Bush's Prime Time Press Conference

Remove all ads!

Just in case you missed Bush's press conference the other day here is the link:
Bush's Prime Time Press Conference

Needless to say, it was nauseating.

Kudos to the reporters there (except Jim Angle from Fox News) for asking some incredibly high quality questions:

and

and

Unfortunately Bush decided not to give responses to these questions. For instance, mistakes are just so rare and/or inconsequential that it's nearly impossible to even think of one! "I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it."

Here is another choice question:

In a typical deceptive response he replies, "John, my response is, I don't think people ought to demean the contributions of our friends into Iraq." In other words, "I won't show you any respect and answer your question."

Of less interest was a soon-to-be classic Bush quote:

The sad thing is that this is only a sampling of the presidential clowning that went on.

 

I agree completely with your assessment. And it's about time the press has shown some spine and started asking a few tough questions. But where have these guys been for the last three years?

 

For a while it seemed to me that if you didn't support the war in Iraq, or if you knocked the president then you were unpatriotic. Martin Sheen got all kinds of hate mail because he was against the war. Maybe now people are realising that asking questions is a good thing, and you can be a patriot whilst still questioning your leader's decisions.

 

What's so good about nationalism anyway. Fight for the people, not the country.

As in "Will this benefit me and/or the people I want to help?" instead of "Is this American?"

 

I actually thought his speech, and the answers he gave were heartfelt. He believes that what he is doing is for the greater good. It's easy to go back to 9/11 three years after and say: why didn't you do this? How come you didn't do that. Armed with the gift of hindsight, it's easy to be critical.

I think Bush is able to make the tough choices in an effort to make the best LONG TERM decisions for the country and the world. I supported going to war in Iraq, and I still do. It's sad that people are dying there, but ultimately, I think that's what had to be done and the long term effects will be positive.

I don't think Bush lied about WMDs when he went to Congress for authorization to invade Iraq. I think that was the information he was receiving from the intelligence community. Also, Hussein had the capability to launch and delivery chemical and biological agents in the late 80s and early 90s during Desert Storm. It would have been logical to assume that during the intervening years between the Gulf War and the 2003 invasion that Hussein had improved his weapon and delivery systems. In light of the new threats 9/11 exposed, and Hussein's refusal to allow inspectors into his country, Saddam gave credibility to the threat Bush perceived. So he invaded.

The bottom line is that Saddam Hussein and his government was an oppressive regime that catered to terrorists bent on global destabilization. Saddam gave him a reason to attack, and he did. Despite the current difficulty in Iraq, I still think it was the right thing to do. I think the world will be far better for it in the long run.

I think it's difficult for most people to see the big picture, looking sometimes 10, 20 years into the future. The world is no longer pockets of isolated regions, global economies have made the world a much smaller place and every action by a nation can have serious global consequences. Rogue states like Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Iran, should be dealt with to ensure long term stability for the entire world.

America inherited the leadership position from Britain after World War II. Like it or not, global policing needs to be done, or there will be more 9/11 type attacks, more bombed train stations, and more innocent civilians taken hostage in the name of oppression.

 

I agree with the idea of global policing on the principle that we should remove known threats to people's lives. I still feel that Bush is not prepared for his position, I agree that his decisions are heartfelt but in my opinion that does not negate that fact that he seems incompetent. No matter how much he cares I would never willingly entrust this man with my safety, it's a question of proven skill. That and I've heard allegations of special interests.

 

Well said Belisarius!

That being said, what was the point of even having the Press Conference? The 30% of people who absolutely despise the man and will take every opportunity to call him stupid for his manner of speech will use this to further push their agenda (I wonder how many websites reported the number of times Bush said "ummm"?).

The parallel to the way Reagan was criticized is intrigueing to me. Reagan was considered a hawk, and a bumpkin. The left screamed that he was going to bankrupt the US and lead us to Armageddon with his policies. Of course in reality the policies broke the Soviet Union, and lead to a period of unprecedented growth of the US economy. I guess time will tell for Bush.

