Jean Chretian - I don’t have that much experience listening to him, but when I have, it seems like he knows what he is going to say and says it forcefully. However, because of the way he talks out of the side of his mouth and the strong French Canadien accent, he does sometimes sound like a drunken vintner. 
Well, Democrats have been underestimating Dubya for years, and they underestimated him all the way to the White House. And lo and behold, there are STILL people underestimating him. Slow learners.
Elvis1ives: <<<In a time when we most need direct information, and some detail about his plans and what has been accomplished so far, >>
No…we don’t need that detail at all right now.
<<After declining to give the answers we so obviously needed about this warning>>
Umm, maybe the answers don’t exist? How do you know what he declined to give? I don’t think it’s so obvious that we need information we don’t have, or divulge information about what we know when we don’t have to.
<<Anyone wanting to think that’s impressive leadership had their minds made up about that going in. >>
With an approval rating of 90%+??
I don’t think so. I think the person here who made up his mind beforehand is you. If Dubya walked on water, you’d be here starting a thread called “Why Can’t Shrub Swim?”
Max Harvey: <<<But I can’t think of any reason why he can’t tell us that Cave #B909-7 was struck two days ago with genuine DeathBringerTM missles.>>>
I can. Because it’s not his job. We have a Pentagon staff for that. Bush isn’t a micromanager, like Clinton and Johnson. It’s not his business to worry about target lists. He did right by ‘staying in his lane,’ and not getting wrapped around the axle in operational details.
This is why the U.S. military had more confidence in Bush than in Clinton–indeed, had close to zero confidence in Clinton for much of his term.
And in case anyone hasn’t been watching, the Pentagon has been giving daily briefings in which they are describing in some detail exactly what they are hitting. For instance, today we learned that the Air Force dropped 5,000 lb ‘bunker buster’ bombs on suspected Taliban underground hideouts today.
The President’s job is to set the tone, do the diplomacy, and focus on large-scale policy directions, not to decide how many gallons of fuel to load into the F-18’s for tonight’s missions.
Carter and Clinton were both terrible micro-managers. They were ‘detail’ people, and just couldn’t bring themselves to delegate authority to others. I sympathize - I’m kind of the same way. But Bush is a delegator. He finds people he trusts, and lets them do their job. That’s why trust is so important to him - both to receive and give. And that’s why he was so spitting mad the other day when some clown in the Congress leaked secret operational details to the press. He probably over-reacted on that, but it gives some insight into the way he works.
I’m not sure what the debate is here; this strikes me as a IMHO thread thus far.
And… IMHO, Bush did well.
I was the Virginia State High School League Extemp champion three years in a row. I mention that only to say I have some formal training, and some success, at public speech. In my later careers - both of them - I’ve also had to speak convincingly to groups.
Bush is not a great orator in the tradition of Reagan, or a great empath in the tradition of Clinton. Say what you will about either of these men - they could mesmerize a crowd.
But I agree with Sam Stone’s OP - he found a voice that was his. His plain-speaking style hearkens back to Harry Truman. He projected resolve and confidence.
Part of that, I’m sure, is that in tense times, we as a nation want that from our President - he may have benefitted from that a bit. But overall, the effort and results were his, and I give him a solid B+.
- Rick
If you want to read it, click.
[quote]
At the same time I think you sound like you had your mind made up on Bush before you got to the speech.[/quolte]
Not entirely. Nobody would like to see him grow into the job more than I would, really. Our fates are bound up with his for 3 more years. I truly did want to see him show that he really had a grasp of the problem as a whole, not just pieces of it, and there’s no more accurate way of assessing that than in directness and seriousness of replies to questions about it.
I still have no sense that he has a grasp of what to do beyond bombing every Taliban target available (done) and make sure it’s understood that the enemy isn’t Islam (as most of us already understood). But now comes the hard part, and we have nothing beyond a few platitudes to show us that the leader is leading. As I stated in my earlier post, he’ll be judged by results, not words.
It’s kind of disappointing to see people use this as more evidence to further their anti-Bush agenda.
I voted for Gore. You could not have paid me to vote for Bush last year. But my attitude has changed greatly over the past month.
Anyway, I thought Bush was great. He sounded determined, forceful, and I thought he answered the questions well. I didn’t expect a huge amount of information, obviously. Should he have told us where Cheney was? When the next air strike was planned? What we’ll be aiming at on Monday? I mean, you can open this week’s TIME and get all the details. I was more interested in his warnings about future attacks and his reassurances.
I will admit that his permanent smirk, random use of “ummmm,” and mispronunciation of “terror” (“TERah”) kind of irked me, but for once I’m willing to drop that and acknowledge the superiority of the conference.
