We're all watching the president, right?
 

And we're all taking notes, right?





We should be, the finals for "Avoiding the Question 201" are next week.

Damn hippies...
 

I didn't watch the speech but I read the bulk of the text. Some interesting points.

First, I find it ironic now that public debate has clearly shifted the focus of the 9-11 commission to the agencies and AWAY from the White House that Bush would indicate that he's looking forward to the report and its recommendations to help improve the agencies. Just a week ago they were rallying around the cause deflecting Clarke's criticism of THEM.

Second, I found it interesting the he noted that the violence in Fallujah was neither a popular uprising nor a civil war but rather a "power grab". He's probably absolutely right. That is likely a very accurate assessment of what's happening in Fallujah. But he stated it as if the "power grab" were somehow LESS significant and less violent than the other two. We have a problem. A big one. Whether you call it a donkey show, an uprising, or a "power grab".

In addition, it hasn't gotten too much press as of late but I beleive that we've come to a bit of a stand off with Sadr and it's not over. The man obviously has some kind of loyal following, even if it's only local. He's managed to inspire a substantial amount of violence in a short period of time. I do not believe that we intend to negotiate with him, outside of the short term. He is now cornered. If and when the "showdown" occurs, Sadr is in the perfect position for martyrdom. Killing him will only lead to larger unrest. I believe it may not be far off.

Finally, Bush's chapioning of the transition to Iraqi led government seems less about handing over power and more about wiping our hands clean of the mess. All this "self rule" and "self determination" nonsense seems insincere. Does anyone honestly think that if we relenquish overt control of the government and more importantly, the security functions of the nation that outright civil war won't shortly follow?

There are surely more Sadr's throughout the country, all vying for a piece of the pie. In this sense it seems very much like Afghanistan. Coalition governments among groups and clans that have absolutely detested one another for a century have little possibility of success. Without a U.S. security apparatus, chances for success and stability seem futile.

Terrible. Just terrible.

The shot that summarized the night for me was him walking away with his back to the microphone.

He dodged questions, contradicted himself, and talked in circles.

He made sense for the first 10 seconds that I caught, but that's about as long as I think he'll ever last.

I didn't catch it, so david, please cite specific examples of him dodging question and talking in circles.

Who's david?

He was asked the yes-or-no question of "Do you think you've failed as a communicator?" and he responded with "We're going to let the American voters decide that in November."
He was asked if he thinks he and/or his administration owe apologies to the American people for 9/11 and without saying "yes" or "no," went into rhetoric and blame-placing without addressing the question head-on.

He kept coming back to the same tired points, mentioning a "turkey farm with 50 tons of mustard gas" multiple times.

Roughly every answer came back to "we're going to stay the course in Iraq," even if the question was completely unrelated.

So, he was just supposed to walk into a question thatwas a trap? He is a politician for crying out loud.

Or he could admit to his mistakes, miscommunications, and misdeeds and perhaps save a little bit of face in the eyes and minds of people who are paying attention, instead of depending on those who aren't to follow him like lemmings, provided he doesn't directly admit wrongdoing.

I started to watch, but the bile kept rising in my throat so I had to turn it off.

Be specific, what mistake?? What miscommunication???What Misdeeds???

Was invading Iraq a mistake? It could be, in your opinion. But that is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe the President, like myself and others, do not think it was a mistake.

I must also add that the references to all the terrorist actions against U.S. intrests, that occured in the past, was a nice touch. I think it helps to put things in perspective.

Short of citing the war in Iraq specifically as a mistake, can I instead cite his complete failure to adhere to the will of America and the world in the spring of 2003?
I believe signs in protest of the war immediately after the fact read something along the lines of "THE WORLD SAID NO."

Or perhaps the mistake his administration made in drastically cutting back our attentiveness to terrorism even up to 9/10/2001?

Maybe the "miscommunication" (which, in this case, is the gentle way of saying "bold-faced lie") that American soldiers would be greeted as liberators by the Iraqi people?

Or I could mean the misdeed of wilfully acting pre-emptively on shoddy intelligence that had been questioned by the international community.

No president is perfect, and many presidents apologize. This administration simply refuses to admit that they are ever wrong.


Are you kidding me? That's hyping, scare-mongering, and focusing on measly losses to inflate the cause in the eyes of a vengeful (or mourning) American public. I don't want to sound like Max's parrot, but more people die in car accidents every year than terrorist attacks. Wake the fuck up, you're being manipulated.

He's not elected by the world, so our opinion is irrelevent.

>: - American Idiol was rescheduled because of the moron's press conference.

I rest my case.

Um, no.
 

No not so much really. You made no case. Anywhere.

I must also add that your glib, non-specific, one- to three-sentence posts never add anything to any discussion, and kind of make me want to bludgeon you with an olive loaf.

I must say, though, that it was very smart of Bush to avoid the "apology" trap the reporters had set.

GA makes an interesting point... the 9/11 investigation has shifted to being all about this intelligence gathering pointing fingers at the agencies thing without adressing some real questions I think we all want to know... like who authorized the Saudi planes and why. It's like that's become a side topic to question in passing, without it being the focus it should be. It would also help if GW stopped smirking so much.

Wherewhat? You had a case?
I don't think you proved much of a point... anywhere.

I do hope you're joking. This planet is definitely too small for any government to take that kind of stance on such an international affair, especially considering the (very slim) possibility that WMD may have been used as a direct result of our actions.

It's a good thing I'm not in control of any form of Government then. :rolleyes

1. W. isnt the president of the world (although he is the president of the "free world"), so their opinion doesn't mean all too much in the long run. Last time I checked, stupid little non-important countries weren't suffering from Muslim terrorist attacks.

2. The last time the world came to an agreement about something, Nazi Germany was steamrolling through Europe and gathering up countries without a shot being fired. Appeasement worked out really well in that case :rolleyes

Davin, a little history about the way the world works: Just because the world says something, that doesnt make it right. By the statement you made, it would seem that you would support the state-sponsored bukkake of teenage girls when they turn 18. After all, the wwwoorrllddd agreed to it!

OMG! I HAVE THE SAME VIEWPOINT AS VINTH! :O

Except I do support the state-sponsored bukkake of teenage girls when they turn 18. :/

:( - That's leader of the free world.

:( - You're an idiot.