I watched the speech tonight. I’m not a Bush fan but I thought he did a decent job and, if nothing else, is becoming much better at this sort of thing than he was when he took office. Granted, I’m sure it was heavily rehearsed.
I am wondering if anyone watching the speech had their opinion swayed as far as whether the war is justified. I’m personally anti-war in the sense that I feel it would behoove us to have more international support. I thought he dodged those questions, to some extent, that asked why more nations weren’t behind us. I also thought he tried a little too hard to link this to 9/11. I’m not so sure that the links to Bin Laden are so apparent to me.
Having said that, I have found myself putting a lot of thought into questioning, if not war, then what is the solution? More time for inspections seems rather fruitless.
I’m not sure it added anything at all, I didn’t see anything new. I rather assumed it was designed to boost the president’s credibility as a coherent war leader. What was it, his second allegedely unscripted press conference in over two years ?
To be honest, that aspect is pathetic in the modern, media era. Blair does more press calls before breakfast most mornings.
I suspect it was more about the Bush image than the war, maybe partly a reaction to that ‘debating Saddam on teevee’ thing.
I’m still not sure. For how many years has diplomacy failed to work?
Glad he cleared up why I must necessarily equate Saddam, Iraq, and WMD, with terrorism and Al-Queda.
And why N. Korea is such a different situation. Was his discription of the Korean situation as a “neighborhood” issue a paean to the late Fred Rogers?
Say it again in case anyone missed it the first fifty times - whaddya want? Complete and total disarmanent! What is that, some sort of a mantra or something?
What a tool.
The only thing not nauseating about the charade was that he took responsibility - said it was his decision, and he thought there was a threat, so he was taking this action.
Dinsdale, a leader in a democracy has broader responsibilities than that, since the consequences of his decisions are felt by so many. He has a responsibility to honestly consider other views presented to him, along with the possibility of his being wrong, but he has never shown any sign of accepting such a responsibility.
What I saw was a small man realizing he’s gotten himself in way over his head, frightened half to death, but clueless as to how to fix the mess he got himself into. One might expect a leader who is really sure he’s doing the right thing, and has his employers on his side, to show confidence and command - but he looked like a kid having to present a paper in school when he hasn’t prepared. He had nothing new to say, and didn’t have a direct, in-depth, factual, nonplatitudinous answer for any of the on-target questions he was asked.
This may indeed be the first time in his life he’s ever been unable to wriggle out of a tight spot with a smirk and a nickname, or at least been bailed out by Poppy, and he really doesn’t seem to have the reserves to know how to deal with responsibility.
I completely disagree. I don’t think he has a clue that he’s driving the ship of state straight onto the rocks. God wanted George to be president, and by God, he’s doing God’s work. And all those stupid hippies and pussified foreigners complaining about it should just go to Iraq, where they don’t have freeedom of speech.
And speaking of stupid hippies, did you catch the part where he claimed that after Hussein is gone, the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds of Iraq will show the world that they can live together in peace and democracy? That right there just shows that this guy hasn’t got the slightest clue.
To answer the OP: It will have very little effect.
I don’t think the administration had hopes that this press conference would actually change the minds of those who are against the war.
MHO is that they feel like they need to toss a bone to the press by having a question and answer press conference because they haven’t done one in so long. It’s obvious that Bush doesn’t like them. I believe this is only the second one he has given in his term so far.
Bush walked a line - trying to answer questions, but trying to stick to his talking points to get his message across to the viewers. It’s about what to be expected.
The most convincing argument I have heard yet, is that yesterday’s show was merely an excuse to get the Pres on the record, instead of Powell or another subordinate, saying the US intends to go before the UN and the other countries will have to go on record in the near future.
The American audience was largely superfluous. The internded audience was international. Just that a purported “press conference” was a convenient way to give Bush this public forum.
You should be smacking yourself, december… that’s the lamest analogy I’ve ever heard. Do you really believe this crap you spew?
King believed in making change through peace and justice, not war. You obviously know nothing about the man to make that analogy. Try reading the Drum Major Instinct sermon and then come back and tell me how Bush is like King. Bush doesn’t have a clue.
That’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Nobody would ever say those things about Bush. His legacy will be “Dubya stands for War.”
Keep smacking that forehead, december, and maybe you’ll knock some sense into it.
Poster who Espouses Terrible Analogies? Person who will Eventually Tarnish Analogies? Perpetrator of Evil, Terroristic Analogies? Professor of Endless, Thoughtless Analogies? …
December, funny, funny, funny. I am nominating this as the most absurd analogy ever. But you funniest joke would be the recent one where you accuse John Paul II to be a jew killer. You make laugh