A few years ago, I met Clinton. You could feel the power eminating from that man. And his speeches were fabulous. But he was also untrustworthy, and he lied under oath. I prefer a man who still says “reckon” and sometimes sounds unrehearsed to one who sounds good but lies regularly.
I think we can put even money on Laura Bush forcing this idea. She’s been representing the children through all of this. I still think it’s a great idea, though.
Oh yes we do, at least as evidence that the people making the decisions have a clue what they’re doing.
How about the kind of answer one would expect in any other situation? “I can’t get into that because (state generality)”, or “We frankly don’t know yet, but here’s how we’re going to find out”? Instead, he avoided the questions.
Part of the same psychology. We all want him to do well, so there’s a tendency born of a desire for control and stability to think he is doing well. Approval ratings are ephemeral anyway, as his father could tell you.
I really do want him to have a grasp of the situation and understand what to do. He’s gonna be the President for 3+ more years no matter what. I was hoping for reassurance - and didn’t get it.
Lack of any communication of details gives the impression of lack of understanding of the generalities either, though.
Something like 90 percent of the US military claims a Republican affiliation (cite locatable but it’s late). Could there be a connection there? When you think of Republicans during the last 9 years, isn’t the first word that comes up “partisanship”?
Naw, it wasn’t “micromanagement” at all they resented Clinton for - that started with the rampant near-mutiny over the gay issue, and the deaths in the Somalia mess he inherited. After that, Clinton by any objective standard had no more than the absolute minimum interest in or participation in military events - a substantial failing, since it neglected the long-overdue post-Cold-War restructuring. But your assertion still is not fact-based.
Hmmm … that’s how me friends and I pronounce it. Maybe the President of the US is actually horrified gasp Australian? :eek:
I’m pleased once again for a well placed vote for Bush in 2000. (Unfortunately because I am not in the Electoral College it doesn’t mean as much)
I am happy to see many others across the political spectrum offering respect for the decisions of Bush and his supporting cast. What we need at this time is unity and it is encouraging to see our nation rally around an able president.
The thing that I thought was most interesting was when he said(basically)“If the Taliban turned over Bin Laden and all his henchmen, then the U.S. will reconsider the attack.” Which implied if the turn him over now, then there i a good chance bombing will stop. It seemed to be shooting from the hip, but it surprised me in the sence that an improv repsonse would be so close to saying “I just want this over”. I am really curious what would happen if the Taliban did that, and I have now idea if it was good or bad, just unexpected that he would say that.
In my heart I believe that this man believes what he says and has a vision. I could quible, but I do not have a vision.
I thought that as well…the “plain talk” kind of guy. His speechifying is getting polished, but it still has a southwestern twang.
I’m wondering about the “2nd chance” he gave the Taliban to hand over OBL and his cronies. Actually, that might be a bad thing since then Osama would have a pulpit for a while, and the Taliban would still be in power. We’d have to stop blowing the crap out of them, and if anyone deserves hot shrapnel, it’s the Taliban.
Better to eradicate the vermin all at once. We left Saddam in power, and he’s probably been working on bio/chem delivery systems since the inspectors left.
The Taliban had their chance. They thumbed their noses. They can pay the price.
What I found most interesting in the entire speech was his reference to the failures of earlier administrations in dealing with Afghanistan.
GWB: “I think we did learn a lesson, however, from–and should learn a lesson from the previous engagement in the Afghan area, that we should not just simply leave after a military objective has been achieved”
For him, I think this is a very bold statement. He is obviously referring to the policies of the Reagan/Bush administration in helping the Afghan rebels defeat the Soviets, and then leaving a vacuum for the Taliban to fill. Pretty courageous to criticize the old man and for that he should be given credit - also because he is right. The Frontline episode on PBS tonite showed that.
Bush may not be a great orator - but he is no dummy. He is a capable leader. He must certainly have many advisors suggesting many different things lately; and, for him to be able to annunciate a course of action, for him to be able to determine (after listening to all his advisors) what that action ought to be, and for him to garner world-support and domestic support is impressive.
While many feel his election was dubious, his leadership following this tragedy is to be commended. He is showing tremendous skill as President.
While this thread for the most part seems to be a “lovefest” for Bush I still feel a teeny urge to defend him. There have been a couple of complaints about his mispronouncing words on here (E-raq-I-raq, and terror-TERah)but if you look at these they’re really just how a person with a different dialect. I mean it’s not like the whole “subliminable” fiasco again. If Bush switched from “E-raq” to “I-raq” it’s probably just because he recalled how someone else had said it recently. It’s not that unusual when a person with a given dialect goes into an area where people speak differently to pick up, in fits and starts, a few different pronunciations.
