Bush's press conference last night. Other than a critique on his pronunciation of one word, there hasn't been much discussion. Here's my take. And I'd like to preface it by saying that I've been kind of on the fence about this whole war with Iraq thing from the beginning. Mostly for the poor reason that I've had bad vibes about the whole thing. Still, the reason I've allowed myself to consider something as silly as vibes is that I really can see both sides of the issue. Saddam is a brutal dictator who has a propensity to slaughter people with whatever is available. Bush is hell bent on going to war with Saddam completely oblivious to the fact that with every passing day opposition to his war is gaining strength and numbers. I've seen some very good arguments against the war from the left presence here at the BBS. The first poster that comes to mind is Major in that regards. And I've also seen plenty of far left, petty and ridiculous spins from other posters that damn near make me want to go join the ARMY just so I can fight in the war myself. Still, while I've tried to vocally dismiss the stupid arguments, I've also tried to keep an open mind to the reasonable arguments from both sides. So....after last night, here's what I feel. I still think Saddam needs to be removed from power, but I don't think Bush should be the person who makes that decision. In fact, though he never inspired me to actually go out and vote for him...either at the state or the national level, I don't think Bush should even be our president. That's not really going out on a limb for me because I've always been diametrically opposed to the two party system. But I can't wait until the next election, and that IS going out on a limb because I know a democrat (to me, the greater of two evils) will be elected. Why do I feel this way? Bush gave me the impression that he isn't up to the task of leading the greatest nation in the world. He may have information that we aren't privy too, he may be much smarter than we all give him credit for, and when he's not in front of a camera, he may be a great leader of men. But he sure as hell didn't communicate that last night. Instead, he sounded to me like he was determined on a course of action yet unsure of himself as to how good a decision it was. He never seemed to answer a question directly, but instead answered it with a slight variation of the same rhetoric. It wasn't the mispronunciations, the slow reading, or the verbal missteps, but none of that helped. It was a combination of the whole thing. Most of all, he came across to me as a man who didn't believe what he was saying. He came across as a man I can't trust.
"He came across as a man I can't trust." I'm right there with you. Good post, and I hope I didn't really make you want to join the army!
I made a point to watch the press conference and it was just the same old garbled message to me. It's about disarmament, it's about regime change, it's about 9/11, terrorism, liberation of Iraqi people, imminent threat, UN resolutions, protecting American people, etc. The message kind of changes depending on who Bush is addressing or the question he's answering. I've also never seen someone allegedly answer some great questions at a news conference without giving any real answers. I was particularly disappointed on his answer to the peace protest question.
in theory, maybe, but specifically, which democrat is going to be beat him? none have emerged as viable candidates, imo, and that's because, right now, that party has no initiative, no leadership, no clear ideals... and i think a lot of democrats would agree with that assertion. hell, a good portion of 'em are still griping about the last election. further, iraq's an issue that has yet to be resolved, so i wouldn't anoit it bush's death knell just yet, not when, concurrently, he's making obvious, definitive strides in his other war on "tara." i mean, if all these rumors that're swirling have any legitimacy, and they've really zeroed in on a fairly precise location for not only bin laden, but a dozen or more top al queda operatives here in america... that would be a major feather in his presidential hat and it could... COULD... deliver a shot in the arm to this economy. long way to go...
Unless..... Bush turns out to be right, the war ends fast, the midle east is stabilized and it all turns out for the better. At that point, Bush will look like a hero for stabilizing a hostile area. I think he came off as sounding resolved to doing what has to be done. We can't sit back and take punches anymore, it is no longer a few people getting killed, the next attack will be THOUSANDS. It is a change in policy, but one I think the US alone can handle. DD
I hate to say it, but I'm with Timing on this one (which really pains me to say ). I could see a justifiable and strong case that could be made for going into Iraq now, but the President failed to make it last night. It almost seemed like Bush didn't really know the reasons why it was important to go to war, just that someone told him that it needed to be done and gave him some small 'sound bit'-type phrases to include. The President did nothing to convince me that war is necessary, and I'm predisposed to believing that war could be necessary (i.e., I do understand that there is, sometimes, a need to go to war to prevent larger loss of life in the future. I've not been convinced yet that this is the case with Iraq now. Of course, I'm also not going to say that war is always wrong because something could eventually come out or happen that makes a more obvious case for war in Iraq).
