There was one thing that struck me about the speech that no one seemed to comment on, so maybe I misunderstood something. It seems to me in a recent statement, Bush demanded that Saddam BOTH disarm and step down. In this speech he indicated that disarming would be sufficient. He didn’t seem to require that Saddam step down. Is there something significant here?
No… Bush has switched tacks on Hussein several times over the last few months. This is just his latest attempt to find the most politically expedient way to sell a war to the American people and to the U.N. He’s no better than a used car salesman, trying to find that soft spot in his latest prospect.
I, also, heard nothing new last night. He did a lot of talking and a lot of dodging direct questions. I especially liked his non-answer-answer when he was asked about letting U.N. inspectors out of Iraq before initiating an attack. He was obviously not prepared for that one. His handlers must have been smashing their foreheads against their screens there… as I suspect they were doing for much of the press conference.
Not sure exactly how to seperate the wheat from the chaff in last night’s performance. For instance, I doubt he really expects Saddam to haul the weapons out and meet him in a “parking lot!” 
When asked if he demanded Saddam’s head on a pike, he made clear that if we go in there will be a change of regime.
Moreover, I believe he sees himself in a perfect position by demanding something impossible, and then saying it was the opponent’s CHOICE because he did not comply.
We discussed this in a GD thread a short while ago - “What would it take to stop the war” or somesuch. I and others shared the opinion that ANYTHING SH did now would be characterized as “too little, too late.”
I do not for one second imagine that SH wishes to completely disarm. However, even if he did, it clearly would take some time. I easily imagine Bush saying the deadline passed, and there was no reason to wait any longer.
The line that kept pissing me off was when he kept saying “12 years of negotiation hasn’t worked.” Exactly what level of negotiation has been going on consistently for the last 12 years. In my inexpert opinion - what HAD been going on for the past 12 years was containing him, and that had seemed to be going pretty successfully.
When he was talking about the various factors that made Iraq dangerous - anyone else think how well most of the factors fit Saudi Arabia?
What’s absurd about december’s analogy?
minty claims that Bush doesn’t have the slightest clue because he suggests that these people can live together in peace and democracy. This is the absurd statement. Depending on what he meant by it, racist even. Of course they can under the right circumstances.
december’s analogy to MLK may have been a little wild, but it was valid. There was a time when no one thought blacks and whites could live together in the US in peace. It points out the absudity of what minty was saying.
No, it points out december’s lack of any clue about King’s philosophy or methodology. King’s methods were those of peace and justice. Bush’s methods are war and bullying. It’s an underlying philosophy that makes it a crap analogy.
To put it another way, how successful would King’s movement have been if he encouraged militant uprisings and violence against white oppression? King’s movement was successful because it was based in peace and justice.
Try again.
I’m more or less with you on this one. I think major newsline to come out of this conference was that Bush is now ready to stick his neck out at UNSC. And for some reason he seems confident about it.
One other interesting line of thought he put forth was in regards to his perception of his presidency. He stated (several times I think) that part of his oath to office is to protect the American people. In and of itself this isn’t surprising, but that he sees this as paramount to *his[/] presidency is, I think a rather new argument (though I must admit to not hearing much of his diatribe immediately preceding 9.11). To that end, I think it would be somewhat nifty to look at how other US presidents have shaped their time in office. Nifty in that, hmmm, that sounds like it’d make a good dissertation type of nifty.
One thing I think he did a piss poor job of was answering/avoiding questions regarding the dissenting opinions. He seemed to have reformed these question to couch them in rhetoric of his argument. It would have been nice if he could show the capacity to empathise with his opposition and address said issues in a more direct manner.
I also though he dropped the ball on the promise of a new regime. (did I hear him correctly when he said "one assumes the Shi’ite and Sunni can get along?) The transition from dictatorship to “new gov’t” is a long, precarious, and delicate transfer. His statements didn’t leave me with much confidence that understands the ramifications of his position.
And N. Korea is a “regional issue”? Whooo-boy!
- he did a piss poor job of was answering/avoiding questions regarding the dissenting opinions. He seemed to have reformed these question to couch them in rhetoric of his argument. It would have been nice if he could show the capacity to empathise with his opposition and address said issues in a more direct manner. *
I was driving and only caught a few of the questions,but that was my impression.Every one I heard was never answered,merely turned around to a speech he seemed to have memorized from earlier opportunities.
One thing really galled me though was his calling on a female who gave me the distinct impression she was writing for a religious organization when she asked “how is your faith helping you”.Was she a plant?Talk about a nonrelevant question.
But then,the only one I heard where Bush seemed to be answering from personal knowledge.Sheesh,my CEO depending on prayer to win this thing.What’s next ouija boards or tarot cards?Reagan had his astrologer thanks to Nancy.
