Bushapalooza - 4/13 Press Conference

[Rspaight]

At this point, I officially am unable to believe that anybody has any confidence in this babbling idiot. Last night was a peformance of incredible ineptitude -- a high school extemp competition would have laughed him out of the room. The comedy of tragic failure began with his choice of tie, which pulsed and glowed on TV screens everywhere like a holographic message from alien overlords. It got worse from there, as the *first sentence* of his prepared homily on Iraq was a grammatical train wreck. "This has been tough weeks in that country." Oh, dear Jeebus.

I'm going to try to break this down, because I think it's important. The media is pretending this man gave a "confident, forceful" performance last night, when anybody with functional eyes, ears and brain knows that's not so. The transcript is a start, but it doesn't do it justice. Toward the end, there was raw panic in Bush's sweat-soaked face.

OK, let's give this a shot.

The opening statement is just more of the ever-changing war justification material we're well familiar with. Since there were no WMDs, and there was no connection with 9/11, our mission now is to turn Iraq into a peaceful democracy. What distinguishes Iraq from other countries in the world that are not peaceful democracies (like, oh, say, Saudi Arabia) that are not currently being shot up by the US military was not explained.

Instead, we got a defense of a situation without a real sense of why we're in that situation. A time traveler watching the remarks would be forgiven for thinking that the Iraqis had asked us to invade. The whole subject of this being an unprovoked attack went untouched. Bush was like a guy who just shot you in the leg saying, "What the hell's your problem? Come here and let me look at that wound. How'd you get that? Why are you looking at me that way?"

(On a lighter note, the Freudian slip of the night had to be his reference to "Secretary of State Rumsfeld.")

The prepared remarks then took a disquieting turn into a long denunciation of the "fanatical, political ideology" of radical Islam. What was truly frightening was the utter lack of understanding that many of his remarks could equally apply to his *own* ideology which has resulted in waging war on Iraq:

...who takes hostages, or plants a roadside bomb near Baghdad is serving the same ideology of murder that kills innocent people... murders children... blows up a nightclub...

None of these acts is the work of a religion; all are the work of a fanatical, political ideology. The servants of this ideology seek tyranny in the Middle East and beyond. They seek to oppress and persecute women. They seek to intimidate... into panic and retreat, and to set free nations against each other. And they seek weapons of mass destruction, to blackmail and murder on a massive scale.

Let's see. Takes hostages? Sounds like Gitmo. Bombs in Baghdad. Yep, that's us. Kills innocent people and children? By the hundreds in the last week in Fallujah alone. Blows up buildings? Yeah, we're good at that.

Seek tyranny in the Middle East? Well, we definitely want them to do things our way. Oppress and persecute women? Some of Bush's fundamentalist allies are definitely interested in that. And replace "women" with "gays" and Bush definitely is into the whole oppress-and-persecute thing. Seek to intimidate into panic and retreat? "Shock and awe," anyone? Set free nations against each other? Sounds like our diplomacy in the runup to invasion last year, when other countries didn't share our ideological certainties. Seek weapons of mass destruction? We don't need to seek, we've got 'em coming out our ears.

While no one can or should argue that radical Islam is a good thing, honesty demands we look at the theology-fueled ideology of our own leaders, and the violence it has wrought. Consider this (from the same part of the prepared speech as the above):

We've seen the same ideology of murder in the killing of 241 Marines in Beirut, the first attack on the World Trade Center, in the destruction of two embassies in Africa, in the attack on the USS Cole, and in the merciless horror inflicted upon thousands of innocent men and women and children on September the 11th, 2001.

What's missing? Oh, yeah, the Oklahoma City bombing, which goes completely unmentioned whenever this administration talks about terror. Admitting that white American Christians are just as capable of senseless violence as Arab Muslims is not part of the Bush rhetorical strategy.

With that, let's wrap up this post and move on to the Q-and-A, where things get *really* bizarre.

Ryan

[Rspaight]

First off, it's clear that this was totally scripted in advance, from the order of the questioners on down. When a question goes off-script, Bush flips out, as we'll see.

First question:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half Americans now support it. What does that say to you and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

Bush replies that he rejects the analogy (surprise), and then talks about how hard this is going to be. He basically says that we're in the process of fixing the whole Middle East problem through this war. Whew, I guess that's different from Vietnam. In Vietnam, we were only trying to stop the spread of Communism. Here, we're trying to (Bush's words) "change the world." Is that all? Is that really what he was selling last year?

(A side note, he refers to the questioner as "Terry," who actually was the second questioner. Must've turned to the wrong page in his script.)

Next question (fromt he same questioner):

Q Thank you, Mr. President. What's your best prediction on how long U.S. troops will have to be in Iraq? And it sounds like you will have to add some troops; is that a fair assessment?

A basic response of "we'll be there as long as we have to, and with as many troops as we need." There's an interesting bit where he says he was "disappointed" in the Iraqi troops we're training.

Next question:

Q Mr. President, 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 a false premises?

The answer:

Well, let me step back and review my thinking prior to going into Iraq. First, the lesson of September the 11th is, when this nation sees a threat, a gathering threat, we've got to deal with it. We can no longer hope that oceans protect us from harm. Every threat we must take seriously.

Unlike before September 11th, when we required complete names, dates, places and manner of attack before we'd lift a finger, now we pre-emptively invade countries on the flimsiest of intelligence. There's gotta be a happy medium.

Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people.

Which we'd supplied, and for which we refused to condemn him.

He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders.

Suiciders?

He was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States.

In what way?

That's the assessment that I made from the intelligence, the assessment that Congress made from the intelligence; that's the exact same assessment that the United Nations Security Council made with the intelligence.

Everyone else was wrong, so it's OK that I was wrong, too!

I went to the U.N., as you might recall, and said, either you take care of him, or we will. Any time an American President says, if you don't, we will, we better be prepared to. And I was prepared to. I thought it was important for the United Nations Security Council that when it says something, it means something, for the sake of security in the world. See, the war on terror had changed the calculations. We needed to work with people. People needed to come together to work. And, therefore, empty words would embolden the actions of those who are willing to kill indiscriminately.

Big words. Interesting that we're now begging the UN to help bail us out.

The United Nations passed a Security Council resolution unanimously that said, disarm or face serious consequences. And he refused to disarm.

What arms were we wanting him to dis?

We knew they were hiding things -- a country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting caught.

Coming from the most secretive President since Nixon, that's rich.

What else -- part of the question -- oh, oil revenues. Well, the oil revenues are -- they're bigger than we thought they would be at this point in time. I mean, one year after the liberation of Iraq, the revenues of the oil stream is pretty darn significant. One of the things I was concerned about prior to going into Iraq was that the oil fields would be destroyed. But they weren't, they're now up and running. And that money is -- it will benefit the Iraqi people. It's their oil, and they'll use it to reconstruct the country.

That wasn't the question -- the question was *why* the revenues aren't funding reconstruction like you said they would before the invasion. But he sure sounds happy about the revenue.

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 is a guy who was a torturer, a killer, a maimer; there's mass graves.

They found a mass grave in Fallujah from the recent siege.

I mean, he was a horrible individual that really shocked the country in many ways, shocked it into a kind of -- a fear of making decisions toward liberty. That's what we've seen recently. Some citizens are fearful of stepping up. And they were happy -- they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either.

Do you think he's really thought this through before this very instant?

New post.

Ryan

[Rspaight]

Q Thank you, Mr. President. To move to the 9/11 Commission. You, yourself, have acknowledged that Osama bin Laden was not a central focus of the administration in the months before September 11th. "I was not on point," you told the journalist, Bob Woodward, "I didn't feel that sense of urgency." Two-and-a-half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: Let me put that quote to Woodward in context. He had asked me if I was -- something about killing bin Laden. That's what the question was. And I said, compared to how I felt at the time, after the attack, I didn't have that -- I also went on to say, my blood wasn't boiling, I think is what the quote said. I didn't see -- I mean, I didn't have that great sense of outrage that I felt on September the 11th. I was -- on that day I was angry and sad: angry that al Qaeda had -- well, at the time, thought al Qaeda, found out shortly thereafter it was al Qaeda -- had unleashed this attack; sad for those who lost their life.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Your question -- do I feel --

Q Do you feel a sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I feel incredibly grieved when I meet with family members, and I do quite frequently. I grieve for the incredible loss of life that they feel, the emptiness they feel.

