Two things: How many times did he say something like "If we go to war?" Does anyone really think he hasn't already made up his mind? It's interesting he hasn't yet made up his mind but has no concern talking about what Iraq will look like after "regime change." He made a mention of "my government." This is a minor point but, damn it, we don't have a parliamentary system. This is "our" government. Here's Tom Shales take: washingtonpost.com Bush's Wake-Up Call Was a Snooze Alarm By Tom Shales Friday, March 7, 2003; Page C01 George W. Bush kept seeming to lose interest in his own remarks last night as the president did that rarest of rare things -- for him -- and held a prime-time news conference. Televised live on all the major networks from the East Room of the White House, the occasion found Bush declaring this to be "an important moment" for America and the world, yet he spoke with little urgency and no perceptible passion. Have ever a people been led more listlessly into war? It's tempting to speculate how history would have changed if Winston Churchill or FDR had been as lethargic as Bush about rallying their nations in an hour of crisis. There were times when it appeared his train of thought had jumped the tracks. Occasionally he would stare blankly into space during lengthy pauses between statements -- pauses that once or twice threatened to be endless. There were times when it seemed every sentence Bush spoke was of the same duration and delivered in the same dour monotone, giving his comments a numbing, soporific aura. Watching him was like counting sheep. Network commentators by and large tippy-toed around the subject of Bush's curiously subdued performance. But at least Terry Moran of ABC News dared to say that the White House press corps had definitely seen Bush "sharper" than he was last night. Tactfully and gingerly, Moran said Bush seemed to be "trying to keep his mannerisms as cool as possible" as he fielded questions and spoke of ultimatums. The lethargy was contagious; correspondents were almost as logy as Bush was. Nobody even bothered to ask a question about Osama bin Laden, whose capture was rumored to be imminent yesterday and is still in the public mind a more reprehensible monster than Saddam Hussein. Bush popped the balloon that bin Laden had been found when he failed to make a dramatic opening statement, instead reiterating for the umpteenth time some of his many charges against Hussein, whose token efforts at disarmament amounted to "a willful charade," Bush said. In one of his more effective moments, Bush said that the tragedy of 9/11 showed what terrorists can do with only four airplanes and so we should imagine what Saddam Hussein could do with his notorious weapons of mass destruction. But there were few effective moments. At times during the hour, Bush almost appeared to be backing off the previously immutable notion that Hussein's intransigence makes war virtually inevitable. "We don't have to go to war," he said at one point. "I'm hopeful that he does disarm," Bush said of Hussein. "It may require force" to get him to do it, but "I hope it can be done peacefully," he said in separate remarks. While at another point he seemed to say, contrary to previous statements, that he was "optimistic" about "diplomacy" doing the job so that U.S. troops won't have to, he also said, with respect to disarming Hussein: "Diplomacy hasn't worked. We've tried diplomacy for 12 years." He also said the "use of force" remains "my last choice" as a means to disarm the Iraqi leader. "I recognize there are people who don't like war. I don't like war," Bush said. But as in the past, he referred to Hussein at various points as a cancer, a murderer, a master of deception and just generally an inhuman fiend who must be destroyed or exiled. The statements did not come across as particularly cogent or consistent. Then again, perhaps Bush was just offering a summary of everything that's been said on the issue over the past few months. The contrast between the foggy Bush of last night and the gung-ho Bush who delivered a persuasive State of the Union message to Congress not so long ago was considerable. Maybe Bush thought he was, indeed, coming across as cool and temperate instead of bored and enervated, and this was simply a rhetorical miscalculation. On the other hand, it hardly seems out of order to speculate that, given the particularly heavy burden of being president in this new age of terrorism -- a time in which America has, as Bush said, become a "battlefield" -- the president may have been ever so slightly medicated. He would hardly be the first president ever to take a pill. There were brief interludes during the news conference -- especially the long languid pauses -- when some viewers might have flashed back to the presidency of Richard Nixon. That is, the Nixon Years at their most tumultuous and Twilight Zoney, when the old Trickster would come on TV and you'd sit there not just fascinated but a trifle terrified of what he might say, who he'd accuse of persecuting him, and whether he might come completely unglued or just melt into a hideous puddle right before your horrified eyes. Obviously Bush was not likely to inspire anything approaching that kind of fear last night, even in the most paranoid of viewers. But by his tone and his demeanor, he certainly did
