Silent George

snood- A point well taken- Not making excuses for the man, but I can think of two reasons why the President has not had many news conferences. The most obvious one is that he has shown himself to be extremely uncomfortable with extemporaneous speaking. Second, I think that he IS talking a lot- to other world leaders. We are in a very difficult time, and IMO he needs to focus on a possible impending war.

Would I like more press conferences? Sure I would. But I think that at this time, I would rather see him spending his energies negotiating with other world leaders than answering questions from reporters.

Personally, I am coming to believe more and more that he has gotten in way over his head, and beyond his capabilities.

With respect, it does sound like excuses. The very fact that we are in a crises-ripe time seems to me to mandate in itself better communication with his own constituency. and that thing about talking to world leaders? C'mon, he's just as uncomfortable and incompetent talking to them as to us - maybe more so.

I don't think it's just Bush who is scared for him to speak. I imagine his supporting cast is pretty nervous about him speaking alone as well.

I agree with Phoenix, I think it's out of his league too.

President Bush has said enough. It's time to be assertive and decisive.

Bush is much like Reagan was - He has to have everything carefully scripted to keep from making stupid blunders.

News conference, what news conference. It was more like a scripted Broadway play. A failed one at that. The answer to every question was the same Saddam, Saddam , Saddam.
How would you rate Bush's performance?

Rate:

Under the extreme pressure of being President of the US, I'd say that President Bush has done as well as can be eexpected, given the climate of the World today and the seriousness of the Islamic terrorist question.

In the article I read Both Rice and Rove were siting quietly with very anxious and worried looks on their faces. I wonder why?

Re: Silent George


Snood

I cannot help but wonder if this comment -- which I consider a very clever play on words -- is not the reason for the silence.

As Gray was fond of saying: Precision in identifying anatomy is everything!

Frank:

Are you aware that today, many Medical Schools teach "Vitrual Anatomy" in place of disection anatomy?

"The president has said enough"?


Damn. 'Scuse me if I still want to hear about the economy, North Korea, the Palestine situation, and other minor details.

Sometimes I get the feeling bush supporters see him as sort of the demented uncle for which the family has to make excuses. I mean, 8 news conferences?

It's a communications vacuum so effective I did not think there had been all of eight news conferences until those who count gave us the results.

Au,

Couldn't it be because Rice and Rove are keenly aware of the seriousness of the international situation today? Staff who have to attend these matters are expected to look-on with expressions of serious interest as the boss speaks. Sometimes, I was playing mental chess but the audience never knew, nor did the fellow doing the talking. "Checkmate" causes a little tight smile, and the next day the press is wondering what was so amusing about the announcement that some budget cuts would be necessary.

I had some doubts about Dr. Rice when she was first appointed, but she's done well for a Russian specialist. She was so good and insightful of how the Soviet's moved, that I worried that she didn't have the breadth to handle a job that is so much more general. She has shown an ability to get beyond the narrow confines of her specialty.

Asherman
Could it be that they were afraid he would have a thought and veer from the prepared script.
Of late I have taken to carefully watching and listening when other world leaders appear at press conference just to see how they express themselves and measure up against our leader. Let me sum it up. I am ashamed for Bush and America.

I too would like to see more press conferences, but I'll allow that Bush is uncomfortable with the format. I agree with Phoenix that he is in constant contact with World Leaders, but that does little to bring the issues before The American People, who are who The President works for. I don't doubt that a good deal of Bush the Younger's reticence stems from a desire, on his part and the parts of his handlers, to avoid "Sniping Sessions", particularly in critical times. Bush is not good at "Off The Cuff" interaction, and he and his crew know that. Perhaps it is for the best he holds few open press conferences; anything a President says is siezed upon and dissected by The Press, often to the detriment or diversion of a major point or issue. The Press in general is prone to agitate around points of agenda ... not necessartily a bad thing, but at the moment likely not a beneficial thing.

