The President is speaking in a bit (WATCH IT!)

Analysis: More theatre than substance


By Jon Leyne
BBC correspondent in Washington

President Bush came out for his rare evening press conference set on showing himself as a quietly determined leader committed to his policy in Iraq after some "difficult weeks".

The situation in Iraq could make Mr Bush vulnerable at the polls
He wanted to confront criticisms of his policy in Iraq and his counter-terrorism efforts before the 11 September 2001 attacks.

More theatre than substance, he offered no shocking new policy initiatives. Instead, he sought to calm the nation.

With growing unease over the direction of the action in Iraq, Mr Bush delivered a steady-as-you-go message, fearing that he stands more to lose if he wavers than if he stays the course.

Commitments

The press conference was not without some news. He will seek a new UN resolution looking for more international support in Iraq.

He also said that he was committed to providing whatever troops are needed after US Gen John Abizaid said he would need some 10,000 additional troops to help stabilise the country in face of attacks from insurgents.

"If that's what he wants, that's what he gets," Mr Bush said.

And he reiterated his commitment that the US would hand over sovereignty to the Iraqis at the end of June.

"Sovereignty involves more than a date and a ceremony, it requires Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own future," Mr Bush said.

It remains unclear how the US will do that bearing in mind that they have not announced the political institutions to be in place and the Iraqi security forces performed poorly during the recent violence.

But the president kept to a tough message on Iraq with few compromises.

At one point, he said that he instructed his commanders to make every preparation to use decisive force in Iraq if necessary.

He played the tough, decisive leader, repeating again his ideological message that it is America's duty to spread freedom in the world.

And again he stressed in the face of questions over the rationale for the war in Iraq that it was very much part of the war on terror.

Poll mobility

Politically, quite a lot is at stake for Mr Bush who is seeking re-election in November.


For those in the US who have questions about the country's direction - and polls show an increasing number of Americans do - President Bush did not give them any new answers
Poll numbers on key Bush administration policies have been down in recent weeks.

Support for the president's policy in Iraq has slipped into negative territory - only 44% of Americans now approve of his policies there, surveys suggest.

And he trails his likely Democratic opponent John Kerry by six to seven points in national polls.

However, the president's poll numbers will go up and down, depending on events on the ground in Iraq.

The recent increase in instability and the rise in American deaths will obviously drive his poll numbers down.

Having invaded Iraq, he is now very much at the mercy of events, but he believes that his greatest danger is if he is seen as flip-flopping on the issue.

In this press conference, he wanted to maintain his image as a clear, decisive leader who knows where he is going and knows where he wants to lead.

No apologies

It was a rare American presidential press conference in that every single question was on foreign policy.

Reporters did not ask him a single question on the economy, which may or may not suit Mr Bush at the moment.

And several reporters asked him if he felt that he had anything to apologise for with respect to the 11 September 2001 attacks.

But it was very clear that he did not want to offer any mea culpas, any explanations on what he did wrong. That is not what he is in the market for.

While ceding little ground, he also offered very little new.

For those in the US who have questions about the country's direction - and polls show an increasing number of Americans do - President Bush did not give them any new answers.

Foxfyre wrote:

and funded terrorists,

Well, sort of. Hussein paid stipends to the families of Suicide Bombers in Palestine.

Foxfyre wrote:

was a threat to the rest of the world.

Care to articulate exactly how?

Foxfyre wrote:

9/11 was the wake up call. We are no longer protected by oceans. We can sit and dig in and wait to be hit again and then retaliate, or we can take the fight to terrorists of the world.

Newsflash to the clueless: Iraq had nothing to do with 11th September.

Foxfyre wrote:

The United States waited for a long time looking the other way while Nazi Germany murdered 6 million Jews. We finally waded in and, along with others, put a stop to it.

If you do a little research, you might find that the extermination of the Jews was something many Americans of the era agreed with. Just another one of those dirty little factoids of American History the far right tries to ignore.

Foxfyre wrote:

Though on a much smaller scale, the atrocities in Iraq were just as horrendous and the comparison of going to war against the Nazis is a much better comparison than trying to compare Iraq to Vietnam.

So why have we not gone to war to prevent other genocides? Could it be that other nations (Cambodia, Rwanda, etc...) had no oil?

Foxfyre wrote:

It's just this time that the terrorists took the fight to us first. And the president put the terrorist-harboring countries on notice at the very beginning - if you fund terrorists, if you harbor terrorists, if you commit terrorism, you are a terrorist.

And if you believe this, you are an idiot.

Foxfyre wrote:

This I think should be the debate. Is it better to take the fight to them? Or wait until they bring it to us before we act?

Or how about we attempt to deal with the causes of terrorism, in order to avoid war, or would that not be as much fun?

Foxfyre wrote:

This I think was the thesis of the president's speech tonight.

After the prepared statement, I dn't think there was a thesis, more like a feces.

