply avoids all those com-pli-ca-ted words that he can't pronounce... ;)

[hipdadiddy]

Look, for example, at the OP which formed an opinion before it was over, and admitted that he formed an opinion long before the thing had played out. Again, they are so convinced of their correctness that they needn't bother with some petty things like giving the guy a fair chance.

As the author of the OP, I take umbrage: there were five minutes left in the damned thing when I hopped to my iMac; the remainder played out while I was at my keyboard two feet away. How much horseshit do you have to shovel before you realize there probably aren't going to be any diamonds at the bottom of the pile?

And nowhere do I admit that I "formed an opinion long before the thing had played out". Of course I've formed an opinion (and how!) of Bush over the last four years; everything I've ever seen him do or say led me to believe he wasn't likely to cover himself with oratorical glory, but hey -- miracles happen! I was willing to have him convince me otherwise... even if I was secretly hoping he'd pull an LBJ and announce he was going to spare us another four years of misery.

Let me close with this from Tom Tomorrow, who, as usual, nails the whole issue with enviable pith:

Oh god, he's so awful. He just flounders around until he can dredge up a marginally appropriate sound bite--and when the question doesn't allow for that, he's just utterly lost.

[5que]

Or out of step with most of the rest of the coutry. :)

Or perhaps in step with all the people who voted so that Bush came in second in the popular vote in 2000. Bush is a minority president -- don't pretend that he is the will of the people.

[hipdadiddy]

How truly astonishing to have someone take responsibility as the leader of a nation. Kennedy had his faults, no one can deny it, but this is an example of doing it right.

Damned spineless liberal.

And, to give the devil his due, don't I recall the words, "Mistakes were made" issuing forth from the august pie-hole of one Ronald Reagan in the days of Iran/Contra?

[alterego]

Squink: Every president has advisors who coach him on things like this. Clinton did, Bush did, Reagan did, Carter did - they all did. If they were doing their job, they had mock press conferences, threw the tough questions at him, and then graded his responses. People who make it to the White House are a professional bunch. It's their job to make sure their guy doesn't get blindsided, and to point out where the mines in the field are.

If Bush didn't take advantage of that advice and effort, he WOULD be a fool.


This is a good bit of insider information that most people probably don't know (mock press conferences). As a Navy Journalist I commonly stage mock press conferences with our four-star Admiral. We get 8-10 stand-ins and draft up the tough questions to see how he fields them. I always choose to be the Inquirer ^_~

Anyway, the things the President says are much more important than the puny in comparison Admiral, so I imagine the mock conferences are pretty hard core.

[PatriotX]

And, to give the devil his due, don't I recall the words, "Mistakes were made" issuing forth from the august pie-hole of one Ronald Reagan in the days of Iran/Contra?
Why, yes, yes, he did (http://www.usembassy.de/usa/etexts/speeches/rhetoric/rriran.htm). He apologized. He apologized not for what he did, but for what happened on his watch, because he took responsibility for what happened on his watch.

"First, let me say I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration. As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I'm still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior. And as personally distasteful as I find secret bank accounts and diverted funds - well, as the Navy would say, this happened on my watch."

[Squink]

With answers like this repetition of Condi's canard:[quote]
We knew he had designs on us. We knew he hated us. But there was nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale. I suspect that Bush's handler's softballed the prep sessions.
[b]SimonX[b]in re Bush's watch, does he even wear one?

[jshore]

Who gave rave reviews to that Powell U.N. "case about WMD" ?
That was the biggest let down ever. Poor Powell, sent before the world with a telephone conversation and some false anthrax. Never has so little been shown to try to justify so much.

Yeah...It was a bit of an inside reference to Sam Stone on my part. A few months ago, Sam Stone was arguing a point that went something like this (clearly I paraphrase from memory here): "The French should have been more willing to go along with us on the U.N. resolution immediately before the Iraq war because Powell's speech was very convincing at the time and was widely viewed that way, even if we now know in retrospect that it to be largely wrong." I argued that in fact I think there were plenty of people who were not so impressed by Powell's presentation (and linked to a couple of opinion pieces in The Nation), to which Sam's response was that, well, everybody he listened to, including some Democrats in Congress, were impressed by Powell's presentation and the leftists over at The Nation have to be discounted [never mind that we now know they were right] because they would never have believed anything short of Saddam holding a nuclear weapon in his hand or some such thing.

