Make sure you don’t repeat the same mistake !
Get off your asses and start campaigning for Kerry or against Bush !
It’ll go Onan on.
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.
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.
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.
That was, indeed, the point most of us were hoping he would address head-on.
Tigers2B1, furt, the transcript has been posted. Out there for all to see.
Defend it, if you can.
Well you are “ranting too” - pay attention.
So why in the hell is this in Great Debates Mani? Maybe your pro-yap clueless boys should move this to the Pit.
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.
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! 
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.
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.
:: Drums fingers on desk.::
Tigers2b1, furt:
Still not willing to offer up a defense fellas, huh? Interesting.
On preview, what Zagadka said.
Why? W is godawful at going on TV and/or public speaking; didn’t think it was news.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.