Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26415

Probably deserves it's own thread.

I thought he did a very good job in some parts, a few pretty glaringly bad parts, but overall it was a positive appearance for him. It was certainly more somber and humble than his previous "we'll win, they'll love this shit over there" type of conference. I thought the tone was very "things aren't great, they aren't going to be great anytime soon, we have to stay committed and do what we have to do anyway", which is a departure, I think, from his previous rose-tinted glasses rhetoric. A neccessary departure, I might add, and one that was long in coming. People were obviously no longer buying his old "this'll be pretty easy" line, so he changed it to accomodate. Perhaps that's just my reading of it though. I think it was calculated based on the notion that the unbridled optimism of the past was no longer working, or, perhaps, appropriate.

Of the 17 (18?) questions, 10 were on Iraq, the rest were on broader national security stuff or the 9-11 commission. Not a single question on the economy, John Kerry, medicare, etc.

Good moments: I think, at some points, his replies regarding 9-11 were well done. "Had I had any inkling whatsoever that people were going to fly airplanes into buildings, we would have moved heaven and earth to protect the country," as an example. The problem was those good moments came strung together with some of his worst, where he pretty obviously and painfully dodged the notion that he was capable of making mistakes. For the record, I'm not meaning to suggest that he should have apologized for 9-11 or listed his weaknesses or whatever. I think his basic idea on how to handle that is a sound one, the problem is it loses something in translation. Surely there's a better way to get that across instead of looking defensive and annoyed whenever somebody asks about regrets or mistakes. I think he comes off looking bad to all but his acolytes when he takes that line. Though again, I understand the strategy, I just think it's losing something in its execution.

A couple of things I thought he flubbed. One was what should be a minor issue, that being why he and Cheney are testifying together. The reporter that asked that question did a good job of nailing it, and Bush looked bad when he weaseled out of it. Not a deal-breaking issue, by any means, but another example of how the administration's responses to the 9-11 commission and issues surrounding it is causing more problems for them than the commission itself.

I also thought he did a poor job of responding the question of how the third largest troop deployment in Iraq was hired guns, and that the coalition he keeps going on about seems like window dressing considering the drop off of 135,000 US troops, 16k (or whatever) Brit ones, a lot of mercs, and then a pittance of coalition forces. His response to the Vietnam question started out really good, but then he tried to link it to emotive rhetoric basically coming close to the line of "if you question us on this, you're hurting our troops and giving comfort to the enemy", which is horseshit, though maybe it'll play well.

Some of the rest of the stuff bothered me in particular but I know will play well, including his handling of the WMD issue (he came pretty close to admitting that was a mistake, and then backed off), his mushing the War on Terror, Iraq, and 9-11 together for the sake of emotional linkage (though he did start out the conference with a very strong statement on that that I thought was good, and his reasoning for why a free Iraq is strategically smart was concise and well made). Going on to diatribes about the Almighty, accusing people who say that Iraqis may not be ready for freedom were actually saying brown-skinned people couldn't be free, shit like that.

And oh yeah, we apparantly have three Secretaries of State. How about that.

But, overall, I thought he was effective. Very weak in a few moments, very strong in a few, but on balance it was a good, if subtle, change in rhetoric to match the changing nature of the engagement. I'd give him a B, B+.

And now a word from my 13-year-old sister:

Plus American Idol was cancelled.
I hate the government. --Hadley

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26415

I'll move this back to Politicos in the morning.

Feel free to insticate amongst yourselves.

Last edited by Paint CHiPs on 04-14-2004 at 03:14 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26415

Full Text, if you're interested.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16728

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paint CHiPs

I also thought he did a poor job of responding the question of how the third largest troop deployment in Iraq was hired guns, and that the coalition he keeps going on about seems like window dressing considering the drop off of 135,000 US troops, 16k (or whatever) Brit ones, a lot of mercs, and then a pittance of coalition forces.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2004
Location:
Posts: 22

I think its unfair that not all the questions were laid out to him in advance.

I hope Karl Rove was scolded.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: seattle-ish
Posts: 11406

I agree with Hadley.

And I didn't watch George. If I wanted to see Muppets, I would've watched the Jessica Simpson Variety Show special the other night.

Or I would watch the Mahnamahna video again.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: seattle-ish
Posts: 11406

mahnamahna.

Last edited by karen on 04-14-2004 at 04:20 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

Dootdoot-dootdootdoot.

Best muppets sketch. And a close analogy to the US presidential race.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26415

quote:

---

Originally posted by euphorbia
he responded by saying we shouldn’t belittle the role other countries are playing...it was pretty diplomatic, not sure what kind of response you would be looking for or if any other response would have been wise.

---

Well, that's why I think his answer will play well. I didn't like it because I thought it was a dodge of a very good question (I would have liked it had somebody been even more pointed in asking the question about mercenaries....the 4 guys burned to death are now "American contractors" I guess, instead of privately hired military security, which they were, perhaps a minimal distinction to some but they certainly weren't, at least in a practical sense, any old American civilian, they were mercs, which doesn't make their deathes any less brutal, but is certainly a different dynamic than some poor engineer just contracted out to work on an oil pipeline). What I dislike about the other bit, is that I don't think that the question in any way "belittles" the role of other countries. It was simply saying "You talk a lot about how this is a multinational effort, and yet 95% of the troops are ours, that seems to be a pretty damn unilateral effort, in terms of boots on the ground, with a peppering of multinational forces there for window dressing." Which leads into the question "If this is so damn multilateral, why are we carrying such an incredible share of the burden?"