I really don’t understand what Bush hopped to accomplish with this event. I don't think that Bush has the charisma to pull the 40 to 60% of voters who are unsure of the war, but who don't despise him just for who he is, to his side via this type of venue.

The other thing that really pisses me off is that he won't back down from this "the WMD's just haven't been fount yet" mantra. Unless we have them already, and he is just keeping them under wraps for the election, or unless he is prepared to plant them just in time for the election , he needs to play his get out of jail free card. It is so easy! He should point out that everyone, including the UN, France, Clinton, Kerry, and even Hans himself stated before the war that they believed that Saddam had WMD's. Saddam did everything they could to make us believe he had them. Why bribe inspectors, destroy buildings prior to them being inspected, and have large trucks showing up at other scheduled inspections sites just prior to their inspection if he was not hiding something? Bush should come out and say that if Saddam was doing all these things to destroy the WMD's, that Saddam should have come clean, and that Bush would have then supported the UN's efforts to verify the process. Then start making the point that the entire war was not only about WMD's, but was about setting up a stable example of Democracy in the ME, and about ending the tyranny of Saddam’s evil regime. Would this have swayed the 30% of people who just hate him? No, but it would have pulled some of those who are in the middle toward him.

Instead of this Bush brings up some chem weapons that Egypt turned over, and instead of being able to use that as a success story for the liberation, he weakens it by using it instead as a example of how easy it is to hide this stuff, and how hard it is to find it. Boohoo Mr. President, you and yours promised that you would find them, so either put up or shut up about them.

Sorry Mr. Bush, but I can only give you a C- on this one, not so much based upon the message or delivery, but upon the strategy employed.

 

@Ankiseth-Vanir

The questions that you cite as evidence of good journalism would be thrown out of any court of law as leading or inflammatory.

The purpose of Journalism is to provide information, not determine how much to slant that information.

Given the absurd and ridiculous wording of your self proclaimed "high quality questions", I felt the President answered honestly and with more restraint than I might of had...I'd have called in a MEF to take the bastards out.

Oh, and go back and read the entire answer that you have taken

from (and out of context). It is actually a fairly straight forward and reasonable answer to a much larger question.

Look what I can do when I cut and paste from your post...

I could not agree with you more.

I also echo Darkwolfs concern as to why the WMD issue seems to continue as a broken record...if he screwed up, like all the other players mentioned in Darkwolf's post, then admit it and put it behind us...don't keep stringing us along thinking eventually all of America will forget.

 

@ Hack

I couldn't agree more. But you're confusing the party who was guilty of the slanting (the president and his lame, evasive answers) and the party who sought information in this case (the press, who's given the white house a free pass to say pretty much whatever they wanted for the last 2.5 years).

Really?

Q. Mr. President, Why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9/11 commission? And Mr. President, who will you be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30?

A. We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over. And secondly, because the the 9/11 commission wants to ask us questions. That's why we're meeting, and I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.

Q. Mr. President, I was asking why you're appearing together rather than separately, which was their request.

A. Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them.

---

If, to you, answering "honestly and showing restraint" means dodging questions left and right and changing the subject with lame talking points, I shudder to think what your definition of a flat out lie is. The only restraint he showed was in repeatedly restraining himself from giving a straight answer.

 

OK, DR

Looks to me like he gave an answer to every question asked. Looks to me that you don't like the answers he gave.

I agree that the press has often been the Administration's lap dog in the first years of the Bush Presidency...that often they failed to ask difficult or even worthwhile questions and seemed to fawn in a most disgraceful way.

I guess I'll leave it that both sides are attempting to slant the information to benefit their own interests...I'll go along with that...just don't call it quality journalism when most of the questions are worded in such a way as to presuppose an answer.

btw, the reason the prez and vp are appearing together is highly classified. You may note that since 9/11 they never make appearances together in public...this "post 9/11" dual appearance is a ruse intended to draw bin Laden out of hiding to attempt a suicide bombing.

