Bush Press Conference

[Snowspinner]

Anyone watch this?

Bush's handlers fucked up big time. He just plain sucks as an extemp speaker, as this is proving. He looks unpresidential as all hell.

Also, did no one run a camera test on his tie?

[Sarno]

His handlers had to do something to break the 9/11 testimony -> Iraq War -> Random event for flavor -> back to 9/11 testimony news cycle the media has fallen into for the past 2 weeks. This cycle has been very damaging for Bush because all of it (with the exception of a good jobs report filling the radom slot for a few days) has spelled bad news for him.
Rice gave a very good performance given the material she had to work with but few saw her performance compared to how many read the "PDB: OBL determined to attack within the US" headline the next day. On top of all the bad news comming out of Iraq Ted "Kerry Hatchetman" Kennedy has successfully made the Vietnam Iraq connection(helped in no small part by what is happening in iraq right now). They needed something big to break this cycle so they shoved Bush up there in front of the cameras.

[daveNYC]

Deer in headlights is more like it.

A few of the reporters asked questions that gave him the opportunity to give an apology/take some responsibility for 9-11.  He's no Harry S. Truman, that's for sure.

[Mesozoic]

Anyone watch this?

No.  Pre-Iraq, I could at least enjoy his idiocy.  Now he just makes me sick.

[Flashman]

Were we watching the same event? What was so terrible about it?

I thought he did a pretty good job making his points and didn't see anything that would warrant such a negative review. He was "on message" as they say and when he speaks like he did last night it resonates with middle america if not the reporters in the room.

As far as  the apology question, I don't think the press was asking it so we could all have a shared cumbaya moment. I imagine it was more like " what a great clip that would make in a  Kerry campaign ad".

I think this was the start of him going back on the offensive. Oh well, guess we'll see what the polls say.

[Mesozoic]

What was so terrible about it?

The usual.

Bush was asked to name his biggest mistake since the attacks.

Bush couldn't cite one.

"I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here -- and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one," Bush said at the news conference.

[Snowspinner]

What was terrible about it?

His tie.

The fact that he referred to Secretary of State Rumsfeld.

The fact that he referred to "War on Africa" (He probably meant in)

The fact that, repeatedly faced with questions about what he might have done wrong, he totally denied that anything had been wrong, even when it obviously was. I particularly liked the part where he was asked about the false statements prior to Iraq, such as that they had WMD and we knew where they were, and that the Iraqi oil reserves would pay for reconstruction. He answered that oil reserves were better than we thought, and that the fact that the WMD are hidden just proves Hussein had something to hide. Which was, well, not the question.

His hilarious refusal to answer the question about why he and Cheney were appearing together in front of the 9/11 panel.

Need I go on? He was inarticulate, bumbling, and just refused to acknowledge the possibility that Iraq and pre-9/11 foreign policy were both massive and catastrophic fuckups.

[Flashman]

Well, I don't see how it differs from any press conference. Not answering the question but using it as an opportunity to pound your point across, ignoring a question or two, etc.

That's what I was getting at, you made it sound as if he had some sort of Muskie moment.

And so what if he misspoke a couple of times? Do you honestly think he believes that Rumsfeld is the Secretary of State? It's this attitude that causes Bush to be totally underestimated and then when it comes debate time, BAM! he puts in a mediocre performance but because the media has put this image into everyone's head that he's some drooling moron who can't string a sentence together, Bush comes across as Churchillian.

The truth is, he's not articulate but he "connects" with people and I also think he's alot smarter/more cunning than is ever given credit for and the constant painting of him by the elite press as some sort of moron only helps him and I wouldn't be suprised if the whole idea didn't come from Rove in the first place.

And about the mistake questions, if you watched PBS last night David Brooks was explaining the reasoning...
"He said he had asked people in the operation, "why don't you ever admit a mistake?" and was told: we tried it. That's right. During the summer, Wolfowitz came back from Iraq and said, we didn't do some things well. The next day... bam, all the coverage was about that: Wolfowitz admits... The press ignored everything he said about Iraq working as planned!

Thus: why bother? You're going to get slammed either way. "

So, its politics.

I am surprised that he didnt have a better answer, but I was disappointed in the questions as well. Repetitive and predictable.

[daveNYC]

It's a trap.  

1: Reporter asks question.  
2: Politician dodges question, repeats his 'message'.  
3: Second reporter asks a variation on the first question thinking there's something there.
4: See step 2.

