My Thoughts on Bush's Speech

[Palestinian Jew]

There is a good reason this is Bush's 3rd primetime press conference, he's a terrible speaker, but I do think overall he helped his case to stay in Iraq to the American people.

I was glad to see Bush being very serious about what was going on in Iraq for once, saying that everyone hates seeing dead people was very candid for a change.

He still won't admit a mistake, or at least he couldn't think of one. Although he did come very close when the reporter asked him "in the past you have joked that your biggest mistake was trading Sammy Sosa. Now that you're president, what would you say is your biggest mistake?" And Bush stammered for about 30 seconds then started taking about WMD, but he still didn't say it was a mistake. Supposedly Rove was looking pretty pissed.

I wanted to slap the reporter that asked Bush if he would apologize and I would have liked it if Bush had said right off the bat "I have nothing to apologize for, I didn't fly those planes into the WTC", but at least he said basically the samething midway through the speech.

I watched the Hardball coverage after the conference, and they brought up a pretty important point that the war in Iraq used to be the front and center area for the war on terror, but in Bush's speech he called it a part of the war on terror.

Bush also seemed to realize that his reelection right now is hinging on Iraq improving.

 

[acludem]

I give him credit for stating his case to stay in Iraq, the problem is he didn't tonight, nor has he ever told us what his plan is for winning the war in Iraq or the war on terror in general. Bush is a lousy speaker, especially in this format. I'm not trying to insult or belittle him, this just isn't his strong suit. From what I've seen, Bush is at his best speaking one on one to people, or in giving prepared text speeches from a teleprompter.

Believe it or not, I think Bush is a genuinely good and decent person, I just think he's a crappy president.

acludem

 

[insein]

Originally posted by acludem
I give him credit for stating his case to stay in Iraq, the problem is he didn't tonight, nor has he ever told us what his plan is for winning the war in Iraq or the war on terror in general. Bush is a lousy speaker, especially in this format. I'm not trying to insult or belittle him, this just isn't his strong suit. From what I've seen, Bush is at his best speaking one on one to people, or in giving prepared text speeches from a teleprompter.

Believe it or not, I think Bush is a genuinely good and decent person, I just think he's a crappy president.

acludem

I think Bush is a very intelligent person who like most people wasnt blessed with a silver tongue. I got the ideas he was portraying. He wanted to show that we werent going to cut and run like Somalia or Vietnam. Bush has failings. The Border. The prescription drugs. But truthfully had i been in his position, i wouldnt admit a mistake on national TV to a bunch of reporters.

I wanted to slap the reporter that asked Bush if he would apologize and I would have liked it if Bush had said right off the bat "I have nothing to apologize for, I didn't fly those planes into the WTC", but at least he said basically the samething midway through the speech.

You took the words right outta my mouth here. The nerve of some of those reporters. That is what is wrong with the media today. They try to create news instead of just reporting it.

 

[Aquarian]

best.bush.news conference. ever.

Unlike many folks here, I suspect, I thought that Bush did so well because of the questions that were asked. I kept thinking to myself 'gosh, it's like he's on trial here'. I couldn't believe the reporters were asking the questions they were as much as I was amazed at bush's responses. Don't get me wrong here tho, I think as tough as the questioning was it was appropriate and necessary. I think if bush had fielded more questions like this in the past there things would have been better for him and for the USA. I can't say that after one night of him speaking I'm 100% behind bush and all his actions, but if he continues along this sort of path my respect will grow and we'll see from there.

also, while I think he did not answer some questions that were put to him entirely satisfactorily, I understand exactly why he responded the way he did and give him much credit for the answers he did give to all the questions. In the eastern cultures, they are much more familiar with and beholden to the concept of 'face' as I like to call it. as in losing face, you can accomplish more if you arrange for a potential ally to be able to save face rather than lose it by joining your cause. Bush did a good job last night of maintaining and perhaps even repairing our 'face' as well as helpful nods to tony blair and koizumi.

thirdly, I think he made his best case for the iraq war to date. Many people point to pnac as the source of the desire to invade iraq but not many people are debating whether or not the pnac agenda is correct. Bush's talk last night presented the goals of pnac and the administration in a light that allowed me to reconsider them in a new way.