I disagree with just about everyone on here. No big suprise there. Bush is intelligent enough to do the job. He's the right person, right now. The UN is a worthless group of do-nothing talkers that should be disbanned. It's a waste of money. It's a waste of time. It is a useless coalition of talkers, in this instance. They made demands that were not met. What type of stick do they carry? What type of spine and resolution do they show? None. They want to continue playing tiddlywinks with a f4cking brutal pr!ck. I do not understand the left here. On environment I see your side. I don't agree in most cases but I see your point. Abortion? Don't agree but see your point. Drugs? Same thing. Welfare, medicine, social programs, amendment interpretation? Disagree but see your point. But not here. I do not see your point. Everyone says he is a brutal a$$hole, a murderous, pschopathic animal. Everyone thinks he should be removed from power. Why the procrastination? Why not stand by your belief that he should be removed and remove him. We've been d!cking with this nut for a dozen years. When is it enough? By the way, where were you anti-war lefties when Clinton acted militarily? I believe that this entire situation is more about you disagreeing with Bush on other issues and using this presidential decision as a popular, albeit unoriginal and unimaginative, target. Boy, this post is gonna go over well. BTW, I do believe that you don't want war. I don't either. If Saddam would fully comply with disarmament and remove himself and his thugs from power peacefully then my prayers would be answered. It is my opinion that yours wouldn't be answered unless Bush was removed from power.
The problem with this whole situation is that the Bush administration has failed to comprehend that their unilateral attitude on Iraq will affect other global issues. The other members of the UN have correctly sensed that while Bush may ask them what they think, he isn't really going to listen to their viewpoint and has already made up his mind before he even talks to them. I watched a speech by Thomas Friedman on C-SPAN last night, and he nailed it when he said that this administration has treated other countries as if they don't matter. Why isn't Bush bringing the leaders of France, China, Russia and Germany to Camp David to really sit down and discuss the matter? Why can't he at least spend some time figuring out why they are so opposed to the war in Iraq? Maybe if he listened to them for a minute he could find the argument necessary to convince them to his side. Why is he so damn smug about being "right" rather than being concerned about doing things "right." And even if he is right in his assessment, Bush's casual dismissal of the world's opinions will have long term effects on America's standing in the world. Saddam Hussein is a truly evil person, but he's just one of many around the world. Are we going to take out everyone? Why should he be our primary focus? Because he's allowing a couple of sick Al Qaeda thugs remain in his country? Then why aren't we trying to take out Pakistan and Saudi Arabia's leadership, as the military in the former and the oil barons in the latter are guilty of harboring far more terrorists than Saddam? The thing Americans have trouble grasping is that while Hussein is definitely an enemy of our country, he does not hate America more than he loves his own life. He is evil but not stupid. He is well aware that if any terrorist act is definitely linked to him, he is dead. That's why some feel he is not worth the death and destruction that would occur in removing him - he can be contained via conventional deterrence. Finally, does this administration really know what it's getting into with a post-war Iraq? I don't get the sense the Bush understands that while Iraq is a good candidate for democracy (due to its people being well-educated), it is also just as likely to fall into civil war. Iraq is made up of three major ethncities (Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis) who have historically been completely unable to get along. There are also a bunch of other smaller tribes who have been equally restless. Can a president with minimal understanding of international relations and history, a president who was so opposed to "nation building" create a peaceful democracy out what has historically been a wartorn land of dictators and warlords? My money says no. Bush has shown an inability to listen to what other people say and that's why he'll never be the "uniter" that he promises to be. A war leader has to unite not just his own people, but the world behind his cause. Bush has failed miserably at this responsibility.