[Mesozoic]

It's this attitude that causes Bush to be totally underestimated and then when it comes debate time, BAM! he puts in a mediocre performance

Theres a sig for someone.  

The truth is, he's not articulate but he "connects" with people

I don't think he ever "connected" with people, I think that back in 2000 people saw him as a "straight shooter," which played well versus peoples' impression that Clinton/Gore spoke in careful technicalities and legalese.  

That image has been destroyed by recent events, including is evasiveness about the National Guard issue, his "Nation Building" flip-flop, and, of course, the assertion that there were WMD in Iraq.

[Foix]

Here is a transcript.

Despite the fact that Bush's initial speech was rife with the questionable statements on which support (or lack thereof) for the war and occupation turn--his statement that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a haven for and supporter of terrorists; that the invasion of Iraq was therefore a blow against terrorism; that the recent Sunni and Shi'ite uprisings were prompted not by coherent grievances but hatred of the non-Islamic world and the desire to establish a theocracy in Iraq; that Islamic terrorism is a  monolithic enemy with a single set of global goals--it was delivered reasonably well, at least according to the usual standards of his public appearances.

The press conference that followed was something of a different story, at least in regard to Iraq. First, Bush generally shied away from answering the questions he was asked to repeatedly retreat to his familiar mantras: Saddam Was A Threat; the occupation of Iraq is Making America Safer; it is important that we Stay the Course and Demonstrate Resolve; Iraq is a part of the War on Terror. When he didn't fall back on mantras, he tended to evade. How will he encourage the intelligence reform thought necessary to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States in the future? ('I'm open to suggestions.') Why won't he and Cheney be interviewed separately by the 9/11 Commission as requested? ('Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions.') When he did deign to answer questions, the results were not reassuring: he has no idea as to what body sovereignty will be transferred to in Iraq on June 30th and there is apparently no timeline of any sort for the future withdrawl of American troops. He also still expresses the belief that Saddam's stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons weren't destroyed but are just hidden somewhere and people are afraid to talk. His statement that the War on Terror is a winnable conflict seemed to be equally divorced from reality.

I do have to say, however, that I felt the press was a bit silly with the repeated questions about whether or not Bush felt he had suffered failures or made mistakes during his presidency; questions of that sort are more suitable to a Barbara Walters interview than a White House press conference. Dwelling on the minutiae of the PDB of 8/6/01 and pre-9/11 intelligence in general seemed a waste of time, simply because there was not a great deal that Bush could say about them. Playing pin-the-blame regarding past intelligence failures offers more than enough opportunity for the sort of partisan smear tactics that dedicated supporters of the major parties enjoy, but it is otherwise an exercise in futility.

Per Flashman's post, I agree that the dominant themes put forward by Bush throughout the press conference--the noble American mission to spread freedom to Iraq and elsewhere in the world, and his assurances that he is an honest, forthright and steadfast individual--are the sort of tripe that the apolitical portion of the American public is inclined to consume with gusto, at least in the abstract; that is to say, as lost as the noble mission in question doesn't begin to seem insufficiently noble, or require any sacrifice in order to be brought to fruition, people will scorn the need to concern themselves with the veracity of such a statement, not to mention the likely outcome of a mission that seems to consist of imposing American values by force of arms upon members of cultures indifferent or hostile to our own. One might suppose that Bush's statements will paint him into a policy corner--that is, that he will obliged to foster genuine democracy in Iraq or suffer a severe political backlash--but the memory of the public is short; so long as the government installed is genial to Western interests, it is likely that no great fuss should be made.

In closing, the comment I found most interesting of Bush's revolved around one of his favorite terms: threat. Shortly after mentioning that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power because he was a threat, Bush said that the 'North Korea leader' (maybe he's forgotten Kim Jong Il's name) is also a threat.

[Snowspinner]

I don't take Secretary of State Rumsfeld to be evidence that he's incompetent.

I take the fact that he went up in a format - press conference - that he's terrible at, that he didn't prep with good answers to obvious questions, that he didn't camera test his tie, and that he didn't bother to come up with a reason or point for his press conference before pissing off twenty million people by pre-empting American Idol.

[Flashman]

and that he didn't bother to come up with a reason or point for his press conference before pissing off twenty million people by pre-empting American Idol.

Ha! i knew it! The real reason comes out! You just wanted to satisfy your Simon Cowell bitch fix and are lashing out at the prez!

By the way just read that Fox's ratings were down 14million due to the speech and that Fox only decided at the last moment to carry it, which is utter BS IMHO. It is a major press conference by the freaking president, you should carry it.

