Americans love humility. They love it when great people are humble. Part of what got W. as far as he has is his self-effacing, aw-shucks act.
At tonight’s carefully staged news conference (if I read between the lines correctly, he had a list of reporters, knew the questions they were going to ask, and had answers prepared…like “Hollywood Squares”), one of the last questions he got (and one which I think he didn’t know ahead of time) was that, in 2000, he said the biggest mistake he ever made was trading Sammy Sosa. But now, post 9/11…what would he say was his biggest mistake?
He couldn’t come up with one.
There was so many things he could have said that would have played well, cost him very little politically, and would perhaps have gone a ways to portray him as someone who learns from his miscalculations. Because it’s the lack of learning curve displayed by this administration that is its most alarming tendency.
He could have said, “I made a mistake in underestimating the levels of evil that a bin Laden would sink to. I pledge to my fellow Americans, I will never make that mistake again.”
Or, “I made a mistake in saying that the mission was accomplished. It’s not yet, but we have to finish it.”
Or, “I made a mistake in my estimation as to the intensity of fighting that continued in Iraq, but we have brave soldiers in the field and we will support them.”
Or, “I made a mistake in giving the country the impression for months on end that I was stonewalling the 9/11 commission.”
Something. Anything. In the words of Doctor Evil, throw us a frickin’ bone.
Nothing. Hundreds of Americans, thousands of Iraqis dead, WMDs still MIA, no clean exit strategy, no clear idea who runs Iraq after June 30, intelligence lapses being investigated…
…and he can’t think of anything in three years that falls under the category of, “Ooops. My bad.”
Whatever happened to the buck stopping at the desk where he sits? Or does that buck permanently rest on the Clinton desk, since Clinton continues to be blamed for whatever’s gone wrong in the past few years.
PAD
• 
I think the major problem with tonight was the fact that his handlers let one through. His comment about submitting the question ahead of time struck me as very odd, till I remembered that this was the same man who has set up areas for protesters at all of his appearences where the press cannot see them. In fact, the press aren’t even allowed there. It basically comes down to the fact that he doesn’t want the world to see that emperor W. is naked.
I’m an Canadian/avid comic book reader.
Anyhow, I still can’t figure out why out of the blue, the President of the United States decided to take down the evil Mr. Saddam.
I would have kept all my military resources focused on the finding the very evil monster who gave the money and the order to kill innocent civilians. I know Canadian military helped out in Afgan. But as for Iraq, there was no solid evidence to enter Iraq by military means.
This whole Iraq thing, everytime I hear that a highly skilled american soldier gets killed, I wonder how many more must die before the people of America say “ENOUGH!”…..
PAD,
You’re surprised? He’s pulled this dodge before. 9/11/2001, I’m watching Bush on TV, for the first time in memory _hoping_ he’d show some class and some courage — like Rudy Guliani who actually visted the site on the day. Bush looks like a teenager at a debate club, terrified of his audience.The only thing that could salvage the debacle would be Bush announcing he was abdicating and appointing Guliani his successor.
A few days later comes the staged, rehearsed, bells-and-whistles-and-rockets speech with a choreographed unanimous standing ovation. The text itself — merely competent. It would have been an accomplishment if Bush had delivered it the first time. However, the commentators laud it as the 21st century standard for erudition.
Kerry could not devise any political advertisement, positive or negative, as damaging to Bush as showing those two speeches in juxtaposition — the true one, reeking of failure from a man not up to his job, and the hoax.
I’d vote for a David Duke/Edwin Edwards ticket before I voted for George W. Bush.
This level of unwillingness to admit error is nothing new in the presidency:
Many folks, myself included, could have cut Reagan some slack if, after Iran/Contra, had said, “I knew it, and I blew it.”
did anyone else notice his insultingly blatant non-answer to the question as to why he and the vice president will testify together?
The thing that irritated me about the press conference tonight was the idea that Bush should apologize for 9/11. What a load of horse @#$!