i think the elements of concern are not only that he's harboring terrorists..but that he's also building WMD...that's a pretty dangerous combination from the United States perspective in a post-9/11 world. again..i think clinton said this a lot better than bush said it. he said back in 98 that if you let saddam go unchecked with these things, you're eventually gonna end up with terrorists on our soil detonating WMD. he said then, the approach for dealing with terrorism should change...that we should be proactive. Congress wrote a long report on this change in US policy of proactive action to neutralize threats. It's like everyone has completely forgotten all of that.
Hmmm... I hoping this isn't true... but Bush may be waiting out until election time to catch Osama... he's dumb enough to try something like that also.
That weighs heavily on my mind and is the argument I want established before a unilateral invasion. I know that nut would himself use or employ someone to use WMD on any Western nation, especially the US, if he gets them. But we can't just attack someone just because they hate us. We need to establish that this nut will attack, has attacked or is planning to attack us with intel. In particular, just show the evidence (that this nutcase is has or is developing WMD, harboring key anti-US terrorists, helped fund Bin Laden, etc.) and let's take him down.
But Pakistan already has nukes and the intelligence branch of their government is very sympathetic to Al-Qaeda. Considering the political instability of Pakistan, I think it's much more likely that terrorists will get their nukes from there than from Iraq. I think Clinton was completely wrong - you will likely never see a WMD of Saddam's making detonated on American soil. As I said previously, this man has no interest in signing his death warrant and that's exactly what he'd be doing if he gave a nuke or chemical or biological bomb to terrorists to use against American. I honestly don't think Bush understands the difference between a dictatorship and a terrorist state and I think that's why he never seems to give a coherent reason for regime change. One minute he's talking 9-11 (which had nothing to do with Iraq - nothing) and the next he's mumbling about breaking UN regulations (which many countries are guilty of). The best argument for regime change is that it would allow us to install a Middle Eastern democracy, which might then spread to other Middle Eastern countries. The problem, however, is that a Middle Eastern democracy might elect the very types that do hate America more than they love their own life. Then we'd be dealing with a true terrorist state. But even that risk might be worth it because it would definitely make the world a safer place. But in order to do something like that legitimately, you have to get the rest of the world involved. After all, a democracy by definition should be created by everyone, not just one privileged nation. Otherwise, our real intentions (whatever they might be) are mistaken, and everyone thinks we're trying to turn Iraq into another gas station to fuel our SUVs. If Bush was truly interested in establishing democracy, then he shouldn't have been so damn stupid and included Iran as a member of the 'axis of evil.' Despite the efforts of the mullahs, the youth of Iran is ready for change, and it may happen within our own lifetime. Instead of bringing more death to Iraqi citizens, why aren't we looking into greater encouragement of these Iranians?
Yeah, you're right. But do you think there may be a difference between attacking a hostile state which already has nukes and attacking a hostile state attempting to develop nukes? Anyway, good points all around. We really should be embracing the Iranians, not alienating them. I trust this administration less and less each day (and each time our Leader opens his mouth).
again..i think clinton said this a lot better than bush said it. he said back in 98 that if you let saddam go unchecked with these things, you're eventually gonna end up with terrorists on our soil detonating WMD. he said then, the approach for dealing with terrorism should change...that we should be proactive. Congress wrote a long report on this change in US policy of proactive action to neutralize threats. It's like everyone has completely forgotten all of that. That's fine and all. When Clinton acted, though, he didn't piss off the rest of the world in the process. The world respected him and believed that his actions (Bosnia, Haiti, etc) truly were multilateral and supportd by others. As such, no one hates us for any of those interventions. Not so here -- and <I>it's not because the world wouldn't go along with this</I> -- it's because Bush didn't try hard enough to get the world on board. If you've gotten rid of Iraq, but pissed off half the world and created a whole new generation of people angry at you, are you any better off?
