Bush Speaks Intelligently and Confidently

I know what some of you are thinking. Some are thinking, ah, now you understand why the Republicans voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Others are thinking, is this the same George W. Bush? Yes, it is the same George W. Bush. Is this how I am looking lightly at things? Well. No. I am actually being serious here. I actually saw Bush speak intelligently and confidently. No joke.

Last night, by the wonderful power of C-Span, I got the chance to see the press conference Bush held on the White House lawn. It is completely different to see this press conference over reading transcripts of it.

Much of the interrogation was about the Meirs nomination and the Iraq war. President Bush exhibited his usual exemplary speaking form when he doesn't know what to say. His mannerisms easily show when he is not versed in how to deal with the questions and doesn't have the knowledge or the interest in the subject.

However, one question did spark his interest and his knowledge base. It was about "containing" a flu pandemic in the United States. I want to paste the transcript of the question and Bush's intelligent and well-thought out response for you to read. This was the best, most composed response (in both verbage and presentation) Bush gave yesterday. He sounded like he knew what he was talking about and had thoroughly researched this subject. Read on....

Q Mr. President, you've been thinking a lot about pandemic flu and the risks in the United States if that should occur. I was wondering, Secretary Leavitt has said that first responders in the states and local governments are not prepared for something like that. To what extent are you concerned about that after Katrina and Rita? And is that one of the reasons you're interested in the idea of using defense assets to respond to something as broad and long-lasting as a flu might be?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Thank you for the question. I am concerned about avian flu. I am concerned about what an avian flu outbreak could mean for the United States and the world. I am -- I have thought through the scenarios of what an avian flu outbreak could mean. I tried to get a better handle on what the decision-making process would be by reading Mr. Barry's book on the influenza outbreak in 1918. I would recommend it.
The policy decisions for a President in dealing with an avian flu outbreak are difficult. One example: If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of the country, and how do you then enforce a quarantine? When -- it's one thing to shut down airplanes; it's another thing to prevent people from coming in to get exposed to the avian flu. And who best to be able to effect a quarantine? One option is the use of a military that's able to plan and move.
And so that's why I put it on the table. I think it's an important debate for Congress to have. I noticed the other day, evidently, some governors didn't like it. I understand that. I was the commander-in-chief of the National Guard, and proudly so, and, frankly, I didn't want the President telling me how to be the commander-in-chief of the Texas Guard. But Congress needs to take a look at circumstances that may need to vest the capacity of the President to move beyond that debate. And one such catastrophe, or one such challenge could be an avian flu outbreak.
Secondly -- wait a minute, this is an important subject. Secondly, during my meetings at the United Nations, not only did I speak about it publicly, I spoke about it privately to as many leaders as I could find, about the need for there to be awareness, one, of the issue; and, two, reporting, rapid reporting to WHO, so that we can deal with a potential pandemic. The reporting needs to be not only on the birds that have fallen ill, but also on tracing the capacity of the virus to go from bird to person, to person. That's when it gets dangerous, when it goes bird-person-person. And we need to know on a real-time basis as quickly as possible, the facts, so that the scientific community, the world scientific community can analyze the facts and begin to deal with it.
Obviously, the best way to deal with a pandemic is to isolate it and keep it isolated in the region in which it begins. As you know, there's been a lot of reporting of different flocks that have fallen ill with the H5N1 virus. And we've also got some cases of the virus being transmitted to person, and we're watching very carefully.
Thirdly, the development of a vaccine -- I've spent time with Tony Fauci on the subject. Obviously, it would be helpful if we had a breakthrough in the capacity to develop a vaccine that would enable us to feel comfortable here at home that not only would first responders be able to be vaccinated, but as many Americans as possible, and people around the world. But, unfortunately, there is a -- we're just not that far down the manufacturing process. And there's a spray, as you know, that can maybe help arrest the spread of the disease, which is in relatively limited supply.
So one of the issues is how do we encourage the manufacturing capacity of the country, and maybe the world, to be prepared to deal with the outbreak of a pandemic. In other words, can we surge enough production to be able to help deal with the issue?
I take this issue very seriously, and I appreciate you bringing it to our attention. The people of the country ought to rest assured that we're doing everything we can: We're watching it, we're careful, we're in communications with the world. I'm not predicting an outbreak; I'm just suggesting to you that we better be thinking about it. And we are. And we're more than thinking about it; we're trying to put plans in place, and one of the plans -- back to where your original question came -- was, if we need to take some significant action, how best to do so. And I think the President ought to have all options on the table to understand what the consequences are, but -- all assets on the table -- not options -- assets on the table to be able to deal with something this significant.

If I were his college speech instructor, I'd give him a solid "A" on this response. No, make that an A+. He composed full sentences, barely stumbling on his thoughts. He outlined his thoughts so the listener could easily comprehend his points. He stood firmly on both feet, with little to no sway. His head remained straight forward and confidently poised, and projected a stance of high interest and knowledge in the subject.

However, he receives "F's" from Professor Jen on the rest of his responses, mostly due to the fact that he did not place himself in the stature of a knowledgeable, confident leader in answering the questions that many felt were the topics of the day. The answers to questions about the Meirs appointment and the Iraq war were short, sentences were rough and sometimes non-existent, bowing to phrases and stumbling over words. His physical stature became slouched and unprofessional, with his body weight leaning to one side and frequently swaying, likely because he is subconsciously trying to regain some form of authority over the subject that his knowledge and interests fail him. Instead of being straight forward, even his mouth shows more of a tendency to one side when he is uneasy about the topic at hand. I even feel uncomfortable watching such a presentation.

Professor Jen says that it is clear George has a genuine interest in the issue of containing populations in the United States with the possibility of using military force to accomplish the task.

Of course, don't forget that there needs to be a good reason to use military force on U.S. citizens, say a flu pandemic or another type of disaster. U.S. Citizens are just terrible about taking care of ourselves in times of crisis, anyway. We need people with guns and imposed martial law, so we can remain civil and don't get out of hand.