Still, I would like more communication from The Whitehouse. There is an insular aspect there I find troubling.


timber

Just watching.

The shrub is never going to be affectionately called the "Great Communicator". His personal magnetism and warmth, we are told, works much better one-on-one, rather than on the public stage. I sure hope so, because the boy is a terrible speaker, even with a script. Generally, I've decried the use of professional speech-writers who put words into the mouths of public figures. In Bush's case, he needs them badly and probably should find better writers than he already has. Perhaps, he should join Toastmasters.

Shrub is President of the United States during a time of pressing international business, I truly prefer his attention focused on those issues instead of playing to the press. Fleisher is not one of the best Presidential flacks in recent years, but he does hold regular briefings. Rumfeld's press briefings, I find interesting though he is a master at saying only what he wants to say and not a word more. The administration has done a poor job overall of communicating its policies to the public. Historically, the idea of regular press conferences is rather new. Prior to FDR, news conferences or even interviews with the President were very rare. Even FDR rarely held a press conference, preferring instead the radio fire-side chat that he managed so well. Truman and Eisenhower held more press conferences, but they tended to be very irregular. Johnson made much more use of the press conference idea. Over time we've come to expect that the President will be on television often and subject to many queries from the press. Some Presidents, like Reagan, are good at standing up in front of a prying audience and can come away satisfied that they've made their points. Others, Shrub is a great example, are best brought out only when the situation absolutely demands words from the President directly. I think he should avoid questions entirely, by referring them to his Cabinet Secretaries.

On the other hand, a significant part of the public is so polarized and set against the administration that I doubt any level of communication would reach them. In an earlier time the American People would have been in the streets calling for the President to send troops to topple a cruel dictator whose lies and broken promises had continued for over a decade while torture, and the assembly of offensive weapons of terror was his primary goal. In these times, the out of office political partisans represent the natural reluctance of our people to go to war. Now, it seems fashionable to compare the President of the United States unfavorably with the great dictators, murders, and despots of history, even though there isn't a shred of evidence to support such hyperbole.

The human shields were just the most impressionable of those who have been enlisted in the cause of defending Saddam Hussien. The pacifists may have the best of intentions, may believe that they are patriots, but in the end their actions serve Saddam more than they do anyone else. In order to justify their defense of a brutal regime whose behavior threatens the world, they have to paint Bush as worse than Saddam. Tough sell, unless you are a True Believer in left wing politics.

If the people had cause to topple the dictator they would be behind Bush, whether Republican or Democrat. But it's too much like Vietnam - phantom issues, lies - Iraq can be handled without the mass bloodshed about to be visited on it.

I suppose I'm just dense. Explain to me how our pulling out of the region will avoid bloodshed. I understand that if we pulled back tomorrow to CONUS, that next week Saddam probably wouldn't be staging a parade in downtown Kuwait City. However, it seems to me that if there wasn't immediate military force hovering over Saddam, he would only increase his arsenal and continue to support terrorism against Israel, if no one else. Wouldn't a victorious Saddam backed by his partners in France and Russia have a good chance of removing sanctions? What do you think he would do with the ocean of French oil money that poured into his personal coffers? Saddam wants nuclear weapons, what will stop him from obtaining them? How will pulling out of the region, cause Saddam to change his behavior that has been aggressive and destabilizing for over a decade?

Do you think the message sent to other world dictators like Kim Jong-Il, is likely to persuade them to suddenly become good world citizens?

If the Saddam's and Kim's of the world are left to their own devices, do you think that the safety and security of your family will be improved?

War is always risky, and terrible. War now is less risky, and will be less terrible than if we must fight another day when our enemies are better armed and in a better position to do us harm. If we wait until a chemical-nerve agent, biological, or nuclear weapon is used against a major Western city, the cost in civilian lives will be thousands of times greater.

FDR's Four Freedoms remains a worthy goal, and our resolve to rid the world of Saddam and Kim will shorten the time when those Freedoms are truly available to all the world.