I completely agree with this. While I do maintain that there are many people who are much more intelligent who should be running the country, I don’t necessarily think he was too dumb to understand the questions because they weren't that hard. I think he just has no idea what he's doing or what to say to these people, and so therefore he just basically dodged questions and repeated the same old, same old....

GW hardly ever speaks to the press, so I was expecting something big. But it was a pretty big letdown, and it left me feeling actually worse about what's happening in Iraq instead of better.

More than a year ago I posted concerns about Iraq becomming out next Vietnam. I sure hope I was wrong, but this News Conference didn't do much to allay my fears.

No comparison. I hope you feel better.

-Rudey

It has its similarities, though. But yes, you're right. Really no comparison in terms of numbers of men and women being killed, and at least there's a defendable reason (even if it's defended very poorly) for being in Iraq.

No...no similarities.

-Rudey

I saw some similarities then and I see more now.

Really...good for you. Which similarities did you see?

I have to print out several pitch books so post quickly before I jump on a plane.

-Rudey

The DNC is using his conference against him in a new ad.


http://www.democrats.org/mistakesweremade/index.html

i admit that i may be a lil biased at times ;), but with this situation, i really agree with ktsnake in that if you actually listened to what he was saying instead of being automatically critical (not that everyone did this, but i tend to think that some, if not most, on here did), you (being the generalized "you") would've understood more of what he was attempting to get across. paying attention to his tie moreso than his message just proves that ppl pay more attention to things that don't matter over the things that do.

deltalum, you have to know that i totally respect your opinions, so please don't take that as an attack......just sayin.

George Bush did not answer some of the questions from those in the press (the overwhelming majority) conference who were openly attempting to get him to say things they wanted him to say, because when the question is really NOT a question but a thinly veiled rebuke/attack/lecture from a so-called reporter, (like the dweeb from NPR) it does not deserve an answer. Had I been in the President's place I might have been just a wee bit less diplomatic than he chose to be, and suggest to NPRboy that when he grows up he can come back just any old time and ask some real questions.

I'll be gentle and stop at this point in order to avoid offending some...

I don't take it as an attack at all. But I think you're wrong. I think he was completely befuddled. That's why he has done so few of these. He's really bad at it.

Whether you agree or disagree with what he says -- or tries to say -- he comes across very poorly in this kind of situation.

As for the reporters questions, this ain't the first time and won't be the last that a politician is grilled -- especially when the country is in the kind of controversy(s) that we presently are.

Don't need the sarcasm of the "good for you." You can ask for my opinion without that.

Sorry, I didn't answer right away, but I was also running for the airport and have been on the road for a week.

I answered (at least in part) tonight in the thread about soldiers tours being extended.

ktsnake-I see two groups of folks in this thread. One, made up almost entirely of people who have always been very critical to negative of the President focus on his delivery and demeanor. The other group of historical Bush supporters tend to say that we got the message and appreciate a President that stands on his principles.
EXACTLY!

AnchorAlum-...because when the question is really NOT a question but a thinly veiled rebuke/attack/lecture from a so-called reporter, (like the dweeb from NPR) it does not deserve an answer.
Complete Agreement!
What all this media crud is boiling down to-IMO-is trying to place blame. Who's fault was it? IT WAS THE TERRORISTS' FAULT YOU GUYS!

These attacks are not hurting Bush as much as the Democratic machinery might have hoped. Some polls show him ahead of Kerry. PLUS they now (Democrats) have hired an "image man" to recreate Kerry into a more centrist candidate. Once again-Kerry seesaws on issues and can't even "find" himself! (BTW-he should have been awarded a lifetime supply of Bactine rather than the Purple Heart!:rolleyes: ) People may not like Bush, but reality may prove Americans prefer a leader who stands by his beliefs as opposed to one who can't even DEFINE his beliefs because they change as frequently as the crowd he's addressing. Give me a leader who's position I can understand, NOT some puppet created by Teddy Kennedy. If you feel comfortable with a candidate who tells YOU what you WANT to hear Monday and ME what I WANT to hear Tuesday, then by all means-vote Scary Kerry! ...but I think that-THAT camp's numbers are dwindling!

I tried - but when he started talking about "brown people" I became nauseated and had to turn him off. Seriously, my jaw dropped with that comment.

And I could have done without all the "shoulda" instead of "should have" and "dih-int" instead of "didn't" etc. I know we all do it, but you're the President of the United States, could you please speak clearly and enunciate - especially on television!?

I do give him credit for at least agreeing to it - even if he did avoid questions and answer things according to what he wanted to say and not what was asked.

Bien tot.

I didn't ask for an opinion I don't recall, and I'd serve a dying man sarcasm as his last meal because I wear my collar up and can do that. How about we stick with facts? You barely addressed this in that thread. What you addressed is not unique to Vietnam but to many wars, if not all wars.

-Rudey
--Ca va bien.