Bush's press conference (long version)

More comments on Bush's 04/13/04 press conference:

BUSH [in reponse to a question about comparisons of the Iraq War to the Vietnam War] : I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops and sends the wrong message to the enemy.

Max Cleland, Vietnam veteran who left three limbs in Vietnam and is slimed by the Republicans for being unpatriotic, has already answered this one last year:

Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President. Sorry you didn't go when you had the chance.

The happy talk on Iraq continues, though Bush couldn't entirely cover up the pessimism he was really offering.  He claimed we are dealing with three groups: Baathist "remnants," Islamic militants, "a radical cleric named al-Sadr" and his "illegal militia."  But he introduced this by saying, with his verbal emphasis indicated in italics: "This has been tough weeks [sic] in that country. Coalition forces have encountered serious violence in some areas of Iraq." He clearly meant to leave the impression that these are limited to a "violent few."

The violence we have seen is a power grab by these extreme and ruthless elements. It's not a civil war. It's not a popular uprising. Most of Iraq is relatively stable. Most Iraqis by far reject violence and oppose dictatorship.

The most substantial points in Bush's appearance were in the opening statement, where he declared that (1) he was sticking to the June 30 deadline for a transfer of nominal sovereignty to an Iraqi government of some kind; (2) he seemed to rule out any compromise with Muqtada al-Sadr short of complete surrender.  The combination of those two, along with his clear indication that he intended to escalate American troops levels in Iraq, could be the prelude to a dramatically worsening security situation there.

A desperate enemy is also a dangerous enemy. And our work may become more difficult before it is finished. No one can predict all the hazards that lie ahead or the cost that they will bring. ...

Look, this is hard work. It's hard to advance freedom in a country that has been strangled by tyranny. And yet we must stay the course because the end result is in our nation's interest. ...

We are in a long war. The war on terror is not going to end immediately.

If Bush had won a real commitment from the public to support the Iraq War as a long, difficult, costly process, these might be helpful statements.  But the mission of the Republican Party is to comfort the comfortable.  This are reminders that the Iraq War will continue to be a source of discomfort.

And we've been there a year. I know that seems like a long time. It seems like a long time to the loved ones whose troops have been overseas. But when you think about where the country has come from, it's a relatively short period of time.

That surely raised the eyebrows of anyone hoping to hear about a quick peace and the return of most American troops.  Especially delivered as it was with Bush's trademark preppy smirk.

Bush repeated his standard mantra on Iraq several times over.  I suppose the people who are still convinced after hearing it fifty times over and still not finding those "weapons of mass destruction" will still be convinced.

Finally, the attitude of the Iraqis toward the American people -- it's an interesting question. They're really pleased we got rid of Saddam Hussein, and you can understand why. This guy was a torturer, a killer, a maimer. There's mass graves.

Maybe Karl Rove should advise him to lay off the "mass graves" line, since it was widely repored that the people of Fallujah had to use a mass grave to bury their war dead last week.

I can't see how his responses on the pre-9/11 situation would have sounded anything but evasive.  It's apparently the White House official line for everyone what Condi Rice used last week: when asked to apologize like Richard Clarke did for pre-9/11 failures or asked if they feel personal responsibility, they respond by talking about their feelings of sorrow for those killed.

His response on why he and Dick Cheney insist on testifying to the 9/11 Commission together was also very weak.

Some statements struck me as slips or goofs:

We'll also need to continue training the Iraqi troops. I was disappointed in the performance of some of the troops. Some of the units performed brilliantly. Some of them didn't. And we need to find out why.

The refusal of our tiny New Iraqi army to fight against other Iraqis is probably not something he intended to highlight at the press conference.

A country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting caught ...

For an Administration with an extreme addiction to secrecy, this was also probably a slip.  A Freudian slip, we might guess.

And they were happy -- they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either.

 I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either?  I laughed out loud on that one.

By the way, they found, I think, 50 tons of mustard gas, [inLibya] I believe it was, in a turkey farm, only because he was willing to disclose where the mustard gas was. But that made the world safer. ...

See, I'm of the belief that we'll find out the truth on the weapons [of mass destruction in Iraq]. That's why we sent up the independent commission. I look forward to hearing the truth as to exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm. (my emphasis)

Does he have any idea how silly this sounds?  Well, hey, they might be hidden in some turkey farm somewhere!

There were a couple of examples of one of Bush's favorite rhetorical devices, an earnest refutation of something that no one is actually saying.

Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing or free. I'd strongly disagree with that.

I reject that.

What war critic says that?  Not John Kerry, not Robert Byrd, not any that I can think of.  Whether America has a divine calling to impose democracy by force in Napoleanic wars of liberation is a very different question.

I guess there have been some that said, well, we should've taken pre-emptive action in Afghanistan, and then turned around and said we shouldn't have taken pre-emptive action in Iraq.

And my answer to that question is, is that, again I repeat what I said earlier, prior to 9-11, the country really wasn't on a war footing. And the, frankly, mood of the world would have been astounded had the United States acted unilaterally in trying to deal with al-Qaida in that part of the world.

This is disingenous.  All-out war to overthrow the Taliban regime was only one of the things that might have been done prior to 9/11, which is what the question focused on.  But it does show how much Bush identifies meaningful action against terrorism with military action against states.

I have been surprised by all the talk about war, wartime President, wartime footing, war, war, war.  I would think in a Presidenital election year, Bush would want to be promising peace is at hand.  But Bush tonight didn't foresee an end to the "war on terror", of which he insists the Iraq War is a part, until sometime in the far distant future.  War without end, amen.

Finally, what do you say about this exchange?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.

You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned [sic] from it?

BUSH: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.

John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer [sic] , but it hadn't [sic] yet.

I would've gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan. Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would've called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein. (my emphasis) ...

I hope -- I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.

Do I need to add that no mistake ever popped into his head?