Bush on TV: Condi was better
Published April 14, 2004
President Bush opened with an 18-minute "set piece" which disappointed.
This was largely a replay of his speeches in the weeks and days leading up to his unilateral invasion of Iraq, back in early 2003. A minor deviation was that Iraq, with the resistance and deaths increasing, is now "a theater in the war on terror" rather than "central to the war on terror."
I was particularly disappointed in the question and answer period. The President asked a number of reporters who had previously been chosen (the "must calls" he mentioned) to read questions they had previously submitted (he complained about not have gotten one). I would have expected him to take advantage of this opportunity to insert his vision, but again, the answers were formulaic. Clearly he had nothing to impart, and simply rambled on, repeating as much of his scripted responses as he could remember (there were long pauses, and responses that didn't seem to fit the questions).
There was little content in the entire presentation. He did not have an answer to the question of who Iraqi sovereignty was going to be handed over on June 30th (now 77 days away), and waved the red herring of the UN as if it were the UN's responsibility. The 9/11 Commission got short shrift, too, with the President unwilling to take any responsibility.
Overall, it was a frightening performance when contrasted to what is happening in the real world, so my rankings are:
Style: 7, Substance: 0.
- Bush on TV: Condi was better
- Published: April 14, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: Hal Pawluk
- Hal Pawluk's BC Writer page
- Hal Pawluk's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
"You can only be disappointed if you expected him to be better than Condi."
No.
I never expected much from Bush except as a mouthpiece for those behind him (they have turned him into a good reader, if not yet a leader), but I did expect more from his minders.
I think what last night may have shown is that Bush "has drunk the Kool Aid" and believes his own PR, is now trying to do things on his own.
Bad idea.
The speech and Q & A was one of the worst Presidential public moments I've ever heard on radio ... I didn't even look at it on the TV (ok, I saw snippets of it on the news) because I feared it would be even more embarassing.
Shameful.
That's the great advantage Jean "me, I'm the Prime Minister of you" Chretien had. Whenever he had to answers the questions like public, the peoples were busy to figure out his sayings so that answers not so much.
by any chance did anyone happen to notice an ear piece in the bush's ear last night and a wire going down his shirt. i thought i noticed in a brief show from behind. i was thinking maybe someone was feeding him answers and then i realzied that they would have been better if that were the case.
jack e. jett
Hal:
It was not a "unilateral" invasion. The UK and Australia had troops there as well. The Israelis helped us out. Kuwait let us use their territory as a base. Etc.
"Unilateral" is a lie. I dislike lies a great deal. I demand you correct this.
I do not think you are a liar. Please prove me right.
Yeah, Bush is a little embarrassing at press conferences. This we know. He is not a good extemporaneous speaker. That's probably why press conferences are not something he likes to do.
That does not mean he's an idiot. I'm not saying he's a genius, but poor "Who's Line Is It Anyway" ability does not = idiocy.
I too would be hesitant in what I said if the future of the world (and my own re-election chances) were held in the balance.
Bush sucks at speaking off-the-cuff. Everyone knows this. But he's great at speeches written by someone else!
Anyway, the voters don't cast their votes because of press conferences. They vote issues. Bush is (slightly) up right now.
I'll see you in November...
RJ, by 'unilateral' invasion, one does not mean all soldiers there are of the same nationality. It means it is a unilaterally led invasion. Led by one country against the will of the U.N. and an international community.
What could we say if China chose to invade Taiwan for reasons of "national security?" Does it no longer become a unilateral invasion if, say, Tibet is on China's side? What could our position be if Pakistan started hurling missiles against India? In every case the response would be: "That's what the United States did against Iraq. Why can't we do the same thing?"
And isn't Kuwait really a Halliburton subsidary?
RJ, by 'unilateral' invasion, one does not mean all soldiers there are of the same nationality.
What does "unilaterally" mean, then? Uni = One. Lateral = Side. One-sided invasion. And that's not true, unless the UK, Australia, Israel, and Kuwait all became one entity one day without my knowledge...
It means it is a unilaterally led invasion. Led by one country against the will of the U.N. and an international community.
The US and the UK were partners at the UN in supporting regime change. So it ain't "unilateral" at all. Unless England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland were recently admitted as US states without my knowledge...
What could we say if China chose to invade Taiwan for reasons of "national security?" Does it no longer become a unilateral invasion if, say, Tibet is on China's side?
Since when does Tibet get a real say in what Greater Red China does?
What could our position be if Pakistan started hurling missiles against India?
Huh?
In every case the response would be: "ThatĀ's what the United States did against Iraq. Why canĀ't we do the same thing?"
What other countries could Pakistan get to invade India? What other countries could India get to invade Pakistan? And how would any of this be enforcing UN resolutions, or enforcing the armistace of the original Gulf War?
And isn't Kuwait really a Halliburton subsidary?
Maybe you believe that if your listen to Air America Radio. More rational people realize that this war was based on a lot of things. Haliburton's stock price was not one of them.
...unless the UK, Australia, Israel, and Kuwait all became one entity one day...(post condensed)...The US and the UK were partners at the UN in supporting regime change. So it ain't "unilateral" at all.
Unilaterally LED, RJ.
LED. Against the will of the international community which speaks formally via the U.N.
Since when does Tibet get a real say in what Greater Red China does?
Since when does the U.K. get a real say in what the U.S does?
More rational people realize that this war was based on a lot of things. Haliburton's stock price was not one of them.
It was less of a comment of Halliburton and more of a comment on Kuwait supporting anything the U.S. does. because Kuwait was built by the U.S., and is basically viewed as another U.S. state by most of the Muslim world.
...unless the UK, Australia, Israel, and Kuwait all became one entity one day...(post condensed)...The US and the UK were partners at the UN in supporting regime change. So it ain't "unilateral" at all.
Unilaterally LED, RJ.
LED.
That's not what Hal said.
Anyway, OF COURSE one country is going to be more interested in such an adventure than others. But it's still not "unilateral."
Against the will of the international community which speaks formally via the U.N.
Do you really appreciated the input of Russia and France and Red China? I don't. How about General Assembly members like Cuba, Syria, and Zimbabwe?
The UN is a joke. Everyone laughs. Why don't you?
"Since when does Tibet get a real say in what Greater Red China does?"
Since when does the U.K. get a real say in what the U.S does?
Well, their politicians are democratically elected. They tend to side with the US. It's a cultural thing. They ain't Tibet.
But you knew that, right?
"More rational people realize that this war was based on a lot of things. Haliburton's stock price was not one of them."
It was less of a comment of Halliburton and more of a comment on Kuwait supporting anything the U.S. does.
Well, they kinda fuckin' OWE us...
because Kuwait was built by the U.S., and is basically viewed as another U.S. state by most of the Muslim world.
The Muslim World is delusional. I don't follow their point-of-view really all that seriously.
They think people like you shouldn't be allowed to marry. Oh, and they think you should die by stoning.
Is that a world-view you wanna follow? Or place any credence in?
That's not what Hal said.
Well, true. I'll let Hal defend himself, but I was referring to the perception of tens of millions of people around the world, I'm sure it was the same perception, however he can clarify that if he wants.
Do you really appreciated the input of Russia and France and Red China? I don't. How about General Assembly members like Cuba, Syria, and Zimbabwe? The UN is a joke. Everyone laughs. Why don't you?
Personally, RJ, I probably have less of a favorable opinion of the U.N. than you do. I think it is a paper tiger. It does not enforce what it sets out to do. It is about as fast moving and as progressive as a large U.S. corporation. Ever try to deal with one of those? Committees upon committees upon meetings upon analysis' upon studies upon impact factors upon polls, until then it gets passed to marketing for them to create a brochure about it, then the brochure gets submitted for approval, then maybe something is done. The U.N. is like that. But that's MY opinion and my opinion is irrelevant in the grand scheme of the world.
However, RJ, the U.N. is what helps hold other countries in check. Should we ALL just admit it's a failure and have every country go it alone? What about a Russia, a Red China, or a Syria that disregards international will because the U.S. snubs it's nose at the rest of the world? Isn't the U.N. what the U.S. uses to hold other nations in check? Don't be so quick to discard some of the pieces of your jigsaw puzzle or when you are getting close to the end, you'll realize it's not quite what you hoped for.
The Muslim World is delusional. I don't follow their point-of-view really all that seriously. They think people like you shouldn't be allowed to marry. Oh, and they think you should die by stoning. Is that a world-view you wanna follow? Or place any credence in?
YOU don't think I should be allowed to be married. So I shouldn't place any credence in you? But I'm trying too, really I am. You know, RJ, it is the mentality of many Americans that we don't need to consider their point of view of things, especially when WE are over in THEIR part of the world, that caused this whole mess to begin with!!!
The Coalition of the Willing is a joke. Everyone laughs. Why don't you?
"The Coalition of the Willing is a joke. Everyone laughs. Why don't you?"
Well, maybe the international communists and anti-Americans of all stripes mock it. But I tend not to disregard to position of dozens of countries...
"Do you really appreciated the input of Russia and France and Red China? I don't. How about General Assembly members like Cuba, Syria, and Zimbabwe?
The UN is a joke. Everyone laughs. Why don't you?"
RJ's Bullshit for 200, please.
"The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness."
What is hypocrisy, Alex.
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.
First article in the list with a google search. Not sure how up to date it is. Of course Spain plans to pull out.
RJ, I have to agree with anon. You said you don't care what some countries think, then not two posts later you said you don't want to disregard the position of other countries.
Would you elaborate, because right now you are taking the exact same position as Bush, which is 'I value the opinion of other countries as long as that opinion matches mine'.
This is the mentality that has caused so much problems overseas for the United States. So can you please elaborate? Is that your position?
'I value the opinion of other countries as long as that opinion matches mine'.
Gee, that sounds kind of... how shall I put it? "One-sided"
RJ: It was not a "unilateral" invasion...
I'm surprised that anyone still thinks that the "Coalition of the Willing" was anything more than a "Coalition of the United States and the brow-beaten, the arm-twisted and the bribed."
The average troop strength of the other "coalition" members is about 450. Of the 180,000 troops there, 125,000 in Iraq and 35,000 in Kuwait are American (89%). I appreciate the fact that anyone in Iraq from, say, Colombia or El Salvador is in as much danger, and would fight as well, as any of the other troops but none of the countries (including England and Australia) were banging on Wolfowitz's door shouting "C'mon, get up, we want to invade Iraq! Move it, move it!"
Looking at it pragmatically rather than than through the White House PR blinkers, the needless invasion of Iraq was unilateral. Certainly more than "close enough for government work."
RJ: I demand ....
I'm sure you can imagine my response to that.
RJ: "Bush is (slightly) up right now."
He's down in regard to Iraq according to the Newsweek poll of April 8-9:
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"
51% DISAPPROVE --- 44% APPROVE.
In May of last year, only 26% disapproved and 69% approved - it's a big drop. Details at "So what do you think about ..." on BC.
HP: "Coalition of the United States and the brow-beaten, the arm-twisted and the bribed."
Here are a couple of links that expand on that:
U.S. builds war coalition with favors — and money
What allies are offering and getting in return
Those were in USA Today, but there was a lot more along the same lines at the time, with more detail, from a variety of sources.
Hey, in all this listing of countries supporting the US aggression you forgot to list the good citizens of Mercenaria. There are as many mercenaries in Iraq as there are troops from the coalition of Will and Grace.
Of course, after South Africa went all kablooie what with the democracy and all, the subscribers to Soldier of Fortune had to go somewhere for work.
By the way, why do 'murricans (or as I tend to think of them, the coalition of the dim) describe the People's Republic of China as "Red China"?
Was there some sort of trauma at a Pottery Barn? You know, no matter how much you wish for it, you aren't getting Richard Nixon back.
China has provided the States with the model to deal with both dissent at home, and international diplomacy. Shrub came close to quoting Chairman Mao, but of course, fucked up the quote. If you're going to have a monopoly on power, at least get somebody entertaining dammit! Could Shrub inspire college students to go on a rampage? Hell No!
Your Glorious Leader is neither glorious or a leader, discuss.
"RJ, I have to agree with anon. You said you don't care what some countries think, then not two posts later you said you don't want to disregard the position of other countries."
I don't care what Red China, Russia, France, Zimbabwe, Syria, or Cuba think. (At least, what their governments think.)
I *do* care about those nations who are friendly to the US, and are cooperating with us, offering their blood and treasure, in order to stabilize Iraq.
Yes, it's all very subjective. Anti-war types will likely highly value the opinions of France and Germany while mocking the contributions of El Salvador and Estonia. Whatcha gonna do?
"The Coalition of the Willing is a joke. Everyone laughs. Why don't you?"
Well, maybe the international communists and anti-Americans of all stripes mock it. But I tend not to disregard to position of dozens of countries...
Okay, I see now where you got me. Ambiguous and incomplete wording on my part. Mea Culpa.
The above would be more properly stated as:
"I tend not to disregard the contributions of dozens of countries [who are helping us out]..."
Again, I was not clear before. Sorry. :-/
I'm surprised that anyone still thinks that the "Coalition of the Willing" was anything more than a "Coalition of the United States and the brow-beaten, the arm-twisted and the bribed."
How was the UK bribed? Or Israel? Or Australia?
There are more countries contributing to the effort in Iraq than in almost any other military action in world history.
Yes, the US has taken the lead. That's pretty much the way of the world post-WWII. But it was not "unilateral" by definition.
US-led? Sure. Unilateral? Lie.
You're entitled to your opinion, RJ, but that seems rather naive.
Rick Atkinson, who was embedded with General Patrias' Screaming Eagles, the 101st, during the march to Baghdad a year ago has a different view. He wrote a book about it called "In the Company of Soldiers: A Chronicle of Combat."
He was on CNN's Lou Dobbs show Thursday and this is what he said:
DOBBS: Amongst the things that you've written in this book, in this climate, as you well know, one of the things you wrote of the 101st division, they were better than the cause they served. That is explosive in these times. What did you mean?
ATKINSON: Well, I think it's very important that we not confuse the warriors with the war. And this is a book fundamentally about the warriors and not their war. But it occurred to me, even before the war started -- and I certainly feel even more strongly about it now -- that the case had not been made sufficiently for an invasion of Iraq that was virtually unilateral without allies.
As a scholar of World War II, I come away from studying World War II, believing that nothing is more important than when you're waging a global campaign whether against the axis in the 1940s or global terrorism in the 21st Century than having a robust, righteous coalition. My feeling was we did not have that when the war started and certainly don't have it now. [Lou Dobbs 4/16/2004]
For all practical purposes, it was a unilateral invasion of Iraq, and we're paying the price for it now. Continuing to buy into the neocons' pre-invasion window-dressing is not helpful - it's time to get real so we can deal with the consequences.
Well, now you've added the qualifier "for all practical purposes." So I guess I was right. The invasion of Iraq was NOT "unilateral." But it was for all practical purposes "unilateral" to those who oppose the war.
That's fine. Thank you.
Most of the people of the world are wrong, accoring to Webster's.
Most of the people of the world are wrong, according to Webster's.
USA: 130,000 + in Iraq
Britain: 12,000... um, that's TWELVE FUCKING THOUSAND TROOPS...
We could fit that many in an American Humvee.
I'm sick of hearing BRITAIN is a friggin' 'COALITION member'.
And the nerve of that cocky punk Blair standing there giving President Deer-In-The-Headlights a blow-job on in the Rose Garden on national TV (at least Clinton did it behind closed doors).
Here's an idea Prime Minister Thyroid-Gland-Problem: Send an additional 118,000 troops to IRAQ and then you can come before the American public and lecture us on what the fuck we're ALL doing over in that hell-hole.
Most of the world's peoiple are wrong -- about many things accepted, sadly, as conventional "wisdom."
In any case, there was a Coalition of the Killing, so saying that the invasion and occupation are US-led would be the accurate statement.
This nit-picking discussion is a great example of how technically-true statements can produce a lie.
I would have thought that anyone who has raised a child (or been one) would know how that works, but apparently not.
Calling the invasion of Iraq "unilateral" presents a truer picture of what actually transpired than does the technically-accurate word "coalition."
"Coalition" masks the fact that the members of this group were not clamoring to invade Iraq for any reason, and that "unilateral" is a far better description of the reality on the ground.
Australia was brokering a trade deal and wanted to get better terms for their agricultural products (they got screwed, by the way). Slovenia and at least nine other countries were trying to get into NATO. Israel might have joined anyhow, but used this opportunity to press their request for a $12 billion aid and loan package. I don't know what Colombia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Singapore and the Solomon Islands wanted but it's not reasonable to think that any of them had any desire to waste lives and lucre invading Iraq.
The invasion of Iraq was not a banding together of nations with a desire to remove Saddam. It was a coalition of the bought and the pressured. The enterprise was an American enterprise from start to finish (except there is no finish), a unilateral American operation, with other countries dragged in as window-dressing.
Of the the six billion people on earth, only a relatively few have been duped. Not surprisingly, a huge portion of those are in America.
What does "unilaterally" mean, then? Uni = One. Lateral = Side. One-sided invasion. And that's not true, unless the UK, Australia, Israel, and Kuwait all became one entity one day without my knowledge...
They are different countries who are all on our "side".
So I guess I was right. The invasion of Iraq was NOT "unilateral."
So what countries from Saddam Hussein's side of the conflict helped us invade Iraq?
Well, I guess WWII was a "unilateral" action of the anti-Axis countries, then? I mean, how many supporters of the NAZIs and Imperial Japanese were on the US-British side?
Anyway, this is all semantics. It's pretty much moot.
I'm just sick of hearing words used incorrectly to describe the War in Iraq.
US-led is fine. Unneccesary is acceptable. Reckless is subjective. But unilateral just isn't true.
People have the right to use whatever language they wish. And you certainly have the right to be sick about it.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/14713)
Condi was always going to be better because Condi is intelligent and Bush is not. Condi is smart and Bush is not. You can only be disappointed if you expected him to be better than Condi. I am not sure too many in the free world expected any such thing.