The W
Views: 99142222
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.9.07 1737
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Bush's Speech (aka the only President I want to hear on Tuesdays is David Palmer on 24) Register and log in to post!
(992 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (20 total)
Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 145

Posts: 2970/6725
EXP: 37585106
For next: 19066

Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#1 Posted on 13.4.04 2248.32
Reposted on: 13.4.11 2249.13
I think the word of the day is 'defensive.' Bush was ducking questions like he ducked Vietnam service. Given that so many people are questioning what the administration is doing, I don't think a policy of "stay the course" is the right take on it.
Promote this thread!
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 140

Posts: 1294/6298
EXP: 33048033
For next: 238454

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 45 min.
#2 Posted on 14.4.04 0031.10
Reposted on: 14.4.11 0033.49
DId they show a different speech in Canada?

The one I saw was very direct and to the point.
We are giving Iraq back to its people to run on time.
The Oil Revenue is going to the people.
Its a tough fight, but we will not be deterred.

What more did you want him to say?
Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 145

Posts: 2971/6725
EXP: 37585106
For next: 19066

Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#3 Posted on 14.4.04 0036.27
Reposted on: 14.4.11 0047.34
I wanted Bush to actually, y'know, EXPLAIN something and go into detail about just how exactly the USA plans to turn power over in Iraq. Just once I'd like Bush to actually give a detailed answer to a question rather than rattle off his key word of the day (today it was "historic") amidst a bunch of vague rhetoric.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1517/3428
EXP: 13680996
For next: 278694

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 41 days
Last activity: 41 days
#4 Posted on 14.4.04 0056.58
Reposted on: 14.4.11 0059.01
Q: What are your thoughts on people comparing the Iraq conflict to the Vietnam war?

A: Well, we are bringing great hope and freedom to the Iraqi people, who will be free of tyranny.

Q: If you could go back, what is one mistake you've made since 9/11 and what did you learn from it?

A: Well, we are bringing great hope and freedom to the Iraqi people, who will be free of tyranny.

Q: What did you have for dinner last night?

A: Well, we are bringing great hope and freedom to the Iraqi people, who will be free of tyranny.

The only thing "direct" about this speech was its direct and blantant ignoring of questions asked. The only point that was made was the one Bush decided he wanted to talk about, and whatever those silly reporters asked couldn't deter him.


I LOVED his accusation that someone else (I didn't hear who, and it really doesn't matter) was creating a state of fear to manipulate and control people's behavior. I literally laughed for two minutes.

This speech was about as specific as if I were to tell you today was "some day in some week in some month in some year in the 21st century." Bush throws out one or two broad, vague and often obvious facts, while the important details, the ones people are really looking for, are left out.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 14.4.04 0200)
fuelinjected
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 2096/2679
EXP: 9159847
For next: 157511

Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 3231 days
Last activity: 3231 days
#5 Posted on 14.4.04 0127.14
Reposted on: 14.4.11 0127.18
Even the most staunch Bush supporter must get a chuckle out of the way his face lit up when talking about oil revenues. :)
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 2234/3273
EXP: 12734333
For next: 357020

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 168 days
Last activity: 168 days
#6 Posted on 14.4.04 0513.49
Reposted on: 14.4.11 0521.32
Did anybody else crack up when he just suddenly slipped, "And they are seeking Weapons of Mass Destruction." into his little thing about terrorists? His speech writer should be fired for bringing WMDs up. Unless he was trying to remind us that we haven't found them yet...

-Jag
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 239/810
EXP: 1518170
For next: 59385

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 76 days
Last activity: 6 days
#7 Posted on 14.4.04 0801.41
Reposted on: 14.4.11 0802.00
I wanted Bush to actually, y'know, EXPLAIN something and go into detail about just how exactly the USA plans to turn power over in Iraq. Just once I'd like Bush to actually give a detailed answer to a question rather than rattle off his key word of the day (today it was "historic") amidst a bunch of vague rhetoric.

The only thing "direct" about this speech was its direct and blantant ignoring of questions asked. The only point that was made was the one Bush decided he wanted to talk about, and whatever those silly reporters asked couldn't deter him.

This speech was about as specific as if I were to tell you today was "some day in some week in some month in some year in the 21st century." Bush throws out one or two broad, vague and often obvious facts, while the important details, the ones people are really looking for, are left out.