Another fine mess you got us in,Ollie.
One other thought I haven’t heard mentioned - Bush’s demeanor.
In previous public statements, Bush has been vigorous in his demeanor about Saddam. In his press conference last night, he appeared solemn, reserved, even downright sullen. His voice as low and steady. He spoke deliberately.
Which tells me he was well coached. I think it helped take the edge off the “cowboy” label the international community has stuck on him. Instead of seeming giddy and rambunctious, he seemed more concerned, more in tune with the seriousness of his words.
My cynical self, I don’t buy any of it, but nonetheless, I think it was an improvement in delivery style.
Trivia: In answer to the first question, which was about when he would decide to go to war, and whether a final ultimatum was appropriate, in the stretch of five sentences, he said terror/terrorism/terrorist seven times. Talk about coaching.
Bush said repeatedly that twelve years of diplomacy have not worked. I guess not, when “diplomacy” has consisted of demands followed by threats, followed by more demands and threats ad nauseam. And now, when things are coming to a head, our chief “diplomat” is a general. Did anybody actually expect a denouement other than violence?
In answer to the OP, no, I was not swayed in any way by the President’s speech (and speech it was-- he didn’t answer any questions directly, so calling it a “press conference” was simply ridiculous). I am, however, resigned to the coming “possible” conflict. I shudder at its possible consequences.
Anybody know how many body bags have been sent to the region in anticipation of the quick and easy victory the President is so confident of? Somebody told me it was 75,000, but I have no cite for that. Is that number on track? Anybody know?
Yes indeed, and I was a small part of it. But, it also helped that the federal government backed it up with guns when needed. E.g., when three civil rights workers were murdered in Mississippi in 1964, the federal government didn’t try to imagine how to understand their killers. It didn’t explain that these murderers resembled George Washington and Abraham Lincoln in some way. Instead, armed men went out and dealt with the killers. When a mob tried to keep James Meredith from entering Old Miss, a group of armed men were there to protect him and to keep the mob from interfering.
If some Congressman compared OBL to Lyndon Johnson, because Johnson used armed National Guards to enforce racial integration, wouldn’t you find that stupid?
DesertGeezer - note that all the UN demands and threats were to get Saddam do what he had already formally agreed to do in 1991. What was wrong with the UN demanding that Saddam keep his word?
Nothing necessarily, december. Just don’t misrepresent the demands as negotiations.
Just as stupid as your comparison of Bush to King, yes. Are you saying that yours has validity while the mythical congressman’s does not? No double-standard there. :rolleyes:
Did anyone notice that GWB refused to call on Helen Thomas, the dean of the White House press corps? She is on record as saying that Bush is the worst President in American history, and clearly she would not play along with the scripted questions that the other media whores were asking (with the notable exception of Terry Moran’s question). How sad that the president of the United States is afraid of a little old lady in her 80s. Other members of the press corps commented that it was the first time that Helen Thomas has been frozen out by a president since she startred her White House beat in 1962:wally (GWB)
—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.—
It was also expertly timed to shut out Hans Blix in the news. Though there was nothing they could do about this: Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines
About the question of religious faith? While it could have been pre-arranged to fit into Bush’s “I have a speech and an earpiece reading me lines three words at a time” schedule of points, you should understand that many magazines have recently run cover stories on how Bush’s faith factors into his decisions: so it is an pop issue at the moment. And, if you buy those articles, you better believe that his faith IS a major part of of the story.
Newsweek faith story.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/878520.asp?
Oh, Bush apparently actually did quip: “I’m reading from a script.” which at least shows he’s got a sense of humor, and is hardly oblivious to how transparent his non-press conferance press conferances are. It’s a strategy that’s been working pretty well for him, so it’s hard to really complain that he’s using it.
—And N. Korea is a “regional issue”? Whooo-boy!—
This still kind of confuses me: given NK as an example, it seems that the real danger in Iraq is that a nutty, gunning for conflict nation known for selling weapons to shady characters all around the world might acquire nuclear weapons, at which point it gets downgraded to a “regional” issue. Which, at least as far as the administration seems to be acting about it… is not all that bad.
—Somebody told me it was 75,000, but I have no cite for that. Is that number on track? Anybody know?—
The Gulf war had, I think, a similar call for body bags, and obviously most of them never got used. They are getting prepared even for a disaster: as they should be even if disaster were to be wildly impluasible.
Finally, I think this article has some pretty good points:
Point 1 is: Bush started with a war cry right from the beggining of the focus on Iraq. He thus has had nothing to build too: the fat lady has been singing now for months, and people have gotten used to it. It also makes his “war is the last option” rhetoric utterly unbelievable.
