April 13, 2004
Bush Press Conference
I’m sure there are a lot of different opinions on Bush’s April 13 press conference, so I’ll throw my impressions out first.
Bush seemed to be very well prepared, and I think he’s a better speaker than he was in 2000. This could be bad news for Kerry, since Bush won that time (or at least got the tiebreaker).
His insistence on getting back to his talking points on most questions was annoying, but expected from a modern politician.
I don't think there was any new information tonight, but it was good to see him take tougher questions (not all of them) than at the press conference directly preceeding the war.
Even though he was well prepared, he had a significant problem with a question for which he hadn't practiced. Paraphrasing, it was "What's your biggest mistake since 9/11." He fumbled around a lot, even expressing a desire to have had the question provided in writing in advance, but eventually he got back to his talking points without every specifying a mistake.
Also, I was disgusted with his answer to the question about his insistance on testifying jointly with VP Cheney. He was obviously unhappy with the question, so he completely avoided the question in under a minute. I think the question was valid, but I guess he just didn't want anyone to think about it too much.
Overall, a good performance, but I don't think it'll change anyone's minds.
Posted by LawnBoy at April 13, 2004 09:48 PMConsidering that he outright lied in several cases, I have a very different view of the conference than you do.
Just from memory now:
1. He claimed that Saddam was an ally of Al Quaida. “they lost an ally in baghdad…” Bin Laden’s ideology firmly condemned Saddam’s secular government.
2. He claimed that he originally thought that Al Quaida was responsible for 9/11 and that it was later confirmed, when everyone has said that he first asked about Iraq.
I’ll post more if there are any when I have a chance to review a written transcript or a recording of the conference.
Posted by: Jarin at April 13, 2004 09:58 PMThat’s why I said it was a good performance. I don’t think he answered the questions fully in many cases, but his speaking skills seem improved over the last few years.
On the other hand, there were quite a few word-choide and grammatical blunders that made me cringe, so maybe he’s blessed again by his low expectations.
Posted by: LawnBoy at April 13, 2004 11:37 PMThe question I really wish someone had asked was how the postwar planning was bungled so badly. The best practices from international nation-building and peacekeeping say that we should have “buil(t) a transitional security force to arrive immediately behind combat troops and to focus on classic constabulary duties; prepare(d) to demobilize and then selectively reintegrate Iraqi soldiers; establish(ed) a United Nations-led transitional administration; recruit(ed) standby teams of judicial officials, as well as of international police officers; and so on.”
None of that was done. No international police force was readied, no international judges were contacted and the planned reintegration of the Iraqi Army was abruptly abandoned. If those known policies had been established, there would have been a much better chance of stopping the postwar looting, building quick security, and probably saving American lives.
Why did the administration let its habitual aversion to nation-building lead to such bad policy? Why aren’t they being held accountable?
Posted by: LawnBoy at April 13, 2004 11:49 PMDo you really think it would have mattered if they did ask it? He didn’t actually answer the question of how intelligence went so wrong to begin with, he danced around it and then said that he thinks they could still find the weapons in time.
Posted by: Jarin at April 14, 2004 12:24 AM President Bush when asked about any mistakes he might have made could only comment that he was too slow on his feet to think of any. Maybe he thinks with his feet. He has had a few years to contemplate that concern, however.
Bush gives me the impression of a petulant little boy who is reacting to his won failures which he cannot accept.
The president did make a comment which I suspect will escape notice and that was that our problems with North Korea stem from the bad peace resulting after WW ll. Amazing.
Lastly, when I called the paper to check if I had heard this correctly.they suggested I use the web and check the transcript. But all the networks has was a transcript of the president’s statement. One of the persons at the paper went so far as to suggests that the news conference itself had not been transcribed yet. Amazing.
Jarin,
You’re right, he would have danced around it like he danced around the question of private security guards being more numerous than any national force other than ours and Britain’s. However, I’d like to hear what the excuse might be, and I’d like the question to be in more Americans’ heads.
Posted by: LawnBoy at April 14, 2004 12:29 AMdonroar,
To be fair, here’s what he said:
I was having dinner with Prime Minister Koizumi, and we were talking about North Korea, about how we can work together to deal with the threat. The North Korea leader is a threat. And here are two friends now discussing what strategy to employ to prevent him from further developing and deploying a nuclear weapon. And it dawned on me that had we blown the peace in World War II, that perhaps this conversation would not have been taking place.
He was saying that our success in rebuilding Japan had enabled the conversation between the leaders of the US and Japan, not that WWII caused the problems in Korea.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2004/04/13/bush13.DTL is one place with a transcript.
Posted by: LawnBoy at April 14, 2004 12:34 AM Thanks for the information on the transcript Having read it, it says what I thought I heard not what you suggest should be a fair interpretation of what he said.
I’m sure you are familiar with those who made the historical argument that Roosevelt and Truman sold out America after the war. All of which escapes the complexities of historical views. Hindsight is not 20/20.
