Bush in the Rose Garden

That was a fine press conference Bush did yesterday, but after these performances I am always left wondering: Why bother? The questions the journalists ask are always intended to try to put the president in a corner and force him to yield up a titillating sound-bite. That happens almost never – presidents are too canny and cunning to get trapped in this way, so the only sound bites they produce are those they have memorized in advance.

Some press pundits wax nostalgic for Franklin Roosevelt’s weekly press conferences. But those conferences were off the record and unphotographed: From the point of view of modern news organizations, they would be almost worse than no press conference at all. Besides, those conferences did not reflect a commitment to “openness,” the journalist’s usual euphemism for “me getting my way.” FDR? Open? Hardly. They testified rather to his (deserved) confidence in his power of manipulation. FDR believed (not entirely accurately) that newspaper editors and radio producers opposed him, but he knew that the reporters supported him, and his conferences were his way of enhancing the power of his friends against his supposed enemies.

In the modern context, though, I wonder if press conferences could have even so cynical a purpose as that. Embedded in the press’s enthusiasm for press conferences is a conviction that a man is most himself when he is impromptu and unscripted; that our most sincere answer is our first answer; and that the public sees the real man when they see him in an informal setting. Sometimes this is true; I am not sure it is true for President George W. Bush.

Bush is a man who is often testy and impatient. His first answers are often dismissive and curt. But those are no more his “real” answers than an over-tired parent’s sometimes harsh words reflect her real feelings. The bigness and generosity of his speeches – and of prepared statements like his answer yesterday about same-sex marriage, “I am mindful that we are all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor’s eye when they got a log in their own” – are as much or more the “real” George W. Bush as the quip that is his instinctive response to many questions.

The great 18th century writer Joseph Addison was once reproached at a party for being a shy conversationalist. How can you be so witty in print, he was asked, and so shy in person? His answer: “I have a thousand pounds in the bank, but only sixpence in my pocket.” That’s true of a lot of people – including some fine presidents.

Bush Blew his press conference, says expert. Is he right?

Bush blew it massively Wednesday in his press conference, so says a leading expert on global, military, economic, legal, language, security, political, presidential and Congressional affairs in a published report this week.
"Bush," writes Timothy Noah in Slate, "has never been good at press conferences. But he was unusually bad [Wednesday], particularly at handling retrospective questions about the war in Iraq and the justifications his administration gave for waging it." Mr. Noah didn't think, on balance, the questions were "hostile" because "one reporter," prefacing his question, said "'the world is a better place' without Saddam in power." This "reporter," obviously a Bush pushover, went on to accuse Bush of taking "the world to war" and getting people killed needlessly based on "flimsy" or "nonexistent" evidence that Saddam was a bad guy and a threat. Bush's "flimsy" and "nonexistent" case against Saddam has cost the U.S. "lost credibility," said the Bushbot "reporter."
Other "reporters" during this shameless lovefest "press conference" in the White House Rose Garden accused the President of being in bed with the Saudis (who want 28 pages about the Saudis in Congress's 9/11 report made public so they can "defend" themselves and tip-off terror suspects in an on-going investigation -- but Bush refuses to be in bed with the Saudis!), lying about intelligence, lying about al-Qaeda-Iraq connections, lying about fighting AIDS in Africa, being a warmonger (Iraq), not being a warmonger (Liberia), dereliction on Homeland Security, failing on the economy, failing at diplomacy, failing on building global support for Iraq reconstruction, failing on North Korea, failing on the Mideast, ducking responsibility for Uranium-"gate," passing the buck for ballooning deficits and the deepening "recession," not caring for the jobless, causing the jobless, and other softballs.
"Yet," despite these flirty wet kisses from the assembled Bush-loving newies, "Bush seemed jangled," observes Mr. Noah, a leading jangle expert. "His strategy for answering questions about why we went to war was to repeat, mantralike, that Saddam was a threat and that the intelligence on which he based that judgment was good, sound intelligence and that the United Nations had passed 12 resolutions against Saddam," added Mr. Noah, recognized scholar on Mantralike-ism.
I would add that, for months in the lead-up to war, the strategy of the press for posing questions questioning the need for war was to repeat, mantralike, that Saddam was not a threat and that the intelligence on which Bush based his 'flimsy' judgment that Saddam was a threat was neither good nor sound intelligence and that the United Nations had passed resolutions that Saddam was, in letter and spirit, trying desperately to comply with -- if only mean and evil Bush, who kept saying mean and evil things about Saddam, would let Saddam.
"Robotic repetition of a Big Message is a winning political strategy when you're on the campaign trail," notes Mr. Noah, renown expert on Big Messaging, campaign trails, and political strategy. The reason "robotic repetition of a Big Message" is such a winner on the hustings? "Because," Mr. Noah gently explains, "each audience comes to it fresh. It's a terrible strategy" to use in your first full-tilt press conference in 5 months where the audience isn't fresh because you're holding these first full-tilt press conferences in 5 months every single day of the week. Whether it's Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, or whatever, Bush is holding these first full-tilt press press conferences in 5 months, so how could the audience be fresh? Got it?

