Bush: The Broken Record

Press conference:
He must disarm
We will prevail
If Sadam was disarming we would know it
If he does not disarm we will disarm him
The cost if inaction is greater than the cost of action
Iraq is a true real threat to America
We will prevail
He has weapons of mass destruction he’s just hiding them
For the sake of security of American people and the world and the IRaqi people, we will disarm him…

Substance, anyone? Didn’t directly answer why France Germany, Russia etc are looking at the same evidence he is, yet doesn’t interpet it the way he has. He just seems like such a talking head to me.

:dubious:

You forgot one.

Nucular :slight_smile:

I felt like most of the questions were a bit too long for him, and by the time the questioner got to the end of his question, Bush had forgotten what the beginning was, so he just rambled off into stuff like the OP.

Mmm, yes, he did seem in a testy mood tonight, especially when he growled at journo John King for his “six-part question.”

More than once he dispensed with the formality of prefacing his comments with “if force is necessary” or the like. Methinks war is inevitable and soon. :frowning:

Bush- The Drinking Game!

Yep! He’s Chance the Gardener from Being There come to life. Like Dana Carvey playing “Poppy” used to say, “It’s scary! It’s scary!”

well, i guess if any of you can do the job better, how’s about step up and save us all from this idiot, eh?

I can think of one person who could do the the job better. Sadly, the job was stolen from him.

:rolleyes:

It never ends, does it, minty?

GWB has reminded me of a dog, yapping and yapping and yapping. I suppose the stuck record image works quite well, too.

Hey minty, Al Gore lost the election. Dub won. Get over it.

And what do you suppose the hypothetical (never to happen) Gore Administration’s approach to the question of Saddam acquiring a stockpile of icky, nasty weapons would be? The same as Clinton’s?

What a loaded and unfair question. Do you think, even for the slightest moment, that we would be even remotely considering going to war if it weren’t for 9/11? Was the pre-9/11 Bush presidency’s approach to Iraq appreciably different from Clinton’s?
My honest answer to that question is that Gore and/or Clinton would have dealt with Afghanistan in more or less the same way, would likely have then turned at least some attention to Iraq, but would have been vastly more eager/willing to court world opinion.

Come on, Ringo… yesterday’s press conference was cringeworthy. President Bush simply wasn’t answering the questions the reporters were asking him. This total inability to have an actual conversation about a war you’re about to start is not reassuring. I mean, check this shit out:

*John King: “How would you answer your critics who say that they think this is somehow personal? As Senator Kennedy put it tonight, he said your fixation with Saddam Hussein is making the world a more dangerous place. And as you prepare the American people for the possibility of military conflict, could you share with us any of the scenarios your advisors have shared with you about worse-case scenarios, in terms of the potential cost of American lives, the potential cost to the American economy, and the potential risks of retaliatory terrorist strikes here at home?”

President Bush: “My job is to protect America, and that is exactly what I’m going to do. People can ascribe all kinds of intentions. I swore to protect and defend the Constitution; that’s what I swore to do. I put my hand on the Bible and took that oath, and that’s exactly what I am going to do. I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he’s a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I’ve got a good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction, and he has used weapons of mass destruction, in his neighborhood and on his own people. He’s invaded countries in his neighborhood. He tortures his own people. He’s a murderer. He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. I take the threat seriously, and I’ll deal with the threat. I hope it can be done peacefully. The rest of your six-point question?”

John King: “The potential price in terms of lives and the economy, terrorism.”

President Bush: “The price of doing nothing exceeds the price of taking action, if we have to. We’ll do everything we can to minimize the loss of life. The price of the attacks on America, the cost of the attacks on America on September the 11th were enormous. They were significant. And I am not willing to take that chance again, John.”*

…Broken record is right.

-fh

Actually, I found it very useful. Watched it with my 3 kids, ages 11, 13, 15. It was a perfect illustration to teach them them mere repetition is not persuasive and does not make you correct.

The whole charade last night was “cringeworthy,” and worse. The President did not truly answer any of the 18 questions put to him because he clearly did not understand them. An empty vessel is quickly filled by whatever substance happens to be available. In this case, I believe that Bush’s advisors give him just enough information and talking points to hang himself. Ask him anything that deviates in the slightest from his prep sheet and he begins repeating from the top.

