*: "That is a ..a.. (checks paper in front of him)...a dangerous hypothesis."

[Skidmore]

I say a bit of a replay of *'s press conference yesterday and noted something that I couldn't have yesterday when I listened to it while working about the house. A reporter asked * if his statements on troop levels were an indication that he would "override his generals" in regard to this. He hemmed and hawed a bit and gave the response in thread title, only supplying the adjective "dangerous" after looking at his notes. I found that jarring. Apparently they had a canned response for him to an anticipated question. However, that the man is so vacuous and stubborn to require a canned response that somehow reflects blame on the poser of the question is shameful. No hint of even preteinding like he is deliberating or mulling it over. Nothing definitive beyond a hint of accusing anyone who questions him of being somehow subversive tells much about his mindset.

This man is insane. Impeach him and get him out of office before he totally destroys this nation.

[Hissyspit]

1. I was under the impression that it wasn't actually a hypothetical.

I mean, I guess technically it was...

[POAS]

2. the question did include an "if" as in

"if your Generals advise against it would you override".

A strange way to ask and to answer in my opinion.

Bush is the Commander in Chief, he orders and the Generals follow those orders, resign or get fired. The only time the President would be viewed as overriding the Generals if if they had already issued orders which he then countermanded. (ie If a general ordered his troops to leave Iraq and the President stopped that withdrawal and replaced the General)

She should have asked, "if they advise against would you ignore their advise".

[izzie]

3. Sounds like he did not know what to say and I do not think

he thinks fast. So the notes on what to say is put in front of him. A man in doubt maybe? I think that has been one of his problems all along. He doubts his faith and what he is doing so we end of with this mess. These people who often doubt some times fight hard for what they are very un-sure of. It seems to be a safe place to be, inside what you hope is right so you stay there. Bush has hardly a history of being a believer in any thing and it always looked to me as if he took some ideals and said they were his and ran with them. Now we and he are sort of stuck with it.

[rfranklin]

4. It's the conflict of what he believes versus the agreed upon spin...

He is always searching for the phrases and ideas that they prepped him on or listening to the earpiece for the prompt.

[izzie]

5. It is sort of right as he has no real beliefs.

I think his one real belief is rich should rule and not pay taxes. He would have fit in with the autocrats of history. Every thing else must sort of fall under that type of thought. 'Even if I have no beliefs I am right' Odd that people in the USA would even think to vote in such a man but then he wrapped himself in flag, did not get most of the votes first time, and took what people wanted and ran on it. We on this side seemed to have seen that all the time.

[rodeodance]

6. I really do not think he doubts his faith. He (we) live it.

[Skidmore]

8. I don't think he has a cohesive body of beliefs that would constitute

what we normally believe to be "faith." I think the interior of *'s brain must look like a really bad acid trip and the stubborness he displays is the one thread thought that he has latched onto and identified as reality. That boy's wired funny. His neurons have been shortcircuited. He ain't all there--intellectually or morally.

[Jacobin]

7. He can't even remember the damn talking points

dweeb

[Tellurian]

9. Another notation..

Bush seemed to be scanning the paper in front of him not only as in scanning notes
but reviewing which reporters were to be next in order to be called on.

It seemed to me, the questions had to have been handed in ahead of time, circulated and
culled by a reviewing staff pre-conference time. At times * response sounded in too much detail
to be candid, off the cuff, remarks.