Just one crazy hippie's opinion, and there's more comments I have about the conference in specific but they need to percolate a while longer

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Aquarian
Don't get me wrong here tho, I think as tough as the questioning was it was appropriate and necessary.

Asking him if he felt the American people deserve an apology from him was inappropriate. Asking him if he felt personally responsible was inappropriate. The goal of these loaded questions were to once again try to place blame on Bush. Everyone knows full well who was responsible for these attacks. Nobody owes the American people an apology for attacks perpetrated by Al Qaeda.

With limited questions being asked, do you feel these were the most pressing that needed answers?

 

[Aquarian]

actually, yes. These questions are at the front of many peoples concerns. They were pretty much the questions I'd have asked if I was there. If they had not been asked, he couldn't have responded. I found a measure of courage and conviction in the fact that he stood in front of the country and answered those very questions as directly as one could hope for that I previously had not seen from him. I feel better about the future of our country because of this exchange.

as to responsibility, obviously al-queda is responsible for the attacks. Since folks like to accuse me of armchair quarterbacking, I'll continue that analogy to illustrate why questions of responsibility are being asked of our security personell. When the other team scores, you review the actions of each team member as well as the coach. It's what you do because that's what you have control over. we have no control over the other team so we must look to see what we can do better to prevent another goal being scored. The problem is our environment of blame and blame avoidance that arises therefrom. If we focused on the problem and fixed it rather than the person, we would be better off. what makes this more difficult is the avoidance of blame. it's a vicious cycle that needs to be broken. we cannot progress to the next level where we focus on the problem until individuals are ready to accept responsibility and they can't do that publicly until the public ceases calling for the head of anyone who messes up. it's a hard concept to try and put across in text, hope i got at least part of my line of thought across...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Aquarian
not many people are debating whether or not the pnac agenda is correct. Bush's talk last night presented the goals of pnac and the administration in a light that allowed me to reconsider them in a new way.

What stopped you from considering them before? Like it or not the future of the world needs a blue print. We much consciously decide, what values work? what doesn't work, and why. Isolationism doesn't work in a world of nuclear weapons. Free markets work best in allocating resources and stimulating production and planning through the incentivization of effort. Freedom works. yes, bureaucrats hate it, because the paradigm is, the government that governs best governs least. The government does securtiy and enforcement of legally constructed contracts. And some trust bust, and stripped down social services accompanied by SHAME, yes SHAME, when they are used. Unless someone is crippled. Private charities will do the bulk of what need be done.

 

[Aquarian]

What stopped you from considering them before?

I'm not entirely sure at this point. Just that something clicked during the speech last night, something in the way bush said what he did. It happens all the time at work and in life. two people can be attempting to communicate and there's just a breakdown. I remember spending ten minutes trying to get the customer id i needed from a developer, and all he would say is project code blah. turns out the database referenced the field as project code but the user screen called it customer id and neither of us knew or realized that initially, then we clicked and I was back to work with the information I needed as well as an important lesson in communicating with others.

 

[jimnyc]

Hannity on 'Today': Bush Owes No Apology

NBC "Today" show co-host Lester Holt tried to get top talker Sean Hannity to say Tuesday morning that President Bush should have apologized for making "mistakes" in the war on terror.

But Hannity, who was on hand to promote his book "Deliver Us From Evil," would have none of it.

"Let's talk about [Bush's] critics and the question of whether he owns up to mistakes," Holt began. "Has he made mistakes in the war on terror?"

"Why should he apologize, number one, for the terrorist attack that was brought to this country?" Hannity shot back.

"We've got to face reality here - America is at war and they attacked us," the conservative host reminded, noting that critics of Bush's handling of the war on terror seem to want it both ways.

"We're criticizing the president for not responding to a memo five weeks [before the 9/11 attacks]. But yet we knew that Saddam wasn't abiding by 17 [U.N] resolutions in 12 years' period of time. And he didn't abide by a cease-fire agreement."

Hannity told "Today" that had Bush allowed Saddam to remain in power and his continued efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction resulted in an attack on the U.S., "would we not have a commission a year and a half later" blaming Bush for ignoring the threat.

Holt complained that Hannity's scenario was "theoretical."

Just like the August 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing that warned Osama bin Laden wanted to attack America.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/14/115849.shtml

 

[Aquarian]

He should not be apologizing for the attacks. He might owe an apology of some sort for the security failure that allowed them to happen. Do I expect them to stop every plot? NO. Do I expect them to accept responsibility for events that they were unable to stop? YES. it's their job. Harry Truman said "the buck stops here". GW came as close to saying the same thing last night as was politically expedient, and I applaud him for it, and I applaud the reporters for asking.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Aquarian
best.bush.news conference. ever.

Unlike many folks here, I suspect, I thought that Bush did so well because of the questions that were asked. I kept thinking to myself 'gosh, it's like he's on trial here'. I couldn't believe the reporters were asking the questions they were as much as I was amazed at bush's responses. Don't get me wrong here tho, I think as tough as the questioning was it was appropriate and necessary. I think if bush had fielded more questions like this in the past there things would have been better for him and for the USA. I can't say that after one night of him speaking I'm 100% behind bush and all his actions, but if he continues along this sort of path my respect will grow and we'll see from there.

also, while I think he did not answer some questions that were put to him entirely satisfactorily, I understand exactly why he responded the way he did and give him much credit for the answers he did give to all the questions. In the eastern cultures, they are much more familiar with and beholden to the concept of 'face' as I like to call it. as in losing face, you can accomplish more if you arrange for a potential ally to be able to save face rather than lose it by joining your cause. Bush did a good job last night of maintaining and perhaps even repairing our 'face' as well as helpful nods to tony blair and koizumi.

thirdly, I think he made his best case for the iraq war to date. Many people point to pnac as the source of the desire to invade iraq but not many people are debating whether or not the pnac agenda is correct. Bush's talk last night presented the goals of pnac and the administration in a light that allowed me to reconsider them in a new way.

Just one crazy hippie's opinion, and there's more comments I have about the conference in specific but they need to percolate a while longer

Actually i think the democratic party needs more progressive minds such as yours(if indeed your are a democrat). Im all for open debate amongst intelligent individuals who wish to bring about change with ideas rather than aimlessly attacking people becuase of jealousy or hatred. That goes for any party.

BTW, what is PNAC? Im just curious. I hadnt heard of this till now.

 

[Aquarian]

thanks, independent actually tho usually vote democrat. pnac is the project for the new american century, more info at http://www.newamericancentury.org/

 

[jscrew1]

President Bush need not apologize for the attacks,seriously, how many American haters pose a threat to us. How many inside the U.S. everyday? If the government could act on every possible threat we would be living under authoritarian rule. Not for me. Leave the blame for the culprit.....terrorists! Let terrorism worldwide answer for this devastation. Politics of our two party system will prevent the task at hand from being accomplished.
I recently asked a soldier on leave who has been in Iraq what he thought of the war.....he replied that he would not have reenlisted for six more if he did not believe in it. he added that troops should have been there sooner.....before 9/11. The political shit in D.C. is not going to end any threat, not going to do any good if a bunch of suits fight over who had warning and who did not act on a possible threat. Let the armed forces of the U.S. diminish the threat actively. Air strikes keep foot soldiers alive....DO IT. Don't let these bastards take out a few of our men and women each day. Leave them with a nervous twitch, piisin their pants each time they hear a jet miles in the distance. Yes innocent people will be lost but their people 10 years from now will not have to live with tyranny. Great sacrifices need to be made to have great freedoms, no doubt. Let the job be done.
Mr. Bush is a great leader for this solemn time in history. He did not have to be so gutsy with the recent press conference....he knew he would be beaten up with loaded questions. And he still stood his ground. The media is so driven by the democrats inadequacies it seems they believe the dems finger pointing is the way to solve the problem. I have no use for the asshole media or asshole hardcore dems. Democrats are like school nurses---bandaids for severed arm and tylenol for gas cramps.
bush and our military leaders will get it done if the politics could just be lessened for a short time. BUSH in 2004. just a little thought ....he is not the best speaker but could you address the world and do better.