George W. Bush: Not Ready for Prime Time!

What do you think George Bush is ready for. In NYCity a child must past test inorder to advance from third to forth grade.
Do you think little Georgie is ready for the forth grade?

Bush is a terrible extemporaneous speaker, this is true, but smug? Defensive? I think not. You were seeing a president speak who had not been coached or scripted but who was speaking from the heart. Disagree with him on his point of view if you wish, but please do not condemn him on his speaking style.

The press was deplorable last night. They were not interested in getting information about plans, progress, problems, or what is actually going on. They were interested in furthering the liberal tripe that is being pushed by enemies of the administration and/or the war protesters.

Bush was asked four times if he did not wish to apologize for 9/11. He did not become angry or defensive, but he stayed on point. He should have looked those numbnuts in the eye and told them "Hell no". The ones they should be demanding apology from are al Qaida and all who attempt to force their will on others with terror, blood, and destruction. He emphasized that the villain is not the Clinton administration or the Bush administration but is rather bin Laden and his ilk, but that isn't the way it will be reported today.

I wish the president was as polished (glib?) a speaker as a Bill Clinton or John Kerry. He isn't. But I don't elect a president for his speaking style.

Foxfyre,

Do you think Bush has made any errors either before 9/11 or in his prosecution of the war?

Clinton was glib? This is news to me.

Of course, being informed and being articulate (as Clinton always was) may represent a huge threat to Republicans as voters compare and contrast President Clinton with Bush's terrible demeanor.

au1929-
I think Bush is ready for a long vacation at the ranch -- a 35 year vacation which I predict voters will give him in about 6 more months. :wink:

Deecups36
After the damage he has done does he really deserve another 35 years?

I have spoken to 2 mothers with sons in Iraq and they want Bush 6 feet under. What is surprising is one of these ladies is a Republican and she is literally tortured by her 2000 vote for Bush.

This rage directed at Bush is something I haven't seen since Nixon was screwing things up.

NYTimes.com > Opinion

Mr. Bush's Press Conference

Published: April 14, 2004

Happily, President Bush finally held a prime-time news conference last night. Unhappily, he failed to address either of the questions uppermost in Americans' minds: how to move Iraq from its current chaos, and what he has learned from the 9/11 investigations.

Mr. Bush was grave and impressive while reading his opening remarks, which focused on the horrors of terrorism and the great good that could come from establishing a free and democratic Iraq. No one in the country could disagree with either thought. But his responses to questions were distressingly rambling and unfocused. He promised that Iraq would move from the violence and disarray of today to full democracy by the end of 2005, but the description of how to get there was mainly a list of dates when good things are supposed to happen.

There was still no clear description of exactly who will accept the sovereignty of Iraq from the coalition on June 30. "We'll find out that soon," the president said, adding that U.N. officials are "figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over" to. In Mr. Bush's mind, whatever happens next now appears to be the responsibility of the United Nations. That must have come as a surprise to the U.N. negotiators and their bosses, who have not agreed to accept that responsibility and do not believe that they have been given the authority to make those decisions.

Mr. Bush did concede that the Iraqi security forces had not performed well during the violence and that more American troops would probably be needed. But his rhetoric, including the repetition of the phrase "stay the course," did not seem to indicate any fresh or clear thinking about Iraq, despite the many disturbing events of recent weeks.

The second issue that has overwhelmed the nation in recent days is the 9/11 investigating commission. While repeatedly expressing his grief over the deaths related to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, Mr. Bush seemed to entertain no doubts about the rightness of his own behavior, no questions about whether he should have done something in response to the domestic terrorism report he received on Aug. 6, 2001.

The United States has experienced so many crises since Mr. Bush took office that it sometimes feels as if the nation has embarked on one very long and painful learning curve in which every accepted truism becomes a doubt, every expectation a question mark. Only Mr. Bush somehow seems to have avoided any doubt, any change.

The article is correct.

I was literally terrified to think the man I saw last night, mumbling, stammering, and gaffawing is in charge of the troops and has his finger on the nuclear button.

Honestly, Bush seems deranged to me.

I think those who condemn a president on his speaking style are those who hated him anyway. Had he been a magnificent orator, he would be condemned anyway.

The press did not ask who will accept sovereignty of Iraq in June. They were interested in seeing an American president apologize for something that was done by terrorists.

It was a shameful performance. By the press.

Foxfyre
Wrong it was a shameful performance by Bush. But than again when isn't it.
They were asking did he have any regrets and did he think he made some mistakes regarding Iraq?
I would ask how could the invasion of Iraq be equated with 9/11 or terror. In addition it is not his speaking style that is condemned but the quality of his answers.

And ebrown, do I think Bush made any mistakes prior to 9/11. Yes. I think he made a mistake offering a form of amnesty to undocumented workers in the USA. I think the Medicare Prescription bill was a mistake. I think he has made several mistakes thinking he would get a fair shake from political opponents when he has tried to cooperate with them.

Did he make mistakes that caused 9/11? Hell no. Clinton had eight years. Bush the first had four years. Reagan had eight years. Carter had four years....yadda yadda. All have contributed to creating a massive bureaucracy that moves at a snails pace to do anything. George W. Bush had eight months in office at the time of 9/11, not time enough even to get all necessary appointments in place, much less time to reform enormous agencies of government or rebuild an intelligence network with built in systemic problems. Bush is not the reason 9/11 happened and he owes nobody an apology for it. It never ceases to amaze me how people can be more angry at him than they seem to be at the terrorists who organized, funded, and implemented the horror of that day.

