posted
Okay, first of all, it has to be said: He needs a haircut. It looks like he has bedhead.
I haven't really heard him raise any good points or defenses yet.
He keeps either avoiding questions, or giving inadequite answers.
"This country needs to go on the offensive."
No! We don't . Why should we be the bully?
And he seems so angry, as if he's being personally attacked. I suppose he somewhat is, but as President, I would think he should compose himself better.
posted
Dude, it's only barely started. Even moreso with your pre-emptive bashing.
Why not wait until the conference is over. Or is getting the first thread on it in more important? (actually, that would probably be perfectly acceptable, as far as I'm concerned)
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's no reason why I shouldn't be able to comment on what I've seen so far.
Your post registered as nine minutes after it began. They hadn't even gotten past introductions.
quote:It's not as if I was bashing him before he even started the conference.
Um, and I quote:
quote:Okay, first of all, it has to be said: He needs a haircut. It looks like he has bedhead.
Personal attacks instead of attacking what had been said, which was barely introductions, which was not any content, which is what you were complaining about.
posted
To me it seems as though president Bush isn't very well prepare, he's been stumbling through and avoiding a large number of questions. It's almost like he's repeating the same old answers for some brand new questions
Posts: 73 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, one thing is clear from that press conference: Bush is on a crusade.
He claims we have a divine responsibility to bring freedom to the whole world, and seems to think war and invasion is an acceptable means (the ONLY effective means) of doing so. He claims that somehow terrorism will vanish if countries become free, although he never explains why or how it will happen.
This is the central problem with Bush's ideology: It's really, fundamentally about an American Jihad - killing the "bad guys", making the rest of the world like America, and doing so with all-out war. If you boil this press conference down, there's very few details on how it will work, but there's a lot of talk and rhetoric pointing to the worldview Bush seems to be stuck in.
posted
I think you're letting partisanship color your decision about the conference.
He may not have said anything amazing or even useful to the public, but he made it all sound personable. It makes a big deal, and about 95% of why these news conferences happen.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you're letting partisanship color your decision about the conference.
He may not have said anything amazing or even useful to the public, but he made it all sound personable.
Well, I'm not party-affiliated, so probably not. But I think you have to sift through the personable to find what he's really getting at.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I'm not party-affiliated, so probably not.
Oh, stop being evasive, Tres. It's really stupid. You know you already had an opinion on both Bush and the topics he was discussing, so stop acting so damn sanctimoniously objective.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think John is saying, hey, what do you expect from a news conference of this nature?
What is Bush going to do, break down Perry Mason style and say, YES i WAS NEGLIGENT!
Personally, I don't think we can blame Bush or any single American for September 11. But his actions after the bombing... well that's a different story.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the reporters really dropped the ball. I mean, this is only the third time President Bush has held a pres conference, it's at a time where there are some many different ways we could go, and those where the best questions that they could come up with? I learned almost nothing new or important. They were almost completely lacking insightful or more importantly specific questions. It was almost a complete waste of an hour.
That being said, I have a few thoughts.
I think that the President accomplished his goal. He definitely came across as both personable and sincere. I agree with some of his fuzzily worded thoughts, like that this a war against a political ideology and not a religion. It sounded good, although I felt that his invoking of a crusader ideology sort of cut down on this a bit.
I felt that three things came out that could/should be detrimental to the President.
1) As everyone is going to point out, he completely dodged the question on why he and the Vice-President were appearing before the 9/11 commission together, despite the commission's expressed desire that they testify separately. I was suprised that they didn't have an answer prepared for that, as it seemed like an obvious question. However, whenever someone dodges a question, especially when it had been clearly restated for him, it makes them look very bad.
2) The 70 number with the FBI agents. President Bush admitted that he had just found out that this number was innaccurate from today's testimony. This bothered me. It seems to me that this would have been one of the first things that should have been looked at when trying to analyze what went wrong to design a better system. That is, how could this have goten past 70 FBI agents? What's that you say, there weren't really 70 agents working on it. Then why the hell was I told that there were 70 agents? etc.
By admitting to the country that he didn't have such basic facts about the problems that led up to 9/11, President Bush seemed to me to be admitting that they didn't really look at these problems during the entire 2 and a half years that they've been obstensively learning from them and building plans based on the knowledge they had gained. If they didn't base their new security structures on defending against what actually happened, I'd be extremely interested in finding out what they did base it on.
3) The persistent denial of any responsibility. I don't actually think that this is going to hurt him, but I'm big into thinking that it should. We have a president to take responsibility. That's his job. This happened on his watch. The very nature of the job carries with it the responsibilty that happens on it. Were he a military commander tasked with defending a place, it wouldn't matter how tricky the enemy was in blowing that place up, he would still be expected to take responsibility for it. I'd like to note again that there is a big difference between blame and responsibility.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, stop being evasive, Tres. It's really stupid. You know you already had an opinion on both Bush and the topics he was discussing, so stop acting so damn sanctimoniously objective.
