Bush actually shocked me

[elsid13]

I actually amazed with the self analysis that he did during the press conference with Blair. Unfortunately it about 6 years to late.

More than three years after sending their troops to invade Iraq, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair cannot escape questions about their decision to go to war even as they acknowledge far-reaching mistakes.

Defensive when they would prefer to celebrate the recent political success in Baghdad, the trans-Atlantic allies reflected on the price of overthrowing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

In a joint news conference Thursday night that had a somber tone, Bush acknowledged the bloodshed has been difficult for the world to understand. Blair called the violence "ghastly."

But, Bush said at the White House, "Despite setbacks and missteps, I strongly believe we did and are doing the right thing."

Those missteps include the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, though Bush said those responsible have been jailed. More personally, the president said, he learned not to use so much "tough talk" — saying Osama bin Laden was wanted "dead or alive" and challenging America's enemies to "bring it on."

"I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner, you know," Bush said softly.

Blair said the leaders did not accurately predict immense challenges such as the strength of the insurgency. "It should have been very obvious to us," the prime minister said.

The press conference came after Bush and Blair had a private meeting and ended when the two left for dinner upstairs in the president's residence.

Blair was continuing his Washington visit Friday with a speech at Georgetown University and a private lunch with Bush before heading home.

Blair briefed the president on his discussions in Baghdad on Monday with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who said his forces are capable of taking control of security in all provinces within 18 months. Iraq's new government was installed last week.

"I think it's possible to happen in the way that Prime Minister Maliki said," Blair said. "For that to happen, obviously, the first thing that we need is a strong government in Baghdad that is prepared to enforce its writ throughout the country. My very strong feeling, having talked to the leaders there, is that they intend theirs to be such a government."

Neither Bush nor Blair would give specifics on when soldiers from their countries can begin to go home.

"We're going to work with our partners in Iraq, the new government, to determine the way forward," Bush said. He said the goal remains "an Iraq that can govern itself and sustain itself and defend itself."

He said one problem was the lack of an Iraqi defense minister, and he urged Maliki to fill the post soon.

Bush declined to discuss news reports that the Pentagon hoped that the U.S. force, now at 131,000 troops, could be reduced to about 100,000 by year's end.

"We'll keep the force level there necessary to win," Bush said.

Britain has about 8,000 troops in Iraq. Blair said the goal remains that Iraqi security forces could "take control progressively of their own country."

On another topic high on the agenda, neither Bush nor Blair would reveal his thinking on possible incentives to draw Iran back to negotiations over its suspected nuclear weapons program.

"Of course, we'll look at all options. But it's their choice right now — they're the ones who walked away from the table," Bush said. "I think we ought to be continuing to work on ways to make it clear to them that they will be isolated."

Bush was dismissive of recent back-channel overtures from Tehran, including a letter to him from Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Bush said he read the letter. "I thought it was interesting," he said.

But, he added, the Iranian leader "didn't address the issues of whether or not they're going to continue to press for a nuclear weapon. That's the issue at hand."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060526/..._wh/bush_blair

[Rigs11]

Good. Admitting that you f***ed up is the first step. Unfortunately now someoone has to clean up his mess.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"Mr. Bush, surely your 'mistake' on WMD undermines the entire concept of your own international philosophy, that being that the U.S. has the right to invade in it's own protection. Surely if your leaders topple goverments based on 'mistakes' their level of competence is such they should not be holding office. Mr. Bush, why did you run for reelection?"

[Orange4ever]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

"Mr. Bush, surely your 'mistake' on WMD undermines the entire concept of your own international philosophy, that being that the U.S. has the right to invade in it's own protection. Surely if your leaders topple goverments based on 'mistakes' their level of competence is such they should not be holding office. Mr. Bush, why did you run for reelection?"

Simple, because Kerry was the only other choice.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Orange4ever

[/B]

Simple, because Kerry was the only other choice.

And only fools failed to realize that Kerry was the better choice.

[gunns]

This sounds like a minor shock to me, a Karl Rove reinvention. The fact that he thinks he's still right about going into Iraq tells me we're still at square one.

[BroncoBuff]

You set the bar for being "shocked" quite low elsid.

Those were "no, duh" admissions, nothing more.

In a strange way, these "admissions" have the insidious side-effect of actually deflecting blame.

The American people have a very strange way of embracing politicians who admit error. You can bet that Rove's pollsters were working overtime to determine how the "likely voters" this November felt about these admissions. I'll bet their response is positive, and I'll further bet you see more incremental, informal admissions from him through the summer.

It's like I heard somewhere (I think in a movie, but it's still true), somebody said:

""All Nixon had to say in '73 was 9 words: 'We covered up. It was wrong. I am sorry.' and the American people would've forgotten about Watergate."

The admissions in the Blair press conference is a Rove trial-balloon on that very threory ... with the goal of planning for mid-terms to hold both houses.

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff1

You set the bar for being "shocked" quite low elsid.

Those were "no, duh" admissions, nothing more.

