posted on April 14, 2004 11:59:27 AM new
Well, I watched parts of it and although I was semi-impressed with the way he handled himself without a TelePromter, he's still in denial about the justification for going after Iraq. He still claims that the end justifies the means regardless of how much of an initial (pseudo) threat Iraq really posed and still holds out hope for finding all these hidden (nuclear) WOMD. My question is, do you think his hair was back-combed last night?
posted on April 14, 2004 12:18:36 PM new
Didn't pay much attentionto his hair, I'm afraid.
What I did notice is the fact that he avoided answering almost every question put to him. The reporter would ask a question & Bush would "reply" but manage not to answer the question! And on the last one he just hemmed & hawed and then finally had to admit that he couldn't even come up with a semblance of a reply...
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on April 14, 2004 01:01:41 PM new
What an embarrassing performance. Besides his failure to answer questions, he failed to even mention a plan regarding the course of the war and establishment of a government in Iraq...all that he managed to say is that he is staying the course...a course that is clearly a colossal
failure. Eight hundred and eighty Iraqis have been killed since the beginning of April and eighty seven American soldiers were killed during that short time period.
posted on April 14, 2004 01:27:25 PM new
I also watched him and I noticed the usual smirk was kind of wiped from his face. He didn't answer the questions that were asked and many times it looked like he had trouble thinking fast enough.
He avoided the question about why him and Cheney are appearing together for the 9/11 Commission and not apart as requested even though he was asked twice.
He kept repeating everything that he's said many times before.
had I had any inkling whatsoever that the people were going to fly airplanes into buildings, we would have moved heaven and earth to save the country How many times has he yakked out that one?
He keeps mentioning now how he cries and weeps with the families and about those Purple Hearts he's pinned on the soldiers and it makes me really angry. BFD! He does it because it makes HIM feel good as he struts around and that shows.
Several days ago I thought he needed a haircut and last night it looked too "out there" and made him look kind of out of control, like he'd neglected his grooming. I took my eyes off the screen and near the end I thought I saw him reach under the podium and take a quick gulp of something (ya, I know..... probably just water) and then he came on very strong with his last words.
He had no plans for Iraq after the invasion and he has no plans now. His performance was terrible last night and he is a failure as a president. Worse yet, he is a very dangerous man. JMHO
posted on April 14, 2004 03:20:40 PM new
Acting all humble now, the smirk is gone. yet he still would not admit to a single mistake...not a single miscalculation or failure. The whole thing was a whitewash.
___________________________________
posted on April 14, 2004 04:54:42 PM new"... and made him look kind of out of control."
Thanks for noticing his hair Kiara! I thought he looked like he'd been in a fight or something. Maybe it was planned that way to distract people from listening to him.
posted on April 14, 2004 06:22:29 PM new
I thought his tie was meant todo that--the color &/or pattern on it made it do strange things via the TV cameras
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
I think he came across as being very sincere in his answers. I think he addressed all except one question directly.
One thing that continues to impress me about this President is his firm belief that what this country faces isn't going to go away. He wants us on the offensive and has strong convictions on what we need to do. He has taken actions he believes have been necessary to protect our nation. He doesn't make decisions based on polls ....and he is confident the voters will re-elected him in November.
posted on April 14, 2004 08:05:06 PM new
Did anyone else disagree with Bush when he said that the 25 million Iraqis "deserve" freedom ?
I think history has shown that a people earn can only their freedom through their own efforts, it is never given to those who merely "deserve" it.
I do not think that any group of people can be handed their freedom. If they are unwilling or unable to get it themselves, it can not be given to them.
posted on April 14, 2004 08:23:58 PM new
How could I have forgotten the "dancing" tie?
Yes, first the excuse was hidden weapons and now it's all about God and freedom.
I also have this belief, strong belief that freedom is not this country's gift to the world.
Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to help feed the hungry. I think the American people find it interesting that we're providing food for the North Korea people who starve. We have an obligation to lead the fight on AIDS, on Africa.
And we have an obligation to work toward a more free world. That's our obligation. That is what we have been called to do, as far as I'm concerned. And my job as the president is to lead this nation into the — into making the world a better place, and that's exactly what we're doing.
posted on April 15, 2004 12:40:18 AM newI think he addressed all except one question directly.
Question 1: "Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half of Americans now support it.
What does that say to you? And how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?"
