Article

2004-04-14 Home Front: Politix

Transcript of President Bush's news conference 04.13.04

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-04-14 12:20:17 AM|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I'm impressed with what he said and with the fact that he wasn't fielding strictly questions that he knew were coming.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-04-14 12:40:54 AM|| 2004-04-14 12:40:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I'm just now watching the video. I'm generally impressed, though I think he needs to be more of a sledgehammer when dealing with the press -- hit 'em in the head early and often. He's never going to be a gifted speaker but he can press a point home.

I haven't seen any gaffes, though the liberal bloggers are (as usual) finding fault with everything he said.

Posted by Steve White 2004-04-14 12:55:39 AM|| 2004-04-14 12:55:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Troubled by his refusal to identify islamo-facism with islam. Also, why he has paused operations in Suni Triangle is a bit lame (Something important is missing here.) His body language did not match his statements. Again, I would love to be a fly on the wall in his office.
I mostly support what he is doing but the press conference was really quite awful.

Posted by 3dc 2004-04-14 1:18:56 AM|| 2004-04-14 1:18:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Steve, I agree totally. Be a cowboy and stop trying to be politically correct. But other than politically correctness he came off as human and at ease with his outlook.

And how about the terms he set for sadr and the Falluja rabble.

Posted by Lucky 2004-04-14 1:44:56 AM|| 2004-04-14 1:44:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 I heard just part of it on the radio - but I too thought he sounded human and refreshingly honest.

Posted by B 2004-04-14 1:56:33 AM|| 2004-04-14 1:56:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I heard why he stopped - look at: what was accomplished prior to the temporary halt, the Islamic calendar, logistics, Iraqi forces, infiltration, and image in the region.

1) What was accomplished prior: cordon of major trouble centers, a chokedown of supplies, and revealing the weak points on supply routes and securing them.

2) Too many outsiders at Najaf to go with an attack there. Had to wait until they were gone.

3) Logistics: had to force oppen supply routes and gear up - Ops like this need to be conducted with a Bang, so "oozing in" supplies and forces is not an option. Have to commit them at the same time to have bigger impact, bigger shock.

4) Had to chase down the disloyal Iraqi provisionals, plus train up and gear up the loyals. This includes pulling more Kurds down from N Iraq into striking and patrolling positions.

5) Needed time for remote sensors and coverts to work their way in, as well as sniper teams to recon and set up. Additionally, needed to move up artillery and perp for fast op-tempo air ops and proper military intelligence prep.

6) Image: makes the US look a bit better by at least pretending to negotiate and play nice. This was aimed more for overseas consumption. And Last but not least, it lets the Iraqi govt look like they are in charge of the negotiations (After all they are doing a large part of the negotiating), so they can save face by saying "Hey we tried to cut a deal, we held off the Americans, but you didnt deal fair, so we are letting the Americans have their way"

Obvious enough if you look at all the angles.

Ony problem is that cease fires tend to have a life of their own, and by restarting ops, we could be made to look like the bad guys here. Watch for a precipitating event to cause Ops to begin again (hostage deaths, bombing or attack, something like that).

Posted by OldSpook 2004-04-14 1:58:39 AM|| 2004-04-14 1:58:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 3dc, some more mutilated bodies were found. His knowledge of that might have been the distraction you noted.

Old Spook, will the Khurdish forces improve our ability to closeout the Iranian influence? Are there one or several highways that can be shutdown to limit Iranian visitors to camel traffic only?

Posted by Super Hose 2004-04-14 3:48:22 AM|| 2004-04-14 3:48:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Regarding Bush's continuing to differentiate Islamofascism from Islam overall, I don't think he's laboring under any illusions.

When Bush says, "Islam is a religion of peace," what he really means is, "...and if it isn't a religion of peace right now, it's goddamn well gonna be one by the time we get done with it."

Right now, we're determining just which parts of Islam want to be at war with us, and which don't; and giving the parts which aren't quite sure if they want war with us, a chance to reflect-- and to silence the lunatics in their midst.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-04-14 7:23:46 AM|| 2004-04-14 7:23:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 It was interesting to see today's press corps. Instead of asking questions that were meaningful they were questions meant on embarassing the President in some cases. I don't know if any of these "reporters" realize that the US is composed of a lot of people between LA and NYC and we don't like our President being disrespected. You may disagree which is fine. I loved his answer on the polls and his take was right. The American people sans (I hate any French words) the big city Dim Machines, know where he stands and support him.

Posted by Bill Nelson 2004-04-14 7:55:10 AM|| 2004-04-14 7:55:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 I had forgotten how viciously the Washington press corps hates this particular president. I mean he doesn't play the saxophone, give them hugs, or anything!

