This was a flawed performance by a President that humiliates us all in the eyes of the world; a stunning display of ineptness when we needed to exhibit 'our better angels'. To paraphrase Tom Wolfe, the trajectory of our foreign policy is now end over end.

Trust, Don't Verify,

Bush's incredible definition of credibility.

Better than I could put it.

What Instapundit mostly linked to were style comments that largely applied to his pre-written speech like:

"... he exudes resolve"

"I found the president clear, forceful, impassioned, determined, real."

A favorite:

"There wasn't too much of that cringe-inducing nervous cockiness we've seen from him in the past."

And in his own words:

"...he looked confident and quick on his feet (for Bush). "

This was coupled to a general dismissal of Bush's incoherence during the actual press conference as being a problem with the questions.

Funny how he left out quotes from Atrios, Hesiod, Drum, Marshall, Kos (to name just a few) which were uniformly harsh and unflattering.

To get an idea what I think of the press conference, here's an example of an exchange on an important issue, from a "must-call" Fox reporter:

"You have been accused of letting the 9/11 threat mature too far, but not letting the Iraq threat mature far enough. First, could you respond to that general criticism? And secondly, in the wake of these two conflicts, what is the appropriate threat level to justify action in, perhaps, other situations going forward?"

I am honestly interested in the answer to this second question, since it asks Bush to define what the "Bush Doctrine" actually is. I think both the anti- and pro-Iraq war sides are in agreement that it would help to further clarify this since perhaps both sides have a tendency to over-interpret or even misrepresent it. As Stratfor puts it via the agonist :

" [B]y providing no coherent answer he leaves himself open to critics who are inserting motives into his policy...The Bush administration, having created an intellectual vacuum, cannot complain when others, trying to understand what the administration is doing, gin up these theories. Bush has asked for it."

This echoes what I wrote in a thread yesterday wrt Iraq:

“Perhaps its time to stop saying Bush is a poor communicator of a good policy and recognize that what he's saying is the policy, and it's bad.”

To which Dan replied:

“I'll believe that as soon as I start seeing the policy stated accurately by the majority of his self-styled European opponents.”

So here’s Bush’s chance to set the record straight for all of us so we can proceed with our debates on better footing.

Here was Bush’s answer (the relevant parts, anyway):

“Your further question was how do you justify any other pre-emptive action. The American people need to know my last choice is the use of military power. It is something that — it's a decision that is — it's a tough decision to make for any president because I fully understand the consequences of the decision. And therefore, we'll use all other means necessary when we see a threat to deal with, a threat that may materialize. But we'll never take the military off the table.”

“And so what I'm telling you is that sometimes we use military as the last resort, but other times we use our influence, diplomatic pressure and our alliances to unravel, uncover, expose people who want to do harm against the civilized world. We're at war. Iraq is a part of the war on terror. It is not the war on terror. It is a theater in the war on terror. And it's essential we win this battle in the war on terror. By winning this battle, it will make other victories more certain in the war against the terrorists.”

Yeah, I think he did pretty well there too (by Reynold’s standards), he looked confident and forceful and resolute in delivering this answer. Problem is, he didn't seem to understand the question, which was straightforward and important. Even still, I'm stumped by his response to the question he thought he was answering.

And that pretty much goes for the other dozen or so pre-formatted responses he gave that had only an elliptical relationship at best to the actual question.

To compound on VT's post, Bush's respons was almost like a kid cheating on a test, he had all these answers, and he wasn't sure which ones went with which questions. The halting speech, the pauses, all gave an uneasy feeling when one considers, this is the guy who holds the briefcase with the noo-cue-lur codes.

all I can say about Bush and all this Iraqi war stuff is :

FINISH IT OR FORGET IT

I have been serving in Iraq for over five months now as a soldier in the 2nd Battalion of the 503rd Airborne Infantry Regiment, otherwise known as the "ROCK."

We entered the country at midnight on the 26th of March; one thousand of my fellow soldiers and I parachuted from 10 jumbo jets (known as C-17s) onto a cold, muddy field in Bashur, Northern Iraq. This parachute operation was the U.S. Army's only combat jump of the war and opened up the northern front.

Things have changed tremendously for our battalion since those first cold, wet weeks spent in the mountain city of Bashur. On April 10 our battalion conducted an attack south into the oil-rich town of Kirkuk, the city that has since become our home away from home and the focus of our security and development efforts.

Kirkuk is a hot and dusty city of just over a million people. The majority of the city has welcomed our presence with open arms. After nearly five months here, the people still come running from their homes, in the 110-degree heat, waving to us as our troops drive by on daily patrols of the city. Children smile and run up to shake hands, in their broken English shouting "Thank you, mister."

The people of Kirkuk are all trying to find their way in this new democratic environment. Some major steps have been made in these last three months. A big reason for our steady progress is that our soldiers are living among the people of the city and getting to know their neighbors and the needs of their neighborhoods.

We also have been instrumental in building a new police force. Kirkuk now has 1,700 police officers. The police are now, ethnically, a fair representation of the community as a whole. So far, we have spent more than $500,000 from the former Iraqi regime to repair each of the stations' electricity and plumbing, to paint each station and make it a functional place for the police to work.

The battalion also has assisted in re-establishing Kirkuk's fire department, which is now even more effective than before the war. New water treatment and sewage plants are being constructed and the distribution of oil and gas are steadily improving.

All of these functions were started by our soldiers here in this northern city and are now slowly being turned over to the newly elected city government. Laws are being rewritten to reflect democratic principles and a functioning judicial system was recently established to bridge the gap between law enforcement and the rule of law.

The quality of life and security for the citizens has been largely restored and we are a large part of why that has happened.

The fruits of all our soldiers' efforts are clearly visible in the streets of Kirkuk today. There is very little trash in the streets, there are many more people in the markets and shops and children have returned to school.

This is all evidence that the work we are doing as a battalion and as American soldiers is bettering the lives of Kirkuk's citizens. I am proud of the work we are doing here in Iraq and I hope all of your readers are as well.

Lt. Col. Dominic Caraccilo

"Die dulci fruimini!"