In a strange way, these "admissions" have the insidious side-effect of actually deflecting blame.

The American people have a very strange way of embracing politicians who admit error. You can bet that Rove's pollsters were working overtime to determine how the "likely voters" this November felt about these admissions. I'll bet their response is positive, and I'll further bet you see more incremental, informal admissions from him through the summer.

It's like I heard somewhere (I think in a movie, but it's still true), somebody said:

""All Nixon had to say in '73 was 9 words: 'We covered up. It was wrong. I am sorry.' and the American people would've forgotten about Watergate."

The admissions in the Blair press conference is a Rove trial-balloon on that very threory ... with the goal of planning for mid-terms to hold both houses.

In many ways I would have agreed with you if I hadn't seen the "live" press conference, and just read it. In Bush's body language and way he spoke; it couldn't have been rehearsed. If it was, then he should be in Hollywood not DC. (Thou who would be crazier Tom Cruise or Bush, would be hard debate.) It was one of those rare moments you sometimes get in world, when you really see into the someone's mind.

And you're right that American people as a culture are willing to forgive, if you admit you made mistake and correct it. (This is were LABF rant starts)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by elsid13

(This is were LABF rant starts)

More like "this is where LABF once again chuckles at your claim to be a Democrat."

The method and the madness of King George

Recently, with his pet poodle Tony Blair in tow, Bush said he regretted having said "Bring it on!" He called it "tough talk". Is this mere alcoholic's remorse publicly confessed until he can spin and sin again? It is more accurately described as "misdirection". He is publicly contrite to disarm opponents while he spoils for a showdown that will have the effect of consolidating power already claimed for himself.

What Bush has really done is to throw down the gauntlet. The range of issues taken together make a sinister mosaic.

# Bush has apparently completed what many of the right wing have desired: an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress' sole authority to wage war:

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature."
-- James Madison

# Bush has both defended and denied a campaign of wide spread domestic surveillance;

# The Bush administration is most certainly continuing —amid world wide outrage —a policy of outsourced torture —called "rendition" in our Orwellian world. Contrary to administration obfuscation, lies, and spin, this program thumbs its nose at international principles that the United States itself insisted upon at the end of World War II;

# And, at last, Presidential "signing statements" —Bush's way of reminding Congress and the nation that it matters little what Congress has done; the law is what Emperor Bush says it is.

It all takes on the appearance of a well-organized plan. Bush is spoiling for a judicial showdown —but only because he thinks the fix is in! "Rendition" seems to be the only issue to have surfaced prominently prior to the confirmation of Alito.

Continued: http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by elsid13

In many ways I would have agreed with you if I hadn't seen the "live" press conference, and just read it. In Bush's body language and way he spoke; it couldn't have been rehearsed. If it was, then he should be in Hollywood not DC. (Thou who would be crazier Tom Cruise or Bush, would be hard debate.) It was one of those rare moments you sometimes get in world, when you really see into the someone's mind.

And you're right that American people as a culture are willing to forgive, if you admit you made mistake and correct it. (This is were LABF rant starts)

You really think Bush took an unscripted question at a planned photo-op with Blair?

No... Blair and Bush both knew that softball was gonna be lobbed and had planned for it. Bush's smirk afterwards proves it....

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

And only fools failed to realize that Kerry was the better choice.

He was not. And you know that. Had he been better...he would have won

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

He was not. And you know that. Had he been better...he would have won

doesn't matter, they both work for the same company...............

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

He was not. And you know that. Had he been better...he would have won

By this logic, Brittany Spears is better than the Grateful Dead. I mean, more people buy her records, so by your logic that means she's better, right?

[24champ]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

He was not. And you know that. Had he been better...he would have won

Your right, democrats agree....

ELLEN GOODMAN
Don't run, John Kerry
By Ellen Goodman | April 28, 2006

I HAVE LONG believed that any columnist who writes about a presidential election more than two years before Election Day should have her fingers peeled from her keyboard and be taken off to a rehab clinic for political junkies. The only reason I risk that fate now is to soothe an escalating series of anxiety attacks that range from ''Uh-oh" to ''Oh, no" to a shrieking ''YIPES!"

Article Tools
Printer friendly
E-mail to a friend
Op-ed RSS feed
Available RSS feeds
Most e-mailed
Reprints & Licensing
More:
Globe Editorials / Op-Ed |
Globe front page |
Boston.com
Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts The signs that John Kerry is going to run for president in 2008 are rising faster than the pollen count. There was the requisite New York Times op-ed -- How many days late? How many dollars short? -- on getting out of Iraq. There was the Globe op-ed that preceded the speech supporting war dissenters at Faneuil Hall to an audience of groupies yelling ''Run" and ''2008." There was Ted Kennedy's remark, ''If he runs, I'm supporting him."

And then there was his op-ed in The Manchester Union-Leader defending New Hampshire's place as first-in-the-nation primary. A true profile in courage.

All of this leads me to blurt out: ''Stop him before he kills (the Democrats' chances) again."