Has Bush made mistakes in carrying out the war? I don't know. Probably, as I don't know anybody in the history of the world who doesn't make mistakes when trying to do something really hard.

But I'm neither a military expert nor a reporter on the ground there. From what I get from talking to people who have been there, however, I do believe what is happening there is being distorted and misrepresented by much of the American press that seems reluctant to report much of the enormous successes we are having but is quick to show the blood, gore, and tragedies.

I think the right thing to do is to get behind him, encourage our troops, and push for a quick victory in Iraq to leave it a free country in charge of its own destiny, and come home.

I do believe those who think we should cut and run now and not finish what we started are very much suggesting a huge mistake.

au they were not asking about mistakes re Iraq. They were practically demanding that he apologize for mistakes that allowed 9/11 to happen. This was shameful and disgusting.

Deecups, I wonder if you listened to the 9/11 family member on Larry King Live after the speech last night. She was adament she was sick and tired of hearing people beat up on this president that she does not blame in the least for what happened to her loved ones.

There are a small group of 9/11 familes who are getting a huge amount of press, all saying the same scripted message when they get the microphone. These are members of a group that is funded by Mrs. John Kerry's billion dollar foundation. This says volumes to me when I hear these same people, saying the same scripted complaints and code words, on one media outlet after another.

(edit) New Mexico and Albuquerque has lost brave soldiers in Iraq too. These soldiers wanted to be there and were proud of what they were doing and what they were accomplishing. The families and friends are proud of them and highly resent those who suggest they died in vain.

President Bush came out swinging last night at his nationally televised press conference, and as usual, the media made a bunch of idiots out of themselves. But that's par for the course, I suppose. Bush began with a 17-minute address to the nation that focused entirely on the situation in Iraq. Throughout the course of his remarks, he shot down just about every argument the Democrats and the media have been making about Iraq. Don't expect to see that analysis in the press reports of his news conference today however.

The president said that the violence in Iraq is neither a civil war, nor an uprising, but rather a power grab by Islamic militants. This fact is clear to anyone who takes a rational view of the situation. So much for the Vietnam comparison. He also stood by the June 30th deadline for handing over power to the Iraqis, much to the consternation of the left and Democrats in Congress. He correctly pointed out that if the Coalition steps back from that pledge, the Iraqis will feel betrayed, something he is not going to let happen. In other words, he wants the word of the United States to actually mean something. Imagine that. If some previous presidents, both Republican and Democrat, had felt the same way we might not be in this fix today.

Then it was send in the clowns time as the media started asking their questions. It wasn't so much a question and answer period as it was an interrogation. First question? How could Bush be so wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and how could he take us to war on false premises? Straight out of the liberal playbook. At the beginning of the war in Iraq John Kerry had the same view on WMDs as did George Bush; ditto for the United Nations and most of Europe. To hear the media tell it there was only one person in the world last March who felt that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of WMDs, and that person was George Bush.

Then, we had the question that Bush would not answer...and it was priceless, because they tried more than once. Does the president feel any personal responsibility for 9/11? The first question that comes to mind is whether or not it is even appropriate for a reporter to demand apologies from the president at a presidential news conference? But ... ask the question they did.

Look ... he didn't do it. They did it. Osama bin Laden and his assortment of Islamic maniacs. The president's job is not to apologize. His job is to react; to pursue the people who did this thing ... and permanently remove them as a threat to our security and interests.

We started this orgy of apologies during the Clintonista era. They are little more than moral exhibitionism. The reason this reporter was pressing Bush for this apology is because he realizes that an apology would be a de facto acceptance of culpability. Maybe Clinton should apologize.

Then someone asked him if he ever admits any mistakes. He couldn't think of any. The liberals in the media must be seething over that one. Then came the question about the PDB, and they couldn't get him on that either. The underlying premise of many of the questions is the standard liberal mantra these days: that President Bush knew about the attacks on 9/11 before they happened and did nothing. To them, it's all a big conspiracy.

Liberals believe in virtually every conspiracy under the sun, except the one true and obvious conspiracy; the media is liberally biased.

Bush was also repeatedly questioned on his "plan" to resolve the situation in Iraq and bring our troops home. What do they want, an hour-by-hour timetable? The plan stands to turn over Iraqi sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30th. American troops will stay to protect against insurrection. Following the transfer of power there will be free elections. What do they expect from Bush, the names of the candidates?

Mc:

Keep following the herd like the rest of the sheep and listening to your pipers on AM-Radio and FOX News(?)

Or take a look at what Bush and his handlers DON'T want you to know.

http://www.buzzflash.com

http://www.commondreams.org

http://www.airamericaradio.com

Oh for goodness sake? Where did I mention hating anyone?

Although I didn't vote for Bush (I voted with the majority), following coup d'etat, I wished Bush well for the good of the country.

What's happened since the coup d'etat is criminal and now deadly.

Bush is terrifying to me and I think he's off his rocker.

Respectuflly Deecups, read the evidence on both sides without the filter of the chorus of demonizing coming from the left. I think you might get a much different impression.

NeoGuin, how can you in good conscience condemn McG for his sources and then, apparently with a straight face, post your own biased sources as evidence McG's are wrong? Why should we believe yours more than his?