Worst press conference ever?

[Rashak_Mani]

@Sam Stone

Sure. Here you go. He came out and made a forceful case for what he is trying to accomplish. … He didn’t sugarcoat the problem with the Iraqi security forces.

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.

• Well its not a War.

• He didn’t make a forceful case, he just repeated the same stuff again and less forceful I thought.

• He did sugarcoat the problem by saying some troops are acting brilliantly, nor did he mention desertion.

• “We won’t quit” = We never change our minds… nor admit mistakes.

  As for the silly comments about “pro-yap clueless boys” I did put forth that Bush is only repeating himself… and then asked you guys to defend the speech and questions.

[da_pope]

“I plan on telling the American people that that I’ve got a plan to win the war on terror.”

i suppose the plan is to reveal the plan, say, mid november?

i don’t think i’m undecided anymore.

[Squink]

@Zagadka

I think the “calmest” area is the Kurds, which isn’t exactly a feat of amazing success after getting rid of Saddam.

Oh no, they’ve been having riots and bombings and curfews, even US troops killed in Mosul as well. It just hasn’t gotten as much play in the press because it doesn’t fit in with the story about our troubles being limited to baathists, terrorists and a few malcontent Shiites.

[Rashak_Mani]

@jshore

Were these the same people who gave positive to rave reviews for Colin Powell’s phantasmagorical speech before the U.N. early last year?

Who gave rave reviews to that Powell U.N. "case about WMD" ? 

That was the biggest let down ever. Poor Powell, sent before the world with a telephone conversation and some false anthrax. Never has so little been shown to try to justify so much.

[El_Kabong]

I didn’t watch the whole thing. I’ll admit I gave up after this:

Question: One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it’s WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9-11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism, and do you believe that there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?

BUSH: Well, I think, as I mentioned, you know, the country wasn’t on war footing, and yet we’re at war.

And that’s just a reality, Dave. I mean, that was the situation that existed prior to 9-11, because the truth of the matter is most in the country never felt that we’d be vulnerable to an attack such as the one that Osama bin Laden unleashed on us.

We knew he had designs on us. We knew he hated us. But there was nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.

The people know where I stand, I mean, in terms of Iraq. I was very clear about what I believed. And, of course, I want to know why we haven’t found a weapon yet. But I still know Saddam Hussein was a threat. And the world is better off without Saddam Hussein.

I don’t think anybody can – maybe people can argue that. I know the Iraqi people don’t believe that, that they’re better off with Saddam Hussein – would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power.

I also know that there’s an historic opportunity here to change the world. And it’s very important for the loved ones of our troops to understand that the mission is an important, vital mission for the security of America and for the ability to change the world for the better.

Let’s see. Ed?

Er, so that’s a ‘Yes’, then, I guess.

I was glad to see that the press for once did not roll over and asked some tough, searching questions of the President. The non-answers they recieved, IMO, say a considerable amount about this administration, and I hope vast numbers of Americans were listening to at least some of tonight’s conference.

Unfortunately for him, Mr. Bush has clearly painted himself into a corner on Iraq.
In both his opening remarks and the quoted response, Bush continued, as his administration has done repeatedly, to conflate the invasion of Iraq with the so-called ‘War on Terror’. I expect they will continue to do so, and even the harshest press questions will never elicit an admission of error on this issue, especially while an election is at stake. Nevertheless, by stubbornly insisting on the line that Iraq was about non-existent WMD and quashing non-existent support for terrorists, we are forced to confront the fact that, IMO, only two plausible conclusions can be drawn:

1. The President sincerely believes to this day that Iraq was associated with the terrorist activity that resulted in the 9/11 attacks, in which case he and his advisors have shown themselves to be persons of remarkable stubbornness and tragically poor judgement.

2. The President does not sincerely believe that Iraq was associated with the terrorist activity that resulted in the 9/11 attacks, in which case he and his advisors have clearly lied to the American people, caused the deaths of many thousands of American troops and Iraqi civilians, and squandered vast amounts of money and military assets, in a horribly misconcieved attempt to, as the President himself said, “change the world”. Hey, the invasion of Iraq has changed the world alright, but has it changed for the better, particularly for American interests? Sorry, but at this point I’d have to say no.

[Sam_Stone]

• Well its not a War.

And that, right there, is the difference between what forms my opinions and what forms yours. I happen to think we ARE at war. Not just the U.S., but here in Canada, and in Britain, and Australia, and Europe, and Japan, and the Middle East. This war was declared by Osama Bin Laden. He’s been at war with us for years. It took WTC for some of us to realize it and to join the battle. Some of you haven’t realized it yet.

