Bush speech

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Agathon
Jimmy Kimmel made fun of him last night. I'm going to make a point of watching the Daily Show tonight.

Definitely! The Daily Show will have plenty of material for a good show tonight. Thanks for reminding me.

[East Street Trader]

Go back some years and UK journalists were too polite when interviewing politicians. But the pendulum has now swung way too far the other way.

Jeremy Paxman made a reputation out of being so hard nosed it amounted to rudeness and now no journalist except Frost dares do otherwise.

If this meant we all finished up better informed it might be tolerable. But we don't. All we get is meaningless interviews.

The interviewer has his or her agenda and has no interest in anything but extracting some phrase which will look or sound dramatic/damaging in a headline or a sound bite. And the politician defends against this by using the Thatcher technique of providing prepared answers whatever questions are asked or, where that cannot be done, concentrates on frustrating the interviewers search for the striking/damaging quote.

The best political interviews I can recall seeing were those conducted by Brian Waldman quite some years ago. He was interested in the answers he got and pursued lines the interviewee was interested to pursue also.

Although that sort of interview does require time.

If UK journalism continues at the depressingly low level it has maintained for quite some years now then the chance that we will be an informed electorate is nil.

It is Tony Blair's particular skill to "present" stuff effectively. Which means out manoevring the media. In the light of the way the media currently approach matters I can't say I really blame blame him. But democracy has died here as a result.

[GePap]

This wasn't an interview-it was a press conference-in the end the person giving the conference gest to set the agenda-Bush did have 18 minutes of uninterrupted time to make a statement-a statement most of the press focused on today.

He set up this conference because there have been a lot of bad or mixed news for him lately and he felt he needed to answer back-as such, he should have known what the tenor of the questions would be like.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Arrian
Man, do we need a good leader for a change.

Since Iraq didn't yield one, you should let your elites attack some more. You have the Heroic Epic, don't you? So the chance is 1/12.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Ramo
It was remarkable, he didn't answer a single one of the questions. My favorite moment:

The question about why Bush and Cheney would appear together at the 9-11 hearing was probably the dumbest question of the whole Q&A!

The reporter basically wanted to insinuate that Bush needed Cheney with him to coach him on what to say. That is utterly preposterous. Did it occur to this dumbass reporter that Cheney is apearing with Bush because he is VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE USA and thus would undoubtly have something to contribute to the hearing and it is more pratical to interview both the president and the vice-president together rather than have 2 separate hearings and ask the same questions twice?

[Jac de Molay]

That's a load of crap, and they wouldn't be "asking the same questions". Both of them had very unique and distinct roles during the crisis, and they're way better off asking them separately.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Since Iraq didn't yield one, you should let your elites attack some more. You have the Heroic Epic, don't you? So the chance is 1/12.

Our heroic epic doesn't work too well. It was made by Hollywood, remember.

Anyway, I'm hoping for something more along the lines of an SGL. We did well when we brought over a bunch of yours a few decades back, have any to spare?

-Arrian

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Sandman
Bush makes ...his mental processes grind... like some sort of Babbage device.

It's truly amazing that he got himself elected.

No, that was Daddy, Jeb, Dick & Co.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay
I'm willing to cut this guy a ton of slack. I realize that any politician is the last person on earth to admit mistakes.

But the thing that REALLY bugged me was his response to the question of what kind of government was going to be in place after June 30, which literally was "We'll find that out". Here is a subtle suggestion:

IF YOU DON'T ****ING KNOW YOU BETTER ****ING ASK SOMEBODY!!

Hello, McFly! They're less than 3 months away from turning over sovereignty, and they can't tell anybody what exactly is supposed to happen ?!

Isn't it obvious?

On May 1, 2003, they declared the conflict was over.

On June 30, 2004 they will declare that control was turned over.

Any questions?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Arrian
Our heroic epic doesn't work too well. It was made by Hollywood, remember.

Anyway, I'm hoping for something more along the lines of an SGL. We did well when we brought over a bunch of yours a few decades back, have any to spare?

-Arrian

At the moment we have a shortage not only of SGLs, but of science whatsoever. Our traits should be changed from scientistic/militaristic to beerdrinking/pacifistic and our level of aggression lowered to 1.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat


The question about why Bush and Cheney would appear together at the 9-11 hearing was probably the dumbest question of the whole Q&A!

The reporter basically wanted to insinuate that Bush needed Cheney with him to coach him on what to say. That is utterly preposterous. Did it occur to this dumbass reporter that Cheney is apearing with Bush because he is VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE USA and thus would undoubtly have something to contribute to the hearing and it is more pratical to interview both the president and the vice-president together rather than have 2 separate hearings and ask the same questions twice?

GIve me a break! As Jac said-he could contribute by speaking seperatly anyways. I am sure the Commissioners could afford the extra 2 hours or so to interview them seperately in order to get a more honest set of answers. Every other single person questioned did it alone. I failt to see why Bush or Cheney need to be together, except to keep their stories straight.

[Agathon]

Jesus Bush is retarded!

Following up on last night's bravura performance he's now decided to impose on the Palestinians a "solution" that does not leave them with a viable state.

Of course, this is more ammunition for his enemies in the Arab world at the very time he is trying to pacify them and show that he is a good guy. Is he completely stupid? Doesn't he know that Palestine is the major sore point in US/Arab relations?

Someone shoot him before he does any more damage.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Agathon
Jesus Bush is retarded!

Following up on last night's bravura performance he's now decided to impose on the Palestinians a "solution" that does not leave them with a viable state.

Of course, this is more ammunition for his enemies in the Arab world at the very time he is trying to pacify them and show that he is a good guy. Is he completely stupid? Doesn't he know that Palestine is the major sore point in US/Arab relations?

Many in the Arab World want the extermination of Israel. Should we give them that too to make them happy?

The truth is that this plan is a good start. Israel withdraws from Gaza and most of the WB. The Pals should accept it to show their good faith and then I am sure they can re-negotiate further withdrawals from the WB later.

Let's not forget that if the pals did not resort to terrorism, they would have had a Pal State a long time ago.

Someone shoot him before he does any more damage.

Aren't you afraid of the Secret Service coming after you?

[Uncle Sparky]

Its nice to see Dubbya has all the time lines planned out - sort of like all the time lines (over the last 30 years) for Mid East peace and a Palestinian state.

Sounds like the US will be sending about 10,000 more troups to Iraq - that will take a min. of 5-6 weeks. Of course, the coalition will withdraw in about 10 weeks. Bush better break out the mustard gas (just like the Brits did during the last occupation).

As for the speach, I doubt if he won over a single American that was against the war before the speech, and probably didn't lose a single hawk. The great unwashed masses in the middle ground will decide what to do when and if they see a plan for Iraq actually work. Body bags won't win votes and once the American voters know of the revenge killings by the allies Dubbya's support will go the way of the WMD.

Johnson lost because of his complete lack of vision on Viet-nam - I think Ted Kennedy got it right.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by GePap
GIve me a break! As Jac said-he could contribute by speaking seperatly anyways. I am sure the Commissioners could afford the extra 2 hours or so to interview them seperately in order to get a more honest set of answers. Every other single person questioned did it alone. I failt to see why Bush or Cheney need to be together, except to keep their stories straight.

What is ridiculous is that some people are assuming that Bush and Cheney are appearing together for some inapropriate alterior motive, so that they can "get their stories straight". There is nothing wrong with the President and the Vice President testifying together.