I’m referring to the Presidential news conference last night. Whether you agree with his policies and decisions or not, the man is a buffoon. He appears to have a few set responses, and he tries to see which of those most closely applies to a given question, and then uses that response whether or not it actually addresses the question. He seems to think that the quantity of his response will make people not realize that he’s not actually answering the question.
Here’s a question by question analysis of his “answers”:
Q: “…how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?”
A: “Yeah, I think the analogy is false”. That’s it. Not why or how. He then goes on with stuff that was irrelevant to the question.
Q: “…your best prediction on how long the troops will have to be in Iraq…sounds like you will have to add some troops. Is that a fair assessment?”
A: “…that’s up to General Abizaid. And he’s clearly indicating that he may want more troops…as long as necessary, and not one day more”. Even though he doesn’t appear to have a prediction, I’ll cede that he answered this question.
Q: “… before the war you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq. That U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers. That Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction. And that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we know where they are. How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series of false premises?”
A: References to why Saddam was a threat: WMD on his own people (so why didn’t we invade Iran, too?), coddles terrorists (Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia), and funds suiciders (Saudi Arabia, Palestinian Authority) (and what is a “suicider”?), long range missiles (not true, unless you consider 100km to be “long range”), capability to produce bio/chem weapons (no evidence found of this). Claims that oil revenues are “bigger than we thought they’d be at this point”. I don’t have the estimates, but that is so wrong. The original idea was that the oil revenues would be paying for the reconstruction, and that ain’t close. More stuff about what a terrible person Saddam was. What was the answer to Rumsfeld’s claim again?
Q: “…Two and a half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for Sept. 11?”
A: First he attempts to clarify what Woodward wrote, then asks for a repeat of the question (“Your question, do I feel?”). Then talks about grief, hindsight (mentions how nice it would have been to have had a Dept. of Homeland Security (forgetting that his administration fought against forming it!)), the Patriot Act, war footing, gathering threats… Never answers the question.
Q: “One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it’s W.M.D. in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism? And do you believe that there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?”
A: Utter avoidance of the question. Not even close.
Q: “You pointed out that did not warn of a hijacking of airplanes to crash into buildings, but that it warned of hijackings to obviously take hostages and to secure the release of extremists being held by the U.S. Did that trigger some specific actions on your part and the administration since it dealt with potentially hundreds of lives and a blackmail attempt on the United States government?”
A: Stuff about what triggered the report, that it was “history”, how he interacts with Tenet, how if he had known that they wanted to fly into buildings he’d have done something…Never answers the question, which is one of my biggest questions: If the report mentions hijacking airplanes (whether for blackmail or as weapons), what did you do about it?
Q: “You mentioned the P.D.B. and the assurance you got that the F.B.I. was working on terrorism investigations here. The number they had used was 70. But we learned today in the Sept. 11 hearings that the acting director of the F.B.I. at the time now says the F.B.I. tells him that number was wrong. That he doesn’t even know how it got into your P.D.B. And two of the commissioners strongly suggest the number was exaggerated. Have you learned anything else about that report since that time? And do you now believe you were falsely comforted by the F.B.I.?”
A: He expects to get valid information (fair enough), says the 9/11 commission will garner the truth (how about he gets the truth?). .
Q: “Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?”
A: More grief, more “if we had any idea…”, it’s Osama bin Laden’s fault (true, but that’s not the question). Never says yes or no.
Q: “You mentioned that 17 of the 26 NATO members are providing some help on the ground in Iraq — but if you look at the numbers — 135,000 U.S. troops, 10,000 or 12,000 British troops, then the next largest, perhaps even the second-largest contingent of guns on the ground, are private contractors, literally hired guns. Your critics, including your Democratic opponent, say that’s proof to them your coalition is window dressing. How would you answer those critics? And can you assure the American people that post-sovereignty, when the hand-over takes place, that there will be more burden-sharing by allies in terms of security forces?”
A: More rambling about North Korea, our legacy, and freedom. Wants another UN Resolution to help other nations decide to participate.
Q: "Mr. President, Why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9/11 commission? And Mr. President, who will you be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30?
A. We’ll find that out soon. That’s what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He’s figuring out the nature of the entity we’ll be handing sovereignty over. And secondly, because the the 9/11 commission wants to ask us questions. That’s why we’re meeting, and I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.
Q. Mr. President, I was asking why you’re appearing together rather than separately, which was their request.
A. Because it’s a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 commission is looking forward to asking us, and I’m looking forward to answering them.
He has no answer to the latter question, because the true answer is that his administration does not think he is capable of answering the 9/11 questions by himself without shooting himself in the foot. As for the first question, he insists on sticking to 6/30, but two months out he hasn’t a clue who will be in charge there.
Q: “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?”
A: Rambling response about Al Qaeda, the “caucus area” (Caucasus?), “the mood of the world would have been astounded” (?), how 9/11 changed him, Libya, A.Q. Khan (did we and the British really uncover that? I thought it came as a total surprise to us!)…
Q: "Will have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?
A: Rambling on war on terror, pinning Purple Hearts, never addresses Iraq.
Q: “…After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say? And what lessons have you learned from it?”
A: “Hmmm. I wish you’d have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it…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 an answer, but it hadn’t yet…you just put me under the spot here and maybe I’m not quick, as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one”. Ramblings about still might find WMD. 50 tons of mustard gas on a turkey farm. Saddam dangerous. I couldn’t watch.
Q: “…Yet you mentioned yesterday that you think, perhaps, the time has come for some real intelligence reforms. That can’t happen without real leadership from the White House. Will you and how will you?”
A: The question was about leadership, but the answer was about being open to suggestions, waiting to hear from various people, commissions, and Congress. He then went on and on about terrorism, war on terror, spreading freedom in the Middle East, free societies, Middle East reform initiative, starving people in N. Korea, AIDS, “staying the course” in Iraq. At this point, near the end of the news conference, Bush has just “lost it”. No wonder they limit him to an hour or less…
The Great Communicator he isn’t:
Q: "Following on both Judy and John’s questions, and it comes out of what you just said in some ways, with public support for your policies in Iraq falling off the way they have quite significantly over the past couple of months, I guess I’d like to know if you feel in any way that you’ve failed as a communicator on this top?
A. Gosh, I don’t know."
Q. "I guess I just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any way? You don’t have many of these press conferences where you engage in this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to make the case to the American public?
A. I guess if you put it into a political context, that’s the kind of thing the voters will decide next November. That’s what elections are about. They’ll take a look at me and my opponent and say let’s see which one of them can better win the war on terror. Who best can see to it that Iraq emerges as a free society. And Don, you know if I tried to fine tune my messages based upon polls I think I’d be pretty ineffective. I know I would be disappointed in myself."
Never answers the question.
Fire away.