Perhaps we should again discuss the atomic bombing of Japan and the like. So the notion of bing fair is not the concern. Let’s get hysterical, I mean let’s get a little historical.
Lawnboy, here is a basic fact. In any war / post war, PSD’s are used for protection of non-military people. The PSD force in Iraq is mostly located in Saddams palace, (USHQ,) and in Bagdad. I have photos of my son hanging out with them, (He’s a Marine,). This is nothing new, it is the first time I have seen it used as a political statement by a reporter.
It is a good paying job for ‘EXERIENCED HIGH RISK OPEN CARRY’ mercs, ex-military, and ex-secret service.
The military protects locations, not people. You will find large PSD forces in all wartime and post war environments, elections in violent places, and private applications, not just ones with US troops.
Thought you might want to know.
Posted by: Alex at April 14, 2004 11:49 AMAlex,
I’m not against the PSD’s, per se. However, I think that they shouldn’t be necessary because Iraqi police and security forces should have been set up more quickly (as described in the ‘best practices’ link above). The fact there are more of them than troops of most countries might be standard practice, but I don’t know, but it seems suspicious.
My point was that Bush completely avoided the question. It’s a standard technique in the political world, but disappointing.
Posted by: LawnBoy at April 14, 2004 11:56 AMI think the reason for the large number of PSD’s is due to the lack of experience of the Iraqi recruits. We have people who have never before had the responsibility to run police, or any gevernment service.
Normally, when a war ends, we follow the “best practices” due to the ability to place experienced people back in thier positions.
Here, we cannot put the experienced police in, they were Saddam loyalists, and we loose credibility. We have to start over…
Posted by: Alex at April 14, 2004 12:28 PM*I think it is appropriate to grade this man’s speech and Q&A, so I will engage, disagree if you choose. I would also like any Republican and Democratic feedback if possible on this if any are reading this.
I am seeing a “rudementary George” not unlike >”Curious George” but with mindblowingly articulate statements like:
“…He was a danger, meaning he was a threat (is that what danger means?)…so he had to be dealt with” Oh ‘Rudementary George’ you are quite the silver tongue aren’t you. But….
*I did actually LIKE the lack of smoke-filled back room and the taking of questions from the left to ‘plain-talk’ with critics. I absolutely liked it! Other dems may dispies him so whole-heartedly that they can’t see the humbling but I think it is a fine start and the coming to terms withj the public was not lost on me.
See this administration thus far has been out to ISOLATE the left as if treasonous and this was a healthy start in the other direction. The less our “Redundant George” has to do with Karl Rovian anthem-izing the better, this was a nice break in routine. Maybe this will lead to getting rid of those stupid print-out backdrops that spell the ‘subject of discussion’ over and over again.
Now as for the utilization of Nato to monitor borders I see this as a very positive move in the terror war.
ANOTHER THING if you will notice there was no smirking, if this administration wants us to believe he isn’t using focus groups to ferret this facial unpopularity out they are going to have to try a little harder. That “we don’t do popular polling” sack of BS sells to the scarcely attentive and not to those following politics more closely.
GEORGE DONE GOOD, Jane Goodall happy :))
Left and Right comments and responses welcomed
Posted by: yayforebonics at April 14, 2004 02:43 PMI sometimes think George’s bungling, rambling, style unintentially works because it so infuriates the left that the right has no choice but to dig-in and defend him. This further blinds the right to any sense of his shortcomings. Maybe we ought to soften the harsh critiques of the president and try to be a little more supportive. After all he’s sending billions of U.S. taxpayer’s money to build schools, roads, sewage treatment plants, hospitals etc… in Iraq and has the courage to sacrifice the lives and bodies of thousands of young Americans in order to free the people from a history of oppressive rule and from “the fallen.” How can any true liberal really disagree with that? He’s even taken the risk of bankrupting Medicare to expand the program to include prescription drugs for the elderly. Ease up, George is a sheep in a wolf’s clothing.
Posted by: Steve at April 15, 2004 02:00 AMI almost felt sorry for the Pres. I thought he was going to pass out a few times from what was obviously a very very stressful experience. You know, in the first book of lists it says more people are afraid of public speaking than they are of dying. The Pres simply didn’t know the answer to anything. He hasn’t even a concept of personal responsibility.. you’d have thought he might have said that he felt a little, ah, something…about the 75+ casualties this month.. or as long as he was so mad at the innocent people who Osama killed that he might have felt a twinge of regret for all the innocent casualties in Iraq.. aprox. 650 so far this month.. it’s been so long since the President’s topped Osama.. way back in Afghanistan they’d broken that record..but..nodda one regret… that’s what I’d call a blockbuster ego..I’m convinced that his fraternity experiences are what gave his such a circumspect ability to be self critical. In fact, now that I think about it.. when you compare how he and Cheney have divided up the ‘executive’ responsibilities… I think it’s his former experience as a pledgemaster that have served him best during these trying times… and those heartfelt speeches at the toga parties..