Yes, and he's about as charismatic as a tree. I've also noticed that his answer to every foreign policy or military question invariably begins with "When I was in Vietnam...".
Which one of these things is it not about? I thought the President did a great job. He's my President! Leaders have to do difficult and unpopular things; he is doing them. I think you will all be surprised when this conflict is over. You will appreciate this man more than you can imagine at this point. It's so easy to be a critic. <b>MadMax</b>, you need to restore your Teddy Roosevelt signature file.
I think it was one of the more typical Bush performances. I liked the State of the Union alot more... But I will say this: unless there is a major f*-up, no democrat can beat this guy for the forseeable future. In spite of the feelings of many here, his ratings are still high - over the 50% required to win an election - and he hasn't even gotten an Iraq victory yet. Also, don't expect him to make the same mistake his father did. Barring any major political blunders, he will get a second term. Better than any of the Democrats currently standing in line...
Nice post. We disagree on some things but I appreciate your sincerity. As for 04' I like what Bush is doing. But if the majority of voters feel we need to go a different route and elect a new president then we should support a new administration if elected in. I don't think one should hold a certain degree of detest based on party agenda. I think we need to bring a degree of fairness to the arguement if we are to judge anyone though. That said, the way we are closing in on Bin Laden and how quickly Saddam most likely will be crushed it will be difficult for opposition to persuade us we are on the wrong track.
I agree treeman. I think that Bush is vulnerable to being voted out, based on several things. The biggest two, IMO, are the outcome of the Iraqi conflict and who the Dems decide to run agains him (duh, how's that for in-depth information). I posted here to say that I saw a poll the other day (sorry, can't find the link), but the results are pretty typical of what is currently understood. It was a tight race between Bush and the 'Democratic Party' in the next election, but when the pollsters started filling in the 'Democrat' box with actual names (Kerry, Clinton, Sharpton ), Bush won pretty substantially.
It all depends on the economy. I refuse to repeat the (in)famous line of the 1992 Clinton campaign, but I believe they are right. Regardless of what happens with foreign policy, American voters, more often than not, vote with their wallets during a Presidential election. If the economy doesn't pick up by November 2004, Bush may have a hard time. Then again, if the Dems nominate a stiff, it won't matter!
ric, I saw a poll on CNN yesterday that showed Bush <B>behind</B> the Democratic nominee. No specific person, just the nominee.
This is my personal take as biased as it may be. I, personally, do not have a problem with removing Sadaam. I think he is a nut and definitely needs to go. Having said that, I'm with Pole here. I just don't have the confidence that GW is experienced enough or intellegent enough to lead us down a path like this one. I don't think I would've trusted Clinton on it either. If we had the support of the UN, I would be on board because I would feel like the whole thing would have been thought through more thoroughly. I just get the sense that the guys GW's dad warded off during the first Gulf War are the one's pulling the strings in this one because GW doesn't have the international political experience or the basic intellegence to form a more educated opinion. As for the election, it's really ironic how remarkably similar this one is to 1992. During the Gulf War, Bush was riding huge approval ratings and the Democratic Party seemed to be in shambles. I remember a skit on Saturday Night Live spoofing a Democratic debate with all the candidates (including Clinton, Gore and Bentsen) arguing why they should NOT be the nominee playing to the idea that no one could beat Bush Sr. The classic line from that was Tipper Gore explaining why her husband wasn't at the debate, "He's with our son at a gay porno movie." It's true that Bush Sr. didn't have the emotional drama of 9/11 as his backdrop or the enormous rally of support GW enjoyed during the early days of the war on terror. But, Bush Sr. also didn't have to battle significant peace protests, the disapproval of much of the rest of the world for his policies and, even more importantly, the spectre of the election in 2000 that is still considered widely by many to be in doubt whether it actually was a process that was fair and equitable or not. The point being that Clinton dismantled Bush in the election despite calls a year and a half prior that the Dem's were falling apart and had no viable candidate to unseat an extremely popular president. Funny how history repeats itself.
