Bush Press Conference
 

I find it hard to believe that there isn't already a thread about last night's press conference, but I don't see one.

Is it just me, or does Bush sound like he has no idea what he's talking about? Bush himself, regardless of political party, really just doesn't look that intelligent. Before I thought he was a liar, but now I realize he actually believes in what he says and does, which says to me that he's dumber than I thought.

I'm still mad at him for pushing back American Idol ;) :p

But from the reports I have read... it seems like he didn't have a clue what to do anymore.

Bush looked like he hit a wall with all that's going on around him. I read in the paper that He wanted to stop the erosion that many people felt was his inability as a Decisive Leader in confronting Threats to the U.S.

Found out that brown-skinned people are democratically compatible and that Rumsfeld is the Secretary of State.

ETA: Other than that, a pretty boring press conference with nothing new to add.

i saw a president who believed whole-heartedly in what this country is doing. i saw a president who was frustrated with all the criticism over the fight against terrorism. i saw a president who stuck to what he wanted to say (which can go either good of bad, but still)....there were things he wanted to say, and i think he said them.

i don't think he revealed himself as being dumb....i think he revealed himself as being a passionate person. when he was just reading his speech, i was like, "o-k"....but then when he started answering questions, i saw him putting thought into them and being a normal emotional human being and showing his determination.

but maybe that was just me.......

I think it's just you because you seem to be taking a cheap shot here.

-Rudey

Not that I am a George Fan, he is taking a lot of hits here and on the National scene.

Try talking to Some Military people who have been there and get a feel of what they think.

Was the un-intellegence wrong? Who is to say. Is the Military always right-?.

For good bad or worse, this is what we got. Do I like to see any of the People over there Killed, no. Did I like what happened at the Towers and the Pentegon happen, no.

I was lucky, none of My Close Brothers were killed, but I think most of us had Brothers and Sisters killed, hurt, or harmed in some way.:(

It may not be a good situation, but maybe in the long run, it will turn out for the better! Just Pray it is not another Nam!:(

People who will be willing to kill their own people who are trying to work for the betterment of their Country and get killed, it does wear on you. So what do you do? Fight the ones who hopefully are trying to help! Sad but True!

Anti war, well, there are a few countrys who do not beleive in try ing to control Neuculear weapons. So wht is next. Give in to them!????

He avoided too many questions and looked stumped alot. I think he would have been better off not doing that conference.

I especially loved his answer to that last question... hehehe :p

The term "rose colored glasses" comes to mind.

That's not meant as a slam because we know you are a huge supporter of The President.

I thought he bordered between arrogant and perplexed. The content consisted of the same old retreads.

Clearly, he knows that he isn't any good at this kind of thing because he does far less than the past several Chief Executives who used them often as a PR tool.

On another note, the folks on his staff who should have known better really dropped the ball for him from a technical standpoint. Anybody notice the huge step ladder in the background of one of the shots? How could that have been left there? Also, the "running" colors in his tie? Anybody who has been around color TV for more than 10 minutes knows that small prints (even though on TV the tie looked single color -- it couldn't have been), cause that effect -- called more'.

I'm amazed that the folks at the White House Communications Agency (lovingly known as WOCA -- prounouced Wa-Ka -- to those of us who have televised Presidents) certainly know better.

Which, of course, had nothing to do with the content, but was distracting and amateur looking.

While not the best speaker in the world, Bush managed to convey his message to any who would listen.

Many who would not listen drew their own conclusions based on his poor delivery. If you listened to what he was saying, agree or disagree, he had a sound case for action.

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.

Re: Bush Press Conference
 

hahahahahahahahaha i actually didn't see the press conference because it wasn't broadcasted over here- but from what i've read about it- i definately agree....

That was the most painful presidential speech i've ever watched. Unbelievable. It was like he didn't understand what any of the questions that were asked of him.

The Red Wings game was on.. I have priorities!

Dee

I was actually surprised it wasn't any worse. I think he understood the questions, he just chose to work his way around them. But yeah, it seemed like he didn't understand them...

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.

JAM, thanks for your supportive comments!

I think that the President's manner of speech is just fine. I would venture a guess that most of you cannot remember John F. Kennedy's speech and accent. I was just a young kid but I do distinctly remember that I thought it odd at the time that he was all hot under the collar about a place called "Cuber".

GWB does persist in saying "newclear" but you know what? So did Jimmy Carter, a trained naval nuclear scientist.

The question here is what is good enunciation? And if you and the President are in sync politically, I bet you understand him clearly.

"I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet."
-President George W. Bush


That isn't about enunciation, that's about being able to think on your feet and be mentally agile. People seriously have confidence in a president that requires difficult questions to be pre-written in order to develop a coherent answer? If Bill Clinton had said that I'd question him too.

I see your point enlightenment06, but for me, I really do feel more secure with a person who gives an honest answer, as awkward as it may be, to a question than one regurgitating a canned response...or a "scary" one.

"I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations." -- John Kerry, 1970

"I've met with foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly," he said. "But, boy, they look at you and say: 'You've got to win this. You've got to beat this guy. We need a new policy.' Things like that." -- John Kerry discusses his meetings with unidentified "foreign leaders"

"I'm a Christian. I've read the Bible and I know you can find the clauses that go both ways (on gay marriage). I'm not here to argue that with you." -- John Kerry in March, 2004

"President Clinton was often known as the first black president. I wouldn't be upset if I could earn the right to be the second." -- John Kerry, 2004

"Everybody always makes the mistake of looking South. Al Gore proved he could have been president of the United States without winning one Southern state, including his own." -- John Kerry

----------------
From his Vietnam "Comrades" -"Under Kerry's leadership, VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against The War) members mocked the uniform of United States soldiers by wearing tattered fatigues marked with pro-Communist graffiti. They dishonored America by marching in demonstrations under the flag of the Viet Cong enemy.” -- Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry

edited-can't spell!

Say it ain't so! Did he really say, verbatim, "brown people"? I didn't watch the speech at all. Something tells me that might have been a good thing, although it may have raised my blood pressure up to a somewhat normal level :)

I stand by my comments. It all boils down to your politics.

I guess it also boils down to what the meaning of is is...at least according to certain Rhodes Scholars.
I wonder if Clinton did HIS best thinking on his feet. Methinks not.

Awesome quotes supplied by J.A.M. ! Kerryisms could go on and on. The attempt to make a silk purse out of THAT sow's ear continues. But if the head sow - known in Boston as Ted - remains in charge, expect the same result.

As to "brown people" I think people need to understand the context of the remark. And the President has Hispanic nieces and nephews. How many of us do?

My sincere apologies, I did mis-quote. Here is what was said:

"Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing or free. I'd strongly disagree with that."

So, brown-skinned is a bit better than brown people but it's still completely inapropriate for a President to say.

Well, considering the babies that will come from my womb will be 50% Hispanic, and my future husband is 100% Hispanic as is his whole family, I think I get even more "Hispanic points" than the President! Lucky me, I can go around making insensitive remarks and use my finace's family to make it ok!!! :rolleyes:

Please, that's like saying you can use the N-word because "one of my closest friends is black!"

Again, there seems to be some difficulty here in interpreting people's spoken and written remarks. If one wishes to find offense in another's words, and has their mind already made up to do so, then it becomes a fait accompli, does it not?

President Bush was subtlely referencing the fact that radical Islamists push an idea that people in parts of the world where the Muslim faith is dominant must blindly follow the hate and ignorance necessary to justify their murderous and controlling actions. This does include large parts of the globe where people are "perhaps...brown skinned". By the way there are human beings who have brown skin and are members of many diverse cultures and faiths.

I referenced the President's family in order to point out that he would not have made that remark in a racist way.

I find no justification in using the N word EVER. Do you?

That is an intemperate remark to make on a board filled with well-educated Caucasians from the South, who are very sensitive in avoiding hurtful name-calling and who strive every day to build strong communities which are inclusive and caring.:(

I think its generally conceded that JFK was a more charismatic speaker than the current President.

I don't hold that against him to much, content is more impotant than style.

I think we have just gotten used to "movie star" presidents. Both Reagen and Clinton were excellent speakers.

Please don't chastise me for mis-interpreting words when you did the exact same thing. I never called Bush a racist. I simply said the President of the United States should know enough not to make sweeping generalizations about people of a certain skin color.

Also, President Bush did not marry a Hispanic woman. Nor did he have any choice in the matter that his brother did or that he would gain Hispanic nieces and nephews from the situation. Personally, your justification doesn't work for me because he didn't choose for them to be part of his family. And I say that because I'm sure there are members of my very Caucasian family who have said a not so nice thing or two about Latins before I ever brought home my fiance. Just because I'm not a racist doesn't mean members of my family can't be.

Of course not! Again, thank you for completely misconstruing my words. As I said, I was pointing out that your idea that Bush couldn't say something racially insensitive because he has Hispanic family members holds about as much truth to me as completely closed-minded people who think it's ok to use the N-word or other such racially insensitive phrases simply because they "have a close friend whose black". It's an excuse that doesn't fly.

Again, what I said had NOTHING to do with the well-educated Southern members of this board. What I said was in reference to the President of the United States using the term "brown-skinned" - it's simply inappropriate.

How come you're the only one who seems upset over this?

-Rudey