So, to make a long story short, my point to Sam was that maybe the general consensus he heard thinking that Bush had done an acceptable job in the press conference is the same general consensus that had given Powell rave reviews on that speech. (And, maybe they are just as correct now as they were that time.)

[mack]

Those of you aghast that he didn't say "I made a mistake" don't understand politics. One of the things a President has to do in these situation is avoid the 'damaging soundbite'. Bush knows damned well that if he said, "Well, I am willing to say I made a mistake in not being on a war footing," or "Plenty of us made mistakes", or anything even remotely similar, the next day's headlines would be "BUSH ADMITS MISTAKE OVER 9/11!" I'm sure his people told him, "Whatever you do tonight, do NOT say you made a mistake. You can say you wish things had been done differently, or there was a different sense of urgency, or I wish we had not run out of time, but do NOT use the word mistake."

I heard the 'mistake' clip on the radio and have to agree with Sam. I had the feeling that if he said the wrong thing it would have repercussions beyond the scope of what the press conference was for. My concern is more about Iraq than about 9/11 or the election, though. In light of the Iraq situation I think flubbing a question was preferable to an unintended or unconsidered policy statement.

I happen to think we ARE at war. Not just the U.S., but here in Canada, and in Britain, and Australia, and Europe, and Japan, and the Middle East. This war was declared by Osama Bin Laden. He's been at war with us for years. It took WTC for some of us to realize it and to join the battle. Some of you haven't realized it yet.

But Bush believes it's a war, and so does Tony Blair. It's a different kind of war, against a different kind of enemy. But war it is. This is not a matter for law enforcement. This isn't just a matter of rounding up Bin Laden and a few other bad guys, then going back to business as usual.

No, plenty of people on the left believe it's a war, Sam, and believe that it's being fought badly, resources are being misallocated or outright squandered, way too many innocent lives are being snuffed out, and now we have a whole 'nother problem with uprisings in Iraq and hostages being taken. Christ, it's come full circle with the hostage-taking and Bremer's "we won't negotiate for hostages" remarks. Is there another Ollie North in the wings with a boatload of missiles for sale?

Rumsfeld has singularly fucked up the follow-throughs in Afghanistan and Iraq so badly I can't believe he still has a job.

Also, I'm always astonished at the way the right sneers at the 'law enforcement' approach to combatting terrorism. How can you deny there's a place for it? The law enforcement approach - you know, based on stuff like gathering evidence and catching the bad guys can be pretty darn effective if you ask me. There's a place for military action (taking down the Taliban, for instance) and a place for "law enforcement", especially in 'a different kind of war' where we're combatting a stateless enemy.

[jshore]

A few months ago, Sam Stone was arguing a point that went something like this (clearly I paraphrase from memory here): "The French should have been more willing to go along with us on the U.N. resolution immediately before the Iraq war because Powell's speech was very convincing at the time and was widely viewed that way, even if we now know in retrospect that it to be largely wrong."

On re-reading this attempt at a sentence, I should note that one small way in which Sam's argument differed from what I have presented here is that his was not grammatically-challenged.

[RTFirefly]

What, no in between? We're getting the conservative-Christian light-v.-dark mojo going here.

This theme recurred a number of times through the press conference, and AFAICT it's standing on air. No in-between? I don't believe it. Let's roll tape.

From the opening remarx:

Iraq will either be a peaceful, democratic country, or it will again be a source of violence, a haven for terror, and a threat to America and to the world. By helping to secure a free Iraq, Americans serving in that country are protecting their fellow citizens.

<snip>

Above all, the defeat of violence and terror in Iraq is vital to the defeat of violence and terror elsewhere; and vital, therefore, to the safety of the American people. Now is the time, and Iraq is the place, in which the enemies of the civilized world are testing the will of the civilized world. We must not waver.