So, in this regard, how is Bush different from any other politician from a major party, especially in an election year? I don't think anyone (politician, public official, corporate spokesperson, athlete, etc.) who regularly talks to the press actually answers the questions asked.
King Of Crap
Goetta
Level: 38

Posts: 190/309
EXP: 344531
For next: 25919

Since: 17.9.03
From: Holley, New York

Since last post: 3446 days
Last activity: 3377 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on 14.4.04 0911.10
Reposted on: 14.4.11 0912.37
For those people who, like me, didn't watch the speech, here's a transcript from here (sfgate.com).



StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 140

Posts: 1295/6298
EXP: 33048033
For next: 238454

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 45 min.
#9 Posted on 14.4.04 1038.54
Reposted on: 14.4.11 1039.10
So, you were upset at the question and answer portion, not the speech itself.

And really, what does it matter HOW things are being turned over, as long as they do indeed turn them over? Do you really need to know every little detail?

And, nitpicking about him not answering questions that basically are saying "Could you say for the camera that you fucked up" is really stretching it. What is he supposed to say? "Hey, you know, I really fucked up! What the hell was I thinking?"
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 871/1084
EXP: 2431596
For next: 30268

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2957 days
Last activity: 2954 days
#10 Posted on 14.4.04 1144.39
Reposted on: 14.4.11 1150.48
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    So, you were upset at the question and answer portion, not the speech itself.


The speech didn't say anything that hasn't already been said, and didn't bother to further explain the claims he has already made.


    And really, what does it matter HOW things are being turned over, as long as they do indeed turn them over? Do you really need to know every little detail?


Well, I would like to be assured that we aren't planning on handing the conutry over to Chalabi, which is what their inital plan appears to have been. So, yes, some idea of what exactly is going to happen would be nice.


    And, nitpicking about him not answering questions that basically are saying "Could you say for the camera that you fucked up" is really stretching it. What is he supposed to say? "Hey, you know, I really fucked up! What the hell was I thinking?"


If he wasn't going to say anything new, and wasn't going to answer any questions, why did he bother having the press conference in the first place?
Joseph Ryder
Head cheese
Level: 40

Posts: 81/332
EXP: 408950
For next: 32363

Since: 19.3.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 1168 days
Last activity: 701 days
#11 Posted on 14.4.04 1209.12
Reposted on: 14.4.11 1211.32
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    And, nitpicking about him not answering questions that basically are saying "Could you say for the camera that you fucked up" is really stretching it. What is he supposed to say? "Hey, you know, I really fucked up! What the hell was I thinking?"


I personally enjoyed this little morsel of evasion:


QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?
BUSH: We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over. And, secondly, because the 9-11 commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.
BUSH: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9-11 commission is looking forward to asking us. And I'm looking forward to answering them.
Reverend J Shaft
Liverwurst
Level: 66

Posts: 117/1136
EXP: 2453837
For next: 8027

Since: 25.6.03
From: Home of The Big House

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#12 Posted on 14.4.04 1216.10
Reposted on: 14.4.11 1216.12
    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81



      And really, what does it matter HOW things are being turned over, as long as they do indeed turn them over? Do you really need to know every little detail?


    Well, I would like to be assured that we aren't planning on handing the conutry over to Chalabi, which is what their inital plan appears to have been.


From the transcript (helpfully provided by King of Crap):

We're working closely with the United Nations envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, and with Iraqis to determine the exact form of the government that will receive sovereignty on June 30th.

Looks like they're working on it and haven't decided yet.


    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    So, yes, some idea of what exactly is going to happen would be nice.



Again, from the transcript (helpfully provided by King of Crap):

On June 30th, when the flag of a free Iraq is raised, Iraqi officials will assume full responsibility for the ministries of government. On that day, the transitional administrative law, including a bill of rights that is unprecedented in the Arab world, will take full effect.

The United States and all the nations of our coalition will establish normal diplomatic relations with the Iraqi government. An American embassy will open, and an American ambassador will be posted.

According to the schedule already approved by the Governing Council, Iraq will hold elections for a national assembly no later than next January. That assembly will draft a new permanent constitution, which will be presented to the Iraqi people in a national referendum held in October of next year.

Iraqis will then elect a permanent government by December 15, 2005 - an event that will mark the completion of Iraq's transition from dictatorship to freedom.

Other nations and international institutions are stepping up to their responsibilities in building a free and secure Iraq. We're working closely with the United Nations envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, and with Iraqis to determine the exact form of the government that will receive sovereignty on June 30th.