If you'd give me the credit of not writing off my opinions or the opinions of others, I wouldn't have to call you on it. You already have opinions on Bush too, as do most people on this thread - it doesn't mean you can't be objective and fair.
quote:The persistent denial of any responsibility. I don't actually think that this is going to hurt him, but I'm big into thinking that it should. We have a president to take responsibility. That's his job.
I agree - why couldn't he have just admitted some mistakes for one thing? I think he probably would have come out looking good if he did, provided it wasn't a biggie that he admitted to.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you'd give me the credit of not writing off my opinions or the opinions of others, I wouldn't have to call you on it. You already have opinions on Bush too, as do most people on this thread - it doesn't mean you can't be objective and fair.
I challenge you to tell me my opinion on Bush, if my posts have made it so clear. Yours are clear with every post, because it's always the same old routine.
edit: I never said I was objective, and I never said anything about fair. I said you're being sanctimonious and partisan. Just because you're not a registered Democrat doesn't make you not anti-Bush.
[ April 13, 2004, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: John L ]
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just very, very confused on people who are buying this "America is much safer now." From what? It's really obvious that IRAQ never posed a threat to the United States.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: that if you’re Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can’t be self-governing or free. I’d strongly disagree with that.
Brown-skinned? I also agree with the person who said that Bush is on a crusade. When he said that the almighty blessed us with freedom and its our obligation to spread it the rest of the world, I cringed. Literally. I have no problem saying Im anti-bush because of lines like that.
I also dont care about how either canidate comes across, I vote for the politics behind said politician. Kerry may not be the best, but he is certainly (CERTAINLY) the lesser of two evils.
posted
There is, of course, a somewhat "liberal" (that word is used very flexibly, in that it refers to trying to convince other nations to liberalize themselves) purpose for getting the oil in Iraq; it will make us less dependent on Saudi Arabia and thus give us more leverage on changing them.
This, of course, is just one possible reason, and not my personal opinion.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Equally likely scenarios: we could also power our Abrams fleets with Iowa-grown biodiesel, or tell Israel to vacate Jerusalem on pain of no more free F-16s.
As it is, Saudi oil is well under 10% of what we consume. If we were serious about using that as a bargaining chip, we already would have. Also, as was pointed out in another thread, their (official) government is the least of our worries.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Following Book's train of thought, another "liberal" aspect is that a free Iraq will probably create one of the biggest forced redistribution of wealth in history.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I understand that perfectly. I'm wondering why you're still voting for him after the well-thought out and well-founded criticism.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oduls is voting for Bush because first and foremost he wants the most amount of resources to fight the war on homosexuality!
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm actually planning to vote for Kerry now, believe it or not. Not because I like his policies, but because I don't.
If there's ever going to be any chance of positive social change, we need more than a few Republicans in office. We need people to change their attitudes. And our best shot at doing that, I think, is to have a few Democrats get their way for a while.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been trying to learn about the issue.. Everything I have learn seems to point to the fact that- This war really is not motivated by altruism... regardless of what Bush says. That Bush really cannot be trusted. That he really doesn't seem to be... that... bright... Prove me otherwise somehow... I'm really trying to see both perspectives..
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This war really is not motivated by altruism...
I am SO tired of people posting comments like this with no backup. At least spin us a wonderful tale of what selfish motive he has for doing this, please. One with more basis than, "Oh, Iraq has oil, so that must be why it's happening."
Maybe even a little evidence to go along with the story?
posted
That's what I'm looking for. A bit of proof to chase my doubts away... I could be totally wrong. I know very little about politics and I'm hoping to learn.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think President Bush is one of the most Idealistic Presidents ever to hold office, perhaps even more so than Reagan.
This is a good thing normally, showing character and passion.
I just don't agree with his ideals.
And I believe that he is willing to go far for his ideals, but perhaps farther than is prudent or even moral--allowing his staff to mislead the country in order to acheive his ideals.
And like many people caught up in the passion of their ideals, they can not admit failure, mistakes, or errors because that means (wrongly perhaps) that their base ideals were wrong.
The ideal of freeing an enslaved Iraq, removing a sociopathec dictator's regime, and bringing peace, democracy and wal-mart to Iraq is a great ideal. However, the execution of that ideal has not been great. Criticizing the execution does not mean we are critixining the goal, or the ideals behind it.
Personal Responsibility is one of those ideals that President Bush talks often of. It is a shame he doesn't take some personal responsibility for his administrations actions. Its almost as if he sees and admiting of mistakes is a weakness.