<snip>

The consequences of failure in Iraq would be unthinkable. Every friend of America and Iraq would be betrayed to prison and murder as a new tyranny arose. Every enemy of America and the world would celebrate, proclaiming our weakness and decadence, and using that victory to recruit a new generation of killers.

We will succeed in Iraq. We're carrying out a decision that has already been made and will not change: Iraq will be a free, independent country, and America and the Middle East will be safer because of it.

And in the responses to questions:

A secure and free Iraq is an historic opportunity to change the world and make America more secure. A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East will have incredible change.

<snip>

I also know that there's an historic opportunity here to change the world. And it's very important for the loved ones of our troops to understand that the mission is an important, vital mission for the security of America and for the ability to change the world for the better.

<snip>

And a free Iraq is going to be a major blow for terrorism. It will change the world. A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East is vital to future peace and security.

<snip>

Now is the time to make sure that the American people understand the stakes and the historic significance of what we're doing.

<snip>

I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country's gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom.
I fully expect Bush to put the best face possible on his policies. If I were President, I'd do the same. But this is absurd. Surreal. Did we just wander into the Left Behind series, or something? There are outcomes in between a democratic Iraq that begins a wave of democracy across the region, and some disastrous outcome that turns the entire Mideast into a warren of terrorist states. (As Juan Cole points out, neither Turkish democracy, Iranian theocracy, nor Saudi Arabian monarchy have spread throughout the region. Nor did Saddam-style secular dictatorship.)

There are plenty of in-betweens, including an Islamic state that is somewhere in between democracy and theocracy, without any interest in exporting terror. So Bush's grandiose assertions are just plain stupid. And even if they were:

Every enemy of America and the world would celebrate, proclaiming our weakness and decadence, and using that victory to recruit a new generation of killers. He's right about this: if we get driven from Iraq, our enemies will celebrate. But the time to count the cost (Luke 14:28-33) was beforehand. Bush was too busy then telling us it wouldn't be that hard; he didn't bother telling us that if we won the war but lost the peace, Osama bin Laden, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. would use that event "to recruit a new generation of killers."

Nah. The f*ckhead-in-chief thought it would be a cinch, so he didn't bother telling the American people what the risks were. Hell, we tried to tell him, but did he listen? No.

[Rashak Mani]

So, to make a long story short, my point to Sam was that maybe the general consensus he heard thinking that Bush had done an acceptable job in the press conference is the same general consensus that had given Powell rave reviews on that speech. (And, maybe they are just as correct now as they were that time.)

I really like Powell... and if he was the president instead of Bush the USA would still be respected. Sending him to the UN with that silly speech was Rumsfeld's doing... to humiliate his opponent.

I still remember that UN speech... I sat down really thinking the US was going to show some top secret stuff and reveal good reasons for so much warmongering. When it was over... darn did I feel sorry for Powell.

I guess your point is correct jshore...

[moi]

So...are you saying that 1) you would prefer that he said it without any feeling or conviction at all, and 2) Muslim culture is fundamentally inassociable with freedom?
I am saying neither. I would prefer that he not negate his earlier statements about Muslim culture by suggesting that we're Freedom Crusaders on a Mission From God. GWB began by saying he believes in freedom, in democracy because he sees it work in our country. Fine. Now we want to ensure that freedom in Iraq. Also fine. But invoking it as God's will, God's plan for the Middle East...I found that frightening.

These words, put in Kerry's mouth, referring to any of his positions, would be simple campaigning confidence. Suddenly, because Bush said it, he is hinting at a military coup d'etat.
Again, I didn't have a problem with the statements that followed "I will not lose my job," and, in fact, thought the whole thing would have been better without that initial statement. (GWB said something to the effect of hoping the American public would stick with him to see the situation in Iraq to its completion; the "hang with me through thick and thin" has emotional pull, and he even said it fairly well. But the statement began ominously, I felt.)

Bush=Hitler! No proof, it just sounds cool!I would never go there. It's way too inflammatory and insulting of a comparison.

[Age Quod Agis]

There are outcomes in between a democratic Iraq that begins a wave of democracy across the region, and some disastrous outcome that turns the entire Mideast into a warren of terrorist states. Of course, Bush never said those were the only two choices. He said that Iraq would either be a peaceful democracy or a haven for violence and terror.