I lose patience very quickly with those who are so quick to answer legitimate criticisms (of those, like me, who love their country and respect the Presidency) with “well, I suppose you could do better.” They miss the point.

I see the point of this discussion as being that President Bush, for a myriad of reasons, most of them seemingly personal and poorly articulated, is comfortable with violating all the tenets of democracies regarding war.

Democracies do not wage war on non-aggressors, they do not wage war to settle the personal vendettas of their leaders, nor do they leave their messes to be mopped up by warring factions and rogue governments of surrounding provinces and nations hungry for the spoils.

I respect the Office of the President, and I would be polite to George W. Bush were I ever to meet him, but I always believed him to be wholly unqualified intellectually to be President and he hasn’t proven me wrong.

I believe that patriotism requires a little more from us than slapping a magnetic U.S. flag on the side of our SUV and calling it a day. It is not unpatriotic to oppose a war which is misguided and unprovoked; it is the responsibility of those who live in a democracy to be its watchdogs.

This thread should be in GD.

This question split up into six parts looks like this, Duke:

The reporters only get one question and this guy obviously wanted his money’s worth. This looks like a six point, or at least nearly six point question to me. What’s wrong with Bush making a joke about it? I doubt I would be able to remember the whole thing if I was asked this.

Here Bush is answering the first two points.

And here he answers the last four points.

Do you expect him to get sucked into debating hypotheticals with the reporters? He is saying that the price of doing nothing exceeds the price of taking action. He doesn’t specifically get into “worst case scenarios”, nor should he.

Bush is only a broken record in the sense that he is consistent.

He was absolutely pathetic. I defy anyone to argue that he wasn’t. I don’t usually watch presidential speeches or press conferences, because they’re all pretty much feelgood “message” events rather than substantial news. But he’s such a bad speaker it’s no wonder it was only his 2nd primetime press conference.

And yes, maybe someone doesn’t have to be a brilliant rhetorician to be a good president. A guy could be a lousy speaker and a great chief executive. But considering the botch-job this administration has made of our place in the international community, I don’t think this is the case here.

Oh, and my opinion is that Gore, as a more capable and experienced leader, would have handled Afghanistan in a similar way, but then used a lot more finesse in dealing with Iraq and North Korea. He would not have announced to the world that “pre-emption” is our new foreign policy, effectively deciding that we were going to war without consideration for the diplomatic ripple-effect. If he reasoned that force to disarm Iraq was necessary, he would have been more effective in bringing the Security Council on board than this administration has. His foreign policy would have been more reasoned and practical.

And his speeches would have been better. :wink:

Debaser, while I agree with you that the question was a bit long, Mr. Bush certainly does not answer the last four points in his statement that you quote.

That is a completely vacuous statement. It says nothing other than what we already know, that Bush personally feels that war is the answer. It does not tell us why he thinks that beyond a nebulous “'cause we’ll be safer,” which, without any supporting facts or scenarios (“hypothicals,” as you say), is a reason that seems to be based on nothing other than his own whims.

Well, most of the reporters were asking similarly-worded “multi-point” questions. After all, every reporter wants his/her money’s worth (though John King was pushing it a bit far). I only mentioned King because he’s the only one Bush shot back at.

it went pretty much like this:

PROPOSITION 1441 blah blah blah NUKE-U-LER WEAPONS blah blah blah DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION blah blah blah WAR ON TERROR blah blah blah WEAPONS OF TERROR blah.DISARM blah blah blah DICTATOR blah blah blah SEPTEMBER 11TH blah blah blah.

I believe that he does. Not directly, but his answer can be used to respond to all four of those points. Sure, bad things might happen as a result of going into Iraq. But, he thinks more bad things will happen if we don’t. You can disagree with that. But, it does answer the questions.

The hypotheticals that I refer to would be the “worst case scenario” part of the question. It would be foolish for Bush to start guessing at what might go wrong in a press conference like that. He would only be giving his opponents ammunition to use against him.

I don’t know what you mean by saying that his reasoning is based on whims. He clearly lays out many times during the conference all the reasons for removing Saddam from power. As others in this thread have pointed out, he repeated them over and over. I’m sure that you disagree with these reasons, but it’s not fair to say that they are mere whims.