Maybe I just don’t remember it, but I don’t recall any demands for Clinton to apologize for the first WTC attack, for the Oklahoma City bombing, for the Khobar Towers bombings, for our African embassy bombings, for turning down Sudan’s offer to hand over Bin Laden in 1996, for the US Cole bombing, etc, etc, etc.
Moreover, do we hear these calls for apologies every time there’s a terrorist attack in Israel? Again, maybe I just missed this, but when was the last time Ariel Sharon was asked by an Israeli reporter to apologize because some Hamas terrorist blew himself up on a bus?
What about the police? If someone robs your apartment or house, do you ask the cop who comes to take the report to apologize because you got robbed? No, you place where it belongs, on the criminal responsible. And as far as 9/11 goes, aren’t the members of Al-Qaeda the ones who should be apologizing? They’re the ones who planned the attacks and carried them out.
But Al-Qaeda’s not running for office in November and Bush is. Besides, the whole idea that Bush should apologize fits in perfectly with the Democratic approach to the war on terrorism. They’d rather promote the false idea that we can win on defense, that we can prevent attacks solely by beefing up our internal security. So if something goes wrong, if an attack gets through, that means WE must have screwed up and we’ll just have to spend more money and give the government more power to deal with the problem. That allows Democrats to sit back, like Clinton did and Kerry plans to do, and pretend that we’re taking significant steps against terrorism while actually doing very little of significance.
But that’s the wrong approach if we want to make American more secure. So if anything, people should be thanking Bush for relentlessly hunting down the people responsible for 9/11 instead of asking him to apologize.
^^Actually I noticed that he hardly answered any of the questions. He basically kept ignoring the 9/11 questions that the reporters kept asking over and over (IMO, I think the reporters blew this too. They were not listening to each other and they kept asking a lot of the same questions and not really good ones at that. Personally, I’d ask why we haven’t got Bin Laden yet..)
NOT only was he ignoring questions though, he was fumbling/nervous and he had a couple of brain farts in there (one really big one that was pretty obvious).
IF he did know all the questions that were going to be asked, well I tell you what, he didn’t come prepared for them!! Maybe he just had a list of names there…
Bush really has to be one of the worst public speakers ever. He was just horrible tonight (aside: I laughed when one of the FOX reporters said that Bush did a good job with the conference).
I just do not know why people would want to vote for Bush, especially after seeing something like this.
I really hope that another President gets in office next year and I HOPE that person can at the very least inspire more confidence and give a great speech or two (aside: I think, with all his faults, that Clinton was a person who good at public speaking. He definitly knew what he was doing there).
I know theres more to the president then just the public speaking and such, but being able to commenicate to the public is something that a president NEEDS to do (aside: even one of the reporters commented on the fact that Bush wasn’t a very good speaker!!).
I’m hoping for the best. Really.
DF2506
” Still doesn’t understand why we have Saddam, but not Bin Laden…”
bush has made mistakes lots of them but my problem is there doesnt seem to be a good alternative
i mean john kerry ?
i would prefer nader i voted for him in 2000
but to vote for him hurts kerry who i am not sure is up for the job
i really dont know what i am going to do
is there anybody out there who is going to vote for kerry for reasons other then he is not bush?
i mean, do you think kerry is the man for the job ?
if so, why?
Actually, I’m just surprised that Cheney wasn’t there on the podium with him. After all, if it’s good enough for the 9/11 commission, it’s good enough for a scripted press conference, no?
Blah, that’s all I have to say. I suppose I should have expected it by now, but it was so namby-pamby a first-grader could have gotten through the press conference unscathed.
To reverse my usual level of not liking Bush, he did actually show some emotion with some questions, which was a welcome change from most of his other appearances.
But as far as apologizing for 9/11, answering why he and Ðìçk “Halliburton pays me!” Cheney would answer the 9/11 commission together despite the panel’s requests, and asking what his biggest mistake was, he really came off as arrogant and evasive. Sorry to those who feel otherwise.
