President's Address tonight..

[Duemellon]

I'm formulating my post, but wanted to get this up and open for commentary...

[classicgrrl]

was turned off right along with my tv.

that is all.

[lawdog]

I really need to let this sink in.

Admittedly, I approached this with a bias. So I'd be interested in hearing what our rightward-leaning board members thought of his performance?

Because from my perspective it was a complete train wreck. He didn't substantively answer any of the 15 questions. He just used the questions as a way of segueing back into the same talking points from his 18-minute introduction. I can't even talk about it right now. I want to sleep on it, and read the transcript in the morning. But ye gods did he look bad up there!

[Duemellon]

Re-insinuated the Iraq/9-11 connection
Initial speech he likened violence in Iraq to the ideology of murder used by the SS Cole bombers, 9-11 & Embassy bombings

"They've lost an ally in Baghdad"

Refering to Saddam "He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders"

"And a free Iraq is going to be a major blow for terrorism."

"Iraq is a part of the war on terror. It is not the war on terror; it is a theater in the war on terror."

It turned into a Christian revival
"A hopeful society is one more likely to be able to deal with the frustrations of those who are willing to commit suicide in order to represent a false ideology."

"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."

yah, LDog, I think he looked bad. Got too emotional, got too preachy, and didn't seem comfortable at all.

[tobedawg]

I hate to say it, BUT Bush did a great job speaking tonight.. He almost, for about 2 brief flashes of seconds, had me rethinking my position about the Iraq War..

Karl Rove did a great job preparing the President for his Press Conference this evening.. and even the reporters that asked him the grilling questions (which were most), he seemed to have an articulate answer for.. He again continued to use "September the 11th" as his crutch. But it works well for him..

Through what he had said tonight, suggests that after Iraq, the War on Terror will continue throughout the middle East until the majority of middle eastern countries have American-Style democracy.. President Bush was confident, strong, assertive, and apologized for nothing..

As everyone probably knows I am NOT a Bush fan nor will I ever vote for him , but I tuned in to every word of his speech and the Press Conference afterward.. And you gotta hand it to him.. He pulled this one off very well..

[CtJester]

Originally posted by tobedawg
He again continued to use "September the 11th" as his crutch. But it works well for him..


Though I don't belong in CE/P, and didn't see the speech since I was at work....

How does using a disaster as a crutch 'work well' for someone?

I don't get it.

-ct

[classicgrrl]

sounds to me like every other presidential speech....didn't miss much.

*yawn*

sorry I should'nt be pooping on the thread....I'm just overly cynical about this whole so called democracy elect president thingy.

is so much more simple if the court would just appoint him again and get on with it.

[tobedawg]

How does using a disaster as a crutch 'work well' for someone?

He used it to justify invading another country under false pretenses (WMD's).. and ignoring the rest of the world..

If you've heard any of Bush's speeches he uses September the 11th, 2001 quite a bit.. When he is asked about the casualties in Iraq he talks about the war on terror and the lessons that our nation learned on "September the 11th, 2001".. When he was asked earlier tonight whether he "was wrong" about his estimation of the Al Queda threat before 9/11, he went into a big spill about how sad and angry he was on "September the 11th, 2001" and talked about how he had visited families of some of the 9/11 victims and how "sad" it makes him feel..

Yep.. So sad, that he'll send 600 + MORE Americans out to die in another country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 under false pretenses..

9/11 does work well for him thogh because it constantly reminds the American people of the tragedy.. It's like his form of subliminal advertising,.. "Trust Me and Remember September 11th.. September 11th.. September 11th"..

[Duemellon]

I'm late for work, again, but my boss knows my mother just died yesterday.

I take this opportunity to tell off that simple-minded idiot coworker and really let them know about their truly annoying behavior and explain to them, later, I was having a bad day.

I get a memorium from the ppl at work for my mother's passing, all the while I talk her up to sainthood and make out with money.

But all this time I was adopted and only knew the mother that died through a photograph.

And yes, RS, the president did, indeed, address us. Did he not? Oar our ewe come plaining abawt sum thing Ls?

[dcXhc]

There were really two parts.

1- The Speech -- I thought he did exceedingly well. His message was cohesive and succinct. That listing of terrorist attacks of the last 10-15 years was an especially effective element. He segued seamlessly from terrorism to Iraq. Now this doesn't mean that I'm saying he's "right," just that he delivered his message very effectively.

2- The Press Conference -- Arrgggh. Man, that was just plain painful. I simply watched, shaking my head as I considered the half-dozen alternative ways he could have better answered any of those questions.



A special shout-out goes to W's speech tutor - who has done wonders with him. When he breaks out the foreign names, I'm usually rolling on the floor in a fit of laughter. But not tonight! He was nailing 'em! -- Fallujah, Chalabi, Al-Sadr, Lakhdar Brahimi(!). He was doing so well and feeling so good that he threw in a flawless "Kwasniewski" just to show off! It brings a tear to the eye to see how far little Georgie's come.