Foxfyre wrote:

Though on a much smaller scale, the atrocities in Iraq were just as horrendous and the comparison of going to war against the Nazis is a much better comparison than trying to compare Iraq to Vietnam.

So why have we not gone to war to prevent other genocides? Could it be that other nations (Cambodia, Rwanda, etc...) had no oil?

Foxfyre wrote:
9/11 was the wake up call. We are no longer protected by oceans. We can sit and dig in and wait to be hit again and then retaliate, or we can take the fight to terrorists of the world.
hobitbob wrote:
Newsflash to the clueless: Iraq had nothing to do with 11th September.
Occam write:
Newsflash to the deliberately obtuse: where Bush does a lousy job of explaining the rationale, Tony Blair did so brilliantly. I know you've read the transcript. Your disagreement with the assessment is no excuse for your insults of people who don't. (cute, how you worked in the European date though )

Oh well, I don't expect everybody to be enlightened by my comments. I generally find those who debate via insult, innuendo, and uncomplimentary adjectives to be rather unenlightening too, but that's just me.

Iraqi's are human beings... and human beings have a right to freedom.

Freedom from who? Freedom for who? At what cost?

In order: Freedom from Despots, Freedom for HUMAN BEINGS, and I don't much care what my share of the cost is.

I care about the humans (Iraqi's, and Bush's actions help them in MY opinion. I believe this might be the first time I've ever directly defended Bush. If you've read many of my posts, you'll notice I've suggested our strength comes with the responsibility to help many times (just like Bush did tonight).

Give a human being an honest shot at a decent lot in life and he will not strap bombs to his chest. The flip side of that coin is; allow him to be hideously repressed and he will consider anything that he's convince will help his family. Poor hungry people will always rebel.
I have no illusions about the tough times ahead. I also have no doubt that HUMAN BEINGS will benefit from the effort.

In short, if a religion advocates crimes against humanity, I don't recognize the religion as anything but a criminal organization.

I view humans as humans and believe all should be entitled to basic sustenance, freedom and dignity. Not just Americans.

Yikes, this one might get me in trouble. I, as you can see by my avatar, I am a stereotypical white man. I would like to think I exercise no racist beliefs, but that's not true.
When hiring sales people; I hire the most qualified applicants, but; I assume in advance that the black applicants are not likely to perform as well as their equally qualified white counterparts. Black applicants with ethnic sounding names or speech are far less likely to meet quota. I've measured the performance of hundreds of sales persons, while selling tens of thousands of products. As a capitalist, my aspiration is to make as much money as possible. The best person for the job, is the one that is most profitable to employ. Perhaps the white majority in America is less likely to buy from blacks. Perhaps the blacks I've hired lacked the social skills to match their white counterparts performance. Perhaps blacks don't try to sell as hard as whites (this one I know is false). Perhaps I'm a closet racist who lies about the observed results in order to justify my racism (also false). Regardless of the reason, the results remain the same. I've heard of Sales managers who automatically: "If the first name ryhmes with honda, the application goes in the circular file." Unfair? Certainly. Ecconomically sound? Probably. Racially biased? Definitely. Sales 'Leads" can be tremendously expensive to generate. A closing ratio variation of 1% is enormous! My companies profit margin is frequently less than 1%.
Conclusion: Ecconomic resposibility sometimes overrides my desire to be racially blind. The ugly truth is that this fiscal reality does help propetuate Noah's claims.

So, people with African ancestors have a bit of a dissadvantage when looking for work... So what. So do fat people. So do ugly people. So do intellectually challanged people. Depending on where you are; an accent from New York or Georgia will put you at a disadvantage. Young people, old people, tall people, short people are all disadvantaged as well.

It is my contention that every single person is an individual. We all have our crosses to carry. I've read about people with Down Syndrome gratuating college. The person most responsible for success or failure, in this country at least, is the person you look at in the mirror. Am I a racist?


I am, through no fault of my own, faced with an economic reality that rationalizes racism. It is not my preference.

Stereotypes and generalizations become irrelevant when accessing individuals… In my first post, I should have used the word prediction instead of assumption in relating to a new employees anticipated performance. I am not the one who uses the circular file mentioned. Does this clear anything up?

One final clarification; in business I choose money over most everything else. It would take an extraordinarily lucky person to succeed while doing otherwise. In marketing, your risk/reward ratio mandates this. In my personal life I am very charitable and will stand up for most any potential victim. In business, I'm out to make money. Period.

Bill, you never answered my question, Is YOUR racism a problem only of the Blacks unfortunate enough to have suffered you? Is YOUR racism SOMEONE ELSE'S problem only?

How do you reconcile your bleeding heart humanitarianism for the peoples of Iraq with your bigotry and racism against Blacks?

is it racist to look more carefully at Middle Eastern looking guys in airports than say, a bevy of nuns or a group of redheaded Irishmen?

n 1: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races 2: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race

By the way, are you aware that ...