Let’s face it, I think a significant percentage of the American people think Bush fouled up in some way. This press conference did nothing, repeat NOTHING to aleve that. Combine that with his “Well, I’m not going to lose my job.” statement, and he smacks of either being cocksure or knowing something the public doesn’t. Either way, it did nothing for me. He had the opportunities, too. If he had confessed to a screwup just once, I would have changed my opinion of him. Not only that, but as PAD points out he could have apologized for something, minor or not, and it would have gained him huge points, without affecting his credibility at all.
However, he chose to deny that he had done anything wrong, and made the nice little statement that amounted to “I do what I please, polls be dámņëd!” I appreciate the necessity of having to follow your gut on things that can be dicey, but for someone who claimed to be a uniter and not a divider, it really doesn’t wash.
This may make headlines tomorrow, but don’t expect it to make a splash.
I don’t think bush knows how to apologize. All his life he’s had people to cover his ášš, and protect him from the reprecusions of his actions, no matter what he did. Why should he, or we, expect anything to change?
I agree, James, I don’t think Bush should apologize. I’m glad Richard Clark did, but at this point, Bush’s apology would just seem empty.
I have to disagree when you write:
**So if anything, people should be thanking Bush for relentlessly hunting down the people responsible for 9/11 instead of asking him to apologize.**
While he has hunted down some of the poeple responsible for 9/11, to say he did it relentlessly is just wrong. Pulling the team in Afghanistan that was looking for Osama and sending on the wild goose chase for WMDs in Iraq (and replacing them with a team versed not in Arabic language and culture, but in Latin American — well, there’s a clear example of relenting, IMO.
Rob Staeger
(There’s another Rob S that posts a lot here.. I ain’t him…)
Super Crusader, the fact that Kerry is NOT George Bush is an overwhelming reason to vote for him.
As someone said on Salon, Kerry was wise to keep silent; the quote said, “When your opponent is effectively committing suicide, don’t commit homicide.”
And as for Bush’s apology, he might not have to apologize for 9/11 happening. But his own reaction to it is well documented, minute by minute, in a Flash movie on this site:
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/true911.html
Watch this movie, Mr. Tichy, and then say with a straight face that he has nothing to apologize for.
“The thing that irritated me about the press conference tonight was the idea that Bush should apologize for 9/11. What a load of horse @#$!”
See, whereas what irritates me is the immediate knee-jerk erection of a straw man by Bush supporters pretending that something was said when it wasn’t because it’s easier to attack.
I didn’t say Bush should apologize for 9/11. In fact, I’m on record as saying that Bush shouldn’t be blamed for it/couldn’t have stopped it. There’s plenty of misfires since, however, that Bush could have stepped up to the plate about and said, “Yeah, I screwed up on that one.” But he didn’t. And couldn’t. Either because he’s clueless or simply is pathologically unable to.
PAD
I *did* notice his non-answer about why he and Cheney are testifying together, all the more telling when the reporter pressed him on it and he stonewalled him a second time.
What struck me the most was the way in which he overtly redefined ‘freedom’ (one of his favorite buzzwords) as a ‘gift from The Almighty’ to ‘every man woman and child on this earth’. He’d done so well not to let his fundamentalism show, but it slipped, and the implications of the slip are quite telling – he’s on a crusade!
“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. And as the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom.”
Not for nothing, PAD, but you keep expecting Bush to behave in a responsible, adult, intelligent manner. Why? Isn’t it obvious to you by now his role consists solely of being presentable for the cameras? His employers feed him his lines and he says them. Period.
I feel for you, I do. My country has had more than its fair share of degenerates in the PM seat, but none so bad. None so bad.
“is there anybody out there who is going to vote for kerry for reasons other then he is not bush?”
But that
“is there anybody out there who is going to vote for kerry for reasons other then he is not bush?”
To be fair, I’d consider voting for Bush if he weren’t Bush.
PAD
Well, Gorge W. did a good job of dodging blame, and giving non-answers to alot of questions, and eventhough reporters tried to trick him by rephrasing the same question, they just got a slightly different non-answer.
