Centerfield

He was better than I expected, so I go with A-. I have obvious concerns, but he re-instilled some confidence in me regarding his ability to be objective regarding the current state of events, and flexible in response to changes in the current state of events.

Did we watch the same press conference? I thought his performance was terrible. Nothing but the same talking points we've heard a hundred times and long rambling responses that didn't actually answer the question. The "if I had an inkling I'd have moved heaven and earth" line was used verbatim -- twice -- by Condi Rice in her testimony before the 9/11 commission, as well as by McLellan in several consecutive days' briefings. How is it suddenly inspirational when Bush says it?

I agree that he doesn't need to apologize specifically for 9/11, since the failure to take terrorism seriously was far from unique to his administration. But to shift the blame everywhere but on his own mistaken assumptions and suggest that he can't think of a single mistake he's made since 9/11? Even when a reporter specifically refers to the assumptions that have proved incorrect? He refused to even entertain the possibility that WMDs would not be found, that the Iraqis don't welcome us, and that oil revenues are less than expected. And then he refuses to answer the tough questions, simply repeating the same statements over and over again. How can you call this a good performance?

There was nothing new here, and most of the questions went unanswered. This was nothing more than an opportunity to get some free air time in the guise of a press conference. And personally, I think it failed. He came across as nervous and uncertain, evasive and irritable. Looking at a few pro-Bush sites, it seems that many share a frustration with his amateurish answers, but are willing to dismiss it as a lack of Clinton-style "slickness" and don't believe it detracts from his message. I don't know if the American public will be so forgiving. In this age of constant press attention, a lack of confidence with answers is interpreted as a lack of understanding of or confidence in one's plans.

A-. Points off for obvious resentment of the questions. The Administration has been uncharacteristically bad about this the last few weeks; OTOH, the arrogance of the last few speeches wasn't there this time.

Mostly I give points to him and Rove for making current press criticism out to be mostly senselessly hostile and arrogant. I wonder if the questioners understood what happened to them? A review of the (D) side of the blogosphere suggests that most of it missed this.

To be sure, there was no reaching out to the opposition in the least. It was only meant to encourage those who have been with him on the War On Terror. No "uniter" here.

I think that all Presidents should give weekly press conferences, like Eisenhower did. He had the press more on his side than any President since, and, I would imagine, had his message out better, too. When you see a Presidential-level politician weekly, you're more likely to see him in a good light. Of course, Presidents have many excuses for not doing this, and I suspect that Bush' list is longer than most - he clearly HATES doing them.

Andrew Sullivan says Bush was "clear, forceful, impassioned, determined, real. This was not an average performance. I found it Bush at his best." (andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_04_11_dish_archive.html#108192174130670840).

Jeremy,

I agree that Bush was at times evasive and at times didn't answer every part of the often 2, 3, or 4, part questions he was asked.

But at the same time, I didn't feel many of these questions were especially fair. Instead, they felt like me like the attempts of ambitious reporters to be the winning big game hunter who got the president to say, point blank, without any qualifications or context, "I was wrong" or "I'm sorry."

Let's face it, more than one reporter went into that room with the sense that the career holy grail was a WMD mea culpa.

And like I said, if he was savvy and mentally agile in real time combative discussion (or even well-prepared for it), he'd have found some clear, disarming, and effective way to do so.

Many on the left also want the point-blank WMD mea culpa. My sense is that Bush simply doesn't want to give those who are reflexively opposed to him the satisfaction of any such admission. I base this on the fact that he could have come well-prepared with a better answer to the apology and mistakes questions than the ones he gave. I don't know that I blame him much for not wanting to give the anti-war portion of the left this satisfaction.

For many people the WMD are regarded as a moot point, and this infuriates those who are still fixated on it. That's just the way it is. I'm not going to bother re-hashing the reasons why I think it's largely moot. We've fought that battle before.

Jeremy,

Of course there was nothing new?!?!?! It is called consistency, staying the course, not waffling or wavering for political purposes, unlike a certain Senator from Boston, Mass. I might add.

I would actually give the speech an A-, and the question answering period a B- or C+... I wish the President would just specifically answer the question sometimes instead of dancing.

More to the point, I loved that he is standing strong on a democratic Iraq, and finally stating that this war is about a bigger picture and providing a light in the middle east. The President looked the polls, John Kerry, and the media in the face and told them all we where going to do the right thing... period... no matter the cost.

I think the press conference will help the American people regain trust in the President's resolve and leadership ability. He climbed back on the rubble in New York city with a megaphone in his hand...
and unlike John Kerry, I at least got the sense that the administration had a plan.

It's really too bad he couldn't answer a simple question like why he insists on appearing with Cheney instead of alone in front of the 9/11 comission, or what mistakes he's made since 9/11.

Matthew,

I think the reason I'm seeing such polarized reactions to the press conference is that Bush's answers were so vague that you could pretty much insert your own assumptions. Bush talked a lot about abstracts, such as his feelings of confidence, his strength of conviction, and his belief that he was doing the right thing, so those who are already inclined to place their trust in Bush feel reassured, but those who are inclined to distrust Bush do not. Saying "we'll stay the course" and "we have a plan" only sounds convincing to those who already have faith in the administration... the rest of us would prefer something more specific.

