W. tonight

[Skeptic]

It was amazing the number of reporters who kept trying to get him to admit he was wrong. Like that's going to happen when the whole world, including the terrorists, are watching. He is to be commended for not buckling, and for his steadfastness in his committment to Iraq. He will not walk away and leave them hanging.

Indeed so. In not buckling to the "when have you stopped beating your wife" questions about 9/11 and Iraq, he showed himself smarter than his critics: he was not about to give John Kerry and the Democrats delicious soundbites for the general election campaign, thankyouverymuch.

Also, his refusal to budge on this issue made it clear that the journalists who asked the question have a not-so-hidden agenda to try and extract a "confession". One such question is one thing; but when no less than four or five questions from the journalists were of the "C'mon, be a good sport! Say it's all your fault!Publically, too!" sort, I was getting quite annoyed at the reporters, not at Bush.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Also, his refusal to budge on this issue made it clear that the journalists who asked the question have a not-so-hidden agenda to try and extract a "confession". One such question is one thing; but when no less than four or five questions from the journalists were of the "C'mon, be a good sport! Say it's all your fault!Publically, too!" sort, I was getting quite annoyed at the reporters, not at Bush.

You mean that when a politician has seriously f**ked up, people are dying, and the problems look like taking a generation to sort out, journalists should not push that politician to admit that he has made a mistake?

America has lost its way. Defending a lame duck president from difficult questions from journalists is not going to help America find its way again. He deserves no sympathy whatsoever.

 

[phildonnia]

I thought last night I heard the sound of George Bush losing the election.

Some advice to the president for future extemporaneous speaking:

1) Don't; you suck at it. Read a script, and don't look at the camera. Perhaps people will respect you for taking the time to craft an intelligent thought. It's unlikely, but we sure don't respect your current mode of delivery.

2) Stop using cliches, or at least get some new ones. Have your press secretary administer electric shocks every time you gratuitously say "terr'r" or "freedom", or "..as we head into the 21st century".

3) <Steve Martin>When you talk, have a point.</steve> When someone asks you about the current situation in Iraq, your response should not include references to Saddam, (who does not figure prominently in Iraqi politics right now) or to how free people want to give their children a good education (WTF?).

4) The Texan speech pattern is an asset when combined with a plain-spoken style. When used with rambling, vague and grammatically confused sentences, you sound like "Earnest".

 

[rikzilla]

So, Bush looked old and tired...that job would age anyone during this era. The US President is attacked by friend and foe alike. Makes me wonder why Kerry wants the job.

So, Bush doesn't look good on tv. So what? Clinton was great on tv, but an empty suit as POTUS. We don't need a poll-taker in the Oval Office. We need a leader. GWB, no matter what you may think of his actions, IS a leader. He saw the intel and he acted on it. It is not his fault that the friggin intel was wrong! It was no more his fault that we were attacked on 9/11 than it was Clinton's fault that the Oklahoma City Federal Bldg was blown up. It could simply not be helped. I saw no comission seeking to blame Clinton for Oklahoma City...nor did I see Clinton make any changes to security after the fact of OKC. Perhaps if he had created an HSD then, the 9/11 terrorists might have been detected? See? We can all play the blame game....and once we have burned our scapegoat, what useful thing have we accomplished?

Bush reacted to 9/11 in a proper way....he reacted to an act of war by going to war. Iraq was a valid target of the WOT. The intel wasn't good,....but Iraq was no Switzerland. We didn't invade an innocent, benign nation. No one here is stupid enough to believe that...yet many here hint around that that's just what GWB did in Iraq. GWB spelled it out rather plainly in his "axis of evil" speech. A speech many love to joke and snicker about,..yet he spoke true and you all do know it! If not then show me the "axis of evil" state that is benign towards "the west".

Hopefully the voting public will not be fooled by the left's focus on the President's appearance and woeful speechifying skills. GWB will not leave our Iraqi allies to swing from the lampposts of Baghdad after a quick and ignoble exit by US forces...this is because he has the integrity to see the job done. I doubt that Kerry "the waffler" has 1% of the integrity and honesty of GWB. I also doubt that the WOT can be won at all if we put an indecisive ass like Kerry in the White House.