Posted by: flash103 at April 15, 2004 05:54 PMOh, and I’m convinced that when that when they release the Bush papers.. what is it, 16 years after his term ends.. it’s gonna turn out that not only is he the most ignorant individual who has ever been president but that most of the preparation for these press conferences involved teaching him not to sneer into the camera.. anytime the serious expression abandons him that mocking sneer comes back.. “Mr. President, please don’t smile when you are talking about war, or casualties, or what a wonderful wartime leader you are, or how only you know the real meaning of difficult concepts like freedom or good or brave.”
But you know.. I heard Fred Barnes commenting on how he said the same thing no matter what the question… Fred Barnes.. Mr. Circumspect himself.. described the president’s choking, nervous, stammering, repetitious responses as… planned, determined,.. or some other such nonsense.. I agree though with an earlier blogger who said that Bush’s performance is so pathetic that the genuine right-wingers.. who don’t score very high on their current event tests either.. just feel like the HAVE to support him.. He’s the Pres, right..???
God Bless America and God Bless us all.. we’re really gonna need it..
OK.. and one more thing.. that off the wall comment about wwII and his conversation with the Japanese Prime Minister.. you could just see this Pres turning to the Prime Minister reminiscing about the good old days after World War II.. I’m sure that really went over big time… Bush sort of bragging about how well everything went… like somehow he is Mr. Insight… give me a break..
Posted by: flash103 at April 15, 2004 06:23 PMOK.. I lied.. just one more thing.. I heard this president speaking about Winston Churchill when all of a sudden it is clear that he is comparing himself to Winston Churchill… This President sounds… like he sounded the other night.. like everyone else is wrong… nobody in the room has insight.. or leadership skills.. or the ability to think critically like.. you know who.. himself. The next day I happened to hear his press conference with Prime Minister Sharon.. it was amazing.. it was the American Press Corps turn to ask the Prime Minister a question and when things got turned around and Sharon is looking at the Israeli Press Corp.. and the US Press called out to him.. The Pres chastises the US Press and started lecturing them about being rude and inappropriate… The Prime Minister was obviously just like everyone else in the room.. stoned.. Bush was just sort of ad-libbing… doing the megalomaniac bully impersonation that he does so well, and quite obviously scolding the press corps..
Posted by: flash103 at April 15, 2004 06:37 PMRegarding Donaor’s erroneous interpretation (on 4/14) of what the pres said and lawnboys gracious attempt to enlighten Donaor..
The actual transcript supports lawnboy..
“And a free Iraq is going to be a major blow for terrorism. It’ll change the world. A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East is vital to future peace and security.
Maybe I can best put it this way, why I feel so strongly about this historic moment. I was having dinner with Prime Minister Koizumi, and we were talking about North Korea, about how we can work together to deal with the threat. The North Korea leader is a threat.
And here are two friends, now, discussing what strategy to employ to prevent him from further developing and deploying a nuclear weapon. And it dawned on me that, had we blown the peace in World War II, that perhaps this conversation would not have been taking place.”
You know, I have been reading these comments and I am confused. I do not know what Lawnboy meant. I am not really up on my American History. And I did not have a clue what Pres. Bush was trying to say conserning WW11. I was confused during the press conference and am not any less so now.
Can someone explain what Lawnboy was trying to say?
Posted by: Barbara at April 15, 2004 07:17 PMBarbara,
I’ll try to explain what I said, but I’m not sure which comment confused you.
Assuming it’s He was saying that our success in rebuilding Japan had enabled the conversation between the leaders of the US and Japan, not that WWII caused the problems in Korea. I’ll give it a shot.
My interpretation of
I was having dinner with Prime Minister Koizumi, and we were talking about North Korea, about how we can work together to deal with the threat. The North Korea leader is a threat. And here are two friends now discussing what strategy to employ to prevent him from further developing and deploying a nuclear weapon. And it dawned on me that had we blown the peace in World War II, that perhaps this conversation would not have been taking place.is that such a conversation between Bush and Koizumi was a direct result of our successful rebuilding of Japan after WWII. He was saying that successful rebuilding of our enemies post-war can be very successful if the United States is patient and competent. If we had been unsuccessful in rebuilding Japan, we would not have Japan as an ally today trying to help us deal with N. Korea. By extension, if we persevere in rebuilding Iraq, we could be creating an important ally.
I disagree with the analogy for a couple reasons, but I hope that helps. Does it?
Posted by: LawnBoy at April 15, 2004 10:59 PMYes it does help. And looking at the comment again, I agree that that is what he was trying to say.
And I also agree that the analogy is faulty.
Thank you LawnBoy for responding.
Posted by: Barbara at April 16, 2004 12:44 PM