[Calantus]

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 answer, but it hadn't yet.

You can't make this shit up. Comedy. Gold.

And the whoooole world is seeing it... that is what's stupid about it.

[HaemishM]

I thought he did a pretty good job making his points and didn't see anything that would warrant such a negative review. He was "on message" as they say ...

That's one of the big problems I have with the entire Bush administration. Every goddamn one of them is always talking "on message." Apparently, "on message" translates into reading bits of text sent out on a memo verbatim on ways to defuse or obfuscate the tough questions. Daily Show has done an excellent job of splicing together comments from Condi Rice and the White House press secretary where the words they speak are EXACTLY THE SAME AND DO NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED. Even to middle America, it sounds disingenuous at best, an outright lie at worst. Staying "on message" and repeating "talking points" are all the fucking administration ever does when it comes to answering questions. While most PR people will tell you that being unflappable in the face of tough questions is good, I don't think any of them would recommend such obvious "script reading" type of answers. Of all of them, only Colin Powell has actually seemed in the least bit human or non-confrontational, and the administration has pretty much made him fall on his sword for their fuckups.

I missed the press conference. But my biggest reaction to the declassified memo they released last week was that it stated that the FBI KNEW that at least 2 people who were on the list of known fucking terrorists were in country before 9-11. The memo specifically stated that the FBI knew these very dangerous men were in country, and nothing happened about it. You'd think the President could think back to 1993, when two men drove a goddamn fertilizer truck up to a building and killed 193 people, with almost no hard to obtain or illegal materials involved. Why were these men not immediately ordered arrested, or at the very least tailed? Why the fuck did Immigration allow them in in the first place? And once they were in, and the higher ups of the administration knew it, why was no one making heads roll for letting them in? Why have none of the people in charge of the agencies that allowed such critical failures of stupidity been fired?

[Snowspinner]

and that he didn't bother to come up with a reason or point for his press conference before pissing off twenty million people by pre-empting American Idol.

Ha! i knew it! The real reason comes out! You just wanted to satisfy your Simon Cowell bitch fix and are lashing out at the prez!

Yeah. Because I'm going to watch something that's on opposite Gilmore Girls.

[Flashman]

I missed the press conference. But my biggest reaction to the declassified memo they released last week was that it stated that the FBI KNEW that at least 2 people who were on the list of known fucking terrorists were in country before 9-11. The memo specifically stated that the FBI knew these very dangerous men were in country, and nothing happened about it. You'd think the President could think back to 1993, when two men drove a goddamn fertilizer truck up to a building and killed 193 people, with almost no hard to obtain or illegal materials involved. Why were these men not immediately ordered arrested, or at the very least tailed? Why the fuck did Immigration allow them in in the first place? And once they were in, and the higher ups of the administration knew it, why was no one making heads roll for letting them in? Why have none of the people in charge of the agencies that allowed such critical failures of stupidity been fired?

Hey, I agree with you.

My best guess about all of this is that I think no one had any idea just how fucked up things were then. The FBI unable to talk to the CIA, the FBI afraid to get a search warrant on a Muslim guy's computer b/c some politically correct bullshit concerns, too many agencies with too many overlapping duties that never ever talk to each other. But they sure love to get in pissing contests and turf wars.

No one connected any dots, no one saw the threat from islamic terror, no one wanted to "rock the boat", we just weren't prepared.

As to why people haven't been fired I'm not sure, maybe there is no one better out there? (I'm thinking of Tenent as someone who should probably be fired). Maybe because change doesn't always equal progess?

Not sure.

[El Gallo]

It never ceases to amaze me that out of the ~300 million people we have, we can't seem to come up with very many at all who have both the skills necessary to be a successful politician (1-the ability to work small groups of people for money and 2-the ability to speak well to a large audience).  It does not seem that it would be all that hard to have both, but C-Span regularly proves me wrong.

As for this one, I thought that the speech itself was pretty good.  Much better than he did at the State of the Union.  The “answering questions” part was pretty brutal to watch though.  He just sucks at that.

[Margalis]

As to why people haven't been fired I'm not sure, maybe there is no one better out there? (I'm thinking of Tenent as someone who should probably be fired). Maybe because change doesn't always equal progess?

Not sure.

They have been fired. The FBI field agents that *tried* to get something done have mostly been let go.

What type of message does that send?

[Dren]

It never ceases to amaze me that out of the ~300 million people we have, we can't seem to come up with very many at all who have both the skills necessary to be a successful politician (1-the ability to work small groups of people for money and 2-the ability to speak well to a large audience).  .