But Bush believes it’s a war, and so does Tony Blair. It’s a different kind of war, against a different kind of enemy. But war it is. This is not a matter for law enforcement. This isn’t just a matter of rounding up Bin Laden and a few other bad guys, then going back to business as usual.

There is a large movement of Islamist radicals who have declared war against Western Pluralism. There are millions of them, and they want us all dead. They are trying to get their hands on weapons that could kill us by the millions and destroy our economies. In the era of nuclear and biological weapons, it doesn’t take a large nation-state to destroy our way of life. You worried about civil liberties? Think about what will happen if a nuclear bomb goes off in North America. Worried about jobs? Think of the shape the economy will be in if weapons of mass destruction are used in the west.

One other thing Bush said exactly right - there is only one way to win this war, and that’s to go on the offense against the very culture that breeds terror. Going after individual terrorists is important, but it’s like solving your wasp problem by swatting wasps while leaving the nest alone. Eventually, you’ll get stung. Bush is trying to take down the nest.

I don’t want to fight a defensive war, because I believe that’s the path towards the loss of our civil liberties. Trying to ‘defend’ a democracy is damned near impossible, and the natural inclination of government is to attempt it by taking away our freedom. And eventually, they’ll get you anyway.

You know, a few weeks ago I posted a message about Democratic polls during the primary, in which Democrats asked to name the five most pressing problems in the U.S. picked terrorism LAST. They thought the economy, jobs, the environment, and something else I can’t remember were all more important than terrorism. When I posted that here, the result was an amusing mix of people telling me that I was crazy and agreeing that terrorism WASN’T as important as those other things.

Now, of course, those same people are trying to parse every decision made by the Bush admnistration pre-9/11, accusing them of not taking terrorism seriously enough. Hell, you guys don’t take it seriously NOW, and you’ve got the example of 9/11 to refer to.

This is a war. Battles are fought. Battles will be won - and lost. Many more people will die. That’s what happens in war. But the key thing to remember is, we didn’t choose this war. Bin Laden did. Bush chose to make Iraq one of the battle grounds, for what I think are sound strategic reasons. Plenty of mistakes have been made in the aftermath of that war - and plenty more will be made. War is a messy business, and we’re writing the book on how to win this one as we go along.

But it has to be fought. That was Bush’s message, and it was delivered forcefully. To me, the nit-picking questioning about apologies, admitting blame, and all that other stuff are annoying diversions, and questions that shouldn’t even be asked at a time like this.

[Duckster]

What was the hair all about?

Has Bush been watching The Apprentice and contacted The Donald’s hairdresser?

[elucidator]

If Geedubya wanted to be Churchill, then he shouldn’t have quit drinking.

The English showed enormous intelligence in thier choice of a leader, Churchill was one of the great leaders of the 20th century, no question. So did the Germans, in the sense of “great” leadership as the capacity to inspire and motivate (for good or ill). But the English were smart enough not to let thier Great Leader make decisions.

“Splendid speech, Winnie, just the thing. But one Gallipoli was quite enough, don’t you think, there’s a good chap.”

[TWDuke]

What about this gem?

Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don’t believe Iraq can be free; that if you’re Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can’t be self-governing or free. I’d strongly disagree with that.

We learned Bush strongly disagrees with the racists who disagree with him about his policy. It might seem strange this came in the middle of a response to a question about the predominately American international coalition in Iraq. Some might even call it an annoying diversion. But exposing the bigotry of people who question the occupation was obviously more important than sticking to the subject.

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.

I hope – I don’t want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I’m confident I have. I just haven’t – you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I’m not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.

Yes, Ann?

[Zagadka]

@Sam Stone

there is only one way to win this war, and that’s to go on the offense against the very culture that breeds terror.

You’re joking, right? You seriously think that trying to wipe Islamic culture (and probably a good chunk of their people) from the face of the planet is the best way to win the war on terror? That is scary.

You DO realize that your statement above is the exact same sentence that Osama has probably said at some point?

I’m curious, why do you think that we were attacked?

[Starving_Artist]

Has anybody here taken note of, or do they even care while they’re in the middle of critisizing Bush for saying the same thing over and over, that the questions were asked over and over in an attempt to get him to admit some kind of mistake. And not even a specific mistake, hell, any ol’ mistake would do. Bush refused to answer for the very reasons you’re mad that he didn’t: to avoid tomorrow’s headlines reading:

BUSH ADMITS IRAQ WAS A MISTAKE!

or

BUSH ADMITS HE WAS WRONG ABOUT IRAQ!

or

BUSH ADMITS HE DIDN’T DO THE RIGHT THING!