Point 2 is: If you wanted to go the U.N. route, you should have only done it if you were really willing to abide by a veto. If we are going to war utterly regardless of anything else anyone says or does, the only thing that this process will accomplish is to splitner the world and pointlessly rub egg on the faces of our former allies. If we just went to war right away after it became clear our allies were not going to go for it, they would have protested for a while: but at least they wouldn’t risk looking and feeling hated and ridiculous, on record as vetoing a war which is going to happen anyway.
The number’s meaningless, IAC. You’re assuming that the military’s planning on only stuffing dead 'Merikins in 'em. They ordered something like 50 K for GWI and didn’t use too many on US soldiers, so they must have used them for something else. (Oh! I know, smuggling oil!)
Read GWB-Seniors address after the first gulf war. Sounds EARILY like the present day.
From cite,
“… we must act to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles used to deliver them. It would be tragic if the nations of the Middle East and Persian Gulf were now, in the wake of war, to embark on a new arms race. Iraq requires special vigilance. Until Iraq convinces the world of its peaceful intentions – that its leaders will not use new revenues to re-arm and rebuild its menacing war machine – Iraq must not have access to the instruments of war.”
and
"… we must work together to create shared security arrangements in the region. Our friends and allies in the Middle East recognise that they will bear the bulk of the responsibility for regional security. But we want them to know that just as we stood with them to repel aggression, so now America stands ready to work with them to secure the peace.
This does not mean stationing US ground forces on the Arabian Peninsula, but it does mean American participation in joint exercises involving both air and ground forces. It means maintaining a capable US naval presence in the region, just as we have for over 40 years. Let it be clear: our vital national interests depend on a stable and secure Gulf.
Second, we must act to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles used to deliver them. It would be tragic if the nations of the Middle East and Persian Gulf were now, in the wake of war, to embark on a new arms race. Iraq requires special vigilance. Until Iraq convinces the world of its peaceful intentions – that its leaders will not use new revenues to re-arm and rebuild its menacing war machine – Iraq must not have access to the instruments of war."
I think we dropped the ball since the first Gulf War. We have let down the middle east and our own people by allowing SH to acquire new missles and WMD`s. We were not on alert this whole time. We were not using diplomacy as a means of deterent as we should have been (dinsdale ). Somewhere along the line (Clinton), we slipped and became complacent. We allowed this to reach the point it has come to by not being vigilant. We must take the appropriate action. If an incredible military presence does not persuade SH to immediately disarm and concede then what effect would more time give him.
The leverage provided by the threat has not worked so far. And probably will never work. No-one will agree to a time frame that SH must adhere to. I would back a strict timeline with a concrete date to comply. If that date is March 17 or two weeks or two months or whatever. If the date comes and SH had not fully complied then we should take the millitary action required to force total compliance.
How long would we have waited if Hitler hadnt taken his own life but instead surrendered, regrouped and then fifteen years later we discovered that he was killing Jews and building up his millitary again? We would have rightly taken action immediately. As to what effect the recent speech had? I think he needed to make it sound like he was relaxed and confident. He needed to talk on a level that the average citizen could identify. He was aiming at the crowd that hadnt made up thier mind yet, those still on the fence. The more educated of US ( on this topic ) have made up our minds and know where we stand. I think his speech was directed at those who are unsure.
I do not want to go to war, but we have a moral obligation as a superpower to lead the world in supressing dangerous agressors such as SH. Some may view that as ironic, but the world we live in does not allow for a passive stance towards agressors. If we allow them enough power and elbow room then we`ll be the ones under attack, (again).
One major omission on the part of the press corps was any question as to the criteria for ‘total disarmament.’ If the only way that Saddam can avoid war is ‘total disarmament,’ and our objective in case of war is ‘total disarmament,’ then shouldn’t we know what constitutes total disarmament?
Are they talking about missiles? Handguns? Peashooters? What proof is going to be required? And, back to the proving a negative argument, how in the world can we ever be sure of the fact that a country isn’t harboring certain weapons? Heck, we can’t even hunt down all the labs making illegal drugs in our own country.
On a related point, I noticed nobody asked how we would know when we won the war on terrorism.
Stunning.
It’s within the administrations discretion to call or not call on anyone that they wish. It’s common for any president to reward or punish the behavior of journalists by giving them the first question, or not giving them one at all.
Do you have any cite proving that the questions were scripted? The order in which the questions were asked was scripted. But the actual questions were not.
I have gone back and read the post in question and really don’t get how you read it to mean that Bush and MLK have the same philosophy or methodology. You are inserting that, not december.
I read the comparison to mean that it was silly for minty to assume that the different groups in Iraq