My view on Bush is that it is a sad commentary that this is the man who represents us to the world, and was the best of our options for leader. Allow me to clarify; Going into the elction my greatest sense was of complete disenchantment with both candidates...I am generally amazed at the lack of true leadership in politics in general right now, and this election was the zenith of that quality vacuum...Going in I was probably idealistically closer to Gore, but really, really didn't like him as a 'leader', and I was probably about 50/50, maybe more Gore to start..Then I began to like some of the people Bush was surrounding himself with while I really didn't like the people Gore had, and it moved a bit..and Colin Powell, the only guy I really liked, was a factor. Going into the election I was about 50/50 exactly, and came around to Bush as the lesser of two evils because I really hated how Gore handled the whole Florida thing...His constant 'final' demands which, when they didn't work, would be repeated or replaced with others...it just became more obvious that it was all about him being elected, not about justice. So here's the President..my initial feeling, Strengths; Said to be a pretty nice guy, came into the election with a rep for being relatively non-partisan, and surrounds himself with good people... Weaknesses: Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, not that great a speaker ,although Robo-Gore made him seem downright charming, relatively speaking, the tinge of nepotism, a bit of a silver-spoon making decisions for soup can people, and probably a bit to much under the thumb of advisers for my liking, but, at the time, better than Gore. But what are we left with? I am amazed that the generally acknowledged ' not that bright' thing is shrugged off so lightly, or with the quasi-defense of" he's not that dumb...I mean, we are talking about our leader here...the guy we, as a people, said was the best man for the job...and we acknowledge he's not all that bright..What else is the primary quality you look for in a President? That he's a nice guy, who works well with others!?!?! That sounds like the ideal man to run a summer camp, but as the leader of the nation!?!? The man is evidently less intelligent than most people I interact with on a daily basis...that's scary. It's not just about his speeches..the manner in which he answers questions often reveals that he just doesn't have the capacity for advanced thought, but always reverts to minor variations of a few pet phrases/concepts...Anyone in academics will tell you what that says about someone's intellectual capacity. Yes, I am glad that he may be a nice guy...but I know a lot of nice guys...many of them seemingly smarter than Bush. I still think that, as a leader, he is better than Gore...but that's like saying that Tatoo was taller than Vern Troy...This is what we've come to? Yeah, Reagan wasn't all that much brighter, but at least Reagan had other qualities, communication, a sense of vision,etc. which helped you understand how the relative intellectual shortcoming was camouflaged/less of an issue..But, really, ask yourself this...Is this man ( Bush) the best the United States has to offer? Forget about whether he is better than Gore...I'm talking about the state of our nation...are you satisfied that we have a leader who has the ability and leadership qualities to lead us through a recession, let alone get us into a war? My position on the war itself is well documented, and I saw absolutely nothing in the latest repetition of the same soundbites to make me think any different.
MY GOD!!!! Listen to you idiots whine and cry about why Bush isn't the correct leader!!! Do you honestly think that the President is sitting in a room going, "And then I'll do this, and then I'll do this, and then I'll do.. et. ad nauseum)? LARGEST AND ONLY CORRECT POINT!!!! If Clinton were in office, this is what the heads of the armed forces tell him. If William Henry Harrison is in office, on his death bed, this is what the armed forces tell him. Your vocalizations of "Well he sounded bad" are similar to a Doctor who tells you need an HIV test as "well, I'm not "sure" I needed one." GET THIS STRAIGHT PEOPLE!!!! We have never been a Country that has been dictated by a single person. We have never been a Country that has been run by several people. Your views, be them as they are ARE IRRELEVENT. Understand that your position can be biased one way or the other, but also understand that as much cannot possibly be based on Clinton's innaction, same has to be said about Bush's action. Our President's these day's are simply nothing more than Speakers of what the Senator's, The House, and our Forces have agreed upon. I'm sick and tired of people talking about "this president this and this president that." George Washington put it best when he said "A two party system will be the death of democracy." And it is because of the moron's out there who think there are always only two choices. I hate you all!