Well, outside of saying he thinks the Vietnam analogy is false, Bush did not answer the question. Instead, we got a lot of hoo-ra about how "hard" it is to bring freedom but that we're doing the right thing. Then, Bush twisted the question in order to make a statement that avoids the question entirely: "And as to whether or not I made decisions based upon polls, I don't. I just don't make decisions that way. I fully understand the consequences of what we're doing. We're changing the world, and the world will be better off and America will be more secure as a result of the actions we're taking."
Question 2: "What's your best prediction on how long U.S. troops will have to be in Iraq? And it sounds like you will have to add some troops. Is that a fair assessment?"
He doesn't answer--says its up to the general, and says how many troops we have there, and that he'll send the general troops, supplies, whatever he needs. "Because that's what the Iraqi people want." He ends by saying "Once we transfer sovereignty, we'll enter into a security agreement with the government to which we pass sovereignty, the entity to which we pass sovereignty. And we'll need to be there for a while. We'll also need to continue training the Iraqi troops."
But he doesn't answer the question.
Question 3: "Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq: that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers; that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction but, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we know where they are.
How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series of false premises? "
Bush "replies" that we learned a 'lesson' on 9-11. He says that Saddam was a threat "because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders. He was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States." (Even though no word of Saddam had been heard outside his own borders for 9 years).
He said that was the assessment he made from the intelligence--even though it has been proven that he wasn't told any such thing. He talked about the UN & how we had to act because we'd made demands that weren't met--though I do remember that when Saddam did offer to comply, he was turned down as a liar. He kept reiterating the old saws about WMD. He did address oil revenues, but since his administration has been awarding contracts to US companies, its hard to believe his assertion that "it's their oil."
But nowhere did he answer the question about why he got it so wrong, or why all the Iraqis haven't greeted us with flowers & candy.
Question 4: "Mr. President. To move to the 9-11 commission, you yourself have acknowledged that Osama bin Laden was not a central focus of the administration in the months before September 11th. I was not on point, you told the journalist Bob Woodward. I didn't feel that sense of urgency.
Two and a half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th? "
He didn't answer the question. He hemed & hawed, then: "I didn't see -- I mean, I didn't have that great sense of outrage that I felt on September the 11th. I was -- on that day, I was angry and sad. Angry that al-Qaida -- I thought at the time al-Qaida, found out shortly thereafter it was al-Qaida -- had unleashed this attack. Sad for those who lost their life.
Your question, do I feel -- yes? " And he indicates another journalist can ask a question!
Question 5: "Personal responsibility for September 11th?"
He doesn't answer the question. A simple yes or no would do. Instead, he says he feels grieved when he meets family members. And he said "it would have been nice" if there'd been an Office of Homeland Security in place" and that he thinks "the hearings will show that the Patriot Act is an important change in the law that will allow the FBI and the CIA to better share information together." He said that our country must stay on the offense, he said we share information better now. But he didn't answer the question.
Question 6: "Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked.
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? "
To which Bush goes on toprove that he never does admit a mistake by repeating things he'd been repeating all eveining--and not answering the question.
Question 7: "Mr. President, good evening. I'd like to ask you about the August 6th PDB.
You've mentioned it at Fort Hood on Sunday. You pointed out that it did not warn of a hijacking of airplanes to crash into buildings, but that it warned of hijacking to obviously take hostages and to secure the release of extremists that are being held by the U.S.
Did that trigger some specific actions on your part in the administration, since it dealt with potentially hundreds of lives and a blackmail attempt on the United States government?"
Finally--a question he answers! Essentially he says the PDB triggered no action on his part. He said that he'd asked for that PDB. He talked about things he'd done before the PDB. He said he met with Tenet all the time. He said "Had there been a threat that required action by anybody in the government, I would have dealt with it."
Question 8: "You mentioned the PDB and the assurance you got that the FBI was working on terrorism investigations here. The number they had used was 70.
But we learned today in the September 11th hearings that the acting director of the FBI at the time now says the FBI tells him that number was wrong, that he doesn't even know how it got into your PDB. And two of the commissioners strongly suggested the number was exaggerated.
Have you learned anything else about that report since that time? And do you now believe you were falsely comforted by the FBI? "
He doesn't answer. Instead he said that he expects toget accurate information & that the 9-11 commission find out the answers.
Question 9: "Has the FBI come back to you, sir?"