The press bitterly complains that Bush doesn't hold full-tilt press conferences every single day of the week, that 5 long months went by since he'd held one of these, ignoring Mr. Noah's brilliant analysis at Slate which says the television audience Wednesday wasn't fresh -- so Bush must be holding full-tilt press conferences on a daily basis.
"The cannier hawkish commentators understand," says Mr. Noah, "that when the justification for your war [Iraq WMD] looks shaky, you don't repeat it again and again." (Bush critics at the Washington Post and New York Times say now when the 'justification' for war (Iraq WMD) "looks shaky," Bush no longer repeats it again and again. Democrat critics say now when the justification for war -- Uranium in Africa -- looks shaky, Bush no longer repeats it again and again, as he did in his 16-word-long State of the Union address in January). Calling what you strongly believe to be good, sound intelligence, 'good, sound intelligence' is politically foolish, Mr. Noah maintains. On Saddam's WMDs, Bush's 'good, sound intelligence' jibes with good, sound intelligence gathered across the civilized world, including France. (Some hotly dispute whether France is part of the civilized world).
So, how could Bush have avoided 'blowing his news conference'? "Observe, Mr. President, a master at work," Mr. Noah goaded Bush, who won a measly 30 states, barely swept midterm elections, and whose approval ratings are at or near a miserable 60 percent. (I don't know what Mr. Noah's approval rating is, nor exactly how many states he's won and whether he's ever swept midterm elections, but I'll look into it).
The "master at work," as Mr. Noah calls him, is Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Noah: "Here's Paul Gigot...in the final paragraph of a July 28 dispatch from Iraq, where he was traveling with Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz:
The one word I almost never heard in Iraq was "WMD." That isn't because the U.S. military doesn't want, or expect, to find it. The reason, I slowly began to understand, is that Iraqis and the Americans who are here don't think it matters all that much to their mission. The liberation of this country from Saddam's terror is justification enough for what they are doing, and the main chance now isn't refighting the case for war but making sure we win on the ground.
'So I see they're giving Bush a hard time about the WMD,' volunteers a Marine colonel, at the breakfast mess in Hilla one morning. 'They ought to come here and see what we do, and what Saddam did to these people. This was a good thing to do.'"

"Gigot," says Noah, "first takes care to affirm that he (or rather, the 'U.S. military,' which serves as his rhetorical proxy) fully expects that biological and chemical weapons will be found in Iraq. Bush did the same thing in [Wednesday's] press conference. ('I'm confident that our search will yield that which I strongly believe, that Saddam had a weapons program.') But Gigot then goes on to suggest, as Bush did not, that finding these weapons is really beside the point. You can't say this directly, because war critics will ridicule you. But you can say it indirectly, in Gigot's case by attributing it to GIs who are there, which gives them the moral high ground. What we should focus on, Gigot continues, is that the Iraqis are much better off without Saddam (indisputably true), and that we should now try to help them build a better government (also true). Although Bush talked vaguely [Wednesday] about how our victory over Saddam would help build peace in the Middle East (debatable), he mostly re-fought the WMD case for war -- and that's a fight Bush can't win in the absence of more compelling evidence Saddam had chemical and biological weapons."

Indeed, tens of thousands of Kurds were killed by the absence of more compelling evidence Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. The absence of more compelling evidence also snuffed out tens of thousands of Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. That's pretty powerful absence of more compelling evidence, if you ask me!
But, to be fair, Mr. Noah does have a valid point.
Listen to what else the eloquent Paul Gigot said (in making the human rights case for intervention in Iraq):

"It has been 90 days since the end of the major combat operations in Iraq. The nation has been liberated from tyranny and is on the path to self-government and peace. The Iraqi governing council is meeting regularly. Local police forces are now being trained.
"And citizens are being recruited into a new Iraqi military -- a military that will protect the Iraqi people instead of intimidating them. Soon representatives of the people will begin drafting a new constitution and free elections will follow. After decades of oppression, the people of Iraq are reclaiming their country and are reclaiming their future.
"Conditions in most of Iraq are growing more peaceful. Some areas, however, the violent remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime, joined by terrorists and criminals, are making a last attempt to frighten the Iraqi people and to undermine the resolve of our coalition. They will fail. Our coalition forces are taking the fight to the enemy in an unrelenting campaign that is bringing daily results. Saddam Hussein's sons did not escape the raids, and neither will other members of that despicable regime.
"By taking the offensive against desperate killers, Americans in uniform are assuming great risks for our country. The American people are proud of our Armed Forces, and we are grateful for their sacrifice and their service in fighting the war on terror. We also appreciate the military families who share in the hardship and uncertainties of this essential mission. The rise of a free and peaceful Iraq is critical to the stability of the Middle East, and a stable Middle East is critical to the security of the American people. As the blanket of fear is lifted, as Iraqis gain confidence that the former regime is gone forever, we will gain more cooperation in our search for the truth in Iraq...The success of a free Iraq will also demonstrate to other countries in that region that national prosperity and dignity are found in representative government and free institutions. They are not found in tyranny, resentment, and for support of terrorism. As freedom advances in the Middle East, those societies will be less likely to produce ideologies of hatred and produce recruits for terror."

Oh, no! Wait!
That wasn't Paul Gigot -- that was Bush! During his press conference Wednesday! Sounds like Mr. Noah was either watching the wrong press conference, or the intelligence on which he based his evaluation was "flimsy" or "nonexistent." Or maybe Mr. Noah was just exaggerating, perhaps?
Mr. Noah said Bush only "vaguely" talked about "how our victory over Saddam would help" in the struggle for Middle East peace. Did you notice how "vague" Bush was?
Bush: "The success of a free Iraq will also demonstrate to other countries in that region that national prosperity and dignity are found in representative government and free institution. They are not found in tyranny, resentment, and for support of terrorism. As freedom advances in the Middle East, those societies will be less likely to produce ideologies of hatred and produce recruits for terror."
Wow, that sure was "vague," eh? Mr. Noah has no idea what Bush was talking about, admits Mr. Noah. He should ask tyrants and countries like Iran and Syria what Bush was talking about -- they "vaguely" seem to 'get it.' Or talk to Yasser Arafat, ask him how Bush "vaguely" has made him irrelevant.
But let's be fair.
Due to a scheduling conflict, Mr. Noah has not been able to attend reality recently, but his routine meetings in fantasy-land is no reason to brush him off! ;-)
Anyway, that's...
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.