My personal favorite was dodging a clean answer on “pre-emptive strikes”, when does the US decide to go ahead and take action before another actually does something? It was a good question… and he weasled his way out of it.
Many folks, myself included, could have cut Reagan some slack if, after Iran/Contra, had said, “I knew it, and I blew it.”
Considering how long Alcheimizer’s can take to become fully noticable, it’s really quite possible that he really could not recall. It’s sad but true. I can’t talk to my Grandpa much anymore because even though he’s known me for twenty three years (my whole life), he doesn’t always remember who I am.
I cringed when the reporter asked him if he feels he should apologize. NO! I think Bush handled that question well. The terrorists are to blame for 9/11, and I don’t think it serves any purpose to try to blame Bush (or, as Ashcroft thinly attempted yesterday, Clinton) for what is an unspeakable tragedy. I was impressed by Richard Clarke’s apology, because it wasn’t really an “apology” but more a comment on his sense of personal responsibility for feeling like he’d failed to prevent a tragedy. Whether that is motivated by book sales or whether it was authentic, that’s for each person to judge.
But Bush scores low points for me overall. I missed the opening statement, so I can’t comment on that, but it was clear that Bush was inadequately prepared for the press conference. That’s not a comment on his intelligence. Bush isn’t stupid. He’s more intelligent than people give him credit for. It’s more a comment on his staff not preparing him well enough. He dodged questions left and right, and after dodging them, he dovetailed into his prepared remarks about Saddam as an evil man, 9/11 is a terrible tragedy, the war on terror needs resolve, etc.
By far, the moment that struck me most was when the President was asked why he would only appear before the commission with the Vice President. The President responds by saying: “I look forward to answering questions.” That prompts the puzzled reporter to follow up: “But why together?” Which prompts the President to say: “Because we look forward to answering questions. Next question.”
That’s a dámņìņg exchange, in my opinion. It suggests that either President Bush couldn’t answer the question in a politically favorable way, or that he wouldn’t answer it, period.
I’ll agree that a lot of the questions asked caused me to cringe. I thought, “This is the third press conference we’ve seen, and you’re using it to ask whether President Bush feels responsible for 9/11? Isn’t there something more substantive you can ask?”
But I think the President did TERRIBLE. That’s not a partisan remark. I think John Kerry’s performance in a few of the Democratic debates was equally terrible: dodgy, skirting the issue, etc.
It sounds harsh, but I could almost hear the wheels churning in the President’s head after each question was asked, and I knew that what was probably running through his head is, “How do I answer this question in the most politically favorable way, without tripping up and walking into a negative mine-field?”
It was a daunting press conference, that I’ll admit. But the President’s responses to the questions were not outstanding, and certainly it was not the kind of performance I’d expect from the leader of the free world, the commander-in-chief, and my President.
Michael,
>>I cringed when the reporter asked him if he feels he should apologize. NO! I think Bush handled that question well. The terrorists are to blame for 9/11, and I don’t think it serves any purpose to try to blame Bush (or, as Ashcroft thinly attempted yesterday, Clinton) for what is an unspeakable tragedy. I was impressed by Richard Clarke’s apology, because it wasn’t really an “apology” but more a comment on his sense of personal responsibility for feeling like he’d failed to prevent a tragedy. Whether that is motivated by book sales or whether it was authentic, that’s for each person to judge.
Expecting Bush to apologize for 9/11 has always sat funny with me. That being said, I am always amazed when someone could talke for over an hour and say absolutely nothing.
Bush not apologizing for 9/11 does not bu me and appears a non-issue… Bush not only being unable to admit any mistakes, but dodging that and almost all other questions scares the hëll out of me for our country and our future. There is wisdom shown when admitting one’s mistakes.
It looked like he has nothing left but cliches and sound bites. You could see him after each question running through them in his head and then picking out something that he thought might be close to an answer. For whatever reason, he’s no longer capable of coming up with an unscripted remark even if it would help him.
I find it hard to believe that with most of the questions obviously known beforehand (re: Bush’s own remark) he still couldn’t answer any of them.