Followed, of course, by John Kerry trumpeting the same thing for the next seven months.

Poor, stupid Dubya, just wouldn’t admit he made a mistake…despite the best efforts of the media to pry one, any one, out of him.

What a crock!!!

And oh, yeah…what Sam said!

[samclem]

@Sam Stone

There is a large movement of Islamist radicals who have declared war against Western Pluralism. There are millions of them, and they want us all dead. They are trying to get their hands on weapons that could kill us by the millions and destroy our economies. But it has to be fought. That was Bush’s message, and it was delivered forcefully. To me, the nit-picking questioning about apologies, admitting blame, and all that other stuff are annoying diversions, and questions that shouldn’t even be asked at a time like this.

If there are truly millions of THEM wanting us dead, then we’re doomed. If you have evidence that they are trying to get their hands on weapons that could kill us by the miliions, then it would be your duty to turn that evidence over to the authorities. Yellowcake, perhaps?

Of course, trying to destory our economies would be just about the worst thing a Republican apologist could envision.

Nit-picking questions about such things as invading a sovereign country without sufficient cause and taking away civil liberties, etc. certainly should not be brought up at a time like this. Just ask about it later. :mad:

[Apos]

But Bush believes it’s a war, and so does Tony Blair. It’s a different kind of war, against a different kind of enemy. But war it is.

Unfortunately, Sam, there are those of us who know it to be a war, but are not so blinded by partisan grudges so as to miss the fact that we’ve been fumbling the ball. Other people have the luxury of being able to critically evaluate our actual strategy, and find it wildly misaimed and poorly managed.

Just imagine: if the fate of our entire civilization is at stake, do you really want to trust that strategy to a bunch of yes-men for Bush’s approach to things?

This isn’t just a matter of rounding up Bin Laden and a few other bad guys, then going back to business as usual.

That’s exactly what the President is saying it is though. It’s just some troublemakers, a couple of evildoers. We’ll get them. That’s the war, for him.

What he doesn’t get is that we are fighting in more than a military engagement against armed terrorists, but against an ideology. And his trite statements about freedom are not going to defeat that ideology. He’s expressed only the crudest understanding of our values, the crudest case for why we need to win over the Middle East. It’s a vision that is as empty as it is simplistic, and people in the Middle East see right through it. It is NOT the deep and true things that pro-Bush pundits like to pretend he’s saying, pretend he’s advocating, pretend he’s putting a face on. They are utterly blind to his unsuitability to deliver that message. And it will cost us dearly.

In the era of nuclear and biological weapons, it doesn’t take a large nation-state to destroy our way of life.

And yet, that was exactly the idea that Bush’s administration scoffed at, even after 9/11. Again and again, they’ve focused on states rather than the dangers of ideology.

Going after individual terrorists is important, but it’s like solving your wasp problem by swatting wasps while leaving the nest alone. Eventually, you’ll get stung. Bush is trying to take down the nest.

You can’t take down the nest, because it’s the entire Islamic world. Destroying the nest is not an option. We have to kill the most aggressive elements, but we also have to win over the rest. And so far, Bush has failed miserably to deliver EITHER objective.

If you are so for being aggressive, then how can you possibly explain our utterly timid operations in Afghanistan? And I’m not talking about pulling off all our best troops so we could tilt at windmills in Iraq: I’m talking about the original assault. It was tenative, used few our troops, and it was slow. We telegraphed our punches, and left the major leadership escape easily. And because we have not put anywhere near the amount of time, money, and political effort into catching them, they’ve had two years to continue their plan and spread their ideas far and wide: beyond merely their own organization.

This is a war. Battles are fought. Battles will be won - and lost. Many more people will die. That’s what happens in war. But the key thing to remember is, we didn’t choose this war. Bin Laden did. Bush chose to make Iraq one of the battle grounds, for what I think are sound strategic reasons. Plenty of mistakes have been made in the aftermath of that war - and plenty more will be made. War is a messy business, and we’re writing the book on how to win this one as we go along.

And with this, you are basically setting yourself up to be uncritical of strategy, uncritical of key mistakes that you would scream your lungs out about if a Democrat was in power. To dismiss some mistakes and harp on others selectively. Is that really wise? Is that really the sort of risk you want to take with a struggle like this?

Iraq was a strategic misstep. It has gained us nothing in the way of security: can you honestly make a case for having done so? We’ve spent virtually all the money we can spare on it, stretched our military thin, destroyed our moral and political capital with many of the allies we need, made our own military despise its clumsy and ideological civilian leadership, and we’ve spent almost 700 American lives on it. And what have we gained? We’ve turned a basically neutralized and contained secular dictatorship into another quietly seething and sometimes outspoken recruiting ground for Islamic radicals. We did EXACTLY what the ENEMY not only predicted we’d do, but have said they’d hoped we’d do.

