December 19, 2005

How good does the President feel?

I didn't see the President's press conference. I'm just reading, but it seems to me that he's awfully relaxed, joking like this, when he's under fire about not complying with FISA restrictions:
THE PRESIDENT: You asked a multiple-part question.

Q Yes, I did.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for violating the multiple-part question rule.

Q I didn't know there was a law on that. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: There's not a law. It's an executive order. (Laughter.) In this case, not monitored by the Congress -- (laughter) -- nor is there any administrative oversight. (Laughter.)


UPDATE: I'm watching the C-Span replay of the press conference now, and I'm even more impressed by the strength of Bush's confidence. This man is happy. But I had to laugh out loud at this revealing flub:
Q: [W]hat would you say is the biggest mistake you've made during your presidency, and what have you learned from it?

THE PRESIDENT: Answering Dickerson's question. No, I -- the last time those questions were asked, I really felt like it was an attempt for me to say it was a mistake to go into Iraq. And it wasn't a mistake to go into Iraq. It was the right decision to make.

I think that, John, there's going to be a lot of analysis done on the decisions on the ground in Iraq. For example, I'm fully aware that some have said it was a mistake not to put enough troops there immediately, I, I, I, uh... or more troops.
I know he can say that he's only restating the criticism, and it doesn't necessarily mean that he agrees that there weren't enough troops, but he looked as though he regretted saying that. I've touched up the text from the transcript -- after the boldface -- to give more of a sense of how he signaled regret.

18 comments:

Meade said...

Relaxed, confident, and in command at "an exciting moment in history." My vote in 2004 was well placed.

jeff said...

He's realized what the Democrats haven't seemed to wrap their heads around - he isn't going to be running for President again.... so he doesn't have to worry about image as much as just "doing the right thing."

And that seems to be something he's okay with and okay at.

AJD said...

Wrap your head around this, Jeff: elections are often about the outgoing president. Remember when W. ran against Clinton, even when his opponent was Gore? That's what will happen to the Republicans in 2008. Even if they pick a "moderate," that person will have to live down all of W's extremism, mistakes and other disasters.

Perhaps you will be able to wrap your head around that when the Democrats win in 2008 -- by running against the idiocy of *this* presidency.

Jeff R. said...

Gore, though, was Clinton's VP, and supposed second partner in everything he did.

Unless the Republicans nominate Cheney or Jeb (Hint: They won't.), that tactic won't work nearly as well for the Democrats.

Harkonnendog said...

"Perhaps you will be able to wrap your head around that when the Democrats win in 2008 -- by running against the idiocy of *this* presidency."

Breathe in...

Breathe out...

You're going to be okay... Shh... You'll be okay...

No no no...

Shhh.... It's okay...

opine6 said...

Aw, Anti-Sheck, maybe you can give the Dems a plan for ANYTHING by 2008. They ran as the anti-Bush party in 2004, and they lost. If all they run on in 2008 is anti-Bush, they'll lose again.

I'm a registered Independent. If the Dems put Lieberman up as a presidential candidate, I'd probably vote for him. I like his stands, based on his principles. The Dem party needs a platform that appeals to us middle Americans.

valjean said...

"... when the Democrats win in 2008 ..."

... by running ... Hillary? Kerry? Edwards? Biden? Reid? Pelosi? Teddy? Jimmy? Barack? Michael Moore? Saddam? bin Laden?

(snort)

Good luck, sweetcheeks.

EddieP said...

Anti Bush won't win the presidency, one has to stand for something. The dems stand for nothing but bash Bush. They're blowing a golden opportunity to win 2008 by being so negative on Iraq and GWB. For five years now they have been running a 24/7 campaign against Bush, and he's beaten them twice. There're plenty of republicans not in agreement with Bush, but on terrorism and security they are in lock step with him. The dems launch endless futile attacks against Bush's strengths while letting him coast on his weaknesses. The 30% in their looney bin won't get the WH for them. They have plenty of issues to educate the public on and should be working to show they are the party to trust. They need to appeal to center of the roaders like me and my southern brethern. They act like since we aren't the elites they like to talk to they can ignore us. But they need some of our votes in 2008, and right now they ain't gettin' any!

AnechoicRoom said...

Harriet Miers alert .....

OK, I wasn't around these parts, when said nominee was discussed. But, I get the feeling that there was energy expended.

That's simply how I viewed that nomination, one of great self confidence and ease by the President. That he took some serious flack, some of it partisan. Was a little disappointing. I rarely watch the Prez's speeches (though on occasion). Wonderful to hear he is back in form.

JohnF said...

You know, mistakes in wartime are relative things. No one seems to ask, "compared to what?" when mistakes in war are discussed.

Compared to WW II, where mistakes probably cost more lives in one day than have been lost during the entire Iraq war, we are doing pretty damn well in the mistake department. Compared to Grenada, well, I'm sure we've done worse.

But what is the standard here? The discussion about "mistakes" seems very much a waste of time without some agreement on how to assess them.

Ann Althouse said...

John: Yes, I would like to see some knowledgeable, talented writer imagine what the news in WWII would be like if written by the journalists of today.

PatCA said...

"Yes, I would like to see some knowledgeable, talented writer imagine what the news in WWII would be like if written by the journalists of today."

Didn't Victor David Hanson or someone in the Weekly Standard do just that? Don't have the time to look it up right now.

AnechoicRoom said...

The parallels in coverage are quite spooky. The constant braying/naysaying. Too many got it wrong even then.

Don't have the relevant link/s at hand. And can't point off the top of my head. But the empty alarmists were not silent then (not sure if it was VDH?)

The article/story I'm remembering dealt with post war Germany's rise back to civilization. At the open giving hand of the West.

Clyde said...

Rand Simberg over at "Transterrestrial Musings" has done just that, Ann. Here are some examples:

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/001664.html

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/002843.html#002843

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/001571.html#001571

onelmom said...

Is there anything more liberating than doing one's best and leaving the rest for God to guide and history to judge?

John(classic) said...

Everyone seems to forget that the original plan was for 15-20,000 more combat troops. Recall that the 4th mechanized infantry division was supposed to invade from Turkey but got stopped when Turkey waffled.

bearbee said...

"...while letting him coast on his weaknesses."


Loss of jobs and continuing destruction of our manufacturing base
Increasing reliance on foreign oil
Record high trade imbalances
Soaring debt and our being increasingly held hostage to foreign (China and Japan) bondholders

and the beat goes on.......

knoxgirl said...

Harkonnendog: LOL!

perfect response.