In other words, no.

There are some things I wish we'd have done when I look back. I mean, hindsight is easy. It's easy for a President to stand up and say, now that I know what happened, it would have been nice if there were certain things in place; for example, a homeland security department.

Which you opposed even after 9/11.

And the other thing I look back on and realize is that we weren't on a war footing. The country was not on a war footing, and yet the enemy was at war with us. And it's -- it didn't take me long to put us on a war footing. And we've been on war ever since. The lessons of 9/11 that I -- one lesson was, we must deal with gathering threats. And that's part of the reason I dealt with Iraq the way I did.

Are we on a war footing now? Are massive tax cuts, a focus on a gay marriage amendment, and hand-wringing over high gas prices indicative of a "war footing"? I would have thought that a war footing would include shared sacrifice, but I guess not, at least when the interests of Republican contributors are at stake.

Next question:

Q Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked. One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD 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 there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think, as I mentioned, it's -- the country wasn't on war footing, and yet we're at war. And that's just a reality, Dave. I mean, that's -- that was the situation that existed prior to 9/11, because the truth of the matter is, most in the country never felt that we'd be vulnerable to an attack such as the one that Osama bin Laden unleashed on us. We knew he had designs on us, we knew he hated us. But there was a -- nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.

That he can get away with continuing to say this is astounding.

The people know where I stand. I mean, in terms of Iraq, I was very clear about what I believed. And, of course, I want to know why we haven't found a weapon yet. But I still know Saddam Hussein was a threat, and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. I don't think anybody can -- maybe people can argue that. I know the Iraqi people don't believe that, that they're better off with Saddam Hussein -- would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power. I also know that there's an historic opportunity here to change the world. And it's very important for the loved ones of our troops to understand that the mission is an important, vital mission for the security of America and for the ability to change the world for the better.

(1) No, I won't admit to any mistakes. (2) No weapons. Damn. But Saddam was bad guy. Well, as long as we're here, we might as well change the world.

Q Mr. President, good evening. You've talked on the -- I'd like to ask you about the August 6th PDB.

THE PRESIDENT: Sure.

Q You mentioned it at Fort Hood on Sunday. You said -- you pointed out that it did not warn of a hijacking of airplanes to crash into buildings, but that it warned of hijacking 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?

THE PRESIDENT: Ed, I asked for the briefing.

Not according to the CIA. (Scroll to the bottom.)

And the reason I did is because there had been a lot of threat intelligence from overseas. And so -- part of it had to do with Genoa, the G8 conference that I was going to attend. And I asked, at that point in time, let's make sure we are paying attention here at home, as well. And that's what triggered the report.

Genoa? You mean where there was a threat that al Qaeda would fly an airplane into the summit? The sort of attack that no one could imagine? IS NO ONE LISTENING TO THIS?

Now, in what's called the PDB, there was a warning about bin Laden's desires on America, but, frankly, I didn't think that was anything new.

If it had been Saddam, though, I would have done something.

And the answer is that had I had any inkling whatsoever that the people were going to fly airplanes into buildings, we would have moved heaven and earth to save the country

In reading the transcript (I was late to the telecast), it was about at this point where carving my eyes out with a spoon began to sound attractive.

I'll skip the softball question from Fox (Q:"Would you like to blame the FBI?" A:"We'll see."), and move on to a new post.

Ryan

[Rspaight]

The next question was about hired guns/mercenaries. He completely dodged the question -- didn't address it all. Instead, we got some babble about our good friend the Italians and Poles and Brits. And then this whopper:

Some of the debate really center 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 and free. I strongly disagree with that. I reject that, because I believe that freedom is the deepest need of every human soul, and, if given a chance, the Iraqi people will be not only self-governing, but a stable and free society.

What the fuck? Who said that? Talk about a straw man -- that's a hundred-foot-high Colossus of Rhodes straw man.

While we're dodging questions, let's dodge another:

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 30th?

THE PRESIDENT: We will 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 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 I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.