Your last sentence puzzles me. I'm not a fan of Kerry's, but I know for a fact that he articulated a plan just a few days ago in the Washington Post that was linked on this very page. At the same time, I didn't see anything in Bush's performance last night that could be called a plan. When I said there was nothing new in his speech, I meant that he still seems to be denying that the resistance we're facing in Iraq is a real problem, and that we need to rethink our strategy in the least. When he says he will provide as many troops as are needed, he doesn't say where those troops will come from. When he says he is committed to the June 30th handover of power, he doesn't say to whom he will be handing that power. He speaks of things that "will happen" as though they are a fait accompli rather than telling us how we are going to work to make them happen. What plan did he articulate that gave you such renewed faith in him as a leader?

I'll admit to the validity of bk's criticism that the question about what mistakes he's made was a "gotcha" question, ungracefully asked and poorly answered. But when asked specifically about the expectations that had proven false, Bush simply refused to admit they had ever been wrong. He suggests that Saddam did have illicit weapons despite the fact that they have not been found, says that oil revenues are higher than expected when they are less than half what was projected prior to the war, and refuses to admit that a strategy that relied on the Iraqis welcoming us as liberators was misguided. Consistency, staying the course, etc. are wonderful when a strategy is working, but unwillingness to adapt to new situations as they arise and refusal to change one's views when confronted with new information is simply irresponsible. It is the same as his insistence on tax cuts despite the change in the economy -- he simply refuses to admit that his policies are ever wrong, and thus he will never change them.

Matthew and bk, please believe that I am asking this out of an earnest desire to know rather than a desire to attack: what exactly in Bush's speech last night restored your confidence in his leadership?

Mmm, restoration wasn't necessary for me. There's the schism, right? If you already have no faith in his leadership, this didn't change anything. If you did, this reinforced it.

I was simply glad that Bush chose to go before the people to place current events in the context in which he views things. These press conferences should happen more often. I don't think Bush has made his case as often and forcefully before the whole nation as a leader should. (that would have been a good failure to admit, BTW)

And I think that regardless of events of the recent past, we need to be united behind the effort to democratize Iraq lest failure become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Kerry recently said much the same.

I get the real sense that some of my offline acquaintances, friends and family that are very upset about the war in Iraq have not thought that much about it, and don't want to think about it. They don't want to deal with it, they want it to go away. If we have to bail for it to go away, that's OK with these people.

I view last night's speech as directed at those people. They're wasting their time pining for the fjords of pre-9/11 America. Al qaeda isn't going away. Things will go badly for the world if we just bail on Iraq. We've got to suck it up.

Hippocrite: I agree. that was one of Bush's least nimble moments, and his outright stumble on this question leaves him open to the charge that they're appearing together because they are hiding something and can't keep their lies straight if questioned separately.

He could have easily said "I know some things better and Dick knows some things better. And we don't view all things exactly the same either. I simply think it's more efficient and easier to avoid misunderstandings if we appear together."

That would have been a fine answer. but I've no way to tell whether the former most negative interpretation or the latter rationalization is true.

Oops... it looks like my name didn't come through up there. The post above regarding "polarized reactions" to the press conference was me.

The President looked the polls, John Kerry, and the media in the face and told them all we where going to do the right thing... period... no matter the cost.

I don't think that's a fair assessment of his leadership on Iraq. In fact, I would describe our committment as rather unsure up to this point. We lowballed the size of the occupation force, didn't use it to restore order in the aftermath of the combat phase ... and, from what I understand, in the past several months -- as we began taking casualties -- we withdrew a lot of our forces from urban areas and done less of the patrolling that can help produce a secure environment.

There are at least a couple other basic examples of what you might think of as a failure of political courage when it comes to Iraq.

First, there's the fact that prior to the war the administration did not offer assessments of the likely costs of this operation. Bush's father did that before Gulf War I -- preparing the nation for sacrifice by sending his people to present some really sobering scenarios at public congressional hearings. Among other things, they said we might lose 10,000 soldiers in the war. The younger Bush made no parallel effort on Iraq. He did not prepare the nation -- unless you count painting the rosiest of unrealistic scenarios as preparation.

Second, back in November in the immediate aftermath of our first sizeable troop losses in Iraq, the administration chose that moment to announce both a transfer of sovereignty and a schedule for troop drawdowns. In other words, they flinched under fire -- a fact that was noticed more over there than it has been over here.

It hasn't led most conservatives to realize their president isn't "a rock" when it comes to pursuing the Iraq war and prevailing. It did lead folks over there to build militias with an expectation they will be left to fight it out amongst themselves someday.

I would point out that last night's speech isn't a dramatic departure from this record. Bush didn't make up for his pollyanish leadership of the past by facing up clearly to the sacrifices we now face. Most Americans got a clearer sense of the likely costs from the news reports of the last couple weeks than they did from their president last night.

The Bush folks just aren't willing to take the hit from being more honest about the sacrifices involved in all this. Ironically, they would get more respect if they did.