We liberated Iraq, and Iraq may well be better off, though it will likely always be far from perfect.

Al Qaeda has a strategy. It isn’t one note. It didn’t end with 9/11. It, in fact, is something they expect to take a century. And so far, we’ve followed, to the letter, what they had set out as the first few expected moves in that century long chess game. Does that not bother you, even a teensy bit? As someone who cares about fighting them tooth and nail: does it not bother you that we fell into their plans so easily, so quickly, so thoughtlessly with shifting justifications and shifty explanations?

They have their strategy: what is our strategy? We didn’t even plan for the occupation of Iraq that we knew was inevitable after conquering it. Our own officials lied to us about how much it would cost, how many troops it would require, evern what it was all about. Where are we going with this? How are we going to win back the faith of the Middle East and the rest of the world with a smirking, fumbly President that nobody trusts, and nobody has reason to trust.

[Master_Wang-Ka]

@monstro

I would be sympathetic to his fluency disorder if he wasn’t a blithering, amoral maroon. I almost wish he was slicker (like Condi), because then I wouldn’t blame some of us for having been bamboolzed. But the fact that he can’t even hide the fact that he’s a blithering, amoral maroon and people STILL respect him just drives me nuts.

I’m hoping most of us saw the naked emperor tonight.

I’m there.

In fact, that’s my problem. I’m a partisan. I’m no fan of Kerry’s, but I hate Bush with a passion that borders on psychosis. I’m one of those guys it’s safe to ignore, because I wouldn’t vote for the man if he suddenly turned out to be the second coming of Christ.

I have noticed he is not a very talented public speaker.

But tonight seemed particularly… fumblesome … for the man. Is it just me, or did he seem like he was scared to death? I mean, he was coming across like a comedian whose act was bombing at one point, and, yes, his answer to the question of why he and Cheney were testifying together was priceless…

…and then Dan Rather came on and explained how calm and forceful Bush was. Calm? CALM? The man acted like the narcs were at the threshold, for potato’s sake! He jibbered and jabbered like a crackhead trying to explain nuclear physics! His usual nonexistent public speaking skills actually veered into the NEGATIVE for once!

…So… is it just me? Am I seeing this because I wanted to see it? Or was he even weirder tonight than he’s been in the past?

[Zagadka]

@Apos

That’s exactly what the President is saying it is though. It’s just some troublemakers, a couple of evildoers. We’ll get them. That’s the war, for him.

Nope, there are exactly 52 evildoers, remember?

You can’t take down the nest, because it’s the entire Islamic world. Destroying the nest is not an option.

I think that is exactly what Sam is suggesting - the destruction of Islamic culture, as he put it.

At least I understand now why he viewed the entire city of Fallujah as “insurgents” and bragged about the body count of civilians.

Better be careful interpreting what Sam says, though, or Brutus will ask you to cite everything.

[Llama_Llogophile]

I did not watch on TV.

I read the transcript, and in text it came out to me that he was desperately veering away from answering certain questions directly. Especially the one about he and Cheney testifying together for the 9/11 commission. He tried to drop that one like a hot iron, and I can only imagine how it appeared to those watching.

About this idea of us being “at war”…

I don’t believe we are in a “war” as the term is usually used. And I object to our efforts against terrorism being defined in that way because I feel various political and economic motives are served through it.

Bush obviously has a stake in being seen as a “wartime” president (political motive), and is using this to strengthen his ability to push other policies dear to him (largely economic goals). Some might just call that smart politics.

I don’t. I call it dangerous. I feel there is too much to be gained politically for Bush and his ilk by keeping the country convinced that we are at war.

Terrorism is a problem to be dealt with through various means: law enforcement, intelligence, and the military all have a role to play in it. But this is not a war in the traditional sense. Treating it as such is a falsehood. I’m all for fighting terrorism, but it’s not a “War”. I’m not sure what it is - maybe we need to invent new terminology. But calling it a war is too self-serving to those in power for my comfort.

[Gorsnak]

@Sam Stone

And that, right there, is the difference between what forms my opinions and what forms yours. I happen to think we ARE at war. Not just the U.S., but here in Canada, and in Britain, and Australia, and Europe, and Japan, and the Middle East. This war was declared by Osama Bin Laden. He’s been at war with us for years. It took WTC for some of us to realize it and to join the battle. Some of you haven’t realized it yet.

