| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Bush and Blair concede mistakes but defend war |
| 2006-05-26 |
| President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, two leaders badly weakened by the continuing violence in Iraq, acknowledged major misjudgments in the execution of the Iraq war on Thursday night even while insisting that the election of a constitutional government in Baghdad justified their decision to go to war three years ago. Speaking in subdued, almost chastened, tones at a joint news conference in the East Room, the two leaders steadfastly refused to talk about a schedule for pulling troops out of Iraq — a pressure both men are feeling intently. They stuck to a common formulation that they would pull troops out only as properly trained Iraqi troops progressively took control over more and more territory in the country. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #12 It's cynical, it's dishonest, it's manipulative, and it treats readers like ignorant, passive sheep." Oh. You mean liberals. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2006-05-26 21:20 |
| #11 Excellent comments. Rove, not make that Bush, should read them. JerseyMike sums it perfectly. wxjames nails the more subtle problem: Bush doesn't know how to fight dirty. He's a nice guy with all of the flaws that made America great - loyalty (to a fault - consider Tenet, Mineta, et al), honesty, an internal value system, a sense of shame, etc. Dying traits that are completely unknown to his enemies, foreign and domestic. BushHitler, indeed. Look at all of the poor loonies who have been muzzled and dragged from their homes in the middle of the night to be tortured and locked up in secret prisons. Is there any substantive difference between the "liberals" in America and the blame society of the Arabs? No. This, and all similar foolish PR exercises, is a service to the asshats. |
| Posted by: Cromolet Phavish7868 2006-05-26 17:36 |
| #10 Bush's only mistake is allowing the MSM into press conferences. Think of how quickly the MSM would be replaced if they were considered persona non grata at White House events. Bush doesn't know how to fight dirty. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-05-26 13:45 |
| #9 Mr. Bush said he regretted challenging insurgents in Iraq to "bring it on" in 2003, and said the same about his statement that he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." I guess he decided fuzzy puppy & flowers talk is all anyone in the media can handle. I was kind of pissed too at his OBL comment, because he left off the part where in either case he would jam OBL's head on a pike and plant it at the WTC. It has occured to me that Bush has learned nothing in the past 5 & 1/2 years. Admitting mistakes to these so obviously biased idiots is the absolute worse thing he can do. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2006-05-26 09:03 |
| #8 I don't believe he should ever have conceded anything. Better to wait until the memoirs come out. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2006-05-26 08:21 |
| #7 Absolutely f-ing right. Stealth preaching masquerading as informative journalism. By the way, for about 1 minute of the press conference, Bush got angry and actually articulated a response to the critics of the war. During this one minute, he was eloquent, convincing and dynamic. He did not stumble over his speech, and did not look awkward at the podium. For much of the conference, I thought he did a better job than Blair, which is a surprise considering the fact that Blair is widely considered to be the better public speaker. Unfortunately, he did not sustain it. He should have been talking like this for the past 3 years. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-05-26 08:15 |
| #6 Call it "The New Yellow Journalism": opinion and propaganda crudely masquerading as "fact." It's cynical, it's dishonest, it's manipulative, and it treats readers like ignorant, passive sheep. This 1,500-word article on yesterday's press conference contains barely 200 words of factual material-- that is, actual quotes from Bush and Blair. All the rest is the kind of fluff I call "sneak-preaching": laboriously wordsmithed bullshit concocted to convey a set of negative impressions of the two leaders. Some MSM journalists do it with a bit of finesse, sneaking just a few of these sneering asides into each article to avoid being obvious. These two NYT staffers, though, opted to deliver the bullshit with a power shovel. This is a good example of why I don't read the New York Times anymore. Bunch of fucking hacks. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-05-26 07:19 |
| #5 I didn't even finish the first sentence before I guessed the source. I hate the NY Times. May they die a slow, lingering, agony-filled death.......... |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-05-26 06:46 |
| #4 jeeze--er....battle of the bulge--antietam--get over it--the nytimes guy was practically coming in his pussy--now go to your room leaders of the free world and don't do that again without our permission |
| Posted by: yo momma 2006-05-26 03:14 |
| #3 Mistakes ... yeah yeah yeah, okay so we made a few. What wartime President or Prime Minister has an unblemished record? Now quit the crying and get on with it! |
| Posted by: Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-05-26 02:19 |
| #2 Hey, Dubya, IMHO iff you're making any kind of "mistake" its making comments like in this article. NO SHAME IN MAKING ERRORS, ESPEC WID WAFFLIN' POLICRATS AND ESPEC AGAINST ENEMIES WHOM ARE GOING TO KILL YOU AND AMERICA AND WEST/WESTERN DEMOCRACY ANYWAYS, NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY OR HOW MANY CONCESSIONS USA-WEST MAKE IN THE NAME OF PEACE. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-05-26 00:51 |
| #1 "Next time, I'll read Rantburg before forming any plans" wows US president. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-05-26 00:47 |