BTW Jeff: Alan Greenspan has been in charge since the Reagan Years. Saying that who we have in office has to do with our economy is tantamount to saying our economy is dictated on who wins the Superbowl... It has to do with ECONOMICS AND TECHNOLOGY! Oh, and another aside, as to how our economy is going to do, over the past 36 years the Superbowl result has FAR exceeded which democracy has been in office.
Umm..I'm not sure what you're saying here...are you saying that you can't hold a presiedent accountable for the decisions of his administration because there are too many other forces at work that affect things more than he does? I/m not arguing the merit of this position, but if that is what you are saying,let me ask you thin: What can you judge a President on if not the decisions/actions of his administration?
MacBeth: My largest issue is that in matters of international affairs, it is not the President who decides it. It is the people in his staff, plus the people in congress, plus the people in the house, plus (and this is the worst part) "common man's opinion". Common man's opinion would prefer someone else scratch his ass (literally) if it were possible. Fact: Nobody wants war, and the people who say they do are simply doing it out of a recent testosterone high. Fact: Recent polls have shown an increasing hostility towards war, which is the main reason, I repeat, MAIN, for people formally for Hussein's departure into an increased apathy for his tenure. Bush IS NOT (nor would any President in his mind, although realize you are judging not him alone when any Pres. speaks) exactly winning people over by declaring these attrocities, and the need to stop them. In fact, he could have very easily kept sending people mindlessly into Afghanistan until Osama was caught, and then in quintessential American ignorence, the "threat" would be over. A funny thing that; he would probably be an overwhelming favorite if only to get that "one threat person" that all of us American's have come to understand as the only means for fear. Where are you now, Lee Harvey Oswald? John Wilkes Booth? Timothy "what the hell was my middle name?" McVeigh? I'm sure I've got more rants and rebuttals, but, alas; I must retire.
Aside from mouthing the obvious that the president doensn't run the country without advisors, I don't know what to say about fatty b*stard. The lack of personal respect that Bush generates among intelligent world leaders due to his lack of general knowlege , fundamentalist thinking and very marginal speaking and intellectual skills for leader of a country have hurt his coalition building for the war. I'm happy in this case since I'm against the war. There is only so much the advisors can do to offset this. An interesting article about how one conservative, who is no friend of the third world sees Bush and his religious fundamentalism. ******************** WAR AS RELIGION WASHINGTON -- Doubtless it is my own fault. Attribute it to too many years overseas in the Beiruts, Bombays and Burundis of the world. Too many romantic novels and dark, swashbuckling, sloe-eyed heroes out of "Casablanca" and "The Godfather." Until now, it never occurred to me that balding, paunchy Americans with pacemakers, and lean, rangy cowboys swaggering out of the American sunset, and good churchgoing Yankees with the gleam of God in their eyes and political gospel in their hearts, could turn out to be men with the dreams of Napoleon and the dangerous saintliness of the Crusaders. Yet it is happening in Washington today. There is no question now that President Bush's intention in invading Iraq -- along with his unlikely band of gray but gleamy-eyed compadres -- is based primarily on religious obsession and visions of personal grandiosity. The final confirmation was revealed in President Bush's speech to the American Enterprise Institute on Feb. 26, when he made it clear that his primary intention was to transform the Middle East. Earlier motives of disarmament were all but dropped. As The Washington Post wrote, "As it heads into what senior U.S. officials said are likely to be the final two weeks of U.N. deliberations, the administration has made it increasingly clear that the outcome of that debate is ultimately immaterial to its plans." And so, we could begin to see, as the smoke cleared, the degree to which the United Nations was really always irrelevant, merely a bone thrown to "reasonable" men like Colin Powell and the senior Bush's friends. But finally, serious people are beginning to ask, "Why?" The predominant answer coming out of different quarters -- one that I broached six months ago, to a certain degree of derision from some readers -- is that the president of the United States of America sees himself as part of God's divine plan. For America, for the Middle East, for the world! It is