What was the news?

[LINK] AP

Maybe some other blogger or news comentator will convince me otherwise, but I found last night's Bush/Blair press conference very weak and without any news, other than admissions they underestimated the enemy, made mistakes, had regrets, and spoke too strongly.

We are fighting a war against ruthless people, and we're worrying about speaking too strongly?

Who reading this thought "Wanted, Dead or Alive!" was to strong right after 9/11?

Who reading this didn't feel reassured hearing W say "Bring it on!"

Who reading this doesn't get the uneasy sensation the leaders of the two countries most willing to fight islamic extremism or caught up in introspection?

Did I miss the news these two recently had sensitivity training at Camp David, so George would be less of a cowboy and Tony would sound like he's running a British tea party?

We could have done without that press conference, which contained no real news, and could (nay, WILL) be used to do major harm to our cause in the fight against terrorism.

As Watcher of Weasels puts it:

Unbelievably, the first thing he could think to apologize for was saying things like “bring it on” to the terrorists, and “wanted dead or alive” with regards to Bin Laden...  he now frets that certain parts of the world might have "misinterrpreted" that kind of talk.  So, this was the wrong message, eh?  What was the right message...  to say that we don't have what it takes to effectively wage the war on terror?  That we aren't going to pursue Bin Laden with any level of seriousness? That's the kind of wimpy blather that Al-Qaeda would love to hear from our Commander in Chief.

The anti-war leftwing moonbats in the media and blogs are going to have a field day using quotes from this one.

I concur with the comments by "pistolero" at hotair.com, which are in the continuation.

- - - - -

Comment by "pistolero" at HotAir.com (see other good ones there)

I think the President needs to see United 93 just to remind himself of the circumstances that led to this mission, which was once nearly universal in the US and the civilized world. We were once ‘at one’ and recognized the nature of the enemy. As soon as the words ‘Religion of Peace’ were uttered and internalized within the administration our response to terrorists and islamists has been muted and restrained. This caused us to outsource the hunt for the masterminds of 9/11 to tribal leaders in Afghanistan rather than ferreting out the bastards ourselves. If you want ‘evildoers’ done in, you’ve got to open a can of super evil yourselves.

Since we have lost that resolve it’s easy to ask why we are losing so many of our best and brightest in such a far away place and for what purpose? The mission was so crystal clear on 9/11 but has now degenerated into a collective navel gazing exercise. Abu Ghirab? We SHOULD be trying to humiliate our enemies and strike fear in their hearts. Dogs? Fine. Homoerotic piles of bad guys? Whatever. Not my style, but if it humiliates the enemy who won’t cooperate, escalate it to hangings. I would NEVER apologize for Abu Ghirab even if it wasn’t official policy. But our Commander in Chief has allowed us to be brow beaten into a series of unholy alliances with the likes of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt,UAE, CNN, ABC, CBS, CIA…. The moral authority we once had has been repeatedly dilluted and apologized for. No wonder the American people are losing heart.

Here’s the problem with tonights event. Rather than apologizing for ‘Bring it On’, it should have been reiterated. Rather than lamenting ‘Dead or Alive’ he should have announced that the bounty has been increased. As for Abu Ghirab, let it die.

However, both Bush and Blair were quite emphatic that the mission is showing increasing signs of success and their logic in trying to establish a democracy in that hell hole is definitely our best option. They just needed to do this dog and pony show once a quarter since its inception.

pistolero on May 25, 2006 at 10:31 PM