Posted by Secret Master 2004-04-14 10:50:15 AM|| [www.budgetwarrior.com] 2004-04-14 10:50:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 I had ABC on for Bush's speech.Before speech,usual gloom and doom from Peter Jennings so I flipped away til speech started-I haven't watched TV "news" programs and pre/post event analysis for over a decade.After press conference was over,Jennings looked tired,subdued and asked his political commentator didn't the press corps look bad.Commentator started spinning away so I flipped to NBC hoping to catch Scrubs.Instead I got Brokaw asking his reporter if Bush was denying the buck stopped w/Bush and his reporter agreed slaming Bush for not accepting responsibility for 9/11.Out of curiosity I flipped to Fox News and their anchor was asking his group if Bush had done just ok or really good.
I thought press corps did horrible job.No questions on Iran,no questions on does US have enough infantry in total to fight WOT,nothing on food-por-oil scandal(duh!),nothing on what if we don't like constitution Iraq comes up with,no why not fire CIA and FBI bosses,etc.
I also thought there were several shots against Kerry by Bush in speech/press conference(maybe because I'd read Kerry's op-ed just before).
On the whole I think Bush looked good,and there just might be a reason he hasn't lost a major election.George Bush is comfortable with himself and people get that.

Posted by Stephen 2004-04-14 11:00:05 AM|| 2004-04-14 11:00:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 I thought he did very well, at least in his prepared remarks. I flipped the TV off halfway through the first press question, when I heard the words "Vietnam" and "quagmire." Anymore, the establishment press is little more than the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party: they have no intention of informing their viewers, only indoctrinating them.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-04-14 11:43:01 AM|| 2004-04-14 11:43:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 The Pres did fine. I think he confounded the reporters by not answering questions he did not want to answer, and skwering Clarke's sanctimonious apology. Pres Bush laid it out; "The person who is responsible is bin-Laden" Of course the reason he and the veep are appearing together is because if they were seperate, and just one comma was different, jerks like Ben-Viniste and Goerlick would demand an impeachment. They would both say the same thing. However one would say a meeting happened at 10:00 AM, and the other would say 11:00 AM, and it would become a criminal offense.

Posted by Anonymous4052 2004-04-14 11:53:37 AM|| 2004-04-14 11:53:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Dave Nelson has a good point, Gephardt didn't get much traction from his "miserable failure" routine. Talk about a miserable failure of a campaign. Couldn't even get past Iowa.

Steven also right on. The "gotcha" question are so sophomoric. Like teenagers trying to score points at a birthday party.

Posted by Lucky 2004-04-14 11:54:58 AM|| 2004-04-14 11:54:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 i sure hope that when Bush said "gosh" that euro weazels were squirming..man i like Bush just because he can say "gosh" and be ashamed!

Posted by Dan 2004-04-14 12:34:00 PM|| 2004-04-14 12:34:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 there is one thing Bush has not done and that is spell out clearly who the enemy really is. Bush needs to signal out iran and put those bastards on notice. i am sure it has alot to do with Bush agreeing to allow the euro whimps to take the lead in regards to iran. which they utterly failed at. economics and diplomacy will not work with these ragheads.

has anyone heard skerry mention iran? i believe i heard him mention that diplomacy is the way to go with iranians. this will just play into their hands and allow them the time to create a nuke force.

Posted by Dan 2004-04-14 12:38:46 PM|| 2004-04-14 12:38:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 i sure hope that when Bush said "gosh" that euro weazels were squirming..man i like Bush just because he can say "gosh" and be ashamed!

duuh..ment to say not be ashamed! my bad

Posted by Dan 2004-04-14 12:40:45 PM|| 2004-04-14 12:40:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Overall, it was a positive performance. He was clear he's in Iraq for the long haul, and ended it with "When I say something, I mean it."

BUT...Ever have a job interview and you're asked what your greatest weakness is? The parallel is when he was asked if he had made mistakes. He flubbed it as he could have could have prepared an answer that would have not painted him as a ninny, but would have shown he's done some thinking since the invasion. His answer isn't going to change my vote for him, but what about undecideds? We'll see.

Since we're on the topic, here is my list of mistakes:

1)We hadn't infiltrated AQ, but a Marin County New Age white boy airhead DID using mommy and daddy's money. The CIA couldn't have done better? There are thousands of Arabic/Pashtun/Farsi-speaking former Peace Corps Volunteers all over America, and nobody at Langley thought about finding 100 reliable, loyal ones with the moxie of TE Lawrence to do the job? They exist, believe me. Inexcusable.

2) David Kay, hired by the CIA, and his parting media blitz on "We were wrong". I think Kay is a competent guy who knows the ins and outs of weapons inspections, but he had to have known what a firestorm his comments would cause. If not, he's a naive fool who should have been told to keep his mouth shut BEFORE he took the job. Couldn't he have just gone quietly into the night saying that there was still much work to be done to say for certain on WMD status in Iraq? This would have been the truth, by the way. Moreover, why didn't CIA make sure he LEFT with that understanding? I'm not saying to take away Kay's first amendment rights, but students ask me questions every day about screw ups at my schools and I always protect my admin bosses, knowing that you don't diss the guys who cut your paycheck in front of the clients.