Wow! A second answer! He said that, no, the FBI hasn't spoken to him "that day" (day of the speech).
Question 10: "Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9-11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you prepared to give them one?"
He doesn't answer the question. A simple yes or no would suffice.Instead he says once more how anguished he feels for the families. And that Osama was at fault. Well, duh.
Question 11: "Mr. President, thank you. You mentioned that 17 of the 26 NATO members providing some help on the ground in Iraq. But if you look at the numbers -- 135,000 U.S. troops, 10,000 or 12,000 British troops. Then the next largest, perhaps even the second- largest contingent of guns on the ground are private contractors, literally hired guns.
Your critics, including your Democratic opponents, say that's proof to them your coalition is window dressing. How would you answer those critics? And can you assure the American people that, post-sovereignty, when the handover takes place, that there will be more burden-sharing by allies in terms of security forces?"
He half-assed answers by saying we shouldn't "demean" the contributions of our allies. And that he's proud of the force in Iraq now. Then he goes on to forecast our future by saying what a threat to us North Korea is.
Question 12: "Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?"
He doesn't answer the question, prompting the reporter to restate: "I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request."
To which Bush replied: "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." ?!?
Question 13: "You have been accused of letting the 9-11 threat mature too far, but not letting the Iraq threat mature far enough. First, could you respond to that general criticism?
And, secondly, in the wake of these two conflicts, what is the appropriate threat level to justify action in perhaps other situations going forward?"
Be still my heart--another answer! "prior to 9-11, the country really wasn't on a war footing. And the, frankly, mood of the world would have been astounded had the United States acted unilaterally in trying to deal with al-Qaida in that part of the world."
So far, so good. But he blows it by saying we rushed into Iraq because "oceans don't protect us." Then he brings up Qaddaffi & his mustard gas and says we must win the war on terror. Qaddaffi has what to do with Iraq?
Question 14: "Sir, you've made it very clear tonight that you're committed to continuing the mission in Iraq, yet, as Terry pointed out, increasing numbers of Americans have qualms about it. And this is an election year. Will it have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?"
Bush doesn't answer--just says he doesn't plan on losing his job. And how hard it is toconsole the families of dead military. And how great our military are. Well, they are great--but he didn't answer the question...
Question 15: "In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.
You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?"
At this, Bush spends several minutes heming & hawing, squirming, and then blurts "You know, I just - I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet."
Then he says he would do everything the same. That he still thinks we'll find WMD. After wandering around a good deal, Bush finished with "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."
No kidding.
Question 16: "Looking forward about keeping United States safe, a group representing about several thousand FBI agents today wrote to your administration begging you not to split up the law enforcement and the counterterrorism ...
BUSH: Yes.
QUESTION: ... because they say it ties their hands, it gives them blinders, that they're partners.
Yet you mentioned yesterday that you think perhaps the time has come for some real intelligence reforms. That can't happen without real leadership from the White House.
Will you? And how will you? "
Instead of answering, Bush says he's "open to suggestions." And that he will encourage discussion. And that the war will be a long one. Then he makes another chilling foretelling of our military future: "it's important for us to spread freedom throughout the Middle East." Whether they like it or not...
He tells the troops "we'll stay on cource. But...he did NOT answer the question!
Question 17: "Following on both Judy and John's questions, and it comes out of what you just said in some ways, with public support for your policies in Iraq falling off the way they have, quite significantly over the past couple of months, I guess I'd like to know if you feel, in any way, that you have failed as a communicator on this topic."
BUSH: Gosh, I don't know. I mean ... (wow, how erudite!
So the journalist continued: "Well, you deliver a lot of speeches, and a lot of them contain similar phrases and may vary very little from one to the next. And they often include a pretty upbeat assessment of how things are going, with the exception of tonight. It's pretty somber."
[b]BUSH:{/b] A pretty somber assessment today, Don, yes.
The journalist continued: " But I guess I just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any way. You don't have many of these press conferences where you engage in this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to really make the case to the American public?"
Bush doesn't answer the question that is asked. He says he thinks he did the right thing. Oh, and that he looks forward todebatesin his campaign. Really? Kerry has already invited him to debate, and Bush failed to step up to the plate.
