bush's press conference

[Z]

my disappointment and frustration with the president's performance is too comprehensive to describe here. suffice to say i will not waste any time in the future listening live, as the president is clearly satisfied to recite the same 5-10 talking points over and over, regardless of the question presented.

my question for the board is this: how on earth could the president not have anticipated some of the questions that flummoxed him so glaringly?

for instance, i continue to be mystified at the administration's refusal to offer any sort of apology for mistakes made both pre/post 9/11. if there is some poignant political benefit, i dont see it. all bush would have to do is throw a bone in response (i.e. im sorry we hadnt passed the patriot act sooner, im sorry we didnt improve communication between cia/fbi, etc), but instead he has allowed his seemingly stubborn refusal to say the words "im sorry" to become a story in itself.

secondly, his response to the question re: his joint testimony with cheney at the 9/11 commission was perhaps the most inadequate i have ever seen a president provide in such a forum. how could he not have seen this question coming, and be prepared to provide at least a cursory explananation? i dont get it.

[TrueHoyaBlue]

I also thought the joint testimony answer was one of the strangest I'd heard, and I thought that many of his answers to questions seemed to indicate either a bad prep session for the news conferece, or just one that he didn't pay much attention to.

I'll be the first to admit that I was expecting to be disappointed by the message, going into the press conference. But I was surprised by the utter lack of substance in his answers, and his clumsiness in evading most of the questions. It's little wonder that he does so few news conferences.

[thebin]

1. Yes, he is clumsy in a press conference, it is painful to watch. I just don't think ease at this sort of thing is terribly important in my leader. Bush is horrible at evading questions he doesn't like, Clinton was great at it. I just don't care between those two- they are both style issues.
2. I do not think it appropriate for either he or Clinton to apologize for the acts of homicidal fanatics. Admit the agencies need overhaul- yes, and take responsability for that overhaul. But I just don't share the American fascination with self-flaggelation. You shouldn't apologize for the dastardly acts of others because you didn't prevent them. You should learn from it, not take responsability for it. That goes for Clinton and Bush. I am really losing my patience with this groundswell of stealth movement to try to force Bush to apologize to the 9/11 grievers. This is worse than politic, it is intensely immoral.
Which reminds me of a personal maxim, be wary of the "scandal" that hits very late. Why now? More than two years after the catastrophe, we are seeing people who loath Bush, first start to play with the emotions of an overly-emotional people with this disengenous "why doesn't he just apologize" crap. If this were a legitimate concern, it would have been given voice within weeks of 9/11. Its not a legitimate concern, its a contrived political one. If it was something he really should aplogioze for, he should be hanged for it while we are at it. Its not.

[showcase]

I thought Bush's prepared remarks weren't too bad, so I guess a tip of the hat ought to go to his speechwriters. The Q&A was downright awful. Frankly, I'm not sure why it was there, unless it was a request from the networks in exchange for giving an hour of primetime over to the president (I have no idea of the inner workings of such requests - just speculating, obviously).

I don't understand what the big deal is about an apology, one way or the other. I think the "but you don't apologize for the acts of trecordists" defense is pure crap, because the apology isn't because some trecordists opted to do something, but because it happened on his watch and, as president, you're supposed to be ultimately responsible for what happens on your watch. It's your job to ensure the country's safety. It's the same with the Administration's explanations re: the 8/06/01 PDB; "well, there was nothing specific there" - duh, if the bar was that low, why do we need you to make policy judgments at all.

That being said, if the man's not up for a formal mea culpa, so be it. I don't think Clarke's was disingenuous (contary to the rambings of Frist, Krauthammer, and others constituting the conservative echo chamber), but I wouldn't want to see the president apologizing just for the sake of it. Plus, an apology wouldn't make me any more comfortable with the real issue: why are you now apologizing, and have the lessons drawn from those reasons been internalized?

For me, I have a real distaste for the approach of witnesses like Ashcroft to the 9/11 committee, for whom it appears to be a purely political moment, than people like Clarke or the deputy director of the CIA's counter-trecordism office, who are blunt and forthright in admitting that more could have been done but that there were some serious obstacles to overcome as well.

The Low-light of last night? TDefinitely the president's inability to explain why the White House insisted that he testify before the committee with Cheney, as noted above. A pathetic display of obfuscation worsened only by the fact that it occurred in response to such an innocuous and seemingly easy question to predict and handle.

[Z]

bin, the problem i have is not with his inability to evade questions, its his inability to communicate effectively. communication skills are, IMHO, a necessary prerequisite for effective leadership. plenty of "plain spoken" people are able to express themselves persuasively, bush simply isnt.

additionally, i wonder about the ramifications of bush's inability to clearly express himself in an impromptu fashion w/r/t internal government communication. are those with whom bush has personal communication left as confused and unclear about his sentiments/instructions as the general public?

[thebin]

Z- I don't think he has any problem communicating at all if he is not in front of the world's press. I communicate very well in small groups- put me on a podium in front of 50 very attentative people- I FREAK OUT. I really think it is stage fright- the kind mixed with a knowledge that most of the reporters didn't vote for him to be mild. It is a curious characteristic of a politician who has reached the big time, but not one that concerns me TOO MUCH. Every indication from those who have met with him personally or in small groups swears that he is quite quick. For all the connections in the world, you just don't have a BA from Yale and a masters from Harvard (where his grades were on the whole better than Gore's) without being able to communicate well. Communicating well and being able to be smooth while grilled by a largely hostile press are not the same thing, although I certainly can't fault you for linking the two.