As for whether or not Bush knows what to do after bombing Afghanistan: no, it’s not done; next come ground forces to overthrow the government, put in a more pleasent (to us) one, and then, hopefully, leave.
Then there’s the whole issue of the terrorist networks: that’s a bit more difficult to define because it’s not like these people run websites stating how they work with pretty pictures of terrorists and statements of their hobbies (Hi! My name is Osama and I like Parcheezi!). But freezing their assets is a pretty good start.
How about not getting wrapped up in the operational debates? Well, he’s the President and he can’t micromanage. And that’s completely immaterial to whatever Clinton did while he was in office; Bush is running the show now and his current way of working is to delegate authority to people who know what they are doing. He needs to be kept aware of the big picture, but I’m sure he knows about the finer details. Like what to do about terrorist threats: well everybody and their mother knows what to do: go about your normal business and keep one eye out for “suspicious” activity. You can’t turn around right now without hitting “operational details:” Pentagon showing pictures of bombed airfields, Congress passing the new airline safety act, government looking into anthrax cases in Florida, etc, so why should Bush be redundent and state what we all know?
One more note: until tonight no president has given a prime time press conference since 1995, so that means that Clinton didn’t give one for his whole second term. Don’t ask me for a cite, it was mentioned on Nightline tonight.
Oh, yeah! Boo-yah?
“If you see a strange person…”
Speaking as a strange person, that worries me a bit.
“…climbing into a crop duster he doesn’t own…”
Freeze, weirdo! Climb down outta that crop duster and show me license and registration!
This will have a dramatic impact on the crop duster/bio-terrorism threat in those places where crop dusters are common. Out in the sticks, da boonies. If the Evil One has his eye on New Ulm, Minnesota, he’d better think again, Our Leader is way ahead of him!
But seriously folks…
Her question was very cogent, as her questions tend to be. Given that the FBI thinks that a terrorist attack is very likely (well, 100%…very, very likely), and Our Leader’s urge to a rather undefined “vigilance”, and given that we are not to be automatically suspicious of people who look like they might be “Middle-Eastern”…well then, what?
The FBI has done a blatant “coveryerass”. If there is an attack, they warned us. No attack, they prevented it.
Now, it is just possible, perhaps to some unpatriotic soul who persists in thinking that Our Leader is a fundamentally mediocre person, despite the ubiquitous presence of firemen heroes and flags, might suspect that he knew who was going to ask what questions.
Hmmm, I’d think a prime time press conference would be very unusual; the Networks wouldn’t want to cover them more than once per blue moon. I’d assume something weighty was going on for it to happen in 1995.
Just curious: how many press conferences has GW given since taking office (prime time or non)? I’m under the impression it hasn’t been very many (or any?) but I don’t recall and I don’t see a cite handy. Anyone?
Elucidator: It was a stupid question. What kind of answer was she possibly hoping to get at a press conference? Details on who to contact in her city if she gets a strange cough? Bush’s answer was the only one he could give without going into a two-hour civil defense lecture: Use your common sense. If you see things that are out of the norm around sensitive areas, report them. If you work at a small airport, and you know the guy in the next hangar who owns a cropduster but see a strange person pulling it out, check it out. Try to raise your normal level of awareness if you work in or around potentially vulnerable areas. It’s not rocket science.
And it wasn’t Helen Thomas. My bad. Her name popped up in my head when I was typing because Bush had a humorous remark for her too (she said, “I have a followup question when you are done”, and he replied, “Thanks for warning me.”). I don’t recall the name of the woman who asked him what to do.
He was obviously refering to Bert…
In response to Elucidator’s comments about what to be suspicious of and Bush’s response, I think he got it right with the crop duster schtick. We do have to go on with our lives, and we can’t all be private detectives, so he’s just asking us to keep our eyes peeled. Yes that’s vague, but that’s all that anyone can rationally do in this situation. As for the FBI, well yeah, you got a point: they did warn us if there is an attack, and if there isn’t, they’ll probably claim they prevented it. But law enforcement agencies have been making that statement everytime there’s a decrease in crime whether or not they have any actual proof (Gee, the economy’s doing better and people can find jobs and don’t have to do muggings? Nah, we just kick ass). I did like the first part of your post though. If the government went after strange persons I think most of the posters here would have to hide :).
The Egyptians had an old saying, “Do not put food in a slop pail”, which signified that it is not fitting to put clever speech in a base mind. They must have envisioned W and created that phrase just for him.