 

I just have to say that many of you have it completely wrong about the WMD's. I cant talk about Kerry for I dont know but I know that France, Germany, Blix and the others who advices caution said that there is no evidence that Iraq has WMD's there might be of course but until we know we should wait. The distrust and eggthrowing towards the inspectors is also sickening as is many peoples assessment of their work. They had been in Iraq on and off for more than ten years and all the time they had dismantled whatever Saddam might have had. Saddam was shady and he did look suspicious, but do you know what I think? I think the bastard knew the US would come for him whatever he did and as the arrogant SOB he is he tried to save some face. Looking at what various Bush officals are now saying it seems that for once Saddam was right. Bush II was going to invade Iraq no matter what and every reason from WMD's to liberation was just for show.

Colin Powell in February 2001

Condoleezza Rice in July 2001

 

I think people are overlooking another major point. Saddam has been at odds with most of the other countries around him for years. Take the whole war with Iran for example. What's going to deter them from attacking him? The fact that he has WMD of course. Maybe the reason Saddam portrayed this whole WMD thin was to provide some reason for other countries around him not to take advantage of the weakened state he was in after Desert Storm.
A second reason could have been, that by saying he had WMD, he could negotiate some sort of settlement with the west citing retaliation as a bargaining tool.
I will be the first to say that I think Saddam underestimated the resolve of the west to go after him, but I don't think all questions about his WMD capability have been asked yet.

 

Duh.

I add that I profoundly distrust his neo-con advisors. IMO they are deluded and dangerous ideologues who have steered America into quite a mess - willingly or by incompetence - I can't decide what would be worse. To a good deal they determined Bush's foreign policy, the part that primarily concerns me.

IMO Bush's speech was a striking display of his weakness. Actually I didn't expect to see Rove preparing him so poorly: Faced with a tough question he started to stammer. What does he do when faced with a tough problem? Waiting for some talking points?

I daresay Bush might, despite his limitations, with prudent advisors, have been a decent president, but then, I'd prefer a president who is a little less dependent so to say ... anyone who saw that poor man stammering and searching his talking point cards for rescue knows what I mean.

So, if I were Republican American, I'd say something like that: A well advised Bush for pres, why not? But with the neo-cons??! Well, then rather Kerry.

 

Look, I'm no Bush fan, but I actually have to agree with some of what Hacken Slash said. Some of the questions asked were completely ridiculous, and almost impossible to answer. For example:

It assumes that Iraq is turning into another Vietnam. Over 50,000 U.S. dead in Vietnam, about 700 dead in Iraq. If it's turning into another Vietnam, we've got a long, long way to go. We'll have to fight Iraqi insurgents for about another 75 years to hit that total.

Puh-lease. That would require knowing how many insurgents are within Iraq, where they are, and how long it will take for the Iraqi government to come up with a competent police and military service, and there's no way to know any of those things.

It would be so nice if response to terrorism had a one-size-fits-all answer. That question is impossible to answer, threats will be handled as they come up, and every unique situation calls for a unique stategy. If it didn't we'd already be at war with North Korea, Iran and Syria.

Finally on the part about the 9/11 commission, I believe Bush is being completely forthright. If nothing else, Bush is a patriot, so when he says:

and

I belive him.

I would have liked to have seen better answers for some of the questions asked, but I think so many people on this board are so anti-Bush that they can't take anything he says seriously, or look at anything he does objectively. Overall, I thought that the speech was very good, and his handling of the questions after the speech were fair. Some were not answered simply because no one could have answered them.

 

Well said, joacqin!
Makes me wonder why some people just keep repeating 'facts' that they and others know to be invalid and, well, simply not true. Maybe in the hope that one day the opposition will begin to tire refuting them? Drone on long enough and they will be accepted as truth.

 

Really, just keep repeating a lie until people believe it?

I guess you must be right, we even convinced the French Foreign ministry of it:

http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/actu/article.gb.asp?ART=40258

That statement was made Feb 3rd of this year.