THE PRESIDENT: 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.

Let's see --

Q Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a minute. Oh, Jim.

Q Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: I've got some "must calls," I'm sorry.

Wow, that's something he *really* doesn't want to talk about. Given his performance here, I'm not surprised the White House is demanding to have an adult in the room.

And even more interesting, the UN is in charge of coming up with the new Iraqi government? I guess they're not useless after all.

Moving on:

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?

THE PRESIDENT: ...Your further question was, how do you justify any other preemptive action. The American people need to know my last choice is the use of military power. It is something that -- it is a decision that -- it's a tough decision to make for any President, because I fully understand the consequences of the decision. And, therefore, we'll use all other means necessary, when we see a threat, to deal with a threat that may materialize, but we'll never take the military off the table.

This is where the wheels begin to come off. The repeating himself, the sentence fragments, the panic all start to set in.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, you've made it very clear tonight that you're committed to continuing the mission in Iraq. Yet, as Terry pointed out, increasing numbers of Americans have qualms about it. And this is an election year. Will it have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't plan on losing my job. I plan on telling the American people that I've got a plan to win the war on terror. And I believe they'll stay with me. They understand the stakes. Look, nobody likes to see dead people on their television screens -- I don't. It's a tough time for the American people to see that. It's gut-wrenching. One of my hardest parts of my job is to console the family members who have lost their life. It is a -- it is -- it's a chance to hug and weep and to console and to remind the loved ones that the sacrifice of their loved one was done in the name of security for America and freedom for the world.

"nobody likes to see dead people"... "console the family members who have lost their life"... we've lapsed into incoherence.

Q 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 you learned from it?

THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have 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 an answer, but it hadn't yet.

... I hope I -- I don't want to sound like I've 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.

This for me, was the defining moment of the whole thing. He gets an off-script question and totally derails. Even more telling, he's asked to admit a mistake, which he is pathologically incapable of doing.

And then the descent into monomaniacal raving. I'll just quote the whole thing -- nothing to do with the question, just endless talking points thrown into his mental Cuisinart and spewed back:

Q Looking forward about keeping the United States safe -- a group representing about several thousand FBI agents today wrote to your administration begging you not to split up the law enforcement and the counterterrorism, because they say it ties their hands, it's blinders -- 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?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you're talking about one aspect of possible -- I think you're referring to what they call the MI-5. And I heard a summary of that from Director Mueller, who feels strongly that we -- and he'll testify to that effect, I guess, tomorrow, I shouldn't be prejudging his testimony. But what -- my point was is that I'm open for suggestions. I look forward to seeing what the 9/11 Commission comes up with; I look forward to seeing what the Silberman/Robb Commission comes up with. I'm confident Congress will have some suggestions. What I'm saying is, let the discussions begin. And I won't prejudge the conclusion. As the President, I will encourage and foster these kinds of discussions, because one of the jobs of the President is to leave behind a legacy that will enable other Presidents to better deal with the threat that we face.

We are in a long war. The war on terror is not going to end immediately. This is a war against people who have no guilt in killing innocent people. That's what they're willing to do. They kill on a moment's notice because they're trying to shake our will, they're trying to create fear, they're trying to affect people's behaviors. And we're simply not going to let them do that.

And my fear, of course, is that this will go on for a while -- and, therefore, it's incumbent upon us to learn from lessons or mistakes, and leave behind a better foundation for Presidents to deal with the threats we face. This is the war that other Presidents will be facing as we head into the 21st century.

One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can. That's why it's important for us to spread freedom throughout the Middle East. Free societies are hopeful societies. A hopeful society is one more likely to be able to deal with the frustrations of those who are willing to commit suicide in order to represent a false ideology. A free society is a society in which somebody is more likely to be able to make a living. A free society is a society in which someone is more likely to be able to raise their child in a comfortable environment, and see to it that that child gets an education.

That's why I'm pressing the Greater Middle East Reform Initiative, to work to spread freedom. And we will continue on that. So long as I'm the President, I will press for freedom. I believe so strongly in the power of freedom.