What struck me the most was the way in which he overtly redefined ‘freedom’ (one of his favorite buzzwords) as a ‘gift from The Almighty’ to ‘every man woman and child on this earth’. He’d done so well not to let his fundamentalism show, but it slipped, and the implications of the slip are quite telling – he’s on a crusade!
If saying that freedom is a gift from the Almighty is religious fundamentalism, then we need to have a serious look at the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Our country was founded based on that idea. We shouldn’t be so quick to cast it aside as fundamentalism.
The question was very open ended as well, meaning he could have admitted any mistake. Hëll, he could have even said “Yes, I admit it was a mistake that we didn’t go after Sadaam sooner then we did.” That answers the question, but is still enough of a dodge that he isn’t dámņìņg himself by going too far and admitting that he screwed up majorly. Not everyone would have been pleased with that answer, but at least it would have been an answer.
Or maybe even “I admit it was a mistake to wear this tie, since the pattern seems to be creating a rainbow effect to the viewers at home.” 😉
I find it interesting about there are complaints that there are “thousands of Iraqis dead” — never mind the fact that possibly half of them were shooting at us.
“no clean exit strategy” — since when was that ever an issue? The exit strategy is simple: once the Iraqi people are in control, with a government by their own people, then we exit. simple and easy to determine.
There’s no reason in the slightest for him to apologize for what happened on 9-11. None at all. To do so would only present another opportunity for his opponent to try and use something against him, AND he simply wasn’t responsible. To say he needs to apologize is as bad as those women who appear on Today all the time complaining about him to perky Couric. Their personal hatred of Bush has caused them to put is face on the terrorists that flew the plane into the buildings.
Richard Clarke’s apology meant nothing, especially from some one who can’t get his facts straight.
The fact of the matter is that there were multiple things that went wrong before 9-11 where the blame could be placed equally on both administrations (Clinton & Bush), but if Bush had attempted to stop some of the terrorists from boarding the planes would have created a greater firestorm from the ACLU and other “rights” groups.
“I find it interesting about there are complaints that there are “thousands of Iraqis dead” — never mind the fact that possibly half of them were shooting at us.”
Perhaps JP, but the USA is the INVADING, OCCUPYING force, we’re the outsiders forcing our views on their country.
For just a second, I ended Bush’s comment “If I had known that they were going to fly planes into the World Trade Center towers, I would have moved…” with “the towers farther away” instead of “heaven and earth”.
I really wish that the Repubs had decided that it was Colin P’s destiny to run this year.
“The fact of the matter is that there were multiple things that went wrong before 9-11 where the blame could be placed equally on both administrations (Clinton & Bush), but if Bush had attempted to stop some of the terrorists from boarding the planes would have created a greater firestorm from the ACLU and other “rights” groups.”
And you know this how?
Didn’t see it myself…I’m on vacation, though not, obviously, from the internet.
Bush never comes across as any great speaker; he can’t almost make you believe that there are many multiple was of using the word “is” or that two people in a room having oral sex are not really “alone” because, hey, it’s a big world out there and are any of us ever truly alone? And anyway, if two people are in a room they are, by definition, not alone because they ahve each other!
So he ain’t so slick. But I’m not sure that’s as much of a weakness as some think.
The big news, which seems to be flying by over the heads of those who are more worried about some generic Barbara Walters type question, is that he will probably be increasing troops in Iraq. This is both wise and will also come as a surprise to those who predicted that the big election move would be to bring them all back right before the polls opened.
The thing that irritated me about the press conference tonight was the idea that Bush should apologize for 9/11. What a load of horse @#$!
See, I don’t buy this.
Not that Bush himself should necessarily apologize like he’s taking the blame for 9/11, but the gov’t has failed us for more than 20 years on this.
Yet Bush is still one of those pieces of the puzzle.
The lack of forsight, communication between groups, intelligence, for supporting the enemy of our enemy (bin Laden as well as Saddam).
Everything. One miserable failure (let’s see what google attaches that to now, eh?).