3) W brought up last night the liklihood that WMD are still in Iraq. This is what I still believe, or at least if they are not, then exhaust all possiblities before issuing mea culpas from the Admin to Pentagon to State on how we screwed up. After all, The Beltway a few months ago was abuzz that they hadn't been found, but nobody in Govt. spoke up effectively. W should have gotten everybody in line and said he appreciated Kay's efforts, but nobody could say with certainty that WMD's aren't there. He could have used IAEA incompetence re Libya and Exhibit A to bolster his case.

3) The Mullahs are still in power in Iran. Why, George Tenet? If what I read on other blogs is true, the situation is ripe for an agressive tipping-point policy re Iran. But the finesse required is obviously beyond Tenet's competence.

4)The above mistakes point to my shock at W's continued retention of Tenet. Fire him, W. Don't worry, he won't collect unemployment insurance for long.

5) Should have put more troops on the borders with Iran, Syria, and the Magic Kingdom. Here is where we could have used the Shinsheki numbers, though not in the way Shinsheki envisaged. Be adaptable. We rolled in in three weeks, now let's put those extra guys to work. Or at least understand the number of guys we had go in was just right, but border patrol would require follow up deployments. People don't want to use the border crossings? Too bad. Assume the worst, arrest or fire away. Word would have gotten back to Teheran and Damascus, plus the Iraqis would have known we meant business. Read Michael Ledeen at NRO for more info.

#5 would have served well as Bush's answer last night. He could have said that he fully understood that he had neglected this detail and was taking immediate steps to stem the tide of trouble makers from exterior and at the same time take care of the al-Mahdi types in interior.

6) W didn't announce the creation of new divisions or further expansion of the military. I think it's time he got around to it. Maybe that's why he couldn't have put troops on the borders post-liberation. But, it's been 2 1/2 years since the attacks. We can't count on the Kerry branch of the Dems to help out, nor can we count on the UNSC, nor on our good friends in the Coalition, as they don't have the manpower/money. WE will have to lead. So, W, tell Rummy to dust off the files and get him the money.

Faster, please, as I see and hear more references to Vietnam. Not that I believe it is, but I don't count; after all, I live in Chicago and I see my state voting Kerry. All this talk by McLaughlin/Matthews/Russert/and other liberal media types et al. will basically change the debate from how we have to ensure success in Iraq to how we avoid another Vietnam. PREEMPT now, W! I'm deathly afraid of all this chatter turning into a self-fulfilling prophecy resulting in Kerry's election. Then we'll have the diner-en-ville crowd ruling the roost with subsequent discussions "serieuses" en ce qui concernent les complexites du tiers-monde and what injustice we have done to provoke the unwashed masses to hate us. Je sais, Kerry will spout, il faut devenir comme eux.

I've sat in many salons, folks, and heard the vile spewing against us, and this is when the great ones Bill and Hill were in office. What do you think the new kind of multilateralist will have in store for the US and others unwilling to fight Islamofascism? We must stem the tide, and right now.

Posted by Michael 2004-04-14 1:04:28 PM|| 2004-04-14 1:04:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 My sense is that the Dimocrats are starting to get the message. Prior to the Press Conference last night Ben Veniste was on CNBC. When asked directly whom to blame for 9/11, his response: "Nineteen terrorist hijackers".

Posted by john 2004-04-14 1:07:20 PM|| 2004-04-14 1:07:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Change next-to-last sentence to "those willing to fight Islamofascism"

Posted by Michael 2004-04-14 1:19:41 PM|| 2004-04-14 1:19:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 I'm not the world's biggest fan of GWB's domestic policies (Medicare/ drug "entitlement" spending and illegal alien legislation are my biggest beefs), and I think the WoT is being fought half-heartedly at times...

But I really like hearing him speak and watching him on television. He truly does have leadership qualities along with being a down to earth guy.

The more often he gets on TV prior to the election the better. I think most people really took to him and his demeanor following 9/11, and those feelings will resurface and be remembered the more people see W on television.

What are the LLL media pundits going to say when Bush wins the election in a landslide?

How are they going to explain why they had Kerry and Bush running "neck and neck" up until Nov 1st, only to have Kerry get his ass handed to him on election day?

Don't touch that dial.

Posted by Unmutual 2004-04-14 2:54:13 PM|| 2004-04-14 2:54:13 PM|| Front Page Top

09:04 ed
14:29 concernedfsm
18:14 Raj
16:29 Akrabi
16:14 Raj
15:41 Akrabi
15:37 Raj
15:31 Akrabi
15:22 A
14:55 Hanaa
14:50 A
14:43 Hanaa
15:45 CrazyFool
15:39 Anonymous4052
08:39 tu3031
04:25 Jen
01:59 Atomic Conspiracy
00:33 Old Patriot
00:12 Zenster
00:04 RWV
00:00 Old Patriot
23:56 Zenster
23:52 Lucky
23:45 Frank G