You know why I do? Because I've seen freedom work right here in our own country. I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country's gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to help feed the hungry. I think the American people find it interesting that we're providing food for the North Korea people who starve. We have an obligation to lead the fight on AIDS, on Africa. And we have an obligation to work toward a more free world. That's our obligation. That is what we have been called to do, as far as I'm concerned.

And my job as the President is to lead this nation into making the world a better place. And that's exactly what we're doing. Weeks such as we've had in Iraq make some doubt whether or not we're making progress. I understand that. It was a tough, tough period. But we are making progress.

And my message today to those in Iraq is: We'll stay the course; we'll complete the job. My message to our troops is: We will stay the course and complete the job and you'll have what you need. And my message to the loved ones who are worried about their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, is: You're loved one is performing a noble service for the cause of freedom and peace.

But you really needed to *see* that to get the full effect. He was waving his arms around, pounding the podium, doing an amazing James T. Kirk pregnant pause thing, leaning forward on the podium to glare at the reporters, flashing that famous smirk. It was a total meltdown on live TV.

And then the coup de grace:

Q Following on both Judy's 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 topic? Because --

THE PRESIDENT: Gosh, I don't know. I mean --

Q Well, you deliver a lot of speeches and a lot of them contain similar phrases, and they vary very little from one to the next. And they often include a pretty upbeat assessment of how things are going -- with the exception of tonight's pretty somber assessment, this evening.

THE PRESIDENT: It's a pretty somber assessment today, Don, yes.

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 really make the case to the American public?

THE PRESIDENT: 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?

Don, 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. I hope today you've got a sense of my conviction about what we're doing. If you don't, maybe I need to learn to communicate better.

I feel strongly about what we're doing. I feel strongly that the course this administration has taken will make America more secure and the world more free, and, therefore, the world more peaceful. It's a conviction that's deep in my soul. And I will say it as best as I possibly can to the American people.

I look forward to the debate and the campaign. I look forward to helping -- for the American people to hear, what is a proper use of American power; do we have an obligation to lead, or should we shirk responsibility. That's how I view this debate. And I look forward to making it, Don. I'll do it the best I possibly can. I'll give it the best shot. I'll speak as plainly as I can.

One thing is for certain, though, about me -- and the world has learned this -- when I say something, I mean it. And the credibility of the United States is incredibly important for keeping world peace and freedom.

Thank you all very much.

There's your confident and forceful message, America. Sleep tight.

Ryan

[krabapple]

At this point, I officially am unable to believe that anybody has any confidence in this babbling idiot. Last night was a peformance of incredible ineptitude -- a high school extemp competition would have laughed him out of the room. The comedy of tragic failure began with his choice of tie, which pulsed and glowed on TV screens everywhere like a holographic message from alien overlords. It got worse from there, as the *first sentence* of his prepared homily on Iraq was a grammatical train wreck. "This has been tough weeks in that country." Oh, dear Jeebus.

I listened on the radio, it's just too excruciating to watch this guy flounder his way through any non-scripted event. But even over the radio, it was painful to hear. This man runs our country. Scary.

[TSmithPage]

I listened on the radio, it's just too excruciating to watch this guy flounder his way through any non-scripted event. But even over the radio, it was painful to hear. This man runs our country. Scary.

Even scarier is the fact this guy has so many supporters/followers. I am just astonished when I listen to this Dan Quayle wannabe, and then hear all the idiot commentators sing his praise. Is this what it was like to live in Germany before World War II?

[Xenu]

Does anybody have video of this? None of the usual suspects carries it (and I was *working* when this was going on. Hmph).

-D

[Rspaight]

Whitehouse.gov has video. It's clear enough on broadband that you can see the magic moire pattern tie.

Ryan

PS - I won't even touch the irony of his wearing what on NSTC TV appeared to be a "rainbow tie."

[Patrick M]

NTSC?

[lukpac]

North American format for video; Europe uses PAL.

[Xenu]

"Insticated."

[Rspaight]

NTSC?

Yeah, that.

Ryan

[Patrick M]

North American format for video; Europe uses PAL.

I know. I was giving rspaight grief because he posted "NSTC."

[lukpac]

Only I'm allowed to be that much of an ass.

[Rspaight]

Never Twice the Same Color.

Ryan