I admit that it's hypothetically possible that the people of Iraq could end up with a benevolent non-democracy that abhors violence and terror, but I haven't seen any evidence that such a faction exists in Iraq, let alone that it's the choice of the majority of Iraqis. It seems clear that in order for Iraq to not end up with a democratic government, that democracy will have to be ripped from the fingers of the Iraqi people. The only method by which anyone has opposed democracy thus far has been through violence and terror (see al Sadr), and the theocracies they've endorsed have been far from benevolent and opposed to terror.Bush was too busy then telling us it wouldn't be that hard;
. . . .
Hell, we tried to tell him, but did he listen? No.Cite?

Because I seem to remember Bush saying the exact opposite (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/).We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated.

We are helping to rebuild Iraq where the dictator built palaces for himself instead of hospitals and schools.

And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by and for the Iraqi people.

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq. Sounds to me like you were the one that wasn't listening.

[iamme99]

Why, yes, yes, he did (http://www.usembassy.de/usa/etexts/speeches/rhetoric/rriran.htm). He apologized. He apologized not for what he did, but for what happened on his watch, because he took responsibility for what happened on his watch.

"First, let me say I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration. As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I'm still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior. And as personally distasteful as I find secret bank accounts and diverted funds - well, as the Navy would say, this happened on my watch."

Saying you take responsibility for something has absolutely no meaning if you haven't done much of anything to correct the problem(s) for which you are taking responsibility. Bush and team should have had heads rolling by now. But instead all the old players, who supposedly didn't do a good job, are still in place. Bush has done nothing to remove the failures and bring in new blood. Perhaps he is afraid of the books they would write and the interviews they would give about the internal workings of this administration?

[PatriotX]

Cite?

Because I seem to remember Bush saying the exact opposite (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/).Sounds to me like you were the one that wasn't listening.


I re-read the whole thing. There's no mention of the risk of helping to recruit a new generation of killers by invading Iraq.

[Age Quod Agis]

I re-read the whole thing. There's no mention of the risk of helping to recruit a new generation of killers by invading Iraq.So you admit that you made up the assertion that Bush said it would be easy?

. . . Well, that's a start.

Moving on to this second assertion (which I didn't address in my first post), you originally said:he didn't bother telling us that if we won the war but lost the peace, Osama bin Laden, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. would use that event "to recruit a new generation of killers."

Nah. The f*ckhead-in-chief thought it would be a cinch, so he didn't bother telling the American people what the risks were. Hell, we tried to tell him, but did he listen? No.I'm a little lost on what your point is. Are you suggesting that you were duped because you didn't realize that if our reconstruction efforts didn't succeed, then terrorist organizations would use the failure to recruit more terrorists?

No, that can't be it, because you also suggest that this point is plainly obvious, and that you tried to warn Bush about it. So you clearly knew about the risk.

Are you suggesting that the American people didn't know about the risk of terror attacks stemming from our actions in Iraq?

Nah, that can't be it. Because 1) that's obvious, and the American people aren't idiots; 2) the media addressed that topic repeatedly; 3) it couldn't have been secret because you somehow found out about that risk; 4) you apparently warned Bush and everyone else about that risk; and 5) Bush addressed the risk of terrorist attacks flowing from our operations in Iraq (emphasis added):In desperation, he and terrorist groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible.

. . .

Among other measures, I have directed additional security at our airports and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America.

Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail.

No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people, yet we are not a fragile people. And we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers.

If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them will face fearful consequences. If your point is that Bush never explicitly said that if we failed, terrorists would use that to recruit new members, then my question for you is, So what?

[Squink]

Bush Breaks a Promise: (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20040414/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_military) About 21,000 American soldiers in Iraq who were to return this month to their home bases in Louisiana and Germany will have their tours extended at least three months to help combat the surge in anti-occupation violence, defense officials said Wednesday.
The decision, which has not been announced publicly, breaks the Army's promise to soldiers and their families that assignments in Iraq would be limited to 12 months. The affected soldiers already have been in Iraq for a year. Where's the cakewalk now?