100% agree. Bush can only win if the economy has rebounded. Even if the economy does rebound and we are a year removed from an Iraq war (in the fall of 2004), Bush has made enough mistakes so far that a Democratic candidate may get enough traction to still win.
I have a similar take. Bush appears to me like a CEO versus a President. He takes a look at the Iraq situation, looks at all of the evidence, looks at all of the plans of action, looks at all of the possible outcomes, and finally announces to the unwashed masses his decision. In his announcement (which is a year late btfw), he outlines the reasonings behind the decision and is put off by any questions of his decision or his authority. In particular, Bush does not appear to care about building a consensus, nationally or internationally. This is how politics is played and Bush appears to think that the rules do not apply to him. It is funny that his father actually was very good at diplomancy, while he, the son, has no clue.
I've seen some very good arguments against the war from the left presence here at the BBS. The first poster that comes to mind is Major in that regards. Thank you! Honestly, though, I'm not at all against war with Iraq. Like you, though, I don't think Bush has the capability to pull it off correctly. My main (and really, only) gripe is that he refuses to go all out to get world support. This is a process that should have started 6 months ago, and it's something that maybe has started a little the last few weeks, but its way too late. This could have and should have gone far more smoothly. The #1 concern with Bush in 2000 was his lack of knowledge of international politics and how it works, and that's played out exactly as feared. The whole "we're willing to go it alone" approach pisses off other countries. Now we're on our way to entering a war without much support. If a new UN resolution doesn't pass (and it doesn't look as though it will), both the American and the British people are against the war, meaning there would not be a country in the world whose people support our actions. I have no doubt we'll win. I'm pretty sure it will be a relatively short & easy war. I do have significant doubts as to our post-Iraq plan -- I think it's a load of crap at this point. I have serious concerns that our international credibility will be shot to hell. With a mass majority of Europe finally agreeing on something, the interest in working with the U.S. is going to diminish significantly. Our bargaining power is gone. People around the world think of our President as a lunatic war-mongerer. All in all, this was just massively mishandled from a PR standpoint from day #1. The sad thing is it could have been done right. As for his speech - I didn't see the whole thing, but I thought the content wasn't bad. If Clinton or Reagan had made the same speech, lots of people would have supported them. Bush? He wasn't convincing. There was just something missing. Content-wise, though, I thought this was part of the argument that should have been made 6 months ago and repeated every day since. As far as Bush being guaranteed re-election -- it's nowhere close to being a certainty. Some combination of a charismatic Democrat, a weak-to-mediocre economy, and continued terrorism fears will eat at his popularity like crazy. He's already at post-9/11 lows, and his support drops every month. He'll likely get a boost with Iraq, but that will disappear in 18 months as well. If Iraq drags out, the markets & the economy won't recover, and that's going to hurt him as well.
I see Bush almost in the same predicament as Tony Blair. Blair is most likely out if the US has its way with Iraq, win or lose. Bush needs to win and have some encouraging numbers in the economy. Plus, that whole Al Qaeda thing.... Honestly, with all the news hype on Bin Laden, I'm willing to bet that Bush won't catch him this term in office. So now we need a scandalous Democratic nominee that breaks the mold of the stuffy boring old white guy. That whole lecherous lying sleazebag character has been played out. They need to bring in a compulsive gambler or someone suffering from Tourettes syndrome. You know... a type that could do a reality show like the Osbournes.