GWB fleshed out the "paper tiger" of America and turned it against our enemies. If Kerry wins, look for the paper to be quickly stuffed back into that tiger....and since we rely on that tiger to protect us,...well, it doesn't bode well for our future security does it?

Maybe that's why Geoff is "lovin' it"?? He smells another 9/11 on the horizon once we give the waffle the keys to the kingdom? That would surely please the guy who "cheered when the towers came down" wouldn't it Geoff??

-z

 

[Brown]

Some advice to the president for future extemporaneous speaking:

1) Don't; you suck at it. Read a script, and don't look at the camera. Perhaps people will respect you for taking the time to craft an intelligent thought. It's unlikely, but we sure don't respect your current mode of delivery.

In the "Bushisms" thread, I also made the point that Bush needs work as an extemporaneous speaker. He needs lots of work. Clinton and Reagan were excellent at it (although Reagan was notorious for making off-the-cuff statements that the White House would later have to retract), and Nixon and Kennedy were pretty darn good, too. They attained their skill by practice. Lots of practice. Even while they were in the White House, they practiced.

Like it or not, extemporaneous speaking is part of the president's job.

And if the president is going to go on the campaign trail, he's got to brush up on his extemporaneous speaking. And he's got to have someone who is going to be honest with him about his image, not some yes-man who tries to salve the presidential ego by pointing out what was good but omitting mention of areas that need improvement.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So, Bush looked old and tired...that job would age anyone during this era.

Nope. He looked like a confused little bunny rabbit, caught in the headlights of an oncoming truck.

We need a leader. GWB, no matter what you may think of his actions, IS a leader.

By definition, GWB is a leader. So what? He isn't a very good one, because he does not know where he is leading you.

He saw the intel and he acted on it. It is not his fault that the friggin intel was wrong!

It was nothing to do with the intelligence, Rik. When is reality going to bite? Iraq was invaded for geo-political reasons, not WMD or links with Al-Qaeda. I know you wanna keep believing, but it is wearing a tad thin now, don't you think?

We can all play the blame game....and once we have burned our scapegoat, what useful thing have we accomplished?

You can burn Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney too, since they were the ones who were telling the scapegoat what to say.

Bush reacted to 9/11 in a proper way....he reacted to an act of war by going to war. Iraq was a valid target of the WOT. The intel wasn't good,....but Iraq was no Switzerland.

Oh boy. This paragraph alone puts you right up there with Bush, Rik.

Some cold hard facts for you:

IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11
IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH Al-QAEDA
IRAQ HAD NO WMD
IRAQ IS NOW OUT OF CONTROL
THEY LIED TO YOU AND YOU BELIEVED IT
NOW YOU ARE DEFENDING THE PEOPLE WHO LIED TO YOU

WHAT DOES THAT MAKE YOU?

We didn't invade an innocent, benign nation.

You pre-emptively and illegally invaded a nation. There are no "innocent and benign" nations.

I doubt that Kerry "the waffler" has 1% of the integrity and honesty of GWB.

I also doubt that the WOT can be won at all if we put an indecisive ass like Kerry in the White House.

Let me make it easier for you.....

"I also doubt that the WOT can be won at all."

GWB fleshed out the "paper tiger" of America and turned it against our enemies. If Kerry wins, look for the paper to be quickly stuffed back into that tiger....and since we rely on that tiger to protect us,...well, it doesn't bode well for our future security does it?

Maybe that's why Geoff is "lovin' it"?? He smells another 9/11 on the horizon once we give the waffle the keys to the kingdom?