Bush Gets WMD Claims Wrong Again: (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=6&u=/ap/20040414/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_mistake) Once again, President Bush misspoke on a weapons issue, telling the nation that 50 tons of mustard gas were found in Libya — twice the amount actually uncovered.
The White House moved quickly Wednesday to correct the record, with press secretary Scott McClellan seeking out reporters to point out the mistake. The president should have said in his Tuesday night address and press conference that 23.6 tons of mustard gas were found in Libya, instead of 50 tons, McClellan said.
Bush used the 50-ton figure twice. Has Bush ever gotten anything right on WMD's? How many chances should he get?

The UN is Unhappy With Us: (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&e=6&u=/ap/20040414/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq_resolution) The United States is trying to buttress its military operation in Iraq with a new U.N. resolution to provide wavering countries with political cover to make troop contributions — but key Security Council members reacted coolly Wednesday to President Bush's suggestion. What's plan B for fixing Iraq?

[Gorsnak]

The Cherokee Trail of Tears. Most of the expansionistic policies of the Roman Empire.

Yes, there was resistance. Yes, there was terrorism. Yes, there were massacres. And ultimately, sheer ruthlessness, combined with the military machine of the Americans and Romans, and the steady flow of resources to the front, crushed each and every resisting organization or regime.

The problem here is that we don't wanna do that.
Exactly my point.

[RTFirefly]

Of course, Bush never said those were the only two choices. He said that Iraq would either be a peaceful democracy or a haven for violence and terror. Sounds like an either/or to me, even as you express it. But if your quibble is that I'm exaggerating, keep reading: if it becomes a haven for violence and terror, Bush says the consequences go well beyond that: Iraq would become "a threat to America and the world", "the consequences of failure in Iraq would be unthinkable: every enemy of America...would...us[e] that victory to recruit a new generation of killers," if we fail in Iraq, we can't defeat terror elsewhere because "the defeat of violence and terror in Iraq is vital to the defeat of violence and terror elsewhere."

But success in Iraq will not only change Iraq, but will "change the world" (he said this 4 times) because "a free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East will have incredible change."
There are plenty of in-betweens, including an Islamic state that is somewhere in between democracy and theocracy, without any interest in exporting terror.
I admit that it's hypothetically possible that the people of Iraq could end up with a benevolent non-democracy that abhors violence and terror, but I haven't seen any evidence that such a faction exists in Iraq, let alone that it's the choice of the majority of Iraqis. Why do you say this? What faction is there in Iraq that has said it will export terror beyond its borders?

It seems clear that in order for Iraq to not end up with a democratic government, that democracy will have to be ripped from the fingers of the Iraqi people. The only method by which anyone has opposed democracy thus far has been through violence and terror (see al Sadr), and the theocracies they've endorsed have been far from benevolent and opposed to terror. You can't rip something from anyone's fingers that doesn't exist yet. But we've opposed democracy in Iraq too. According to Juan Cole (www.juancole.com), we've blocked even local elections in Iraq, except in a handful of towns.

But the time to count the cost (Luke 14:28-33) was beforehand. Bush was too busy then telling us it wouldn't be that hard;
. . . .
Hell, we tried to tell him, but did he listen? No.Cite?

Because I seem to remember Bush saying the exact opposite (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/).Sounds to me like you were the one that wasn't listening.[/QUOTE]May 1, 2003 wasn't 'beforehand'. Looks like you were the one that wasn't reading.

By May 1, 2003, we were already in for the duration. Even if Bush was playing dress-up on the aircraft carrier under the "Mission Accomplished" sign.

[PatriotX]

First, re-check your posted bys. You've me mixed up w/ someone else.



Bush was too busy then telling us it wouldn't be that hard; he didn't bother telling us that if we won the war but lost the peace, Osama bin Laden, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. would use that event "to recruit a new generation of killers."

Nah. The f*ckhead-in-chief thought it would be a cinch, so he didn't bother telling the American people what the risks were. Hell, we tried to tell him, but did he listen? No.


Cite?

Because I seem to remember Bush saying the exact opposite.


I re-read the whole thing. There's no mention of the risk of helping to recruit a new generation of killers by invading Iraq.


So you admit that you made up the assertion that Bush said it would be easy?