Every senior official in the gov’t over the last 25 years should be apologizing, because 9/11 was preventable, as well as people in the airline industry.
We had Moussoui (sp?) in custody before 9/11. We had the airline industry stonewalling every effort at increased security for the last couple of decades because, heaven forbid, it would cost money. A bunch of other corporate BS belongs here too (and, Bush is a corporate man).
9/11 was a failure of the leadership of our country as a whole.
Our country was founded based on that idea. We shouldn’t be so quick to cast it aside as fundamentalism.
In the very first speech after 9/11, Bush went on about how fighting terrorism was a Crusade.
Now, while some of us might not harber hatred for other religions for events over a thousand years ago, that was the first time with Bush that I went “Ooh. Ouch.”
And ever since then, it’s been religion this, crusade that.
You put the two and two together, and it sounds alot more like fundamentalism than it would to our Founding Fathers, many of whom were Masons, which iirc is a *little* different than your run of the mill Christianity.
Hah!
“Exit strategy”. jprill… are you serious?
American troops will likely be in Iraq for years, if not decades. How long did it take for us to leave Germany and Japan?
We’ll be there for a long time, especially if we build permanent military bases there… since we’re out of Saudi Arabia now.
There’ll be no exit from Iraq for the majority of our troops there for years, IMO.
I wasn’t for it, but now that we’re there… it would be a shame to have the country go to hëll… which it would if we just up and left.
Become an Islamic theocracy like Iran, or split apart, or just become a serious mess.
…
By the way, does anyone else find it ironic that on the one hand, US money is founding a “major Iraqi newspaper”, but on the other hand, we’re shutting down newspapers? Now, some have described the one that was shut down last month as nothing more than a propaganda rag, and that may be so… but there seems to be something odd about how we’re giving the Iraqis freedom, as long as it’s freedom to say things that aren’t critical or damaging to us…
… or maybe that’s just me.
I think we’re getting sidetracked on the apology for 9/11 issue. What PAD said was that Bush was asked what he considered his greatest mistake and he couldn’t name one, it didn’t even have to be related directly to 9/11 given the examples PAD listed of possible mistake Bush owned up to.
I think this inability to admit to an mistake is a pathology endemic to this administration. From Rummy’s dismissal of rampant looting as “untidyness” to Rice’s “nobody asked me to do anything” whine to the 9/11 commission, this crew seems to have a deep-seated fear of admitting any kind of falibility. I never thought I would say this, but I miss the days when Reagan was willing to go before the press and speak off the cuff. I think Reagan held an unscripted press conference at least every six months. This is Bush’s what? Second or third press conference? And like all of his public appearances, he gets a cheat sheet so he doesn’t stray off the talking points.
It’s a very surreal world we live in. Our political coverage is tightly scripted and prepared so that our leaders never have to think on there feet, yet our entertainment is dominated by looselly scripted “reality” programs.
Well, no President wants to admit a mistake, especially in an election year. There’s always a fear in politicians that if they admit a mistake in such a public forum, it’ll become a sound bite that will come back to bite them in an attack ad later. The Bush campaign has certainly tried to use Kerry’s words against him, and frankly, I have no doubt that Kerry would do the same, because politics has become more and more about slinging mud and picking the candidate who you perceive comes out “cleanest” comparatively.
At this point, though, if Bush had come up with an honest and sincere answer for a mistake, if he had expressed a little humility, which is the topic of PAD’s post, I’d respect him for it. I wouldn’t attack him for it. I wouldn’t vote for him, but I’d respect his courage. 🙂
It’d never happen by either Bush or Kerry, though.
But yeah. Humility can be a good thing. It’s definitely not a characteristic I perceived in Bush from the question and answer session last night. When several reporters questioned him about the WMDs, he got visibly flustered and essentially said, “Look. Saddam Hussein was an evil man. He was a threat to America.” True. Absolutely. Horrible. Terrible. Dictator. Check. Check. Check. I question the President’s using “Iraq” and “9/11” in the same sentence, but okay. I’ll go along with it.