Hans Blix stated the following on 3/28/04:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/28/magazine/28QUESTIONS.html?ex=1082174400&en=9e8268bfc90296c7&ei=5070

Well duh Mr. Blix, of course you didn't find anything, your inspectors had already been bought and paid for by Saddam, and your offices were bugged. Big surprise.
edit: Per joacqin post far below, I have to admit that this arguement is invalid as I cannot locate the article I read that sited at least one of the UN inspectors being bribed. My apologies

As far as the quotes from Powell and Rice, I call that a red herring. Define significant. Enough too kill a few thousand people in a subway, or enough to kill another 100 thousand of his neighbors (and Iraqi's for that matter)? We weren't all that worried about his military attacking the Saudis or Iran. One of the things we were worried about was him providing aid to terrorists, and since he was already providing money to families of homicide bombers, it wasn't that far of a reach to think of him giving them a few cubic liters of sarin or VX.

I believe we can safely state that Saddam will not be providing aid to terrorists any time in the near future.

Hopefully he will be taking the eternal celestial dirt nap before the near future expires.

[ April 17, 2004, 03:11: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

Darkwolf,

You're entirely entitled your opinion Darkwolf, but bitter reality hints on that there were no WMD in Iraq, so do say:

• US Uberinspector Kay, explaining: Nearly all WMD Claims Wrong
• Bush himself
• Condi and
• Powell ...
• Wolfowitz wasn't 'concerned' about WMD
• and the Iraqis themselves are pretty sure too that there were no WMD,
• and it seems Israel knew it too but seemingly 'forgot' to tell the US

..... so what exactly should have Blix found in your opinion? That probably doesn't really matter, you'd likely loathe him whatever he sais because he's from the UN.

But then, even your "real inspectors" didn't find anything - unbribed by Saddam and with offices unbugged, with unhindered access to everyone and anything in Iraq. But then - real and ready WMD's morphed to mere know how and evil intentions for one day. Iraqs WMD program was a papertiger (you just *have to* look at image of the two top secret WMD documents found by US inspectors!)

Now lemme guess, they all got it wrong - the missing WMD are in Syria or Iran now (excellent article btw) ...

PS: And as with the "Saddam had WMD" myth always comes the other shoe: There also was no link between 911 and Saddam - according to Bush and Rummy ... just in case.

PPS: But then, maybe Bush's emphasis on the missile shield before 911, the final defense at the fourth frontier, had a deeper purpose ... maybe Saddam had links with aliens and Saddam had to be taken out to prevent them from taking over the world ... I could almost understand Bush lying about WMD then

 

Hacken-Slash your argument would be strengthened if you actually showed HOW I took things out of context. Instead you took MY post out of context in a sad, misleading, and inane manner in order to prove a point that I *could* have taken the quotes out of context (which I didn't).

The only evidence you provide is the quote I posted as a joke. It was a comedic aside, how did you not realize that?

What's your point? I didn't see a judge or bailiff. The press asked some hard, fair questions and Bush refused to answer them. If they were "leading" or "inflammatory" (which they weren't), then Bush could have responded "no comment," thereby allowing him to retain the last shred of dignity he had left. Instead he opted to treat the American people like idiots by filibustering at every conceivable time he could.

True, but how does this apply to this particular situation? Unsupported rhetoric will only take you so far. Please characterize the "slants," you observed.

Lets be sure we can differentiate between "responses" and "answers," because the former was in excess whereas the latter was AWOL.

 

@Ankiseth

Maybe if you don't see the slant, it's because you are standing at the same slant.

Kinda a frog in the boiling water thing.

Aldeth has already pulled out some of the better examples of leading and unanswerable questions...take a look at them. There is no need for me to paste and cut more. Given the vague, rambling and leading nature of the questions, it is no surprise to me that the President "ummmed" a few times.

I disagree that the President, or any politician can answer "no comment" in an election year...that is sure death.

Hey, you've got your slant, I'm sure I've got mine.

And no, I had no idea you were making a comedic aside. Maybe next time, for my benefit, surround it with "smilies".

 

Why should Dubya care? He did say, "... as to whether or not I make decisions based upon polls, I don't. I just don't make decisions that way." So why should he care? Oh, here you go: