In final press conference, Bush defends his legacy
 

WASHINGTON – In a nostalgic final news conference, President George W. Bush defended his record vigorously and at times sentimentally Monday — and admitted mistakes, too, including his optimistic Iraq speech before a giant "Mission Accomplished" banner in 2003.

After starting what he called "the ultimate exit interview" with a lengthy and personalized thank-you to the reporters in the room who have covered him over the eight years of his presidency, Bush showed anger at times when presented with some of the main criticisms of his time in office.

He particularly became indignant when asked about America's bruised image overseas.

"I disagree with this assessment that, you know, that people view America in a dim light," he said.

With the Iraq war in its sixth year, he most aggressively defended his decisions on that issue, which will define his presidency like no other. There have been over 4,000 U.S. deaths since the invasion and toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

He said that "not finding weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment." The accusation that Saddam had and was pursuing weapons of mass destruction was Bush's main initial justification for going to war.

Bush admitted another miscalculation: Eager to report quick progress after U.S. troops ousted Saddam's government, he claimed less than two months after the war started that "in the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed," a claim made under a "Mission Accomplished" banner that turned out to be wildly optimistic. "Clearly, putting `Mission Accomplished' on an aircraft carrier was a mistake," he said Monday.

He also defended his decision in 2007 to send an additional 30,000 American troops to Iraq to knock down violence levels and stabilize life there.

"The question is, in the long run, will this democracy survive, and that's going to be a question for future presidents," he said.

On another issue destined to figure prominently in his legacy, Bush said he disagrees with those who say the federal response to Hurricane Katrina was slow.

"Don't tell me the federal response was slow when there were 30,000 people pulled off roofs right after the storm passed. ... Could things been done better? Absolutely. But when I hear people say the federal response was slow, what are they going to say to those chopper drivers or the 30,000 who got pulled off the roof?" he said.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090112/...ews_conference

I wish I had seen it. I bet it was as absurd as this.

I enjoyed the press conference. Straight and to the point. A little humor but kind of sad.

People can criticize Bush's legacy all they want to but they need to remember that a lot goes on that the president doesn't initiate or have complete control over. The president is the "fall guy" for many decisions and the target of domestic and international hatred when things fail. That makes sense because populations are at the whim of their governments and those in power. You verbally (or, unfortunately physically) attack the visible target because that's the only target you know about/have access to.

I hope that Obama has a successful presidency. However, I won't give him full credit for most of the successes and failures that occur in the next 4 years. A lot of it won't be of his doing. He will, however, bore the hell out of me with his speaking style. Hopefully he'll get over the "charismatic speaker" gig soon enough. I'll try to stomach him enough to enjoy his historic inauguration speech. Afterall, I did vote for him.

LOL.

It wasn't absurd.

I know what it means to miss New Orleans.
 

Okay, so people were pulled off roofs. Eventually.

What about the REST of the FEMA response? AND . . . how about that botched response to Ike?!

I still say - Federal response to Katrina was slow. It still IS slow - there are too many people still not able to return home, still too much to be done. Some of it may be laid at the feet of the government, some at insurance companies. But still - to be as righteously indignant as he was about the response to Katrina is a bit much.

Bush was a big disappointment.

The response was slow in comparison to . . . the other time we had a catastrophic flooding of the 9th Ward?

Everything is relative, and without any sort of basis for comparison, it sounds like the last line ("Bush was a disappointment") is informing everything before it, instead of the other way around.

It was slow in comparison to what would be an appropriate reaction to ANY national disaster. And that isn't even going into the role the failure of the levees (thanks, Army COE!) played in that. My point is Bush has nerve acting indignant that his administration has been criticized for their handling of Katrina. If it makes you feel any better, I think democrat Ray Nagin blew it on a city level, too.

I only commented on that part of the press conference because I saw that part.

As for the disappointment - that is a general observation about his entire two terms. I voted for him the first time, didn't the second. I expected much better from him, and am afraid he was not able to rise to the office.

Well said

This is completely meaningless tripe, and borderline tautological - it's like saying "Bush's response was inadequate because it was not enough" or something similar.

Remember - you're using a personal definition of "slow" or "appropriate" that is based in, as far as I know, absolutely zero professional or specialized knowledge. Bush is disagreeing, based on both professional/specialized knowledge, and an offsetting personal bias. Which one is showing more "nerve"? Or are they basically doing the same thing?

I mean, feel free to judge the man's actions from afar, but it's kind of silly to act like he has "some nerve" when you're assigning to him actions/results/etc. that are, as DrPhil has noted, only marginally within his control (or are largely out of his control). That seems awkward to me.

I really appreciate KSig RC.

So you believe and Brownie and his minions did a great job with Katrina? Adequate job? What? And that only those with professional/specialized knowledge are entitled to an opinion which is not "meaningless tripe"? As far as I know, you have no professional/specialized knowledge in this area, so does your response now count as nothing? I would be interested in what criteria you are using in defending the response to Katrina. Maybe you have some information I do not, and that would inform my opinion. I doubt it, but am always open to having to change my opinion. We are perhaps using a different definition of "adequate" for the federal response.

Bush specified one very isolated aspect of the federal response to the disaster, and wants us to believe that it is representative. Given the reams of coverage of Katrina - before, during and after - I'd say that anyone who wanted to judge the federal government's response has plenty of information with which to make an informed decision. The most telling fact is that here we are, years later, and the levees are still in danger of failing again, residents are still not able to return, and the city is still suffering. No, Bush is not responsible in the sense that he made every decision, but he is in the sense that he appointed those who were. The buck stops with him. He was certainly ready to take credit for the response to 9/11.

As to whether or not professional/specialized knowledge is required to judge the federal government's actions, I'd have to defer to C.S. Lewis, who famously said that the problem with allowing only those in a field to judge is that you then have to decide the criteria for who is entitled to an opinion. I don't have specialized/professional knowledge in foreign affairs, or finance, or a host of other aspects of the government. That does not mean I am not fully able to judge the actions of my elected representatives. Using your logic, almost none of us should be able to have an opinion regarding almost anything other than our limited professional/specialized field of knowledge.

eta - back on topic, at least somewhat - what do you think will be the final overall verdict on Bush? I'd predict it will be a mixed bag - that history will give him credit for some things he did well that are currently not being discussed much, but his handling of Iraq will be negatively viewed. That's my meaningless, tripey opinion.

Agreed - I'll also add that no responsible historian would judge a Presidency, or the actions during that presidency, so soon after it ended (or so close to the end of the Presidency). It is only after the passage of a number of years (decades even), when you look at the long-term affects, that you can fairly examine a Presidency.

I think you're largely misinterpreting RC's statement, and getting at two different issues. No one is saying that you can't make your own judgments about decisions made during the Presidency. The fact is, though, that many of these judgments are outside the grasp and understanding of the average voter, or, even the average college graduate. The simple fact is that most of us don't have that expertise, and that most of us don't have the (largely classified) information on which those decisions were based. Most of us have to understand our own limitations (both intellectually and professionally), and realize that we may not understand everything there is to know about governance.

As American citizens, we have the right to hold our elected officials accountable through our votes and through referenda. That doesn't mean we have the expertise necessary to completely understand these decisions, or that we know the whole story.

"Why did the financial collapse HAVE TO HAPPEN ON MY WATCH?! Pathetic!!"

LOL...Bush is a riot.

Oh, I don't pretend to "completely understand" any aspect of politics - like every other average citizen, I have to make my judgements using the information that is out there. My husband is a political columnist, so I do have an opportunity to access some information that maybe isn't out in the mainstream media. But in this day and age, I'd say the average citizen can access, with a little work, plenty of information regarding the issues of the day.

The success or failure of a political action is the ultimate deciding factor. You don't have to have all the classified information regarding Katrina to be able to look at New Orleans and decide whether or not the city, state and federal responses were effective. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

The whole concept of being a good president or a bad president is rubbish and it's especially unfair to judge a president based on things that are out of his control. I think that Bush was a solid president, I agree with his foreign policy decisions and feel that while the Fed could have done a few things differently, the economic collapse was inevitable. Its very easy to blame him but not necessarily correct to do so.