That doesn’t really answer the question though. It answers a possible follow up to the answer that the reporter asked for, but it doesn’t answer THAT question.
That’s why his performance didn’t impress me. He was fumbling for the right words to express his point, and kept coming back to the script.
I dunno. Call me a political idealist, but I want the President to be a little more astute on his toes, a little more forthcoming, and a little more humble.
I guess I’m an idealist. *shrugs*
James Tichy: Maybe I just don’t remember it, but I don’t recall any demands for Clinton to apologize for the first WTC attack…
Luigi Novi: Perhaps because he had been in office for only 37 days when it happened? And because only 6 people died? And because the FBI, ATF, NYPD and U.S Attorneys cooperated with skill and determination to eventualy identify, catch, extradite and prosecute all or most of the conspirators who did it?
James Tichy: …for the Oklahoma City bombing…
Luigi Novi: Perhaps because Timothy McVeigh acted with one or two conspirators using affordable explosives that were easy to acquire, and placed in an easily rentable Ryder truck in an comparatively unimportant government building with no prior history of being targeted, making it unlikely to generate harbingerous hints that would show up on the radar screen of the major Federal law enforcement agencies, let alone the President?
The bit that genuinely scared me the most…
“Our obligation is to spread freedom throughout the Middle East.”
Oh Boy. There goes the neighbourhood and the forseeable schedule.
John
Here’s the 9/11 testimony dodge:
From the transcript:
——————————————-
Q Mr. President, why are you and the Vice President insisting on appearing together before the 9/11 Commission? And, Mr. President, who will you be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?
THE PRESIDENT: We will find that out soon. That’s what Mr. Brahimi is doing; he’s figuring out the nature of the entity we’ll be handing sovereignty over. And, secondly, because the 9/11 Commission wants to ask us questions, that’s why we’re meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.
Q I was asking why you’re appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.
THE PRESIDENT: Because it’s a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 Commission is looking forward to asking us, and I’m looking forward to answering them.
——————————–
Shameless.
It’s not very hard at all to figure out why Bush and Cheney are testifying together before the 9/11 commission, if you’ve watched any of the public testimony.
For all of the talk of a non-partisan investigation, both sides are being partisan as all get out. If there was *any* *tiny* inconsistency between Bush’s and Cheney’s testimony, it would shortly be leaked to the press that there were inconsistencies between their versions of the story and *then* the whole (supposed to be private) testimony would have to be released to the public to quell the ensuing firestorm in the press.
By testifying together, the chances of inconsistent testimony are greatly reduced.
Now, you can say that the testimony would be inconsistent because they are busy lying and you *might* be right. It might *instead* be the case that it was an insane day and human memory is imperfect.
And I can’t tell you which case would be the truth.
You know, I’m a republican. I don’t blame Clinton for any of the mess going on in the world today. So please don’t say it’s all Bush’s fault either. Way back in the day the President’s office wasn’t that huge of a deal. Sure, it has a lot of power, but it certinly doesn’t run every aspect of this nation. Presidents have to cordinate with the other branches of legislation. The President simply doesn’t have that far reaching power. In the last century the Presidental office has been percieved as larger – becuase we all want a single person to focus on. Any President, no matter what mistakes they make, I’d like to think they should be respected for putting such a freaking large bullseye on themselves. So to blame Bush for everything is like saying you personlly want a scape goat – so you know where to go with the pitchforks.
I didn’t agree with Clinton on a lot of matters – but I’ve never thought he was responsibly for 9/11, any more than Bush was. NOBODY could have perdicted such events. If ever the meaning of 20/20 hindsight was exemplified – it was with this event.
Just to confirm, yes, the Presidential press conferences are all better staged than any show on Broadway. Questions are submitted by the reporters in advance, the White House chooses which ones to answer, and show up with their canned responses. Reporters who don’t play along are simply ignored, which gets them into deep trouble with their editors. I’m surprised to hear any non-screened questions got through at all, and I’ll bet whoever asked it won’t get invited to the next Bush press conference.