I am not an opponent of Senator Kerry. I'm a constituent. I've voted for him six different times. On Nov. 2, 2004, I briefly wished that the Constitution let us pick a president by the early exit polls.

Moreover, I fully understand Kerry's longing to take it once more from the top. After losing an election, you wake up at night thinking about how you shoulda woulda coulda done it betta. You nurture the irresistible fantasy that next time you'd do it right. This is why serial lovers keep getting into the same sort of relationship. Now I've got it!

But let's go to the 2004 videotape. In the primaries, Kerry was Everydemocrat's second choice. After Super Tuesday, the common wisdom was that Kerry won because he could win. An Ohio voter even told a reporter, ''This guy just looks presidential. And in this country I think it's all about the image." It wasn't a presidential primary, it was a presidential casting call.

Democrats are cute when they get pragmatic, but not necessarily successful. This time, the stalwarts were convinced they'd found a moderate who couldn't be polarized. But he was. They thought they found a decorated veteran -- three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star -- who couldn't be trashed. But he was.
Kerry is not the only one who still imagines a thousand belated rejoinders for the swift boat attackers. He's not the only one who cannot believe he actually said of Iraq war funding, ''I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
In ''Politics Lost," Joe Klein blames ''the pollster-consultant industrial complex" of focus groups and strategists and market-tested messages for the current state of politics. But he also says, damningly, that in 2004, ''Kerry proved weak, indecisive, and, yes, aloof."

Remember Bush versus Anybody But Bush? Remember websites like KerryHatersforKerry.com announcing, ''He's awful and I'm for him"? In the end, a majority of likely voters thought we were on the wrong track and voted for the conductor anyway. In the end, the president who lied to us about war and weapons of mass destruction looked like the straight talker. That's how bad it was.

Kerry had many fine moments. I saw some of them on the trail and in the debates. But as many have said, Kerry is a politician who has more policies than ideas. Ask what he believes in and the answer is a 10-point plan. He ran a cautious campaign against a reckless commander in chief. And while caution is not a moral failing, Kerry's gut seems to have a surgical bypass through his cranium.

This time he'd get it right? What the Democrats need this time out is not a messenger honed to squeak on the margin of undecideds, but a vision of what's gone wrong and how to right it. As Michael Tomasky writes in The American Prospect, they need a liberal message of the common good that trumps the conservative message -- a view that we are in this globalized, post-industrial, post-9/11 world together and must ''pull together, make some sacrifices, and, just sometimes, look beyond our own interests to solve our problems and create the future."

John Kerry is a good, honorable, thoughtful man. And a lousy presidential candidate. He couldn't do ''ideas" the first time. He wouldn't do them the second time. It's just not in him.

Watching his warm-up, I'm reminded of a parking place in my neighborhood. It looks open and tempting. But over it is a sign that warns: Don't Park Here. Don't Even Think About It.

John, please. Don't even think about it.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...un_john_kerry/

[alkemical]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by 24champbailey

Your right, democrats agree....

So, who do the dems throw against the wall and hope they stick in 2008? I can tell ya, it's not hillary. No one trusts her...dman

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by defenseman

So, who do the dems throw against the wall and hope they stick in 2008? I can tell ya, it's not hillary. No one trusts her...dman

I can only hope the party has the sense not to go down that path. I think Warner would probably win if nominated.

[alkemical]

We will get whom they want us to pick, on both sides.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

"Government for the people, of the people and by the people" (probably have that out of order) - certainly not what we have now and we won't have it as long as the party power brokers control our government.

[Falconer]

Originally Posted by Big Guy

"Government for the people, of the people and by the people" (probably have that out of order) - certainly not what we have now and we won't have it as long as the party power brokers control our government.

Two posts in one day. Watch out, you're becoming addicted.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Originally Posted by Falconer

Two posts in one day. Watch out, you're becoming addicted.

I feel about government the same as we used to say about football referees. You know the game was well ref'd when it was over and order was maintained and the rules were followed, but no one can remember anything the refs did.

[defenseman]

OF, BY, FOR...dman

[elsid13]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

You really think Bush took an unscripted question at a planned photo-op with Blair?

No... Blair and Bush both knew that softball was gonna be lobbed and had planned for it. Bush's smirk afterwards proves it....

I think Bush smirked because that his natural reaction to providing a complete thought. It like he knows he getting a cookie for being a good boy. It was planned photo op, but the press doesn't have it question screened. I still think that it dawning on him what Powell told him before the invasion "You break it, you own it"

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by elsid13

I think Bush smirked because that his natural reaction to providing a complete thought. It like he knows he getting a cookie for being a good boy. It was planned photo op, but the press doesn't have it question screened. I still think that it dawning on him what Powell told him before the invasion "You break it, you own it"

Bush smirked because he thinks some people may have actually "bought" that canned non-apology....

No, I think that softball question was thoroughly planned and scripted; the only genuine part of the exchange was the smirk and he couldn't help doing that.

He really doesn't think he'll be held accountable for the Iraq war... he's never been held accountable for anything else in his life, so why would it change now?