I read a report in the British press that President Bush gave a solo press conference (a rare event I believe) about the situation in Iraq. Aparrently he floundered when confronted by the simplest question ,without the help of his aides or pre rehearsed answers.
Did anyone see it? Was he really that bad? If he was, isn't it worrying that he is leading the free world?
The following is an extract fron The New York Times editorial.
Happily, President Bush finally held a prime-time news conference last night. Unhappily, he failed to address either of the questions uppermost in Americans' minds: how to move Iraq from its current chaos, and what he has learned from the 9/11 investigations.
Mr. Bush was grave and impressive while reading his opening remarks, which focused on the horrors of terrorism and the great good that could come from establishing a free and democratic Iraq. No one in the country could disagree with either thought. But his responses to questions were distressingly rambling and unfocused. He promised that Iraq would move from the violence and disarray of today to full democracy by the end of 2005, but the description of how to get there was mainly a list of dates when good things are supposed to happen.
Originally posted by ianpickeringThere were 15 questions. 9 of them were the same one. "Will you admit your guilt to 911?"
I read a report in the British press that President Bush gave a solo press conference (a rare event I believe) about the situation in Iraq. Aparrently he floundered when confronted by the simplest question ,without the help of his aid ...[text shortened]... as mainly a list of dates when good things are supposed to happen.
<edit> Always amused by the denial of the "Elite" media that they are biased! Grin. End Edit.
He didn't. Neither did he respond as he should have.
He did point out... time after time that we were the party attacked by the terrorists.
What he should have pointed out is this... "I will not stand before you and admit that I caused terrorism. I have asked the military of this nation to kill and be killed. Can I be a coward and seek redemption through absolution? We did nothing wrong. The killers will kill. Our soldiers are fighting and dying bravely. I will not seek the forgiveness of the people of this nation until the butchery and death is done. I can only be as brave... as the commander of our military... as those who strap on the helmet and venture into the dark streets of our enemies. Just like them, I can't shoot at civilians just because I am afraid."
Bush knows this. He just can't find the words to say it.
It all depends on what you expect from such a performance. I didn't expect anything different from what he is saying all the time, so I wasn't dissappointed in any way.
However what wás important was revealed during the Sharon visit to Washington: The Israelis will withdraw from the Gaza strip and ,"in the light of new developements" (Bush), the US will allow Israel to keep certain settlements on the West Bank and there will be no return of the Palestinian refugees to Israel. They can "return" to the future state of Palestine.
I will open a new thread on this subject.
Originally posted by ianpickeringI didn't see it, I did hear it on the BBC world service though. It was quite embarassing to listen to.
I read a report in the British press that President Bush gave a solo press conference (a rare event I believe) about the situation in Iraq. Aparrently he floundered when confronted by the simplest question ,without the help of his aides or pre rehearsed answers.
Did anyone see it? Was he really that bad? If he was, isn't it worrying that he is lea ...[text shortened]... cription of how to get there was mainly a list of dates when good things are supposed to happen.
Yes. Bush was lost for words. To give him his due though, the question asked was along the lines of: "Did the US make mistakes leading up to 11 september."
How on earth are you supposed to answer that? Obviously mistakes were made, but not all mistakes are unavoidable.
In my fairest of opinions: Yes he bombed, but not really through fault of his own.
Originally posted by shavixmirFinally, an objective viewpoint from you...😵
I didn't see it, I did hear it on the BBC world service though. It was quite embarassing to listen to.
Yes. Bush was lost for words. To give him his due though, the question asked was along the lines of: "Did the US make mistakes leading up to 11 september."
How on earth are you supposed to answer that? Obviously mistakes were made, but not all ...[text shortened]... ble.
In my fairest of opinions: Yes he bombed, but not really through fault of his own.
Originally posted by shavixmirYou thief. Does shavixmir know you stole his computer. I'm calling INTERPOL right now to have you arrested.😵
I didn't see it, I did hear it on the BBC world service though. It was quite embarassing to listen to.
Yes. Bush was lost for words. To give him his due though, the question asked was along the lines of: "Did the US make mistakes leading up to 11 september."
How on earth are you supposed to answer that? Obviously mistakes were made, but not all ...[text shortened]... ble.
In my fairest of opinions: Yes he bombed, but not really through fault of his own.
I saw it. Dunno why I keep watching his speeches, it's like i'm addicted. He disgusts me but i'm compelled to watch the rubbish and get angry and start swearing at my TV.
Democracy in Iraq, give me a break! In 2005 you'll find more WMD's than Democracy in Iraq, and we all know how many WMD's there are in Iraq.
Oh yeah, could someone remind me why they went to war?
I did see the interview on the news and the president was asked what the mistakes were and what could be learned from them, I did feel for the most powerful puppet in the world.
If the Iraqi people do get to democratically elect a leader, what do we do if we don't like their choice?
Yasser Arafat is the only democratically elected Arab leader who the U.S. and Israel refuse to include in any discussions on the future of the Palestinian plight!!!!!
Democracy only when we like the outcome I feel.
I hated the pres conference. I dislike bush ( no afence to any one who does) But from what i understand is that 911 could of been avoided. First of all, The guy who was a pilot should of had a good backround check. Also, their were a few tips that someting might, I am not sure if is was very specifick but still they should of tried to solve it over 2,000 poeple are 6 ft. under now. Also, how could they git razors on its Metal isnt. They should have had better security too, thats not the presidents fualt.(its the airline sercuritys)
Sincerly,
Firesdeath
Originally posted by firesdeathLaying blame on 9/11 is like Monday morning quarterbacking. I don't think it could have been avoided. The same people complaining about the terrorists being able to obtain flying lessons are the same ones bitching about the Patriot Act. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I hated the pres conference. I dislike bush ( no afence to any one who does) But from what i understand is that 911 could of been avoided. First of all, The guy who was a pilot should of had a good backround check. Also, their were a few tips that someting might, I am not sure if is was very specifick but still they should of tried to solve it over 2,000 ...[text shortened]... Sincerly,
Firesdeath
Originally posted by slimjimAll things are avoidable, I think 9/11 was a combination of complancency and being unaware of the threat caused by years of discontent and double standards in U.S. foreign policies.
Laying blame on 9/11 is like Monday morning quarterbacking. I don't think it could have been avoided. The same people complaining about the terrorists being able to obtain flying lessons are the same ones bitching about the Patriot Act. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Originally posted by SimbadOf course it was avoidable with hindsight. I don't think it was Bush's fault, nor Clinton's. I blame Osama.
All things are avoidable, I think 9/11 was a combination of complancency and being unaware of the threat caused by years of discontent and double standards in U.S. foreign policies.
Originally posted by knapperjaHindsight is for the misinformed and non vigilant.
Of course it was avoidable with hindsight. I don't think it was Bush's fault, nor Clinton's. I blame Osama.
If you kick a dog and the dog bites you, do you blame the dog for its actions? I wouldn't kick the dog because I know it will upset the dog and it'll get mad, I'm informed. If I do kick the dog, I will be vigilant in avoiding any dogs, not just the dog I kicked just in case they talk to each other. In hindsight, it would have been better to not have kicked the dog unless you like lots of aggrevation and kicking dogs.
So in hindsight you will learn to be more informed and act on information also being vigilant, which is what I think the U.S. is doing now but going the wrong way about it. And let us not forget who aided and funded Osama.