So, the answer to that question is, "No, I don't say that I made an assertion that Bush said it would be easy."

I did note that Bush didn't warn us in the speech you selected about how the invasion of Iraq, "if we won the war but lost the peace, [it could be] used 'to recruit a new generation of killers.'"


Moving on to this second assertion...

This is where you must have me confused with someone else.

[Age Quod Agis]

First of all, I see now that I misattributed some of RTFirefly's quotes to SimonX. Sorry about that, SimonX.Why do you say this? What faction is there in Iraq that has said it will export terror beyond its borders?None. But it's reasonable to conclude that Islamic radicals who currently use terror (see al Sadr) would export terror beyond its borders, if they came into power. You can't rip something from anyone's fingers that doesn't exist yet. But we've opposed democracy in Iraq too. According to Juan Cole (www.juancole.com), we've blocked even local elections in Iraq, except in a handful of towns. Baloney. The mere fact that elections haven't happened yet doesn't mean that "we've opposed democracy in Iraq." It just means that we haven't had elections yet.

Do you seriously contend that we're never going to allow elections in Iraq? Or do you just arguing semantics?May 1, 2003 wasn't 'beforehand'. Looks like you were the one that wasn't reading.It was "before" the occupation. But if you'd like me to keep going back in time, how about this from Dubya's speech on Oct. 7, 2002 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,806800,00.html):I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult.
. . .
There is no easy or risk-free course of action.Regardless, you're changing what you said. You said that "Bush was too busy then telling us it wouldn't be that hard." Now you're asking me to prove that he said it was going to be easy (which he obviously did). So I call B.S. Please provide a cite where Bush said "it wouldn't be that hard."By May 1, 2003, we were already in for the duration. Even if Bush was playing dress-up on the aircraft carrier under the "Mission Accomplished" sign.So you're criticizing Bush for not specifically warning you of a risk that you were already aware of? What a ridiculous standard.

Can I also criticize Kerry for not telling me about the problems with treating terrorism as a matter for intelligence and law enforcement? And can I criticize Clinton for not warning me that if those tomahawks missiles miss ObL, then he's going to use that to recruit more terrorists?

And, hey, you haven't told me about the weaknesses in your position! What's up with that?

[Age Quod Agis]

First, re-check your posted bys. You've me mixed up w/ someone else.You're right. Sorry about that.I did note that Bush didn't warn us in the speech you selected about how the invasion of Iraq, "if we won the war but lost the peace, [it could be] used 'to recruit a new generation of killers.'"That's correct. It's not in that speech. But I never said it was.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Can I also criticize Kerry for not telling me about the problems with treating terrorism as a matter for intelligence and law enforcement?Only if you can cite anywhere that he said that it is only a matter for intelligence and law enforcement.

AKA "Pardon me, but your Rush Limbaugh is showing."

[Age Quod Agis]

Only if you can cite anywhere that he said that it is only a matter for intelligence and law enforcement.That's not what I said. I never said "only." But here's the quote that matches what I did say, from the January 29th Democratic debates (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61340-2004Jan29&notFound=true):The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.

But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at. AKA "Pardon me, but your Rush Limbaugh is showing."Sorry, I don't listen to Rush. AKA "Maybe you and Al Franken should start checking your facts."

[RTFirefly]

None. But it's reasonable to conclude that Islamic radicals who currently use terror (see al Sadr) would export terror beyond its borders, if they came into power.Why is that reasonable? There have been all sorts of rulers around the world who have been harsh on their own subjects without promoting terror on a transnational level.Baloney. The mere fact that elections haven't happened yet doesn't mean that "we've opposed democracy in Iraq." It just means that we haven't had elections yet. In America, our Founding Fathers participated in their various colonial legislatures and city and town governments. Think of how much more improbable anything remotely like our Constitutional system would have been if they hadn't had those experiences.

The obvious first step towards democracy is not the national level, but the local level. By blocking the attempts of the Iraqis to have local elections (which counts as opposing democracy on my scorecard) we've minimized the chances of democracy working in Iraq.