What the US is facing is worse than 9/11. The United States is facing an economic and political catastrophe which will end the US hegemony which has existed since 1945. The American Dream is dead. Not because of 9/11, but because of the fact that the US responded to 9/11 not by wiping out their true enemy (OBL, Al-Qaeda) but by removing from power a secular leader who was the enemy of their true enemy. OBL kicked the US in the balls, and the US responded by doing precisely what OBL wanted them to do. The US removed his enemy Saddam, and placed themselves in a military-political nightmare which will haunt the United States for decades to come. The US used 9/11 as an excuse to execute a previously existing plan to enforce US global hegemony, a plan which has backfired so spectacularly that even somebody as anti-american as myself is astonished at the magnitude of the self-inflicted strategic defeat the US now faces. In summary : The US is f***ed. You cannot stay in Iraq. You cannot leave Iraq. Oops.

 

[Tmy]

We don't need a poll-taker in the Oval Office. We need a leader. GWB, no matter what you may think of his actions, IS a leader

-z

Leadership or ego driven stubborness??

These guys can never fess up to a mistake. Sorry if the CIA screwed up. Whos fault is that?? If its not Bushs then its the CIA head. THen you fire the guy. Fire somebody! But no, its the same old same old. We're still left with the failures and the people who failed.

 

[subgenius]

The notion that Bush doesn't listen to polls is blatantly untrue.
I listed the times he reversed himself elsewhere and was met with "What's wrong with re-assessing your position?" Sheesh. Have it your way, whichever that is.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Rik

To me you sound like a woman who stands by her husband even though he beats her every night. George W Bush is an incompetent fool who has led your nation into a nightmare it may never fully recover from. Yet here you are, repeating his propaganda and trying to defend the indefensible. Why, Rik? He is shafting YOU too. It is YOUR future that George W Bush has gambled fast and loose with, YOUR future that now has a serious question-mark hanging over it. Yet all you want to do is continue to defend him, regardless of the fact that it must now becoming obvious even to you that his grasp of reality is about as firm as that of Michael Jackson.

Geoff

 

[Tmy]

I doubt that Kerry "the waffler" has 1% of the integrity and honesty of GWB.
-z

GW BUSH, as an adult mind you, used his connections to get out of the danger of Nam. Some poor sapp ended up taking his place. Who knows what happened to that guy.

Its laughable to say Kerry has 1% of his integrity and honesty.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Oh Jesus h Christ! Somebody get me a mop I just puked all ove my keyboard.
Rik Just what universe are You living in? I have seen self deception at work but never on such a grand scale. Your post reminds my on the parrot sketch from Monty Python. I had to read your post twice just to make sure my eyes weren't decieving me.

I will not argue with your opinions but I will tell You this. Almost every day sometimes more then once I am asked ,"How can people actually believe this stuff?" or "Can you believe people think this guy (Bush ) is a good president?". I have copied your post to a file and printed it out and the next time I am asked those questions I will show them Your post.

 

[subgenius]

A leader leads. Both he and Condo have said that after receiving the memos warning of attack, no one told them they needed to do anything about it. Who's leading who?

 

[Hexxenhammer]

"Who's more the fool. The fool or the fool who follows the fool"--A Tribe Called Quest

Obi-Wan Kenobi said it to Han Solo first.

 

[Chaos]

Bush had evidence that OBL was a threat - and did nothing about it.

Bush had evidence Saddam was not threat - and he invaded Iraq.

Great. Just great.

 

[subgenius]

Bush had evidence that OBL was a threat - and did nothing about it.

Bush had evidence Saddam was not threat - and he invaded Iraq.

Great. Just great.

Oh you noticed that in the face of clear warnings he did nothing, and in light of spurious evidence he invaded a country.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Evidently Rik isn't the only soul with a distorted view of reality, Rush Limbaugh just said that last night's rendition of the Emporor's New Clothes, was :" A slam dunk, grand slam home run".

 

[Chaos]

Oh you noticed that in the face of clear warnings he did nothing, and in light of spurious evidence he invaded a country.

Indeed I noticed. It just made *click* a few days ago.

Apparently there is some use to this gooey grey stuff between the ears. Amazing.

 

[rikzilla]

Some cold hard facts for you:

IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11
IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH Al-QAEDA
IRAQ HAD NO WMD
IRAQ IS NOW OUT OF CONTROL
THEY LIED TO YOU AND YOU BELIEVED IT
NOW YOU ARE DEFENDING THE PEOPLE WHO LIED TO YOU

WHAT DOES THAT MAKE YOU?

Ahh....I didn't have to wait long for the Leftie Mantra(TM) did I?
<iframe width="100%" height="400" src="http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870231461"></iframe>

Geoff, you can ad-hom me all you want...I don't care. I may be politically unpopular here....but you ARE AN ACTUAL CARD CARRYING WOO-WOO! You are Under Cover Friggin' Elephant. The man who smokes DMT and thinks the hallucinations are REAL! The man who "CHEERED WHEN THE WTC CAME DOWN!" The man who said to Dr. Stupid that "The laws of physics sometimes cease to exist" in your apartment!!

Do you actually think you can ad-hom me??? So, you think I'm politically naive...fine....but what the f*ck are YOU??

...and simply what you are is a woo-woo troll. A guy that should not be trusted to give the correct time of day or color of sky without it being independently verified.

Goddamn it but who are you to cast aspertions on my judgement? You live in the most fragile of glass houses Geoff, and yet you've never swerved from throwing bombs.

-z

 

[Nitpick]

Admittedly, I had hoped to see Bush look bad. Yes, I confess. I'm nearly ashamed of it now. I got way more than I had asked for...
Whatever he was asked about, he just seemed to stumble off in search of the nearest shortcut to the dozen or so phrases he's apparently learnt by heart (sorry to say that, but that's the impression I got). And I realised that he can't be blamed for it. It's not his fault. That's the way he is. The blame lies with those (highly intelligent and eloquent) people, who chose (for whatever reason) to ask him to run for president. Rice can side step questions in perfect elegance, Rumsfeld can (sometimes) talk about nothing for half an hour and still give people the impression they've witnessed the birth of great thoughts, but George W. is unable to do that. I admit, half of the world's population (me included) wouldn't have probably done a much better job last night, out there, in the spotlight, but all those people are not the President of the United States.
And I'm not sure if it's just the spotlight. I know people who are bright but who totally lack the skill of talking in public: but still, among the stuttered fragments of sentences and the blackouts, you can distinguish bits and pieces of interesting ideas. Not so last night, in my view.
I just felt sad to see a human being so lost and so out of place. For me, towards the end at least, it all had a tragic touch.

 

[headscratcher4]

RiK:

If Bush was half the leader he thinks he is and you want him to be, we would not have gone into Iraq essentially on our own, and we wouldn't be there, essentially on our own, now (and, don't tell me about the coalition of the willing, it is us and the Brits and that's really it, the rest of the "willing" are fig-leaves).

We won't get out of Iraq on our own, so we should be there alone -- if we needed to be there at all (a doubious proposition in, admittedly, hindsight).

Leaders build coaltions and get ahead of the problem.

Bush reacts and tells himself it is initative.

BTW, a question in hindsight: knowing what we know today...i.e. no WMDs, an army that would melt-away under a little pressure, horrible infrastructure and bad repair and limited weapons and information capability -- was Saddam a threat to anyone but his own people? Could he have invaded any country in the middle east in the last two years without suffering exactly what he suffered by just sitting still?

I raise this not to make the argument that we shouldn't have done it...I think that now but when Bush went he had convinced me that they had the goods on Saddam and that at the very least there would be WMDs...rather, because it points to a serious inteligence failure (and one for which NOBODY has lost their job). It seems to me that, last night, Bush could have answered the question about mistakes, without impuning himself at all: I, as a new President relied on the CIA and NSA a little too much, they assured me they had the goods. I still belive Saddam was a threat to the US, but the CIA put me in a bad position in the world as many don't think I am telling the truth. What I would do differently, I would ask more questions, tougher questions, because to protect America we must both be strong and credible in the world..."

He couldn't say that 'cause he can't blame the CIA/NSA , without firing anyone, and he can't fire anyone because they told him what he wanted to hear and a fired CIA Chief, in disgrace, might tell Dan Rather that they told the Pres. there weren't really and WDAs.

But I rant...