This is seen in his attack ads on Kerry, and on anyone who attacks him. His administration digs into their past and points out times where they--Changed Their Minds, as if changing ones mind is a weakness, is in fact, the greatest sin your elected officials could make.
And he refuses to make it.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm too ADD for presidential news conferences. He kept going back over the same point he's already made a half dozen times already and Belle begins wandering...I actually got up and walked around the house. I probably would have turned it except hubby was watching it.
Now, I know that was the point of the whole "Stay on Message!" thing. But I just get so frustrated with the evasive answer stuff. It's not limited to any one politician or party, it's epidemic among all politicians and why it's so difficult to get excited and involved with politics.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, Belle: that is why I liked McCain and Howard Dean (and even Alan Keyes) so much. The party leadership of both parties destroyed all of their chances.
Witness the two-party system destroying democracy as we know it.
As to the President's news conference; yeah, Bush could use a haircut.
...My personal opinion is that anyone who could sit through that entire hour and not be convinced that President Bush is not trustworthy are themselves letting partisanship cloud them from seeing the obvious turmoil that poor decision-making from this administration has caused. The President completely avoided SEVERAL (if not mostly all) of the questions, and most of the reporters were throwing him relative softballs.
In fact I take the conference itself to be the best answer to the question of why he won't testify before the commission without Cheney by his side. I watched Condoleeza and Donald and Karl Rove sitting on the sidelines and they looked like they were praying Bush didn't say something stupid like "American Freedom for the world", which of course he did.
I'm not surprised or even outraged at this because I knew from the State of the Union Address that BushCo wanted the War on Terror to be a Crusade Against Evil where America is Obligated To Spread Freedom. That people don't recognize this kind of foreign policy objective as grossly out of context with the entire history of American geo-political relationships, aside from being unproved, untested, unvoted for and largely unplanned tells me that the only thing President Bush has going for him is that lot's of people have faith in him because of the "deep convictions in his soul" that he thinks are somehow relevant to our national security.
posted
"...despite all the sheeplike regurgitation of ill founded and rhetorical anti-Bush propaganda around here..."
That is sooo true! Look I have some issues with our current president too. But much of what gets thrown around here is pure political propaganda with an anti-bush/anti-current administration agenda, IMHO. And anyone who disagrees, or trys to point out the flaws in the "logical and thought out critiques", is shouted down as being a Bush apologetist (sp?) I can already see you raising the whips...let the flogging begin.
edit: Not to say that is not some very valid reasons to critique Bush and they too are not discussed here aswell. It's is just that there is a lot of bull too.
posted
NPR (I know, A hotbed of Liberal Activism)made a comment the other week. I forget who actually said it, but it was this:
Attacks on candidates are nothing new. Each attack add tries to point out a flaw or problem with the candidate/victim. However, you can get a rough idea about how truthful those problems/flaws are by the way the victim responds.
If they deny the flaw/problem, with proof, there is nothing to it.
If they admit the flaw/problem--then the problem is real, but the victim will try to show that its not a big problem after all.
If they avoid the problem, answering related but not specific charges, the attack probably has some truth behind it.
If they turn around and attack the source of attack, but don't mention the problem then there is probably something very damageing and truthful in that attack.
Those who have complaints about what President Bush said last night, and avoided saying, have been relatively specific in their attacks.
Those defending President Bush have simply attacked us, not the problems we mentioned.
I don't see us as simply reciting Anti-Bush Attack Ad Propaganda. We are asking for answers, and getting insults in their place.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I challenge you to tell me my opinion on Bush, if my posts have made it so clear. Yours are clear with every post, because it's always the same old routine.
edit: I never said I was objective, and I never said anything about fair. I said you're being sanctimonious and partisan. Just because you're not a registered Democrat doesn't make you not anti-Bush.
And just because the fact that I'm anti-Bush is clear does not mean I'm partisan and sanctimonious, or incapable of evaluating what is said in a press conference as well as you or others do. If you say stuff like that, you should not be surprised or offended when I have to come back and correct you.
I'm not clear about your opinions on Bush from your posts, but I'm fairly certain you have one just as much as I do, so unless you're going to deny this and claim no opinion on any issue you post about just give it up.
quote:I think President Bush is one of the most Idealistic Presidents ever to hold office, perhaps even more so than Reagan.
This is a good thing normally, showing character and passion.
I just don't agree with his ideals.
And I believe that he is willing to go far for his ideals, but perhaps farther than is prudent or even moral--allowing his staff to mislead the country in order to acheive his ideals.
And like many people caught up in the passion of their ideals, they can not admit failure, mistakes, or errors because that means (wrongly perhaps) that their base ideals were wrong.
I think this is very much true. Bush kept referring to "changing the world" in his press conference. He sees himself, and America, as a sort of white knight battling evil (the "enemies of freedom"), I think. Check out this quote from near the end of his question-and-answer session:
quote:So long as I'm the president, I will press for freedom. I believe so strongly in the power of freedom.
You know why I do? Because I've seen freedom work right here in our own country. 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.
In my mind, this was the clearest indicator that he sees this as a sort of crusade from the Almighty. Just replace every mention of the word "freedom" with something like "Islam" or "Christianity" and you can see how scary this sort of claim can be.
It's a sort of idealism that sounds good, and could be good in some cases, if the faith in "freedom" he's talking about here wasn't so blind to complexities of the situation and unwilling to change in the face of strong evidence. Freedom is a good thing, and a good thing to be spread, but it must be done carefully and delicately, especially when the peoples we want to convert have different notions of what freedom means than we do.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The press asked the "Will you take Blame" question 5 times in 5 different ways. Their reason was simple. They wanted a sound bite to play over and over of Bush saying "I was wrong." Bush couldn't give them this sound bite because the Kerry campaign would play it over and over and over and over and over in their ads out of context.
We don't invade China because A> We trade with them a great deal. B> They're large and powerful and the cost would outweigh the benefits (ie: They can NUKE us.) C> They're (very slowly) on the way to democrasy and Capitalism anyway as they see how much it benefits them.
Tresopax, Your views are WELL known and you ARE a partisan. You are an International Socialist Apeaser just like John Kerry.
The "Some people say Brown Skinned people can't govern themselves" was aimed at people, among them people here on Hatrack! who say things like "Maybe they just don't want democracy!" He was calling such people a racist. And he was correct.
And we intervine in non-oil countries all the time. We just assisted in the overthrow of a Clinton supported dictator in Haiti for instance. (I mention he was clinton supported because if I just said Aristeed(sp), someone would pipe up that WE PUT HIM THERE!! So I pointed out who specifically put him there.) It was over quick so no one noticed. But it happened. We also went into Somolia in the early 90s (till a certain president couldn't handle a few casualties and cut and ran, which emboldened the terrorists.) We also went into Afganistan, Grenada and Panama. I dare say we go into more non-oil countries than oil countries. One place we didn't go in the 90s where we should have gone was Rwanda. What, a million Africans died because the president in the 90s didn't care?
posted
Ironically, Clinton just last week wrote an editorial in which he apologized for not stepping up in Africa and instead letting all those people die. He said it should not ever happen again.
Posts: 1144 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tresopax, Your views are WELL known and you ARE a partisan. You are an International Socialist Apeaser just like John Kerry.
Yes, that IS my opinion and I'm glad I've made myself clear (although I might add that you believe appeasement works just as much as I do, although you believe it should only be other peoples appeasing America.) However, the point still remains that if holding an opinion means your opinions can just be written off as unobjective and partisan, then we might as well be quick with it and write off everyone on this forum right now.
I think there's a lot of solid, clear evidence that objectively points to the conclusion that Bush is a guy on a crusade, and that he is a poor president. If you can point to reasons why this is not true then we might be able to find out if I am correct or not. But "you're just being partisan" is not a refutation that will cut it here.
quote:The "Some people say Brown Skinned people can't govern themselves" was aimed at people, among them people here on Hatrack! who say things like "Maybe they just don't want democrasy!" He was calling such people a racist. And he was correct.
That would mean people who say "They want democracy" are racist too.... I think believing the citizens of a country hold a certain opinion is quite different from being racist.
posted
listening to the news conference last night, i did my best to put my political ideas aside, i want Bush out of office so i'm much more interested in how conservatives and republicans responded to the conference than i was in gettin myself all worked up. even so, i can't help but feel like he did a rather poor job. i guess i feel like the last question he was asked sort of expressed my feeling overall quite well, he was asked if he felt that he could do a better job communicating his message the the public, considering that his job approval has been going down and he has been largely repeating the same message for some time now. i guess i felt like he was basically unable to really respond to any of the questions he was asked, and resorted to either repeating what he has been saying for the past year or so, or simply dodged the question.
i post this more as a question to those of you who consider yourself conservatives/republicans -- how did you feel about the conference, what were your reactions? i'm not so much interested in the arguments that are going back and fourth about his policies and performance, i'm more interested in how you felt he presented himself and his actions. do you feel better or worse about him as our president after hearing him speak, do you trust him more or less?
quote:No Tres, Saying "Everyone wants democrasy" is definately NOT racist.
No, but it is false. It is possible to not want democracy. That is an opinion that people, in fact, hold.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