Think last week might've played out differently in towns that had been run by the locals since last May, rather than still run by the CPA?
It was "before" the occupation.So, we had the opportunity to back out after the invasion was completed, but before the occupation? That's news to everyone. But if you'd like me to keep going back in time, how about this from Dubya's speech on Oct. 7, 2002 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,806800,00.html):Regardless, you're changing what you said. You said that "Bush was too busy then telling us it wouldn't be that hard." Now you're asking me to prove that he said it was going to be easy (which he obviously did). So I call B.S. Please provide a cite where Bush said "it wouldn't be that hard."It's late, and my Googling seems to be weak. But OTOH, your memory is short. In the fall of 2002 and winter of 2003, Administration spokespersons were all over the news, telling us this war wasn't going to take very long, cost very much, etc., etc. If your memory doesn't run back that far, I'm sure I can dig a few cites up for you tomorrow.
So you're criticizing Bush for not specifically warning you of a risk that you were already aware of? What a ridiculous standard.I'm criticizing him for not warning the American people of a risk that those of us who were paying more attention than most, and could therefore see through the BS, were aware of. Can't see how that's particularly ridiculous; maybe you can enlighten me.
Can I also criticize Kerry for not telling me about the problems with treating terrorism as a matter for intelligence and law enforcement? And can I criticize Clinton for not warning me that if those tomahawks missiles miss ObL, then he's going to use that to recruit more terrorists? You can do whatever you like; it's a free country. Might do those things in an appropriately-titled thread, though.
And, hey, you haven't told me about the weaknesses in your position! What's up with that?Pygmies, budgies, Kuala Lumpur. Why do you ask?

[jshore]

I really like Powell... and if he was the president instead of Bush the USA would still be respected. Sending him to the UN with that silly speech was Rumsfeld's doing... to humiliate his opponent.

I still remember that UN speech... I sat down really thinking the US was going to show some top secret stuff and reveal good reasons for so much warmongering. When it was over... darn did I feel sorry for Powell.


I agree with you that the U.S. policy would be very different...and very much better...if Powell was in charge. Here (http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=7371) is an interesting article though in The American Prospect about Powell. It's kind of hard to summarize what they say in a sound-bite but their basic point is that Powell has indeed been marginalized in this Administration but it is at least partly because of some of his own deficiencies that Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al. were able to effectively out-maneuver him.

[mack]

I've gone through a bunch of speeches and addresses - not exactly with a fine tooth comb - made before the war and during the first couple of weeks.

Y'all should try it, it's interesting. Go to Whitehouse.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/), pick a month and have at it.

Anyway, I couldn't find an instance where Bush mentioned that the war and it's aftermath would be easy or short. In fact he reiterated that the duration is unknowable. As far as I can tell, Bush himself never made the claim that it would be easy. He did wax a little rosy about a liberated Iraq, but didn't say it would be easy.

That wasn't his job.

His job was to scare the shit out of everybody with reams of WMD talk (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030206-17.html) topped off by On September the 11th, 2001, the American people saw what terrorists could do, by turning four airplanes into weapons. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons.

It was the guys who are supposed to know how easy it may or may not be - Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney - who said it was going to be easy.

For a rundown go here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44801-2003Mar28?language=printer)

So yeah, Bush himself didn't say it was going to be easy (and cheap at $1.7 billion dollars. Hell, it'll pay for itself!). But others at the top of his administration sure did. Some may think that lets Bush off the hook. It doesn't.

[iamme99]

Good thread over at Billmon on Bush's press conference performance (Link) (http://billmon.org/archives/001395.html#comments)

Also (and pretty funny to boot):

April 13, 2004
A Busy Person's Guide to the Bush Press Conference

Link (http://www.criticalviewer.com/archives/000057.html)

[Hentor the Barbarian]

That's not what I said. I never said "only." But here's the quote that matches what I did say, from the January 29th Democratic debates (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61340-2004Jan29&notFound=true): Sorry, I don't listen to Rush. AKA "Maybe you and Al Franken should start checking your facts."
Okay, well it kind of matches what you said, except for the part where it doesn't. You gave the impression, since that was the only thing you listed, that that was what Kerry's position was. But perhaps I am picking nits, since I agree with the basic premise that intelligence and law enforcement should be our primary weapons against terrorism, and military efforts secondary.