But Bush believes it’s a war, and so does Tony Blair. It’s a different kind of war, against a different kind of enemy. But war it is. This is not a matter for law enforcement. This isn’t just a matter of rounding up Bin Laden and a few other bad guys, then going back to business as usual.

Sam, I’ve had about as much of this bullshit as I can stomach. Please answer me just two questions.

1. Why are you conflating Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda with Iraq? Huh? What the hell have you been smoking that you still, after all this time, can slide so effortlessly from “9-11 was a declaration of war by radical Islamists” to “We must support Bush and his war on Iraq, that brutal authoritarian secular thug who had as much to do with radical Islamists as Mickey Mouse”? What do the two have to do with each other, besides Bush’s misadventure in Iraq predictably creating the greatest Al Qaeda recruitment bonanza since the Soviets invaded Afghanistan?

2. Could you provide us with some examples of radical insurgencies that have been put down by brute force? Could you provide us some examples of popular uprisings where heavy-handed responses haven’t resulted in the uprisings gaining momentum. Like, say, for example, the Afrikaaners approach to the ANC. Or Somoza’s response to the Sandinistas. Or the British response to the IRA. Except that all of those cases are evidence that brute force doesn’t fucking work, but in face exacebates the problem. Please explain either how my understanding of history is wrong, or why this time is different.

[elucidator]

@Sam Stone

…He’s been at war with us for years. It took WTC for some of us to realize it and to join the battle. Some of you haven’t realized it yet.

And therein lies the fundamental fuck-up: to a hammer, all problems are nails. To the foremost military power in history, you go to “war” to crush a terrorist. A man attacked by a swarm of hornets elects to flail at them with a five-pound sledge. Stupid. Just plain stupid.

…One other thing Bush said exactly right - there is only one way to win this war, and that’s to go on the offense against the very culture that breeds terror…

LIke Tim McVeigh? Or John Allen Muhammed? Who do we bomb for them, Sam?

…War is a messy business, and we’re writing the book on how to win this one as we go along…

As of this point, I am entirely unimpressed with improvisational statesmanship.

…questions that shouldn’t even be asked at a time like this.

There are no such questions. There are, however, answers that shouldn’t be given.

[Sam_Stone]

Zagadka: I would hope that people know me well enough on here to know that I would never advocate a ‘war against Islam’. The ‘culture’ I’m talking about is the culture that breeds terrorism - Wahhabism, Jihadist extremism, etc. What Bin Laden and the Saudis are pushing.

But the reason it has such resonance in the Middle East is because it is a region of failed states that have produced miserable, desperate people. The volatility in the Middle East stems from oppression, high unemployment, poverty, and a leadership that encourages violence against others as a way of deflecting blame from themselves. Almost all of the world’s dictatorships are in the Middle East. All of them are failing. This, coupled with great wealth from oil has created a very dangerous region for the world - one which is now bubbling over into worldwide violence. That culture must be destroyed. We need an Islamic Middle East with a thriving, prosperous population investing its oil revenue into its infrastructure and education while the oil is still flowing. We need human rights to be respected throughout the world, because the alternative breeds hatred that, in a world of nuclear and biological weapons, can no longer be tolerated.

Right now, I wonder if we can all agree on two overriding goals: One, al-Qaida must be destroyed. That will require all of our tools - diplomatic, military, intelligence, and police work. Two: regardless of our disagreements over the start of the war in Iraq, can we agree that this effort must end in success? That means committing the resources to it. If Bush won’t do that, throw him out. If his strategy is not as sound as Kerry’s, make the case and I’ll switch my support. I’ve already said that Kerry took a very good step today, very statesmanlike, to make it clear that a Kerry Administration would be just as resolute as the Bush administration when it comes to determination to succeed in Iraq. That’s an important message to send.

The real debate should be over the next step. What do Democrats believe should come next? What’s their end game? Give me a strategy to consider. I know Bush’s, in broad strokes - Build a Democracy in Iraq, and then start pressuring other regimes like Syria and Iran. Work for a peaceful solution with hard, agressive diplomacy. Move to get China to lean on North Korea. In the meantime, begin moving military resource into the hunt for al-Qaida and Bin Laden.

Bush did a good job tonight because he made his position pretty clear on this issue, and ultimately, that’s what matters. He’s not as glib as Clinton, but he has one thing going for him: While with Clinton you often felt like he was playing you, Bush speaks from conviction. You’d never see Bush bite his lip in thought. People generally believe that Bush means what he says.

[ccwaterback]

@Duckster

What was the hair all about?

Has Bush been watching The Apprentice and contacted The Donald’s hairdresser?

I like the way he walks with his arms kind of pumping popeye-style at his side and that hop-skip-n-jump-rodeo-cowboy gate of his.