ElectionAnalysis.com
Archive: 03/20/2004

The first thing he proved, is that he truly is a plain-spoken man. He does not dress up answers with the typical oily-slime used by so many politicians. For average Americans so accustomed to slick "Washington-Insider-Speak" this can seem a little odd. But it is also very reassuring to know he's not a snake-oil salesman and he says exactly what he really thinks.

The second point he proved is that he holds principles above all else, including his job. One could not help but come away with the impression that he did what he felt was morally right and just in Iraq, and he deeply believes the liberation of 30 million people is more important than getting reelected. He all but told America if they should decide this course is flawed, they should elect another President. How completely un-Clinton-like.

The third thing he proved is- compared to our TV generation politicians, he is not very fast on his feet. We are so accustomed to expert politicians like Clinton and Kerry zapping out one-liners, that Mr. Bush does not seem like a very good "politician". But being an expert "politician" does not guarantee one will be an expert President or a strong leader, and America has already experienced 8 painful years learning what having a president with no morals is like.

And lastly and perhaps most important, he proved that he is a man that says what he means, and means what he says. On the campaign trail, week after week hearing the latest John Kerry flip-flop of the day, it is an amazing, refreshing thing to have a man in the White House who stands on what he says, and does not govern by polls, but by deeply held principles. How politically expedient it might be to start the process of an exit from Iraq. It would bolster his polls numbers. But that is not George Bush. He is a man of honor, a man of principle. Unlike some who have recently inhabited the Oval Office, he is very strong in his convictions. He will not run away as Bill Clinton did in Somalia. Even if it costs him his Presidency. Because he knows in his heart it is the right thing to do.

In predictable fashion, left-leaning members of the media attempted to press their appeasement-loving, Bush-hating, left wing agenda, by repeatedly asking questions designed not to elicit real answers, but to try and humiliate the President of the United States. They were not successful. Repeatedly they begged him to admit mistakes and apologize for murders committed by terrorists who hate America, and to grovel before the world. America can be very proud of their president, who would have none of it. Instead, he stood tall and strong in his deep core values, and ricocheted their partisan, patronizing attacks right back at them, showing the world how shallow and petty were the questioners.

No, George Bush does not have the slick, used-car salesman style of a Bill Clinton, nor the beloved quick-wittedness of a Ronald Reagan, nor the boyish looks and eloquence of a John F. Kennedy. But he possesses a deep, quiet wisdom that instills trust and confidence in all who know him. He is a man Americans instinctively know they can trust. And there is no doubt that George W. Bush is the right President for these times. America should thank God every day that the right man was in the White House at the right time. His quiet strength and determination led us through the worst national tragedy in our nations history, and in the same way, he will lead us through the war on terror and in Iraq, and exactly as we did with September 11th, we will emerge a better, stronger and more unified people.

Better to die ten thousand deaths, than wound my honour.
Joseph Addison

By far the message that the president seemed most concerned with getting across was that America will not back down from our commitment in Iraq. This message was expanded to the broader war on terrorism saying that we must " . . .stay on the offense." "We must do everything in our power to find these killers and bring them to justice, before they hurt us again." Bush reiterated his assertion that the hand over of power to the Iraqi governing council would be completed on schedule. Mostly the president tried to convey the feeling that America is going to do what she said she was going to do.

With all the interesting information and ideas coming out from the 9/11 commission it is little wonder that quite a few questions were asked about both the commission and the event itself. One of the more interesting questions was about why are the president and the vice president appearing together before the 9/11 commission when they had been asked to appear separately. Bush obviously dodged this issue by trying to make it appear as if it was not an issue at all.

Another telling question was what Bush thought his biggest post 9/11 mistake was. In a brief "attempt" to think of an answer Bush floundered for a moment before again reconfirming his decisions and courses of action. He ended his answer by saying "I hope I -- I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one."

In an excellent rebuttal to an anti-Iraq position a few democrats have taken, Bush said "I guess there have been some that said, well, we should have taken preemptive action in Afghanistan, and then turned around and said we shouldn't have taken preemptive action in Iraq."

Ending the press conference Bush spoke briefly about the upcoming campaign and debate. Upon consideration all the airing of the 9/11 information and the openness about the war in Iraq definitely give the president an edge in the integrity department. He appears open and unafraid of the decisions he has made and has strongly stated that he will follow through with what he intends to do. "That's what elections are about. They'll take a look at me and my opponent and say, let's see . . ." "One thing is for certain, though, about me -- and the world has learned this -- when I say something, I mean it."

Despite the evidence to the contrary, which is to say that there has been no evidence of them, Bush touted weapons of mass destruction as his primary reason for having gone and for continuing to stay in Iraq. After about 15 minutes of patent reiteration of what the administration’s been saying for a year (and you have to give them credit for staying on point), the president took off-the-cuff questions from reporters. Among the more disturbing problems with Bush’s responses were the mangling of Libya’s mustard-gas find in a turkey farm. Twice he said there were 50 tons when there were really only 26 tons. Also, the stockpile of gas was found in unfilled chemical munitions, not in a turkey farm, said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. McClellan said the president “misspoke.”

Not that the president is wrong stating, “They (weapons of mass destruction) could still be there,” it’s only that, at this time, and with as much of the country under U.S. control as there is, it’s hard to believe that the armed forces would be unable to locate something like a gross stockpile of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. And using the Libya example of is hardly the solid evidence that the American people were duped to believe as justification for war. "They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm,” Bush said. Granted, but highly unlikely.

His inability to pinpoint mistakes in the administration’s decision-making capability post-Sept. 11 was also troubling. Bush’s casual off-putting of the question with a nonchalant, “I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have,” doesn’t stir feelings of supreme confidence. By not admitting to specific mistakes, the president (and the decisions of his administration, by proxy) makes himself look arrogant and foolish. Even the director of the CIA George Tenet, stated very plainly that his organization had (a) made mistakes, (b) detailed them and (c) needed some time to correct them properly. If the head of a worldwide intelligence organization can admit to mistakes with specificity, so, too, can the President of the United States. Delving into it further, it’s awkward to think that the leader of the free world isn’t constantly reassessing his decisions — decisions that affect the entire globe.

Bush’s press conference hurt the administration. Several polls, which the president says he doesn’t give much credit to, indicate that the once overwhelming support for the Iraq campaign has dropped to percentages in the 40s. With numbers like that, and despite Bush’s strong belief that he will win re-election with no great trouble, it seems likely that the president will have few in the near future. Another press conference like that may have Bush not only soundly defeated in the race for the White House, it might have him running for the hills.