Presidential press conference...

[Ya_know]

Any comments...

I for one thought that he needed a haircut before the live spot. I am sure he could have had someone come into his office before hand, while he was prepping up...

The questions about his "apology" were a bit over the top. He is doing a job that is one of the toughest in the world. Things that are not his fault...does it matter that he doesn’t apologies? I say NO. He has done an exceptional job thus far, although the speech last night was very week, and the answers for the questions seemed ill prepared. I feel he didn’t come off strong enough unfortunately. Also, the Fallujah problem needed to be addressed more clearly. What are we planning to do, just how much control do we have, and how much do we expect to have…well before the turnover of power deadline? I know that this stuff will unravel in the next few weeks anyway, but the purpose of the conference was to hear it from the President.

All in all, I am still going to vote for him, but I think he needs to get back to work on his public speaking presence. As it is now, I feel it will lose him the election if he does this poorly again.

[techs]

I agree about the haircut. I am unsure as to whether an apology is in order. I kind of wish he had taken the Truman approach, The buck stops here.
My take on Bushes inability to ever admit a mistake (except trading away Sammy Sosa which really wasn't his decision) keeps coming back to the fundamental nature of alcoholics. Bush has admitted a problem with booze in the past. If you have any experience with recovering alcoholics or read the literature almost all have a very strong sense of the importance of always being right. Stubborness might be the strongest positive characteristic of Bush as well as his strongest negative.
As someone old enough to remember the Viet Nam experience the real analogy, I believe, was that we made our staying such an important factor and set up conditions under which we would never leave that we painted ourselves into a corner.
I can't remember who but some senator said we should just declare victory in Nam and leave. We couldn't because we were so invested in our stated outcome that anything short of it became a failure.
In Iraq I think we have invested ourselves in a secular government that much like ours separates the church and state. In fact that is the unstated goal I hear whenever I hear Bush talk about a democracy over there. I think we would have a much easier time if we said that if the Iraqi people want a state religion its ok as long as it protects the rights of other religions. Then we could more easily win the support of the masses (if that is at all possible).
I really hope we don't paint ourselves into a corner where we are in Iraq for forty years like the British early in this century. Any occupying power spawns dissidents and in the arab world dissident means terrorist.
We have certainly made Iraq a fertile place for terrorist recruitment. I don't think any terrorist or potential terrorist is going to become a good citizen because of the fear the U.S. will invade some country. I think that only hardens their resolve.
Another thing that bothered me was Bushes constantly calling Sadrs action "illegal" and in violation of Iraqi law. That may work here in the US but the Iraqis have a different take. The "laws" are laws the US made. The government in Iraq was appointed by the US. The Iraqis see it as an illegal occupation government. We have also dictated to them a constitution. If their response is similiar to the French peoples feeling toward the collabarationist Vichy governement in ww2 they will pretend to cooperate but always hopeful they will be free again.
I think the Iraqis don't feel "free" now and won't until they have a government and constitution that they can say they themselves formed without any outside interference.

And for the record:
Political disagreement over the actual administration/war in Iraq is going to be difficult if the pro Bushers say anyone disagreeing is aiding the terrorists. Also people who disagree have an absolute obligation not to give aid and comfort to the enemy and the Iraqi dissidents are certainly the enemy.

[Wayward Clam]

...the Iraqi dissidents are certainly the enemy.

A very small enemy out of all the possible ones, but the one the US chooses to focus on all the same...

[drewmaztech]

I have to admit I only made it half way through the conference before I bailed to play a new video game.

I admit my opinion of him is tainted from my general distain for the man, but I wanted to watch the entire thing though. About half way through I began to grow weary of the same questions coming from the reporters (just worded differently) and Bush's same semi-answers.

It didn't much change my opinions.

[pmetal]

I thought it went okay. He was fairly strong in his stance, which I believe he has to be.

The questions were extremely weak. They keep wanting him to apologize for 9/11. If I recall, HE didn't commit the heinous acts that day, so why apologize for something he didn't do.

We've come to be a society that wants to point the finger at ONE person for any and all things that go bad. This was something that was born of years and years of neglect (for lack of a better word).

Anyway, I thought it went okay. I'm just glad he didn't sink to the "finger-pointing" level himself.

Out

[techs]

The one question I would really like to asked is this:
"Do you think the failure to prevent 9-11 was due to the laws governing tthe CIA and the FBI or was it a failure of the people in those agencies, or both. And if you bleieve it was a failure of the people in those agencies how come 2 1/2 years later you have not fired those responsible for the failures"?

[pmetal]

The one question I would really like to asked is this:
"Do you think the failure to prevent 9-11 was due to the laws governing tthe CIA and the FBI or was it a failure of the people in those agencies, or both. And if you bleieve it was a failure of the people in those agencies how come 2 1/2 years later you have not fired those responsible for the failures"?

That's not a bad question.

But, they DID fire, or declined to promote, one who had a hand in the failure. I think he just wrote a book........hmmmmmmm........what was his name again? D!ck something.......

[inferno_gn]

Hi there,

He is just covering his butt.

Ju Leon...

[jitBob]

Hi there,

He is just covering his butt.

Ju Leon...

Hi there,

Is that why you wear a hat? To cover your butt?

lol

[techs]

That's not a bad question.

But, they DID fire, or declined to promote, one who had a hand in the failure. I think he just wrote a book........hmmmmmmm........what was his name again? D!ck something.......

Actually they didn't promote or fired the one guy who was screaming a warning at the top of his lungs.

[cisco2]

I think Bush really needs to work on his public speaking abilities. I too grew weary of the same questions and answers reworded and thrown back out. I think Bush has done a good job of going after the people responsible for 9/11 and I think he should be recognized for staying tough as he promised to do.

There are certainly things about Bush I don't prefer but all in all I give him more positive marks than negative.

All this talk about who in America is to blame for 9-11 is just really pissing me off. We got blind sided. Finding out what we can do to help prevent that from happening again is certainly a good idea. Going back and finding Americans to blame for that horrific act like they were grossly negligent or even partially culpable is just plain wrong. I've watched some of the hearings and the tone of them is very much negative and it seems to me they're just looking for people to blame. Lets drop the McCarthy era hearings and stop trying to ruin the lives of good people who love their country and we all know dam- well would have done anything to prevent 9-11 had they had any inkling it might happen.

Looking for solutions for the future is one thing, all this search for blame is another entirely. Very negative, very wrong.