We have people that have the skills.  It is the desire that is lacking.  That has got to be the worst job in the world for anyone with any skills to speak of.  Why would you go through the education and humiliation to get to that position is beyond me.  

You ever notice that our Presidents always age like 15 years during a 4 year term?  Why go through that when they could probably go make more money with less stress elsewhere.  That same job probably wouldn't have people all over the country calling you an "idiot" either.

[Snowspinner]

Because those jobs aren't the most powerful job in the world.

[Ballast]

repeating "talking points" are all the fucking administration ever does

That's all any administration ever does. Clinton, Bush the Elder, Reagan, etc, etc. Why would you expect this administration to be any different?  ... or did you buy into the Bush hype at the beginning and now are just bitter at being led on?

Somewhat more on topic, the intelligence apparatus of the US never reevaluated its role at the "close" of the Cold War. It was still operating in the same modes of thought, ie. major opponents were set-piece and easily identifiable, and the occasional lack of warning of a flare-up elsewhere could be attributed to resources otherwise allocated. Tenant, Freeh, et al. are guilty primarily of allowing stagnation in their organizations. The administrations, going back to Reagan, are guilty of allowing those people to preside over the continuing stagnation.

Bottom line:  The intelligence organizations of the US failed. Miserably. While they did indeed gather the necessary intelligence, they were unable to collate that information into "actionable intelligence". Blinders of that sort are inexcusable. In my opinion, the heads of all those organizations need to be replaced by people with a more forward-thinking approach.

[HaemishM]

I agree with you. By that same token, the Bush administration was working with the same blinders on, looking to things like a "Missle Defense Shield" as a more important, more iminent threat than terrorism.

As for repeating talking points, perhaps its my age, but the Bush administration seems keenly intent on doing nothing BUT repeating the talking points, and doing it in a ham-fisted, obvious way.

[Margalis]

Bottom line:  The intelligence organizations of the US failed. Miserably. While they did indeed gather the necessary intelligence, they were unable to collate that information into "actionable intelligence".

Bullshit. That's complete fabrication.

FBI field agents were asking for months for permission for more leeway to investigate those flight school terrorists. They knew who they were and had a good idea of where they were and what they were planning.

Our intelligence gathering was fine, and it was actionable. But nobody took action because their superiors blocked them, mostly out of ignorance and arrogance. ("hah, what does some Minnesota field agent know?")

Luckily, all those arrogant, stupid people are still employed in the same positions.

When you have the intelligence you need and choose to ignore it, the solution is not more intelligence.

[Roac]

Luckily, all those arrogant, stupid people are still employed in the same positions.

It's fairly consistant in most fields that people look after their own, and push come to shove, management has more power than grunts.  This is the source of most Dilbert comics, and is the source of no end of problems.  The solution is to empower grunts.  The problem is that few managers are going to willingly do that.

[HaemishM]

The failure started with Immigration allowing those known terrorists into the country.

It escalated when Immigration didn't immediately inform the proper authorities that said terrorists were in the country, as well as their inability to immediately arrest anyone with falsified papers and deport their asses.

When the FBI and whoever else learned these men were in the country, it failed even more miserably when these men were not only allowed to take flight lessons, they were allowed to do whatever they wanted, without being tailed 24/7, or arrested.

Everywhere I see failures, it's either because someone fucked up and didn't want to accept the blame for the fuckup, or were not given the authority to correct the fuckup. The problem isn't really lack of resources, but lack of the clue that is required to coordinate those resources.

[Dren]

Because those jobs aren't the most powerful job in the world.

I'll give you that, but if that is the only reason these people are going for the presidency, then we are right back to "Where do we get these people?"  The system melts it down to people that have money, are somewhat smart, have the credentials to get nominated, can "smooz" like no other, and are motivated purely by the sense of power.

I'd like to think they want to do it to make this a better country, but most the time their actions speak otherwise.  The people that actually want to do that don't meet the criteria above, so they lose.

[Secundo]

I am not an american so my views are those of an outsider.

Bush is a fuckup. Get rid of him as soon as possible.

[Daydreamer]

I am not an american so my views are those of an outsider.

Bush is a fuckup. Get rid of him as soon as possible.

You forgot the 11th Commandment of Internet Posting - Thou shalt not beat a two-week dead horse without a really really good reason.

[HaemishM]

Well, after all, the ability to say the words "Bush is a fuckup" is usually reason enough.