The United Nations Election Assistance Team, headed by Karina Perelli, is in Iraq developing plans for next January's election. NATO is providing support for the Polish-led, multinational division in Iraq. And 17 of NATO's 26 members are contributing forces to maintain security.

Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of State Rumsfeld and a number of NATO defense and foreign ministers are exploring a more formal role for NATO, such as turning the Polish-led division into a NATO operation and giving NATO specific responsibilities for border control.

Iraqis' neighbors also have responsibilities to make their region more stable. So I'm sending Deputy Secretary of State Armitage to the Middle East to discuss with these nations our common interest in a free and independent Iraq, and how they can help achieve this goal.

As we've made clear all along, our commitment to the success and security of Iraq will not end on June 30th. On July 1st and beyond, our reconstruction assistance will continue and our military commitment will continue.


Reading Is Fundamental

You could probably find out more if you worked in his administration, but for me, that seems like enough detail for now.
krakken2000
Kishke
Level: 43

Posts: 296/416
EXP: 559229
For next: 5822

Since: 31.10.02
From: seattle

Since last post: 1970 days
Last activity: 1696 days
#13 Posted on 14.4.04 1338.58
Reposted on: 14.4.11 1339.39
From the press conference:

"QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.

You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?

BUSH: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.

John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. 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.

I would've gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan. Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would've called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein.

See, I'm of the belief that we'll find out the truth on the weapons. That's why we sent up the independent commission. I look forward to hearing the truth as to exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm.

One of the things that Charlie Duelfer talked about was that he was surprised of the level of intimidation he found amongst people who should know about weapons and their fear of talking about them because they don't want to be killed.

You know, there's this kind of -- there's a terror still in the soul of some of the people in Iraq.

BUSH: They're worried about getting killed, and therefore they're not going to talk. But it'll all settle out, John. We'll find out the truth about the weapons at some point in time.

However, the fact that he had the capacity to make them bothers me today just like it would have bothered me then. He's a dangerous man. He's a man who actually not only had weapons of mass destruction -- the reason I can say that with certainty is because he used them.

And I have no doubt in my mind that he would like to have inflicted harm, or paid people to inflict harm, or trained people to inflict harm, on America, because he hated us.

I hope -- 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."
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

You can't come up with *anything*? Nothing? Not even a simple wish that you'd have been able to prevent 9/11? Nothing at all? This is a softball question...and in the course of the answer he switches tenses constantly while asserting that there are no weapons found, that weapons will be found, that weapons will show up eventually...it's pathetic.

eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 872/1084
EXP: 2431596
For next: 30268

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2957 days
Last activity: 2954 days
#14 Posted on 14.4.04 1430.14
Reposted on: 14.4.11 1431.13
    Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
    From the transcript (helpfully provided by King of Crap):

    We're working closely with the United Nations envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, and with Iraqis to determine the exact form of the government that will receive sovereignty on June 30th.

    Looks like they're working on it and haven't decided yet.


I know what he said, and I know that he didn't say anything at all. Do they have any idea what they're going to do? Again, it's been about a year now, and they still haven't said what state they're going to leave Iraq in, except for as broad a term as "democratic."


    Again, from the transcript (helpfully provided by King of Crap):
    bla bla bla
    Reading Is Fundamental

    You could probably find out more if you worked in his administration, but for me, that seems like enough detail for now.


Everything he said takes place after we are supposed to have turned over power. Again, he never says anything about what we're going to do beforehand to insure that these changes actually take place. And judging by the current state of affairs over there and in Afghanistan, something better change soon if any of those actions are going to occur.
BWT
Boerewors
Level: 40

Posts: 49/360
EXP: 426076
For next: 15237

Since: 27.1.04
From: Philly

Since last post: 3161 days
Last activity: 2764 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on 14.4.04 1434.46
Reposted on: 14.4.11 1436.24
"He was a threat because he funded suiciders."-Bush. Once again the man is making up words. I had to read the transcript to make sure that he really said that. And yes this man is our president.
brick
Bockwurst
Level: 49

Posts: 272/535
EXP: 842142
For next: 41747

Since: 17.1.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 508 days
Last activity: 504 days
#16 Posted on 14.4.04 1438.02
Reposted on: 14.4.11 1439.16
    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    If he wasn't going to say anything new, and wasn't going to answer any questions, why did he bother having the press conference in the first place?


Thats easy, free national TV exposure in Prime-time during an election year. This was like one long add for the reelect Bush committee.
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 547/641
EXP: 1100935
For next: 56191

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3671 days
Last activity: 3329 days
#17 Posted on 14.4.04 1534.54
Reposted on: 14.4.11 1536.47
    Originally posted by brick
      Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
      If he wasn't going to say anything new, and wasn't going to answer any questions, why did he bother having the press conference in the first place?


    Thats easy, free national TV exposure in Prime-time during an election year. This was like one long add for the reelect Bush committee.


And wasn't one of the most popular shows in America suppose to be on at that time? Like say...American Idol?

Rather smart of him. Have a press conference during a time when millions were already going to tune in anyways.
Santa Sangre
Bockwurst
Level: 51

Posts: 430/603
EXP: 990636
For next: 23309

Since: 21.6.02
From: Germany

Since last post: 440 days
Last activity: 328 days
#18 Posted on 14.4.04 1643.52
Reposted on: 14.4.11 1643.54
    Originally posted by brick
      Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
      If he wasn't going to say anything new, and wasn't going to answer any questions, why did he bother having the press conference in the first place?


    Thats easy, free national TV exposure in Prime-time during an election year. This was like one long add for the reelect Bush committee.


I have been pretty ambivalent towards Bush these past few years. But that press conference to me seemed like a a long add for not reelecting GW. Plus instead of having the worthless Q and A we could've been watching 24 ;)
EddieBurkett
Boudin blanc
Level: 92

Posts: 941/2310
EXP: 7567264
For next: 189703

Since: 3.1.02
From: GA in person, NJ in heart

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 49 min.
#19 Posted on 14.4.04 1813.22
Reposted on: 14.4.11 1813.48
Reading the excerpt posted by krakken, Bush comes off alot more coherent than he did last night with all his stammering and pausing. To be fair though, I don't think he was switching tenses to keep himself within the bounds of the truth as much as that's his normal usage of grammar.

Those questions about mistakes Bush made are tough. On the one hand, as StaggerLee pointed out, it doesn't benefit him to come out and say, "I made a mistake," as then Kerry will have fodder for the rest of the campaign. On the other, with 9/11 RIGHT THERE, as Krakken points out, how could he not admit that he slipped up in letting that happen? That would show a form of courage and honesty (that he could find his mistakes and was willing to admit them), that I think would resonate more with the typical swing voter than his non-answer will. Besides, now he can be accused of not being sorry for anything, which has its implications.

I did like how when Bush started talking about the concept of democracy and freedom in Iraq (and, yes, oil revenues), he visibly became more confident. But on any other topic, he was unsure, and it showed. Regardless of other actions, at least Clinton knew how to handle himself behind a podium. Bush's reluctance to hold press conferences the last four years has not helped him with this weakness.
A Fan
Liverwurst
Level: 68

Posts: 593/1164
EXP: 2706591
For next: 22223

Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3526 days
Last activity: 3526 days
#20 Posted on 20.4.04 0957.04
Reposted on: 20.4.11 0957.48
Yet, after that speech, he gains in the polls with Kerry. Man, is Kerry in trouble when even Bush's incoherent ramblings are bringing in votes. I know the common voter likes the why Bush represents himself as a common Joe in his speeches, so he doesn't shock me that when he gets flustered they think it means he is human. However, I view that as incompentance, but there vote cancels out mine anyway.

Bush will probably get re-elected unless Iraqi goes from worse to flat out civil war with our guys stuck in the middle. I do see their plan for Iraqi is to turn it over to random Iraqi with a pro-American stance with the traditional good guy press release on CNN. I wouldn't count on that administration letting the Iraqis vote till 2006 for the leaders they want. Then, it will probably turn into full blown civil war while our guys start shipping back home around Christmas 2004/New Years 2005. At least that should be the plan, but I get the feeling the more we stay the less chances of us finding an entire pro-American administratin let alone one guy.

Bush's speech proves to me, he is a puppet president and the media has gone soft with him. I found it startling Bush would say to report, I didn't prepare for that question, so I don't know how to answer. I expect that answer from a third grader in class, not the President. Which really brings in the question about the legitimacy of the Washington Press Corp in the last few years. I know they let him a lot, but I still think they are using kid gloves with him. Which sucks, because its too late in the game to start asking hard questions about stuff from one to three years ago.


ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: Daschle convinces Giago to Leave Race
Next thread: Using MRI's to see Politics on the Brain
Previous thread: Al Queda found with chemical weapon.
(992 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Bush's Speech (aka the only President I want to hear on Tuesdays is David Palmer on 24)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.358 seconds.