All in all, not a stellar performance. Bush failed toanswer the vast majority of the questions.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on April 15, 2004 11:11:55 AM new
Unless this President made a public announcement that everything he has ever done was wrong....and states that everything that's gone wrong in the whole world also is his fault, some will never be happy.
posted on April 15, 2004 11:18:58 AM new
Not true, Linda! When a person avoids answering direct questions, it's because they don't want to tell the truth. That's pretty plain to me.
posted on April 15, 2004 11:23:49 AM new
Yes, it's true. The people here who felt he didn't answer the questions well enough - to their liking are the ones that were never planning on voting for him anyway. But there are many who feel he did answer the questions directly.....just like me. I am not alone....although out-numbered in this forum.
posted on April 15, 2004 11:32:37 AM new
But Bunni already pointed out some of the questions he avoided. How can you say he answered these directly when he didn't?
posted on April 15, 2004 12:04:38 PM new Unless this President made a public announcement that everything he has ever done was wrong....and states that everything that's gone wrong in the whole world also is his fault, some will never be happy.
I would have been very happy if Bush has actually answered [i]the questions he was asked.[/b] I might not have liked his answers, but at least he would have given some. But out of 17 questions, he answered two, and gave half an answer to a third.
That is simply not satisfactory. And I would say the same thing about any politician, from any party, who did the same thing.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on April 15, 2004 12:14:44 PM new
KD - Bunni pointed out HER 'take' on what he said....doesn't make it the only way it's seen. Just like in an accident...different people will give different versions of what they saw...and they don't always agree with one another.
----------
Cheryl - I'm used to stand alone in my support for this president....no big deal for me. But all polls are slanted according to who does them. Want to share where your poll numbers are from?
--------------
Let's take bunni's question #2 for example.
It was answered and here was his full answer I've highlighted the parts I feel answer the question he was asked:
Well, first of all, that's up to General Abizaid, and he's clearly indicating that he may want more troops. It's coming up through the chain of command. And if that's what he wants, that's what he gets.
ME: That's pretty straight forward just to that point. It has long been his position that the military commanders know best what their needs are and he said from the beginning that he'd leave those decisions to the commanders.
[i]Generally, we've had about a 115,000 troops in Iraq. There's 135,000 now as a result of the changeover from one division to the next.
If he wants to keep troops there to help, I'm more than willing to say, yes, General Abizaid[/i].
I talk to General Abizaid quite frequently. I'm constantly asking him does he have what he needs, whether it be in troop strength or in equipment. He and General Sanchez talk all the time. And if he makes the recommendation, he'll get it.
In terms of how long we'll be there, as long as necessary, and not one day more. The Iraqi people need us there to help with security. They need us there to fight off these, you know, violent few, who are doing everything they can to resist the advance of freedom. And I mentioned who they are.
And as I mentioned in my opening remarks, our commanders on the ground have got the authorities necessary to deal with violence, and will -- will in firm fashion.
And that's what by far the vast majority of the Iraqis want. They want security so they can advance toward a free society.
Once we transfer sovereignty, we'll enter into a security agreement with the government to which we pass sovereignty, the entity to which we pass sovereignty. And we'll need to be there for a while.
We'll also need to continue training the Iraqi troops. I was disappointed in the performance of some of the troops. Some of the units performed brilliantly. Some of them didn't. And we need to find out why. If they're lacking in equipment, we'll get them equipment. If there needs to be more intense training, we'll get more intense training.
But eventually, Iraq's security is going to be handled by the Iraqi people themselves.
-----------------
So what do you find lacking in his answer on that question? I don't see where he avoided answering it.
posted on April 15, 2004 12:37:03 PM new
Linda, answering questions with statements that sound good doesn't mean he answered the question asked. He was dodging. He started talking about the threat the previous administration probably had, and about countries nobody asked him about to avoid answering. That's just my take.
posted on April 15, 2004 01:02:49 PM new
KD - Imo he answered it directly. And as far as how long our troops will remain....was that question ever even posed to say FDR when we went into Japan and Germany? I doubt it. Heck...we still have troops there.
No one could/can predict the future...but answering as "long as we need to be there and not a day longer" IS an honest, truthful and direct answer.
------------------
And Cheryl here's a poll for you to look at.
The question was:
"Iraq A Year Later - Was it Worth It?"
posted on April 15, 2004 01:45:43 PM new Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates
"We're interested in your opinion of the way George W. Bush is handling certain aspects of his job. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"
4/8-9/04
48% Approve
51% Disapprove
"Do you think the U.S. military action against Iraq has done more to INCREASE the risk or DECREASE the risk that large numbers of Americans will be killed or injured in a future terrorist attack -- or that it hasn't made much difference either way?"