[RichmondVA]

Just finished watching it (with some fast-forwarding). I think he did okay. Solid effort. Easy to do that much, but impossible to do much more.

Trying to shelve the left-wing bias as much as possible I'd say he looked like an ass at points because frankly, he'd already played himself. You're not really going to be able to come up with a quidk answer to "Why did the World Trade Center blow up on your watch killing thousands?" You don't want to blame the Dems, 'cause then you look to be to be making a tragedy political. But you also can't want to say it was your fault.

The way I look at it, this speech was aimed at his own party. I think there are a lot of GOP voters who still trust Bush. What they wanna know is:

1) What's up? You're getting attacked and we need a response.
You tell me the story and I'm cool but I do need an update.

2) Are you still in control here? I think for example, a lot of Conservatives believe there was nothing wrong with Bush's joke about the WMD at the toast. But rightly or wrongly, it opened him up for attack when it wasn't necessary. Some reassurance that he knows what he's doing is required. Not convincing people or changing minds, just reaffirming. He showed that he cared about US deaths.

It's still going to come down to what happens as they go forward. He looks bad as the 9/11 investigations, he's screwed. People keep dying in Iraq, he's screwed. Economy takes a downturn, he's screwed. Reverse those, and he's golden. This was about the polls where he's gone down to something like 51% in handling terrorism and 41% on foreign policy. That's disastrous. It's damage control, stopping the snowball effect and keeping himself alive for the next round where I'm sure he and other conservatives believe he'll be vindicated.

To that extent, he didn't change any minds, but he consolidated and upped the confidence within his own party. It was for the right-centrists. Don't know everyone on this board that well, but at the risk of unfairly characterizing people, I'd say that if slow-dog and dcXhc think he did a good job, then mission accomplished.

Think I'd still be a more nervous than I'd like if I were conservative but not more and quite possibly a less than before. He's going to make Kerry battle.

[lawdog]

Originally posted by dcXhc
When he breaks out the foreign names, I'm usually rolling on the floor in a fit of laughter. But not tonight! He was nailing 'em! -- Fallujah, Chalabi, Al-Sadr, Lakhdar Brahimi(!).

Did he mention Ahmad Chalabi? I don't remember that.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by dcXhc
He segued seamlessly from terrorism to Iraq. Now this doesn't mean that I'm saying he's "right," just that he delivered his message very effectively.


I didn't see the press conference (went to the Prince concert instead :) ) Though I read the transcript and noticed this as well. It was a very smooth delivery. Afterall, he had all year to hone it....and looks like he nailed it last night.

Damn...that pissed me off!

Though I still have "Purple Rain" playing in my head...and all is good right now.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by lawdog
Did he mention Ahmad Chalabi? I don't remember that.

You're right. There was no Chalabi.

But there was a Berlusconi, a Qadaffi, and a Koizumi.

[RedRigmaJacket]

all i could do was shout, "answer the fucking question!" over and over and over...

i give him props for having the ability to say the same thing with ten different sentences. over and over and over...

jon kerry is going to be on meet the press for the entire 60 mins on sunday.

[Fourthisto]

Originally posted by RedRigmaJacket
i give him props for having the ability to say the same thing with ten different sentences. over and over and over...

Each and every president does this, regardless of political affliliation or agendas, at least the ones that have been around since I've had ears.

It's part of the job, I suppose.

I think they should have kept 24 on schedule, right after the address. Nothing like two nice shows with terrorists back-to-back. And then they could have had a late night talk show with Magic Johnson and Chevy Chase hosting, because they were mind-terrorists when they had their own shows. One of the special guests would of course be conspiracy theorist-director Martin Scorsese. Manic Street Preachers could have been the musical guest, and done "Generation Terrorists". Afterwards, in the parking lot outside:

Dr. Emmett Brown: Oh my God, they found me, I don't know how, but they found me. Run for it Marty!
Martin Scorsese: Who?
Dr. Emmett Brown: Who do you think, the Libyans!!
Martin Scorsese: Holy shit.

[DaysWithoutEnd]

I didn't see it, but here's some choice quotes from CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/13/bush.conference/index.html)

"I plan on telling the American people that I've got a plan to win the war on terror."
Wouldn't it be easier to just tell us the plan now? Does he really think we can 'win' against terrorism? More realistically, we can only hope to 'contain' it and change the conditions and causes over the long term, much like communism.

"We're not an imperial power ... We're a liberating power."
*cough*bullshit*cough*

"I'm looking forward to the campaign"
Somebody should tell him it already started.

"The person responsible for those attacks was Osama bin Laden"
Ok, so we killed him right? No? Well then he's hiding out in Iraq, and that's why we attacked. No? Hmmm. Well, good thing we didn't give him money and weapons in the 80's. We did? Oh.

"I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. "
Me too, pal. Me too.

[RedRigmaJacket]

this is probably the best thread ive read in a long time. everyone is making great points (and witty jabs).

[tobedawg]

Here's an article from The Progressive about the Press Conference and speech..

Published on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 by The Progressive
A Scary Performance, and a Signal for Slaughter
by Matthew Rothschild

George Bush's press conference on April 13 was a scary performance.

Not because his second sentence was ungrammatical: "This has been tough weeks in that country."

Not because he pronounced "instigated" as "instikated" in his fourth sentence.

Not because he said Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of State.

Not because of his foolish comment that before 9/11 "we assumed oceans would protect us." (Ever since the Russians built their first ICBMs fifty years ago, the oceans haven't protected us.)

Not because he said of the August 6 briefing, "Frankly, I didn't think it was anything new"!

Not because he said that even if he had known beforehand that Iraq did not have WMD stockpiles, he still would have gone to war against Saddam Hussein.

Not because he had no coherent answer as to why Dick Cheney must hold his hand when he testifies to the 9/11 commission.

Not because he said that no one in his Administration had "any indication that bin Laden might hijack an airplane and run it into a building," when in fact, at the Genoa G-8 summit, there were precautions taken against incoming airplanes as missiles.

And not because he repeatedly refused to take a shred of personal responsibility for allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen on his watch.

No, his performance was scary because he plunged the United States deeper into a no-win war in Iraq.

"We will finish the job of the fallen," he said.

He gave only a pro forma nod toward the additional innocent Iraqis the United States may kill in the process.

"We will continue taking the greatest care to prevent harm to innocent civilians; yet we will not permit the spread of chaos and violence," he said. "I have directed our military commanders to make every preparation to use decisive force, if necessary, to maintain order and to protect our troops."

He reiterated this point later, saying, "Our commanders on the ground have got the authority necessary to deal with violence, and will--and will in firm fashion."

Here is the President warning that U.S. troops, who have already killed more than 600 Iraqis in the last week, will have a free hand.

That is a signal for slaughter.

He also continued to underestimate the resistance the United States is facing in Iraq. He called it "a power grab by extremist and ruthless elements." He said, "It is not a civil war. It is not a popular uprising." And, astonishingly, he asserted, "Most of Iraq is relatively stable."

That is not what many reporters have seen with their own eyes, and it is not what the TV screens are portraying.

What's more, Bush's vow to unleash "decisive force" will only make things worse.

He indicated that he will go after Moqtada al-Sadr, saying the cleric "must answer the charges against him and disband his illegal militia." This strongly suggests that Bush will order his troops to, as one senior commander said, "kill or capture" al-Sadr. And if that happens, all hell could break loose.

In his Manichaean worldview, Bush lumped the Iraqi insurgents in with the terrorists of 9/11. They are all "enemies of civilization," he said, and they share "a fanatical political ideology."

But many of those who are fighting against the U.S. occupation are not Al Qaeda members who want to destroy America and are not subscribers to the "ideology of terror." Rather, many are Iraqi nationalists who want to expel America from their own country because they have seen the brutality of the U.S. occupation.

That's a huge difference, and Bush makes a terrible mistake by conflating the two.

He also seems to have a static view of who the enemy is. He sees it as a finite group of innate murderers and evildoers. He thinks that all he needs to do is kill all the bad guys and victory is his.

But he doesn't understand that his policy is creating new enemies by the thousands every single day.

He warned that if the United States does not take "resolute action" and does not "stay the course" in Iraq, it will "recruit a new generation of killers."

What he failed to grasp is that by maintaining the brutal occupation, he himself is recruiting that generation.

And the more "firm" and "decisive" the U.S. military response, the more recruits Bush will be enlisting to fight against the United States.

Interestingly, the first question Bush got was on the Vietnam comparison.

But Bush did not want to hear anything about it. "The analogy is false," he said, without explaining why.

He did, however, suggest that it was almost treasonous to raise the specter of Vietnam. "That analogy sends the wrong message to our troops and to the enemy," he said.

(This is an echo of John Ashcroft's infamous statement that "those who scare peace-loving people with the phantoms of lost liberty" are giving "aid" and "ammunition" to America's enemies.)

In previous remarks, Bush has made clear that he believes the lesson of Vietnam is two-fold: first, that the political leaders interfered with the generals, and second, that the United States did not use overwhelming force.

If that is the lesson he applies here, the generals will run the war, and overwhelming force will be the order of the day.

Expect more troops to be sent over soon, or to have their tours extended. Bush said if General Abizaid wants more troops, which he does, he'll get them.

Bush also displayed again the full fervor of his messianic militarism.

Several times he mentioned that the war offered a "historic opportunity to change the world."

In one of his most emphatic moments, he said, "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."

This is Bush saying that he is doing God's work in Iraq. That is a particularly inappropriate claim to make, leaving aside the obvious leaping of the church/state wall. Given that Bush has chosen to wage war in an Islamic country, it is unlikely that there are many Iraqis who are anxious to hear Bush's theological justifications.

Bush's rhetoric is proof once again that the government of the United States is in the hands of a crude and deluded leader, whose war policy in Iraq promises more disasters to come.

"Our work may become more difficult before it is finished," he said.

With Bush's approach, that is a guarantee.

Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive.