PDA

View Full Version : Bush Press Conference


Bob Chebat
March 7th, 2003, 11:46 AM
I am guessing that no one really wants to discuss this press conference Bush had last night about the situation with Iraq, but I would really like to know what everyone thought. WITHOUT turning it into another Republicans vs. Democrats debate, and putting your political views aside, what did you think about his answers?

I should say, what did you think about his answer? From what I could gather, he answered every question with the same answer. His mission is quite clear, and he emphasized it with the same remarks to every reporter in that room.

I was very disappointed in the way he went around very good questions like, to the best of my memory, "if we're sharing intelligence with the allies, why can't they see the same things we are seeing?" Something like that. In other words, why isn't our rock solid evidence good enough for the countries who are not supporting this measure?

Of course, he backed up every mention of war with the comments, "we really don't want war". Could you listen to him and actually believe that?

I was hoping to hear answers to questions, and many of the reporters there asked the questions that needed answering. Unfortunately, when it was over, we did not know anything more than we knew before it started.

Chaplin
March 7th, 2003, 11:48 AM
I think it's become a lost cause. I'm fully in support of removing Saddam from power, but right now, the cowardly French are going to prevent that.

But do we consider other alternatives? No. We keep pushing for a vote we know we won't win. Why?

schutd
March 7th, 2003, 11:50 AM
Yeah his conference last night showed me a couple of things. One, I dont think he is acting with ulterior motives. I believe his conviction. But I agree whole heartedly. When we went to quetions and answer I was dumbfounded by his repsonses. He said the same thing over and over and over again.

And the tough questions were answered with rhetoric. Too bad.

GWb really is an awful public speaker. It doesnt cast any shadows on his abilties to lead in the long run I guess, but he stammered and "Uhhhh'ed" his way through every answer, even though it was the same answer he had just given previously.

Im someone who can easily be swayed right now, and unfortunately, last night did nothing to satisfy my questions about the validity of our need for war.

schutd
March 7th, 2003, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Chaplin
I think it's become a lost cause. I'm fully in support of removing Saddam from power, but right now, the cowardly French are going to prevent that.

But do we consider other alternatives? No. We keep pushing for a vote we know we won't win. Why?

My mom has some interesting ideas on that. She's WAY smarter than I am in economics and politics. If we go to war without UN support, we will be responsible, economically for the vast majority of rebuilding expenses incuredafter removing Saddam from power. That could continue to hurt us economically here in the U.S. and would DEFINITELY drag out this recesion. Thats a pretty big deal. If we have U N backing than coalition support is used to rebuild Iraq, and that costs us a lot less.

Interesting thought. Cant back it up with anything, but I trust my moms...

Mike Olbinski
March 7th, 2003, 11:54 AM
No sure if any of you guys listened to Collin Powell today, but the US and Britain are giving Iraq until the 16 or 17th to fully disarm.

This is a big deal...I think I'm totally for war now if Iraq doesn't comply with the new resolution that says the deadline is the 16th or 17th.

Bush is giving them one last chance, and for all those people out there condeming Bush for wanting to go to war no matter what, I think this is him saying that's not the case.

This will also give us a chance to get more allies on our side, etc.

Good move by Bush.

Mike

Chaplin
March 7th, 2003, 11:56 AM
The French will still veto it, because they have too much money invested in Iraq. ANY resolution authorizing any force in Iraq is doomed to failure in the United Nations. Period.

If we go to war, we will go without UN backing. There's no other way.

schutd
March 7th, 2003, 11:59 AM
Good move that I think will STILL not garner us unilateral support from the Security Council. The only thing I can think that might change, if the US has now given a hardened fast date for compliance that possibly the Arab league of Nation might up the push to force Saddam into exhile to prevent all out war in the region. WHo knows. My scenario is unlikely Im sure. But Id still prefer it to war.

I dont know what it would take to convince Germany, Russia, China and France that we have done everything possible to avoid war, and get them on board. But it seems WAY more political that reality based anymore...h

Chaplin
March 7th, 2003, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by schutd


I dont know what it would take to convince Germany, Russia, China and France that we have done everything possible to avoid war, and get them on board. But it seems WAY more political that reality based anymore...h

Absolutely.

Russia and China at least can be convinced, IMO. Maybe Germany given the right circumstances, but France will never be convinced.

Bob Chebat
March 7th, 2003, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by schutd
My mom has some interesting ideas on that. She's WAY smarter than I am in economics and politics. If we go to war without UN support, we will be responsible, economically for the vast majority of rebuilding expenses incuredafter removing Saddam from power. That could continue to hurt us economically here in the U.S. and would DEFINITELY drag out this recesion. Thats a pretty big deal. If we have U N backing than coalition support is used to rebuild Iraq, and that costs us a lot less.

Interesting thought. Cant back it up with anything, but I trust my moms...


This is accurate. I do believe W mentioned it in the speech, or at least it was mentioned in the post-speech news briefing I watched.

One woman I listened to when it was over said it best. President Bush did not tell us anything we have not already heard.

I too believe his conviction, and I also believe he has the safety of the United States first and foremost for his actions. However, I'd still like to know why the rest of the world cannot see what we see given the same intelligence. This is the only part that makes no sense to me at all.

If we have solid proof, why don't the others see it too?

As far as giving them until the 17th, I really don't think this is a big deal at all. It was no secret that we are about 10 days away from an attack if we need to do it. All this says is, here is the date we are coming at you. Much like January 15, 1991. That date was set about 2 weeks ahead. GHB told Saddam he had until 1/15 to leave Kuwait or he was coming in. All this tells us is, war is inevitable, and St. Patrick's Day is the day to watch CNN for live highlights.

Chaplin
March 7th, 2003, 12:15 PM
We've been giving them until "such and such a date" umpteen times now. Nobody is going to agree to that in the UN, and if they do, once it arrives and Saddam isn't disarmed, we'll still here the same crap from France, and the date will get pushed again.

It's a circle. And right now, nothing will ever come of it.

Brian in Mesa
March 7th, 2003, 12:19 PM
What variety of answers is Bush supposed to put forth in answering questions?

It is a black and white issue. No sense getting sidetracked with trivial questions.

Saddam either comes clean, fully discloses and then destroys his cache of weapons, and leaves power...or there will be a war. The US will go into Iraq, disarm Saddam and remove him from power.

I thought this was a great addition to what had been said previously.

Even if Saddam disarmed - the US still wants a regime change.

I wholeheartedly agree.

It's been 12 years of lies and empty promises by Saddam...how much more time should we give him?

It has come down to this: Saddam either agrees to exile...or we're going in!

France is a joke. Show them all the evidence in the world...they've ALREADY stated they will veto ANY vote which involves going to war.

Chaplin
March 7th, 2003, 12:23 PM
Totally agree with you Brian.

Sorry guys, I'm just really passionate about our position in the world and how cowards around the world who don't understand a damn thing about what's going on think they know what's right and what's wrong.

Bob Chebat
March 7th, 2003, 12:23 PM
I honestly believe that March 17 is the day. If compliance has not been met, we will attack them. We are running out of time based on the weather in Iraq.

Unless we see Saddam get exiled and have solid evidence that disarmament is their primary order of business, there is going to be a ton of new parking lot property available.

Bob Chebat
March 7th, 2003, 12:28 PM
That's all well and good Brian, but it still does not answer the questions of why WE are the only ones who see this.

France means nothing in this. They'll veto any resolution that involves war. Fine. If the whole UN is in support of the US, and France still vetos it, then they are the ones that will be in the minority.

If Bush was going to answer every question with the same answer, as he did, then he should have just delivered it as an address to the nation and the press and NOT fielded questions.

That was my point. Ask me all the questions you want, the answer will always be the same.

WaywardFan
March 7th, 2003, 12:34 PM
Bob
I am guessing that no one really wants to discuss this press conference Bush had last night about the situation with Iraq, but I would really like to know what everyone thought. WITHOUT turning it into another Republicans vs. Democrats debate, and putting your political views aside, what did you think about his answers?

Sean:
I thought they were repetitive, and I thought he really didn’t present anything new. However, with the weight of what’s already come out, there isn’t a need really.

I think the purpose was to let everyone know that we’re going to do this. If people want in on it, now’s the time. We’re going to have a vote and we’re going to force France and Germany to say they believe Hussein has disarmed. He’s not glamorous, but he’s leading the world in doing something that is right.

He’s also letting everyone know that when it comes time to work everything out afterward, those opposed shouldn’t be surprised if they are cut out of rebuilding and trade action. I have no problem with this.

I also thought he showed the weight of having to ponder this for so long, of having to deal with these countries that are trying more to save their sweetheart deals (and probably to cover up their collusion in Hussein’s proliferation) than do the right thing.

Bob:
I should say, what did you think about his answer? From what I could gather, he answered every question with the same answer. His mission is quite clear, and he emphasized it with the same remarks to every reporter in that room.

Sean:
I don’t disagree with that. However, I don’t think he wasn’t answering to the best of his ability at that time. He has to still be diplomatic, he has to still keep national security intact.
For the reporters’ part, they asked some stupid questions.

Bob:
I was very disappointed in the way he went around very good questions like, to the best of my memory, "if we're sharing intelligence with the allies, why can't they see the same things we are seeing?" Something like that. In other words, why isn't our rock solid evidence good enough for the countries who are not supporting this measure?

Sean:
That is a question to ask the detractors, not Bush. There is enough out there to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt to any reasonable person or government that Iraq hasn’t disarmed and never intends to do so.

Bob:
Of course, he backed up every mention of war with the comments, "we really don't want war". Could you listen to him and actually believe that?

Sean:
Are you saying that Bush ‘WANTS’ war?

I don’t think there is a single person who ‘wants’ war. I don’t. Not a single person in the military does. The president doesn’t. How much money and lives would the US save if we didn’t go to war? NOT going to war is preferable on all sides. However, there comes a time when war is the only solution to the problem.
So, maybe the question needs to be rephrased. Does he push for war? Perhaps, if only to finally get this done.


Chaplin
I think it's become a lost cause. I'm fully in support of removing Saddam from power, but right now, the cowardly French are going to prevent that.

But do we consider other alternatives? No. We keep pushing for a vote we know we won't win. Why?

Sean:
I’m not certain we won’t win it. The alteration of the time certain is supposed to bring along the votes necessary. Now, if there is a veto we’ll still go. I think a veto (knowing what we’re going to find when we get in there) is going to hurt the countries doing the vetoing (not to mention getting shut out of the post-war process). They have to understand this.

And there is something of a revolt against Chirac in France. They see how the continual opposition is going to hurt France. I hope the others see that as well.


Schutd

Yeah his conference last night showed me a couple of things. One, I dont think he is acting with ulterior motives. I believe his conviction. But I agree whole heartedly. When we went to quetions and answer I was dumbfounded by his repsonses. He said the same thing over and over and over again.

And the tough questions were answered with rhetoric. Too bad.

Sean:
Agreed. Too bad. However, I wasn’t necessarily unsatisfied with his answers. Actually, I wanted him to launch into them and give really good answers, but I know he wouldn’t do that.
It was like, why have the press conference at all. Yet, there was a purpose and in that respect I think he accomplished what he wanted to.

schutd:

GWb really is an awful public speaker. It doesnt cast any shadows on his abilties to lead in the long run I guess, but he stammered and "Uhhhh'ed" his way through every answer, even though it was the same answer he had just given previously.

Sean:
You’re right. He’s not the best. Yet, I think he is believable. I’d rather have a believable stammerer than a silver tongued devil.

schutd:
Im someone who can easily be swayed right now, and unfortunately, last night did nothing to satisfy my questions about the validity of our need for war.

Sean:
I can understand this. I do think that once we start rolling out for the cameras everything he does have our validity will be in the sunshine for everyone to see.

Besides, I don’t think anyone believes this is going to be any sort of real war. Iraqi units are planning on surrendering en mass, and even the Iraqi army admits they are only 35% combat ready. Couple that with the fact that our military is better and theirs is worse than ’91 we should make short work of things.

I certainly hope so.

Schutd:
My mom has some interesting ideas on that. She's WAY smarter than I am in economics and politics. If we go to war without UN support, we will be responsible, economically for the vast majority of rebuilding expenses incuredafter removing Saddam from power.

Sean:
We would be responsible anyway. No big diff.
However, I am totally for using Iraqi oil to help us recoup our costs for liberating them.

Schutd:
That could continue to hurt us economically here in the U.S. and would DEFINITELY drag out this recesion. Thats a pretty big deal. If we have U N backing than coalition support is used to rebuild Iraq, and that costs us a lot less.

Sean:
You know we’re not in a recession, right? Not by definition or estimation. However, our growth is tiny and stagnant. Steep costs toward this endeavor could cause us to slip back though.

Mike

No sure if any of you guys listened to Collin Powell today, but the US and Britain are giving Iraq until the 16 or 17th to fully disarm.

This is a big deal...I think I'm totally for war now if Iraq doesn't comply with the new resolution that says the deadline is the 16th or 17th.
Sean:
Let’s hope fence-sitting nations are as well.
Then, if there is a war it is totally Hussein’s fault.

Chaplin

The French will still veto it, because they have too much money invested in Iraq. ANY resolution authorizing any force in Iraq is doomed to failure in the United Nations. Period.

Sean:
I don’t know. I would have certainly agreed a few days ago. However, more and more is coming out about what they are potentially trying to hide to protect themselves that if they see we’re going to go in regardless they may want to acquiesce. I think their veto is likely, though less so.

Good discussion.

Sean

Brian in Mesa
March 7th, 2003, 12:35 PM
While you're busy criticizing Bush (no surprise there :rolleyes: ) for answering questions the same way each time...why not criticize the "press" for asking the same questions over and over, tweaking them just a bit here and there.

When the guy gives you an answer...why ask nearly the same question, worded differently, or tweaked a little somehow? Ask him something different.

It's not like someone stood up and said "What did you have for lunch, Mr. President?" and Bush responded "Saddam must disarm or we'll disarm him." :D

Chaplin
March 7th, 2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Bob Chebat
I honestly believe that March 17 is the day. If compliance has not been met, we will attack them. We are running out of time based on the weather in Iraq.

Unless we see Saddam get exiled and have solid evidence that disarmament is their primary order of business, there is going to be a ton of new parking lot property available.

I just wish it would get over with. I'm tired of this politcal wrangling and waiting for something to get done.

Brian in Mesa
March 7th, 2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by WaywardFan
For the reporters’ part, they asked some stupid questions.



AMEN!

AZCB34
March 7th, 2003, 12:40 PM
The only trap door I can see is if Saddam actually DOES disclose and destroys his weapons the internation community will say, Mission Accomplished. I am not so sure the international community cares if he is still in power. I DO believe they care about his weapons though.

I didn't see it last night so am only speaking in terms of what has been said here and what we know.

Saddam MAY give up his weapons and disclose all but he will NEVER leave power without fighting. So if our true aim is to remove him from power, then let's get busy...not on the 17th or 16th but tomorrow. For the lkife of me I cannot figure out why we pre-announce all this stuff. JUST DO IT and let the media catch up. If our true aim is disclosure and destroying his weapons...well there is still time for that to happen.

WaywardFan
March 7th, 2003, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Bob Chebat
That's all well and good Brian, but it still does not answer the questions of why WE are the only ones who see this.

The others see it. They choose to ignore it. They choose to put other interests first.

France means nothing in this. They'll veto any resolution that involves war. Fine. If the whole UN is in support of the US, and France still vetos it, then they are the ones that will be in the minority.

I hope the majority of the UN supports us and think they will, but the no votes are of less concern to me. The UN is basically one huge anti-American rally anyway. To them, we’re worse than Iraq. Fine, they can think that. We’ll keep protecting their right to think that. Ungrateful bastards.

If Bush was going to answer every question with the same answer, as he did, then he should have just delivered it as an address to the nation and the press and NOT fielded questions.

You’re probably right. He was probably trying for something different though.

Brian in Mesa
March 7th, 2003, 12:42 PM
I do not think Saddam will back down. He has lied for too long now. He has said repeatedly that he does NOT have what we say he has. Suddenly he's going to go "Alright, you got me. Here's all the WOMD you've been bugging me about. By the way...I'm stayin' in power, okay?"

Chaplin
March 7th, 2003, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by AZCB34


Saddam MAY give up his weapons and disclose all but he will NEVER leave power without fighting.

I think that is a hard truth--and the crux as to why France doesn't want war--they want the weapons gone, but they DON'T want Saddam gone.

Chaplin
March 7th, 2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Brian in Mesa
I do not think Saddam will back down. He has lied for too long now. He has said repeatedly that he does NOT have what we say he has. Suddenly he's going to go "Alright, you got me. Here's all the WOMD you've been bugging me about. By the way...I'm stayin' in power, okay?"

I think he's already said that. He's denied it for so long, and now that he's destroying missiles and whatever, it's just a smokescreen to cover his lying.

Bob Chebat
March 7th, 2003, 12:56 PM
If he would have answered the questions, the reporters would not have had to reword and reask the questions.

WaywardFan
March 7th, 2003, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Bob Chebat
If he would have answered the questions, the reporters would not have had to reword and reask the questions.

Oh sure they would.

They would have asked the same questions however they asked, because he wasn't going to give them the answer they want.

You know what would be a fun exercise? Get a hold of the questions answered and answer them how you wished Bush would have answered them.

Shane
March 7th, 2003, 05:19 PM
Bob Like Wayward said prior. The other countries see the evidence. They all do with the exception of four countries being France, germany, Russia, and China.

They all have alterior motives for wanting to avert war regardless of what evidence is presented to them.

Why is it that the majority of countries actually do back us and see what we see but those four countries do not is the more logical question?

Coyote Tony
March 8th, 2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Chaplin
I think it's become a lost cause. I'm fully in support of removing Saddam from power, but right now, the cowardly French are going to prevent that.

But do we consider other alternatives? No. We keep pushing for a vote we know we won't win. Why?
I'm curoius ... what are options are there? Sanctions won't work because part of the secondary reasos for the war is to control or hoipefully remove Saddam from power. Sanctions simply mean that the Iraqi people will suffer, not Saddam. What other options do we have???

Chaplin
March 8th, 2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Coyote Tony
I'm curoius ... what are options are there? Sanctions won't work because part of the secondary reasos for the war is to control or hoipefully remove Saddam from power. Sanctions simply mean that the Iraqi people will suffer, not Saddam. What other options do we have???

Well, obviously the rest of the free world thinks we have options--which of course means, extending the inspections.

Let me make it clear: I am NOT in favor of extending inspections, we've given the idiot enough time to do what needs to be done. But our posturing and whining isn't going to help matters. We're not going to be successful with a United Nations vote. Since that is most certainly the case, we need to look BEYOND that instead of holding all our hopes on it, since it probably won't happen. What's the point of that?

sly fly
March 8th, 2003, 08:42 PM
But our posturing and whining isn't going to help matters. We're not going to be successful with a United Nations vote. Since that is most certainly the case, we need to look BEYOND that instead of holding all our hopes on it, since it probably won't happen. What's the point of that?

Posturing and whining? Who said we're pinning our hopes on a resolution? The decision has been made. The rest of the stuff is to appease the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, and fence-sitters. We will go alone if we have to.

About the press conference. All of this has obviously taken a toll on Bush. He looked tired. He also looked and sounded like a man who has made a incredibly tough decision. It takes humongous ba*** to do what he's doing. Yes, it may mean he'll be a one-term President. But, at least we have someone in office who's actually not putting up with the threats from these rogue, foreign nations/terrorists.

sly fly
March 8th, 2003, 08:48 PM
My mom has some interesting ideas on that. She's WAY smarter than I am in economics and politics. If we go to war without UN support, we will be responsible, economically for the vast majority of rebuilding expenses incuredafter removing Saddam from power. That could continue to hurt us economically here in the U.S. and would DEFINITELY drag out this recesion. Thats a pretty big deal. If we have U N backing than coalition support is used to rebuild Iraq, and that costs us a lot less.

While it may hurt in the short run (especially if the Frenchies and others stay home), I believe that Iraq's vast oil reserves will help with the rebuilding. Correct me if I'm wrong.

NMCard
March 8th, 2003, 10:12 PM
I agree with sly fly about the rebuilding of Iraq. The could finance the rebuild of the whole country with their oil. Just don't put the socialist in control. Did anyone see the program on iraq on the history channel? Very interesting. Saddam is one evil dude.

WaywardFan
March 9th, 2003, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by NMCard
I agree with sly fly about the rebuilding of Iraq. The could finance the rebuild of the whole country with their oil. Just don't put the socialist in control. Did anyone see the program on iraq on the history channel? Very interesting. Saddam is one evil dude.

I absolutely agree with using the assets of Iraq to rebuild and create the new Iraq.

As far as his evilness, I don't think we know the half of it. The other half can be known if circulated. Iraqis that have escaped from there tell tales you couldn't make up: unspeakable torture and murder, rape and anything else you could imagine. The amazing thing is that the supposed human rights groups. Have they once protested Hussein? Where are the famous letter writing campaigns? These are non-existent. What are they complaining about? The evil U.S. who is actually going to do something about it.

Coyote Tony
March 9th, 2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Chaplin
Well, obviously the rest of the free world thinks we have options--which of course means, extending the inspections.

Let me make it clear: I am NOT in favor of extending inspections, we've given the idiot enough time to do what needs to be done. But our posturing and whining isn't going to help matters. We're not going to be successful with a United Nations vote. Since that is most certainly the case, we need to look BEYOND that instead of holding all our hopes on it, since it probably won't happen. What's the point of that?
I understand.

My understanding of the inspections was they were never supposed to be some adult game of Hide N Go Seek where we have to find where Saddam has hidden his arsenal. They were supposed to determine whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Saddam should have given those weapons up .. not hid them. More inspections, better inspections ... whatever it is all about will only mean that Saddam will also develop a better means of hiding them.

The present inspections are failing because Saddam is not cooperating. Sure, once he was caught he gave up some weapons to appease the UN and the doves of the world ... much like Clinton wouldonly admit his sexual harrassment once it had been uncovered (that's not a republican slamming a democrat ... it is just the way it happen and it is just the way Saddam is presently).

KingofCards
March 9th, 2003, 04:57 PM
I think we have to at least attmpt to go through the U.N. and that is what they are doing. They know the U.N. won't approve this resolution. They are doing the right thing here. Pretend to care what the U.N thinks and than do what we want anyway.

Coyote Tony
March 9th, 2003, 07:27 PM
They are handling it correctly.

And although the US and Britian will have to rebuild the Iraqi economy there is an old war addage that says, "To the victors go the spoils" ... isn't part of that spoil the oil??? Not saying they will grab it all, but won't they get some benfits from it while the countries who opposed the war won't?

DWKB
February 5th, 2013, 07:23 AM
This is the oldest thread on the politics board. It's so interesting to me to look back and see people's opinions and perspectives at the time as opposed to looking back.