As for voting for Kerry over Bush, I plan to vote for Kerry because I believe he’s the better-qualified candidate. Of course, I also believe a sock monkey would be better qualified than George W. Bush, but that’s a different matter all together…
By the way – anyone see last night’s Whoppi? How’s that for timing?
Now, you can say that the testimony would be inconsistent because they are busy lying and you *might* be right. It might *instead* be the case that it was an insane day and human memory is imperfect.
And I can’t tell you which case would be the truth.
I can tell you that you would be more likely to get the truth if you get the inconsistent testimonies and then investigate the inconsistencies. And you may be even more likely to get the truth if they were under oath.
I don’t blame Bush for 9/11, and I don’t expect him to apologize. No one foresaw the possibility, except for Tom Clancy, and if that’s anyone’s fault, it’s our counter-terrorism experts’ faults. I disagree that we should have gone into Iraq, but now that we’re there, I don’t think we should leave until we’ve helped them create a new government. Still, Bush did nothing but dodge questions after question last night. It was disapointing. I’m not particularly impressed by Kerry, and I’ve no idea what his platform is. However, Bush’s inability to tell us Why he’s doing or has done anything terrifies me.
I think what the American people want more than humility from a president is an ability to speak with a sincerity that shows he truly believes what he is saying. Whatever you think of either Reagan or Clinton, both men were able to answer questions in a way that made you believe that they were speaking from the heart, that this is what they believed in. Watching Bush fumble over carefully scripted answers made me feel that this man believes only in George W. Bush.
Oh that Lefty media!
Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire.
…
Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers, that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we know where they are. How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents, who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series a false premises?
…
Two-and-a-half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?
…
Do you feel a sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?
…
One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it
I know a LOT of high school and college level debaters who have a better command of the floor than our President does. Just last week, my college debate society trashed the living bejesus out of our on-campus rivals in our annual debate, and our on-campus rivals were giving better responses than the President did last night. How can anyone place their confidence in a man who **can’t answer a question unless he knows what it is beforehand?** I mean, **this** is the guy who’s leading us to a better tomorrow?
This is no-brainer stuff– If you’re going to hold a press conference, prepare for it. Assume there’s going to be at least one ringer in the press corps who’s going to slip an ‘uncleared’ question by you. With the 9/11 Commission hearings being the news of the day, how can the leader of the free world show up to a press conference utterly unprepared to answer any and every question related to the 9/11 hearings? Granted, you can’t plan for every conceivable scenario (9/11 taught us that, if nothing else), but you can at least– **at least** –generate some stock answers so you don’t look like a simpleton when someone asks you a simple question. Like PAD said, there were a dozen ways out of that question that would’ve made him look good… so why does he end up taking the way out that makes him look bad? If the man can’t hold up under pressure at a press conference, he’s got no business being the President of the United States.
I just don’t see how half of America can support this guy when he’s obviously utterly unprepared for the job.
That OTHER John Byrne
“I find it interesting about there are complaints that there are “thousands of Iraqis dead” — never mind the fact that possibly half of them were shooting at us.”
So the other half…what? Don’t count? Were freebies?
My God.
PAD
And while we’re at it…”possibly half of them were shooting at us?”
What does that mean? “Possibly half?” That possibly it was more than half? Or possibly less? Could it possibly be, say, only one in three were shooting at us? Or maybe one in five?
So maybe four out of five people were just hanging about, hoping and praying for a better life, and we bombed them to bits. Blew them up, men, women, children, just gone. Could that “possibly” be the case? Could that “possibly” be a contributing factor to the increasing fatalities of Americans?
And could the inability to have foreseen that, or cared about that, be possibly…just possibly…a mistake?
PAD
I’m amazed that Bush’s ratings are still in the double digits! What does this lying, thieving, cowardly moron have to do to wake up the country?
My wife says she would vote for our dog for president before Bush since the dog is smarter.
Bush’s grandfather’s assets were frozen in 1942 for dealing with the Nazis. It is obvious that money is more important to the Bush family than human lives or honor, no matter what crap W. spouts.