4/8-9/04
42% Increase
29% Decrease
"Would you support increasing the number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq, if necessary, in response to the recent attacks on coalition forces by Iraqi militants?"
4/8-9/04
63% Would Support
31% Would Not Support
"How concerned are you that Iraq will become another Vietnam in which the U.S. does not accomplish its goals despite many years of military involvement? Are you very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not at all concerned about Iraq becoming another Vietnam?"
4/8/04
40% Very
25% Somewhat
Time/CNN Poll conducted by Harris Interactive. April 8, 2004. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (total sample).
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"
4/8/04
Approve 44%
Disapprove 51%
"Do you think the war with Iraq has made the U.S. safer or less safe from terrorism?"
4/8/04
Safer 40%
Less Safe 48%
"Based on what you have heard or read, do you think the Bush Administration does or does not have a clear and well thought out plan to deal with the situation in Iraq?"
4/8/04
Does 43%
Does Not 51%
CBS News Poll. March 30-April 1, 2004. N=1,024 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample).
"Do you think the result of the war with Iraq was worth the loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq, or not?"
3/30 -4/1/04
Worth It 37%
Not Worth It 54%
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. March 18-19, 2004. N=1,006 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Do you think the Bush Administration Misinterpreted or misanalyzed the intelligence reports they said indicated Iraq had banned weapons"
Yes 55%
No 35%
"Before the Iraq War, the Bush Administration said it had intelligence reports indicating that Iraq was hiding banned chemical or biological weapons from UN weapons inspectors. So far, however, no such banned weapons have been found in Iraq. Do you think the Bush Administration "Misinterpreted or misanalyzed the intelligence reports they said indicated Iraq had banned weapons"
Yes 55%
No 35%
posted on April 15, 2004 02:15:02 PM new
Ah yes....the CBS poll...I'm surprised they could get enough people together to vote in their poll. Their rates have been dropping for so long...maybe that's why....leaning too far left.
-----------------
And even though kerry says [latest quote] he'll keep our troops in Iraq....I question if he will still support not funding them. sad sad sad
----------
I fully expect the ultra-hard left democrats will be harping on this for as long as they did about the 'stolen election'.
--------------------
Here's what the WSJ had to say about this speech:
Best of the Web Today - April 14, 2004
By JAMES TARANTO
GWB as JFK's Heir
President Bush was at his best last night, in an hour-long televised speech and news conference on the war on terror. Some of the highlights:
"The violence we are seeing in Iraq is familiar. The terrorist who takes hostages, or plants a roadside bomb near Baghdad is serving the same ideology of murder that kills innocent people on trains in Madrid, and murders children on buses in Jerusalem, and blows up a nightclub in Bali, and cuts the throat of a young reporter for being a Jew."
"Over the last several decades, we've seen that any concession or retreat on our part will only embolden this enemy and invite more bloodshed. And the enemy has seen, over the last 31 months, that we will no longer live in denial or seek to appease them. For the first time, the civilized world has provided a concerted response to the ideology of terror--a series of powerful, effective blows."
On the comparison of Iraq to Vietnam: " I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops, and sends the wrong message to the enemy. Look, this is hard work. It's hard to advance freedom in a country that has been strangled by tyranny. And, yet, we must stay the course, because the end result is in our nation's interest."
It's hard to believe, but Democrats used to talk like this, back when it was the party of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman and John F. Kennedy, rather than of George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis and JFK's dissolute youngest brother. In his Inaugural Address, for example, JFK famously said:
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
And as Thomas Sowell notes, the 35th president also said of America's enemies: "We dare not tempt them with weakness"--an almost identical sentiment to the one Bush expresses in the second quote above.
posted on April 15, 2004 03:41:22 PM new
I thought President Bush did a great job. Plain spoken and resolute while the press took their best shots at him.
Of course liberals and the seal-clubbing Canadians hated it. They want to see Bush (and the US) look weak and apologize for everything that's wrong in the world.
posted on April 15, 2004 04:08:04 PM newCheryl - I'm used to stand alone in my support for this president....no big deal for me. But all polls are slanted according to who does them. Want to share where your poll numbers are from?
MSNBC. Yes, we know just how the media is slanted and the majority of the time it's not to the left.