not doctrine that he espouses, but gospel; not a world of shifting national interests, but one of absolute truths. One of the best analyses came last week from the Rev. Fritz Ritsch, pastor of the Bethesda Presbyterian Church in Virginia. "The president," he said, "confidently asserts a worldview that most Christian denominations reject outright as heresy: the myth of redemptive violence, which posits a war between good and evil, with God on the side of good and Satan on the side of evil." This approach, he went on, "is characterized by a stark refusal to acknowledge accountability, because to suggest accountability is to question American purity, which would undermine the secular theology of 'good vs. evil' inherent in present U.S. policy." There is a growing awareness that something very different is going on inside this White House. In this week's Newsweek cover piece, "Bush and God," the president comes out as a man "on a messianic mission," with a "faith-based foreign policy of the most explosive kind." This White House, the article avers further, is "suffused with an aura of prayerfulness" and a "sense of destiny that approaches the Calvinistic" and is little burdened with old questions of a conflict being a "just war" in the classic Christian sense. The president "just decided that Saddam was evil, and everything flowed from that." Now, everyone knows that George W. Bush went through two earlier overnight conversions, first when he stopped drinking cold-turkey in 1986, and second, when evangelist Billy Graham talked to him about fundamentalist religion. What has not been so well noted is that he -- by more and more accounts -- underwent a third conversion in the first months after 9/11 as he became gripped by the idea that he was the man chosen to liberate the Middle East. Actually, such a conversion -- to try to impose the "freedom" he talks about constantly on other people through secular means -- speaks to an inner struggle as old as America itself. The original settlers saw America as the "New Jerusalem." There was the idea that man's political future and will would end here. Then, the idea became caught up in the secular state, that all men should be helped (or, now, forced) to be "free." "George Bush somehow picked up the creed," says David Brooks of The Weekly Standard. "It's in the air today. It's straight out of this gospel, the idea that history is incomplete so long as, for certain peoples around the world, freedom is not complete. Bush is gripped by this mission." Of course, there are some problems here. Such messianic posturing is counter to the American system of checks and balances -- who, after all, dares challenge gospel in the hands of its believer? Such Old Testament reliance on forcing others to do and to believe as you is hardly going to be welcomed in the rest of the world -- but why would you have to explain anything if you are the hand of God? President Bush has now said "Anyone who is not with us is against us" fully 99 times since 9/11 -- just in case you didn't get the idea. georgie ann geyer
I would have paid good money to hear the president answer questions about this at his press conference.
But Clinton didn't even give anyone a chance to get pissed off about Iraq -- he just attacked without talking about it. I think people just dislike Bush no matter what he does, so there's nothing he can do about it. Did Clinton have this problem? I agree with FFB -- Bush isn't making these decisions on his own, and any Democratic president would be doing the same thing. The only difference is nobody would have a problem with that. If you want to really get cynical, the economy would suck regardless of who is in office, so what would a Democrat do in this situation? He would focus on Iraq, no question. Democrats are already perceived as soft anyway -- what are they going to do? Go out and talk about prescription drugs? Yeah right. Iraq is 'low-hanging fruit' -- it's definitely a problem, and it's the easiest problem to take care of.
Oh, please. A reasonable analogy would be that the President, whoever he/she is, is like the captain of a ship. He's responsible for the officers (his advisors, Cabinet- etc.), the crew (the Federal bureaucracy), and the passengers... us. The ultimate responsibility is his. He chooses his "officers", who are responsible for the proper use and behavior of the crew. If he wrecks "the ship" the responsibility is his. If he can't handle the ship, then it's time for a new captain. The idea that the country just runs itself is ludicrous.
I think people just dislike Bush no matter what he does, so there's nothing he can do about it. Did Clinton have this problem? You don't think there were people who hated Clinton and everything he did? He was probably the most targetted President we've had in a very, very long time...