[RTFirefly]

So I call B.S. Please provide a cite where Bush said "it wouldn't be that hard."How about one from Cheney (http://www.dailykos.net/archives/002162.html)? MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.

[RTFirefly]

More quotes: (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/03/28/cakewalk/)

Richard Perle, recently resigned chairman of the Defense Policy Board, in a PBS interview July 11, 2002:

"Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He's weaker militarily. We know he's got about a third of what he had in 1991."

"But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder. "

Ken Adelman, former U.N. ambassador, in an Op-Ed for the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2002:

"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps.

[Age Quod Agis]

Come on, RTFirefly. You originally saidBush was too busy then telling us it wouldn't be that hard.He never said that. In fact, he said that opposite.

The statements you've quoted don't say that, and don't even approach that. The statement by Cheney proved to be true in some areas, and false in many others, but has no bearing on the ease with which liberation and reconstruction would take place. Similarly, Perle's quote was about the strength of Iraq's military, and proved to be true. The quote by Adelman is completely irrelevant because he's not a government official, and certainly doesn't speak for the Bush Admin.But it's reasonable to conclude that Islamic radicals who currently use terror (see al Sadr) would export terror beyond its borders, if they came into power.

[/i]Originally posted by RTFirefly
Why is that reasonable? There have been all sorts of rulers around the world who have been harsh on their own subjects without promoting terror on a transnational level.Are you suggesting that terrorist organizations would give up using terror as a means of addressing their political concerns after they successfully use terror to come into power?

You can certainly argue that, but I've seen no evidence that it's true.The obvious first step towards democracy is not the national level, but the local level. By blocking the attempts of the Iraqis to have local elections (which counts as opposing democracy on my scorecard) we've minimized the chances of democracy working in Iraq.

Think last week might've played out differently in towns that had been run by the locals since last May, rather than still run by the CPA?Yes, I think it would have worked out worse. Democracy doesn't work from a standing start. To use your example of the founding fathers in America, they had a number of years where they didn't have self rule (governors were appointed by England) immediately preceding their independence. During those years, they clamored for independence, published things like the Federalist Papers, formed alliances, argued, discussed, bargained, wrote the Articles of Confederation, tried it for a couple of years, figured out that it didn't work, argued and discussed things some more, wrote the Constitution, wrote some amendments, argued and voted, and otherwise laid the groundwork for a democracy. It wasn't an overnight switch to democracy. It took years and years.

Meanwhile, the coalition is trying to make the switch as soon as possible for a nation that has never had self-rule. I think that's a mistake. I think the June deadline should be pushed back. I think we should give the country more time to become accustomed to policing themselves and living without Saddam making all their decisions for them. I don't think the act of voting is nearly as important as the act of living with freedom and becoming educated. I'm criticizing him for not warning the American people of a risk that those of us who were paying more attention than most, and could therefore see through the BS, were aware of. Can't see how that's particularly ridiculous; maybe you can enlighten me.It's ridiculous because you seem to think that most Americans didn't realize the war and occupation could take more than a year. I'd argue that most Americans aren't idiots. I'd argue that most Americans realized it could take a while, and that it could have been even more difficult than it has been. For example, many Americans thought Saddam had chemical or nuclear weapons he'd use against American troops, and even America itself. Many Americans thought the war would "inflame the Arab Street." Many Americans seemed to think we would never beat the Iraqi army . . . I seem to specifically remember the word "Quagmire" being bandied about loosely. I also seem to remember some hysterical screaming coming from the anti-war crowd about how difficult this war was going to be.

In fact, most Americans were aware that the war could go poorly, or that the occupation could go poorly. Your insinuation that Bush should have specifically warned Americans of this danger implies that they were unable to figure it out for themselves. I think they probably figured it out for themselves. I don't think you give average Americans enough credit.

[furt]

In the fall of 2002 and winter of 2003, Administration spokespersons were all over the news, telling us this war wasn't going to take very long, cost very much, etc., etc. I always assumed that meant that "Conflict in Iraq will be quicker and/less costly than most wars in the past."

What standard of comaprison were you using?