But, again, I think his answer will probably play well, that's just my reading into it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by euphorbia

I dont think its horse shit, you might not like that it happens but history shows his comment is correct...it doesnt mean people shouldnt say what the feel...if that is infact what they feel but they should know there are consequences. If you dont think that some things said over and over in front of a microphone will effect moral in our troops and make the enemy feel emboldened well then I just dont think youve given the issue much thought and stopped at the outrage you might have felt that someone would say such a thing.

---

I don't buy the "we shouldn't say that the war is going badly for fear of hurting our troop's feelings" line of argument, and probably never will. Comfort to the enemy, the phrase he's been using deliberatly, is grounds for treason and the death penalty. A far cry from saying "this is Bush's Vietnam", which as far as I'm aware, isn't a comment that warrants capital punishment. It's a blurring of rhetoric that bothers me in the same way that 9-11 and Iraq pushed together bothers me, creating misleading associations, deliberatly. It all strikes me as saying criticism of a president in wartime is anti-American, and I object to both lines of rhetoric for basically the same reasons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by euphorbia

I was glad he said that too. I just hope next time I say that people dont think I said it because he did cause I have been saying it for a while.

---

Well, I thought it was an insulting generalization when you made it too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by euphorbia

I think I missed that...I was on the phone with a client for a bit though.

---

He said "Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld", which I'm sure drew a wince from everybody in his cabinet, given that dynamic, and then in the next sentence forgot the "deputy" part for Armitage. The transcript:

"Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of State Rumsfeld and a number of NATO defense and foreign ministers are exploring a more formal role for NATO, such as turning the Polish-led division into a NATO operation and giving NATO specific responsibilities for border control.

Iraqis' neighbors also have responsibilities to make their region more stable. So I'm sending Deputy Secretary of State Armitage to the Middle East to discuss with these nations our common interest in a free and independent Iraq, and how they can help achieve this goal."

I didn't hear the "deputy" part for the Armitage title, though he was sort of mumbling so I may have missed it.

But, again, I'll add that the things that rubbed me the wrong way will probably play well to the plebs, and all in all, it was a good show for Bush.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: seattle-ish
Posts: 11406

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
Dootdoot-dootdootdoot.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16728

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paint CHiPs



I don't buy the "we shouldn't say that the war is going badly for fear of hurting our troop's feelings" line of argument, and probably never will.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26415

Just struck me as that old failsafe that dissent = un-American, anti-US troops, unpatriotic, con-freedom, etc, which is a sentiment I find disasteful, even if just alluded to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by euphorbia


And its a bit more than "hurting their feelings" brad...which i'm sure you understand.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16728

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paint CHiPs



Isn't that exactly what "hurting morale" is?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26415

Ah, so dissent = death of brave American soldiers because of its effect on combat readiness.

Nope, still don't like the concept.

And, for what it's worth, low morale is a price I'm perfectly willing to pay for open discourse. If anybody wants to accuse me even implicitly of killing Amercan soldiers because I speak out against the war, they can kiss my ass.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16728

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paint CHiPs
Ah, so dissent = death of brave American soldiers because of its affect on combat readiness.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16728

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paint CHiPs

And, for what it's worth, low morale is a price I'm perfectly willing to pay for open discourse. If anybody wants to accuse me even implicitly of killing Amercan soldiers because I speak out against the war, they can kiss my ass.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26415

quote:

---

Originally posted by euphorbia
thats pretty special brad, i see Im wasting my time..perhaps go back and read what I said...or dont..what ever. The reasoning that led you to the above reply is sad, gross and scary...and emotional knee jerking of the calibur that any thing you site mirrors.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16728

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paint CHiPs
I don't think that calling it a "quagmire" or "Bush's Vietnam" is particularly hurtful to the soldiers, though I disagree with both comments for other reasons.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

Brad is a college dropout again, not a college student anymore. Watch his life circle the toilet bowl.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Ducktown, GA
Posts: 1428

Dissent is okay. Where dissent hurts, is if the folks actually running a war start listening to dissent, and start making compromises in war plans and timing. If the president, as commander in chief, becomes influenced by various parties and groups wanting to do things differently, then wavering begins. Wavering in war is what gets more folks killed.

If your theater commander asks for more tanks, more big ass bombs, and more guys with rifles, you need to send them. He does it for a living. If you dont give him what he needs, he can't do the job right. Doing the job wrong in a war means you lose your men and equipment.

The commander in chief hears the dissent, hears the opposing theories on what should be done, and what should not be sent. A true leader will pursue his plan, not wavering around on the results of polls. Bush seems to be doing this. What we can hope is that his plan is the right plan. I don't know if it is, but my commentary is just to say that I am seeing leadership. The direction may or may not be flawed, but this is real leadership, something that the United States has not seen in a very long time.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24745

What I found the most interesting about Bush's news conference is the way he primarily directed his answers toward the American people watching as opposed to the questioner(s). President Bush clearly understands what the majority of Americans are concerned about, and spoke to those concerns over the heads of the Liberal media and the Left in general since they are utterly clueless about the hearts and minds of the regular people that make up that majority, the very 'little people' the Left claims to advocate for from its ivory tower of elitism. In November they are going to get a clue and one they will not soon forget. They don't see it coming, but it is coming all the same. Their mouths will snap shut as their incessant bawling is drowned out when the silent giant roars.

That's all I have to say. Believe me or not, agree with me or not, just watch what happens in November.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged