Sites Holmquist trys, and often fails, to go no more than a couple of days without visiting (some of which Holmquist regularly swipes links from without attribution)
Micah Holmquist's off the top of his head words to end April
Both Democrats and Republicans are likely to say whatever works to make the partisan point they want to make at the moment without regard for consistency or principles. (Many of other affiliations or non-affiliations do the same, FWIW.) Yesterday's edition of Sean Hannity's radio show provided three examples of Republican partisans doing this...
-Sean Hannity frequently criticizes Democrats for engaging in "class warfare" whenever they mention economic inequality in the U.S. or that the bulk of the savings from Bush's tax cuts go to the very wealthy. And yet yesterday Newt Gingrich and Hannity were making fun of John Kerry for having a personal assistant who made sure Kerry had access to water, aspirin and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and because Kerry preferred strawberry jelly to grape and whole wheat bread to white. If that's the best they got on Kerry's blue blood ways, they don't have anything.
-Ted Nugent was on and, amongst other things I won't get into, said Karl Marx and Mao Tse Tung were responsible for coming up the phrase "redistribution of wealth." That's idiotic in and of itself. Marx died in 1883 and Mao wasn't born till 1893. Nugent went on to ask, "what right" does one "man" have to take what "another man" has "earned"? Fair enough, except that he went on to praise the U.S. Armed Forces for defending "freedom", even though the last time I checked they were, for better or worse, the product of taxes and redistributing wealth in other countries.
-Those were nothing compared to Hannity saying Saddam "couldn't wait" to give WMDs to terrorists. If that is the case, and I have no doubt that it is because Hannity is a big star and I'm not, then what took Saddam so long?
The guest host also said that he had attended a recent speech by Karen Hughes at Santa Barbara City College and outside of the speech there was a protest that we listeners were told was organized by "professors." The guest host was mad that his tax money went to pay these people's salary. It apparently never occurred to him that they might be mad that their tax dollars help to pay for speeches by the likes of Hughes.
A year ago, I did give the speech from the carrier, saying that we had achieved an important objective, that we'd accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein. And as a result, there are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms or mass graves in Iraq. As a result, a friend of terror has been removed, and now sits in a jail. I also said on that carrier that day that there was still difficult work ahead...
Q What is your reaction to photos of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners? How are you going to win their hearts and minds with these sort of tactics?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, I shared a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated. Their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people. That's not the way we do things in America. And so I -- I didn't like it one bit.
But I also want to remind people that those few people who did that do not reflect the nature of the men and women we've sent overseas. That's not the way the people are, that's not their character, that are serving our nation in the cause of freedom. And there will be an investigation. I think -- they'll be taken care of.
I'm shaking my head indisgust [please note that the previous link contains some horrific images and looking at them won't do a whole lot of good, unless you doubt that "the men and women who defend our freedom" are capable of torture] and disbelief. Note that Bush has to be asked about this. Decency doesn't come naturally, I guess. posted by micah holmquist at 4/30/2004 03:40:00 PM
Thursday, April 29, 2004
My latest Press Action piece argues that many people "believe" and support the Bush Administration's narrative regarding the "war on terror" because they want to believe it and that any effective response will have to present an argument that these people would rather believe.
Holmquist heard about blogging two years ago while participating in e-mail discussion groups...
What I actually said was that I wasn't sure when I had first heard of "blogs" because the content of blogs seemed like a natural extension of some of the email lists I have been on since the mid-1990s and so when I first ran across them I didn't think of them as something completely new, but rather as a modification of another form and not one that stood out as particularly significant.
Jackson Browne's "Lives in the Balance" holds up at least as well as any other pop song from the mid-1980s. The chorus is awful but the verses are cool and make the understated song into something of a "Straight to Hell" for the adult contemporary crowd. And the lyrics' focus on how the U.S. oppresses people around the world and uses manipulation of the U.S. public's natural inclinations in order to get support for such policy even as the policies themselves breed resistance seems as relevant as ever.
The following lines seem particularly relevant at the moment:
On the radio talk shows and the T.V. You hear one thing again and again How the U.S.A. stands for freedom And we come to the aid of a friend But who are the ones that we call our friends-- These governments killing their own? Or the people who finally can't take any more And they pick up a gun or a brick or a stone
And, it should go without saying, that America will use Saddam's former buddies in evil (so evil we had to invade goddamnit) in order to further freedom, just has we have done in Afghanistan. As Ms. News writes in an April 22 story:
Female performers in an Afghan province have been banned from performing on television and radio. According to Reuters, female entertainers have been declared un-Islamic in the Southeastern province. The provincial government, according to Radio Free Europe, ordered state-run television in Jalalabad to stop broadcasting Afghan women singer’s performances.
Good for the Afghans. They don't need some slut prancing around for men to see and "women" to emulate. I mean I'm still suffering from early exposure to Cyndi Lauper. posted by micah holmquist at 4/24/2004 11:25:00 AM
1. Richard Pryor 2. George Carlin 3. Lenny Bruce 4. Woody Allen 5. Chris Rock 6. Steve Martin 7. Rodney Dangerfield 8. Bill Cosby 9. Roseanne Barr 10. Eddie Murphy 11. Johnny Carson 12. Jerry Seinfeld 13. Robin Williams 14. Bob Newhart 15. David Letterman 16. Ellen DeGeneres 17. Don Rickles 18. Jonathan Winters 19. Bill Hicks 20. Sam Kinison 21. Dennis Miller 22. Robert Klein 23. Steven Wright 24. Redd Foxx 25. Bob Hope 26. Ray Romano 27. Jay Leno 28. Jack Benny 29. Milton Berle 30. Garry Shandling 31. George Burns 32. Albert Brooks 33. Andy Kaufman 34. Buddy Hackett 35. Phyllis Diller 36. Jim Carrey 37. Martin Lawrence 38. Bill Maher 39. Billy Crystal 40. Mort Sahl 41. Jon Stewart 42. Flip Wilson 43. Dave Chappelle 44. Joan Rivers 45. Richard Lewis 46. Adam Sandler 47. Henny Youngman 48. Tim Allen 49. Freddie Prinze 50. Denis Leary 51. Lewis Black 52. Damon Wayans 53. David Brenner 54. DL Hughley 55. Alan King 56. Colin Quinn 57. Richard Jeni 58. Larry Miller 59. Gilbert Gottfried 60. Jeff Foxworthy 61. Bobcat Goldthwait 62. Eddie Griffin 63.Jackie Mason 64. Richard Belzer 65. Cedrick the Enter. 66. Shelley Berman 67.Kevin Pollak 68.Dave Attell 69. Pat Cooper 70. Wanda Sykes 71. Red Buttons 72. Bernie Mac 73. Billy Connolly 74. Paul Rodriguez 75. Eddie Izzard 76. Robert Schimmel 77. Paul Reiser 78. Sinbad 79. Dom Irrera 80. Bobby Slayton 81. Dick Gregory 82. Howie Mandel 83. Norm MacDonald 84. Drew Carey 85. David Cross 86. Jay Mohr 87. Brett Butler 88. Paula Poundstone 89. Kevin James 90. Dana Carvey 91. Jim Breuer 92. Louie Anderson 93. George Wallace 94. David Alan Grier 95. Andrew 'Dice' Clay 96. Joey Bishop 97. Sandra Bernhard 98. Louis CK 99. Janeane Garofalo 100. Gallagher
I'm surprised that Godfrey Cambridge and Margaret Cho didn't make the list, there a few people who probably shouldn't be on it and the order is highly debatable, but all that pals in comparison to the outrage that this list doesn't recognize Carrot Top as greater than Bill Hicks even though Carrot Top has won infinitely more American Comedy Awards than Hicks.
What actually interests me about this list is that it is not clear how it was put together. Who voted? What was the voting process? What criteria were they supposed to be basing their votes? None of this is made clear and yet the list is presented as authoritative. This reminds me of something else, and yes I am talking about the bane of my intellect.
***
Patton Oswalt could have been on the list, but I suppose he was too busy answering questions to make an appearance. BTW the ending of Inside Out: Leah Remini is hilarious. Remini tells a fertility doctor that she wants to get pregnant, but doesn't have the energy to have sex all the time now so she just needs to know when she should have it in order to have the best shot at fertilization. Maybe it just me, but if you don't have enough energy to have sex regularly, maybe you don't have enough energy to raise kids. Just a thought.
Giles answer is not in Church, which one could be excused for thinking means they would not be "God's Warriors" but maybe I just don't understand the real situation:
So why do most men avoid church? Here's the veneer stripped-away answer: going to church for the majority of men is an exercise in unwanted effeminacy. Church, for most men, has not only become irrelevant; it has also become effeminate. Hanging out in church for most extra-Y chromosomes seems unmanly and most men more than anything want to be masculine!
Well that's an anti-God perspective if ever there was one.
The current lack of strong men within the Church, both in the numeric and leadership sense, has crippled our cathedrals and has helped devastate our nation ethically. The masculine spirit being absent from the pulpit, the pew and subsequently the public square has not only slowed down the forward progress of the Church, it has also weakened our nation�s morality, increased our country�s secularity, and has assisted [owing to our absence] the lascivious Left�s re-definition of life, sex, marriage and law.
Never once does Giles consider that maybe men are to blame for not fitting in with the church, a fact that makes perfect sense because masculinity always comes before Godliness. It is in the Bible.
So how do we regain the masculine spirit in our houses of worship? How do we gird the Church to press on with that which is holy, just and good? How can we Christians fight the good fight honorably, for freedom, family and the flag? Here are a few things the Church can do.�
� Put an end to preaching by cheesy, whiny, quiche eating, preening Nancy Boys ... right now! It freaks us meat eaters out. Get it? Hire a pastor who throws off a good John Wayne vibe instead of that Boy George feeling. Know what I mean? And cheer on �Pastor Wayne� to serve up the solid meat of the scripture � the stuff that prods the congregation to biblical maturity rather than prolonging their infancy...
If the Church wants to recover its losses, we�ve got to draw the knuckle draggers back to church. Masculine men are pretty easy. Toss in reason, competition, initiation, struggle, fun and a problem to spiritually throttle, and we�ll be there like stink on a monkey. Blow off, suppress, and spiritually emasculate the environment of these holy testicular necessities and your church, as far as men go, will be more empty than an Oktoberfest in Hialeah.
While reasonable intelligent beings advocate that a monkey teach Giles a thing or two, there are peoplewhoagree with Giles. They also need to be educated by our primate friends.
ThecommotionoverWoodward'sbook is a great example of the news media covering a little scandal while ignoring the bigger picture. There is nothing shocking about powerful people getting together and deciding exactly how they are going to run the world, the idea that invading Iraq was talked about shortly after September 11, 2001 or that the Bush Administration has been extremely dishonest. What is shocking is that the Bush Administration appears to be lousy at everything but getting away with shit and how brazen they are in believing that they can say or do anything and that not enough people will care in order to prevent them from getting away with it. (The cynic -or is that realist?- in me thinks they are right about this, and that this is a real problem.) Or, to put it in campaign terms, the Bush campaign should be repeatedly asked, "do you think the dishonesty of the Bush Administration will hurt your candidate?" (For the record, I can't believe that they do believe it will have a negative impact. If those running the campaign and administration were generally worried about it, why would Woodward have gotten the access that he did?) posted by micah holmquist at 4/18/2004 09:50:00 PM
Saturday, April 17, 2004
How many dead Iraqis does it take to "liberate" Iraq?
I'm sure the U.S. aim in Iraq isn't to kill as many sand niggers, but that doesn't mean many civilian deaths are not happening, or that the U.S. shouldn't be held accountable...
In today's Guardian, Ronan Bennett writes, "the evidence of the bodies alone gives the lie to the American account: at least 350 of the dead in Falluja have been women and children." (Thanks to a contributor to mailing list that I'm on.)
"US snipers in Falluja shoot unarmed man in the back, old woman with white flag, children fleeing their homes and the ambulance that we were going in to fetch a woman in premature labour," Jo Wilding writes in an April 13 report from the scene.
If you doubt that, just look at Afghanistan, where the U.S. is injuring and killing civilians in order to stabilize a place where, in the words of Anna Badkhen of The San Francisco Chronicle, "an Afghan woman... has no rights." posted by micah holmquist at 4/17/2004 01:24:00 PM
Once again, President Bush misspoke on a weapons issue, telling the nation that 50 tons of mustard gas were found in Libya - twice the amount actually uncovered.
The White House moved quickly Wednesday to correct the record, with press secretary Scott McClellan seeking out reporters to point out the mistake. The president should have said in his Tuesday night address and press conference that 23.6 tons of mustard gas were found in Libya, instead of 50 tons, McClellan said.
Bush used the 50-ton figure twice.
The first time, he was making the case that his decision to go to war in Iraq has produced foreign policy successes elsewhere. The president argued that Libya's agreement last December to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction programs was the result of the U.S.-led war to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
"Colonel Gadhafi made the decision, and rightly so, to disclose and disarm for the good of the world," Bush said, referring to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. "By the way, they found, I think, 50 tons of mustard gas, 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."
The second time, Bush was using the example of the Libyan mustard gas disclosure to suggest that weapons of mass destruction could still turn up in Iraq...
"They could still be there," Bush said Tuesday of the Iraq weapons. "They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm."
I should have learned this lesson by now, but never think Bush is good at anything save for getting away with shit.
On a rooftop overlooking Fallujah's industrial wasteland, Lance Cpl. Tom Browne pokes his machine gun muzzle out of a hole in a barrier wall, singing to himself to pass the time.
In the street below, the corpse of an insurgent suspect lies baking in the sun. Browne, from Boston, says he has killed several rebels, probably Iraqis, so far.
``I don't even think about those people as people,'' he says...
In the fight for Fallujah - which has killed more than 600 Iraqis, according to city doctors, and around a dozen Marines - the Marines now seem to be following the second half of their famous motto: ``no better friend, no worse enemy.''
The Marines say it's easier to cope with the daily work of killing inside Fallujah, where a seemingly unending supply of rebels continues to fight, if they don't think about the suspected Iraqi rebels they are targeting as people who, under different circumstances, they might have been trying to help.
``If someone came and did this to our neighborhood I'd be pissed too,'' said Capt. Don Maraska, of Moscow, Idaho, a 37-year-old who guides airstrikes on enemy targets in the town. ``I've never had people look at me the ways these people look at me. I don't know what came before, but at this point, what else can we possibly do but fight?''
"When we hear the word 'Vietnam' nowadays, we're more apt to think about our involvement in that country than about the Vietnamese themselves, whom we've never figured out a way of adequately acknowledging -- as people, as witnesses, even as spectators of Apocalypse Now Redux," Jonathan Rosenbaum of The Chicago Reader writes in a review from 2001.
There's appears to be a parallel between the construction of "Vietnam" as meaning U.S. military intervention in Vietnam and "September 11" and various variations on that phrase has come to mean the attacks against the U.S. that happened on September 11, 2001 as if anything and everything else that has or could ever happen on a "September 11" is not as important as the suffering of Americans on September 11, 2001. (Yes non-Americans did die on that day, but that's something lost on Ann Coulter, amongst many others.)
Then again, a similar process has occurred with "Oklahoma City" and "Waco," although to a much lesser extent. posted by micah holmquist at 4/15/2004 03:58:00 PM
Stuff that's funny (but maybe shouldn't be)
The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, saying yesterday:
The intelligence that we provided our senior policy makers about the threat Al Qaeda posed, its leadership and its operational span across over 60 countries and the use of Afghanistan as a sanctuary was clear and direct. Warning was well understood, even if the timing and method of attacks were not...
We all understood bin Laden's attempt to strike the homeland, but we never translated this knowledge into an effective defense of the country...
It will take us another five years to have the kind of clandestine service our country needs.
Good evening. Before I take your questions, let me speak with the American people about the situation in Iraq.
Great opener! I hope all the non-American people covered their ears.
This has been tough weeks in that country. Coalition forces have encountered serious violence in some areas of Iraq. Our military commanders report that this violence is being instigated by three groups: Some remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime, along with Islamic militants have attacked coalition forces in the city of Fallujah. Terrorists from other countries have infiltrated Iraq to incite and organize attacks. In the south of Iraq, coalition forces face riots and attacks that are being incited by a radical cleric named al-Sadr. He has assembled some of his supporters into an illegal militia, and publicly supported the terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. Al-Sadr's methods of violence and intimidation are widely repudiated by other Iraqi Shia. He's been indicted by Iraqi authorities for the murder of a prominent Shia cleric.
Although these instigations of violence come from different factions, they share common goals. They want to run us out of Iraq and destroy the democratic hopes of the Iraqi people. The violence we have seen is a power grab by these extreme and ruthless elements.
It was very important that President Bush stress that what the enemy is doing is "illegal." They are criminals for not wanting the U.S. to dictate what happens within the borders of Iraq.
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. In forums where Iraqis have met to discuss their political future, and in all the proceedings of the Iraqi Governing Council, Iraqis have expressed clear commitments. They want strong protections for individual rights; they want their independence; and they want their freedom.
Clearly President Bush is not making these terms up as he goes along, and it isn't as if the "war on terror" was inspired by something that happened on a small section of the U.S. or anything.
America's commitment to freedom in Iraq is consistent with our ideals, and required by our interests.
President Bush deftly differentiated between Iraq and a country like Uzbekistan, where America collectively could not care less.
Iraq will either be a peaceful, democratic country, or it will again be a source of violence, a haven for terror, and a threat to America and to the world. By helping to secure a free Iraq, Americans serving in that country are protecting their fellow citizens. Our nation is grateful to them all, and to their families that face hardship and long separation.
Thank you for speaking for me and all other Americans!
This weekend, at a Fort Hood hospital, I presented a Purple Heart to some of our wounded; had the honor of thanking them on behalf of all Americans. Other men and women have paid an even greater cost. Our nation honors the memory of those who have been killed, and we pray that their families will find God's comfort in the midst of their grief. As I have said to those who have lost loved ones, we will finish the work of the fallen.
No mention of the Iraqis who Bush presumably can't be bothered to think died for the freedom of other Iraqis by getting killed by the U.S.
America's armed forces are performing brilliantly, with all the skill and honor we expect of them. We're constantly reviewing their needs. Troop strength, now and in the future, is determined by the situation on the ground. If additional forces are needed, I will send them. If additional resources are needed, we will provide them. The people of our country are united behind our men and women in uniform, and this government will do all that is necessary to assure the success of their historic mission.
A top US military commander has requested the equivalent of two mobile combat brigades to help the campaign to put down Iraqi insurgents.
General John Abizaid, the head of Central Command, did not say where the new troops would come from or whether it would add to the number of troops in Iraq, though experts said it could require up to 10,000 extra forces.
AN Iraqi has died of his wounds after US troops beat him with truncheons because he refused to remove a picture of wanted Shiite Muslim leader Moqtada Sadr from his car, police said today.
The motorist was stopped late yesterday by US troops conducting search operations on a street in the centre of the central city of Kut, Lieutenant Mohamad Abdel Abbas said.
After the man refused to remove Sadr's picture from his car, the soldiers forced him out of the vehicle and started beating him with truncheons, he said.
US troops also detained from the same area five men wearing black pants and shirts, the usual attire of Sadr's Mehdi Army militiamen and followers.
Qassem Hassan, the director of Kut general hospital, identified the man as Salem Hassan, a resident of a Kut suburb.
He said the man had died of wounds sustained in the beating.
Getting back to the equally brilliant statement by President Bush:
One central commitment of that mission is the transfer of sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. We have set a deadline of June 30th. It is important that we meet that deadline. As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation -- and neither does America. We're not an imperial power, as nations such as Japan and Germany can attest. We are a liberating power, as nations in Europe and Asia can attest, as well. America's objective in Iraq is limited, and it is firm: We seek an independent, free and secure Iraq.
Were the coalition to step back from the June 30th pledge, many Iraqis would question our intentions and feel their hopes betrayed. And those in Iraq who trade in hatred and conspiracy theories would find a larger audience and gain a stronger hand. We will not step back from our pledge. On June 30th, Iraqi sovereignty will be placed in Iraqi hands.
Sovereignty involves more than a date and a ceremony. It requires Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own future. Iraqi authorities are now confronting the security challenge of the last several weeks. In Fallujah, coalition forces have suspended offensive operations, allowing members of the Iraqi Governing Council and local leaders to work on the restoration of central authority in that city. These leaders are communicating with the insurgents to ensure an orderly turnover of that city to Iraqi forces, so that the resumption of military action does not become necessary. They're also insisting that those who killed and mutilated four American contract workers be handed over for trial and punishment. In addition, members of the Governing Council are seeking to resolve the situation in the south. Al-Sadr must answer the charges against him and disband his illegal militia.
Our coalition is standing with responsible Iraqi leaders as they establish growing authority in their country. The transition to sovereignty requires that we demonstrate confidence in Iraqis, and we have that confidence. Many Iraqi leaders are showing great personal courage, and their example will bring out the same quality in others. The transition to sovereignty also requires an atmosphere of security, and our coalition is working to provide that security. We will continue taking the greatest care to prevent harm to innocent civilians; yet we will not permit the spread of chaos and violence. I have directed our military commanders to make every preparation to use decisive force, if necessary, to maintain order and to protect our troops.
"Responsible" translates to "does what they are told to do" in Arabic, Iraqi or whatever the hell language they speak over there.
The nation of Iraq is moving toward self-rule, and Iraqis and Americans will see evidence in the months to come. On June 30th, when the flag of free Iraq is raised, Iraqi officials will assume full responsibility for the ministries of government. On that day, the transitional administrative law, including a bill of rights that is unprecedented in the Arab world, will take full effect.
So Iraqi isn't free now?
The United States, and all the nations of our coalition, will establish normal diplomatic relations with the Iraqi government. An American embassy will open, and an American ambassador will be posted.
According to the schedule already approved by the Governing Council, Iraq will hold elections for a national assembly no later than next January. That assembly will draft a new, permanent constitution which will be presented to the Iraqi people in a national referendum held in October of next year. Iraqis will then elect a permanent government by December 15, 2005 -- an event that will mark the completion of Iraq's transition from dictatorship to freedom.
Who exactly will be running the country till then? What parties will be allowed to participate in the national assembly? Surely these questions will be answered by President Bush.
Other nations and international institutions are stepping up to their responsibilities in building a free and secure Iraq. We're working closely with the United Nations envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, and with Iraqis to determine the exact form of the government that will receive sovereignty on June 30th.
This seems well-planned.
The United Nations election assistance team, headed by Karina Parelli (phonetic), is in Iraq, developing plans for next January's election. NATO is providing support for the Polish-led multinational division in Iraq. And 17 of NATO's 26 members are contributing forces to maintain security.
Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of State Rumsfeld, and a number of NATO defense and foreign ministers are exploring a more formal role for NATO, such as turning the Polish-led division into a NATO operation, and giving NATO specific responsibilities for border control.
And this is important because?
Iraqi's neighbors also have responsibilities to make their region more stable. So I am sending Deputy Secretary of State Armitage to the Middle East to discuss with these nations our common interest in a free and independent Iraq, and how they can help achieve this goal.
See if they are "responsible" they will do what they are told and live up to their "responsibilities." Nothing problematic about that.
As we've made clear all along, our commitment to the success and security of Iraq will not end on June 30th. On July 1st, and beyond, our reconstruction assistance will continue, and our military commitment will continue. Having helped Iraqis establish a new government, coalition military forces will help Iraqis to protect their government from external aggression and internal subversion.
Meaning?
The success of free government in Iraq is vital for many reasons. A free Iraq is vital because 25 million Iraqis have as much right to live in freedom as we do. A free Iraq will stand as an example to reformers across the Middle East. A free Iraq will show that America is on the side of Muslims who wish to live in peace, as we have already shown in Kuwait and Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan. A free Iraq will confirm to a watching world that America's word, once given, can be relied upon, even in the toughest times.
Above all, the defeat of violence and terror in Iraq is vital to the defeat of violence and terror elsewhere; and vital, therefore, to the safety of the American people. Now is the time, and Iraq is the place, in which the enemies of the civilized world are testing the will of the civilized world. We must not waver.
Why?
The violence we are seeing in Iraq is familiar. The terrorist who takes hostages, or plants a roadside bomb near Baghdad is serving the same ideology of murder that kills innocent people on trains in Madrid, and murders children on buses in Jerusalem, and blows up a nightclub in Bali, and cuts the throat of a young reporter for being a Jew.
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.
I know this is a first draft that won't go out to the public Mr. President but you might want to make some edits since earlier in this draft you say that there are different groups involved.
None of these acts is the work of a religion; all are the work of a fanatical, political ideology.
Can't it be both?
The servants of this ideology seek tyranny in the Middle East and beyond. They seek to oppress and persecute women. They seek the death of Jews and Christians, and every Muslim who desires peace over theocratic terror. They seek to intimidate America 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.
Over the last several decades, we've seen that any concession or retreat on our part will only embolden this enemy and invite more bloodshed. And the enemy has seen, over the last 31 months, that we will no longer live in denial or seek to appease them. For the first time, the civilized world has provided a concerted response to the ideology of terror -- a series of powerful, effective blows.
The terrorists have lost the shelter of the Taliban and the training camps in Afghanistan. They've lost safe havens in Pakistan. They lost an ally in Baghdad. And Libya has turned its back on terror. They've lost many leaders in an unrelenting international manhunt. And perhaps most frightening to these men and their movement, the terrorists are seeing the advance of freedom and reform in the greater Middle East.
This is as dishonest as it is insulting.
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 costs they will bring. Yet, in this conflict, there is no safe alternative to resolute action. The consequences of failure in Iraq would be unthinkable. Every friend of America and Iraq would be betrayed to prison and murder as a new tyranny arose. Every enemy of America and the world would celebrate, proclaiming our weakness and decadence, and using that victory to recruit a new generation of killers.
We will succeed in Iraq. We're carrying out a decision that has already been made and will not change: Iraq will be a free, independent country, and America and the Middle East will be safer because of it. Our coalition has the means and the will to prevail. We serve the cause of liberty, and that is, always and everywhere, a cause worth serving.
Hey George, I only say this because I love you but CAN YOU GET YOUR STORY STRAIGHT??? It might help.
Now, I'll be glad to take your questions. I will start with you.
This will be good.
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?
If you could ask Bush anything you wanted to and you asked this question, well you aren't that bright.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the analogy is false.
I agree with Bush! Who would have ever expected that? Of course I have a reason, but President Bush needn't stoop to my level since he is the Leader of the Free World and it is our job to believe everything He says.
I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops, and sends the wrong message to the enemy.
If only President Bush would inform us what is and isn't acceptable in the form of parameters. I mean it isn't as if he is opposed to bring up the past and I can't believe President Bush could possibly not be consistent, fair and correct.
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.
A secure and free Iraq is an historic opportunity to change the world and make America more secure. A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East will have incredible change. It's hard -- freedom is not easy to achieve. We had a little trouble in our country achieving freedom. And we've been there a year, Terry. I know it 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. And we're making progress.
There's no question it's been a tough, tough series of weeks for the American people. It's been really tough for the families. I understand that. It's been tough on this administration. But we're doing the right thing.
Wow! Bush can memorize a few paragraphs. I bet he did good at vacation Bible school.
And as to whether or not I make decisions based upon polls, I don't. I just don't make decisions that way. I fully understand the consequences of what we're doing. We're changing the world. And the world will be better off and America will be more secure as a result of the actions we're taking.
Amazing. This wasn't even asked and yet President Bush responded.
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?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I -- first of all, that's up to General Abizaid, and he's clearly indicating that he may want more troops. It's coming up through the chain of command. If that's what he wants, that's what he gets. Generally, we've had about 115,000 troops in Iraq. There's 135,000 now, as a result of the changeover from one division to the next. If he wants to keep troops there to help, I'm more than willing to say, "Yes, General Abizaid."
I talk to General Abizaid quite frequently. I'm constantly asking him, does he have what he needs -- whether it be in troop strength, or in equipment. He and General Sanchez talk all the time. And if he makes the recommendation, he'll get it.
In terms of how long we'll be there: as long as necessary, and not one day more.
The Iraqi people need us there to help with security. They need us there to fight off these violent few who are doing everything they can to resist the advance of freedom. And I mentioned who they are.
And as I mentioned in my opening remarks, our commanders on the ground have got the authority necessary to deal with violence, and will -- and will in firm fashion. And that's what, by far, the vast majority of the Iraqis want -- they want security so they can advance toward a free society.
Once we transfer sovereignty, we'll enter into a security agreement with the government to which we pass sovereignty, the entity to which we pass sovereignty. And we'll need to be there for a while. 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.
If they're lacking equipment, we'll get them equipment. If there needs to be more intense training, we'll get more intense training. But, eventually, Iraq's security is going to be handled by the Iraqi people, themselves.
Even more memorization. This is why people are wrong to say President Bush is dumb. President Bush just acts like we are dumb.
Let's see here -- Terry.
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 PRESIDENT: 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.
Funny how political expediency leads to a "lesson."
Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders. He was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States. 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.
Now if President Bush actually believed this stuff he would in fact be beyond dumb.
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.
The United Nations passed a Security Council resolution unanimously that said, disarm or face serious consequences. And he refused to disarm.
I thought it was very interesting that Charlie Duelfer, who just came back -- he's the head of the Iraqi Survey Group -- reported some interesting findings from his recent tour there. And one of the things was, he was amazed at how deceptive the Iraqis had been toward UNMOVIC and UNSCOM; deceptive in hiding things. We knew they were hiding things -- a country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting caught. And that was part of our calculation. Charlie confirmed that. He also confirmed that Saddam had a -- the ability to produce biological and chemical weapons. In other words, he was a danger. He had long-range missiles that were undeclared to the United Nations; he was a danger. And so we dealt with him.
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.
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. 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. They do want us there to help with security, and that's why this transfer of sovereignty is an important signal to send, and it's why it's also important for them to hear we will stand with them until they become a free country.
That is an answer.
Elisabeth.
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.
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.
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. And why I -- I say that because it's -- that provides the ability for our agencies to coordinate better and to work together better than it was before.
I think the hearings will show that the Patriot Act is an important change in the law that will allow the FBI and the CIA to better share information together. We were kind of stove-piped, I guess is a way to describe it. There was kind of -- departments that at times didn't communicate, because of law, in the FBI's case.
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.
The other lesson is, is that this country must go on the offense and stay on the offense. In order to secure the country, we must do everything in our power to find these killers and bring them to justice, before they hurt us again. I'm afraid they want to hurt us again. They're still there.
They can be right one time; we've got to be right a hundred percent of the time in order to protect the country. It's a mighty task. But our government has changed since the 9/11 attacks. We're better equipped to respond; we're better at sharing intelligence. But we've still got a lot of work to do.
That is not.
Dave.
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.
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 of course you aren't worried about this, are you President Bush? The "threat" from weapons of mass destruction in Iraq only existed so you could get a fun little war out of it.
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.
If only Bush were smart enough to change the subject.
Let's see -- Ed.
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. 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.
The report, itself, I've characterized as mainly history, and I think when you look at it you'll see that it was talking about '97 and '98 and '99. It was also an indication, as you mentioned, that bin Laden might want to hijack an airplane, but as you said, not to fly into a building, but perhaps to release a person in jail. In other words, serve it as a blackmail.
And of course, that concerns me. All those reports concern me. As a matter of fact, I was dealing with terrorism a lot as the President when George Tenet came in to brief me. I mean, that's where I got my information. I changed the way that -- the relationship between the President and the CIA Director. And I wanted Tenet in the Oval Office all the time. And we had briefings about terrorist threats. This was a summary.
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. Major newspapers had talked about bin Laden's desires on hurting America. What was interesting in there was that there was a report that the FBI was conducting field investigations. And I -- that was good news that they were doing their job.
The way my administration worked, Ed, is that I met with Tenet all the time, obviously met with my principals a lot. We talked about threats that had emerged. We had a counterterrorism group meeting on a regular basis to analyze the threats that came in. Had there been a threat that required action by anybody in the government, I would have dealt with it. In other words, had they come up and said, this is where we see something happening, you can rest assured that the people of this government would have responded, and responded in a forceful way.
I mean, one of the things about Elisabeth's question was, I step back and I've asked myself a lot, is there anything we could have done to stop the attacks. Of course, I've asked that question -- as have many people of my government. Nobody wants this to happen to America. 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 -- just like we're working hard to prevent a further attack.
It is disturbing to realize that this response was worse than the question.
Let's see -- Jim.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. You mentioned the PDB and the assurance you got that the FBI was working on terrorism investigations here. The number they had used was 70. But we learned today in the September 11th hearings that the Acting Director of the FBI at the time says -- now says the FBI tells him that number was wrong, that he doesn't even know how it got into your PDB. And two of the commissioners strongly suggested 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 FBI?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I heard about that today, obviously, and my response to that was I expect to get valid information. As the ultimate decision-maker for this country, I expect information that comes to my desk to be real and valid. And I presume the 9/11 Commission will find out -- will follow up on his suggestions and his recollection and garner the truth.
That is an important part of the 9/11 Commission's job, is to analyze what went on and what could have, perhaps, been done differently so that we can better secure America for the future. But, of course, I expect to get valid information. I can't make good decisions unless I get valid information.
Q Has the FBI come back to you, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I haven't talked to anybody today. But I will, though. We'll find out.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9/11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?
THE PRESIDENT: Look, I can understand why people in my administration anguished over the fact that people lost their life. I feel the same way. I mean, I'm sick when I think about the death that took place on that day. And as I mentioned, I've met with a lot of family members and I do the best I do to console them about the loss of their loved one. As I mentioned, I oftentimes think about what I could have done differently. I can assure the American people that had we had any inkling that this was going to happen, we would have done everything in our power to stop the attack.
Here's what I feel about that. The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That's who's responsible for killing Americans. And that's why we will stay on the offense until we bring people to justice.
Talk about a charade.
John.
Q Mr. President, thank you. You mentioned 17 of the 26 NATO members 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 handover takes place, that there will be more burden sharing by allies, in terms of security forces?
THE PRESIDENT: John, my response is, I don't think people ought to demean the contributions of our friends into Iraq. People are sacrificing their lives in Iraq, from different countries. We ought to honor that, and we ought to welcome that. I'm proud of the coalition that is there. This is a -- these are people that have -- the gut leaders have made the decision to put people in harm's way for the good of the world. And we appreciate that sacrifice in America. We appreciate that commitment.
I think -- one of the things you're seeing is more involvement by the United Nations, in terms of the political process. That's helpful. I'd like to get another U.N. Security Council resolution out that will help other nations to decide to participate.
One of the things I've found, John, is that in calling around -- particularly during this week, I spoke to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President Kwasniewski -- there is a resolve by these leaders that is a heartening resolve. Tony Blair is the same way -- he understands, like I understand, that we cannot yield at this point in time; that we must remain steadfast and strong; that it's the intentions of the enemy to shake our will. That's what they want to do -- they want us to leave. And we're not going to leave. We're going to do the job. And a free Iraq is going to be a major blow for terrorism. It will change the world. A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East is vital to future peace and security.
Maybe I can best put it this way, why I feel so strongly about this historic moment. I was having dinner with Prime Minister Koizumi, and we were talking about North Korea, about how we can work together to deal with the threat. The North Korea leader is a threat. And here are two friends now discussing what strategy to employ to prevent him from further developing and deploying a nuclear weapon. And it dawned on me that had we blown the peace in World War II, that perhaps this conversation would not have been taking place. It also dawned on me then that when we get it right in Iraq, at some point in time an American President will be sitting down with a duly-elected Iraqi leader talking about how to bring security to what has been a troubled part of the world.
The legacy that our troops are going to leave behind is a legacy of lasting importance, as far as I'm concerned. It's a legacy that really is based upon our deep belief that people want to be free and that free societies are peaceful societies.
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.
Hey kids, don't learn any history, logic or political science. It will only make it harder to love President Bush.
Let's see here, hold on. Michael. You're next.
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.
More evidence that this well planned operation.
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 --
I'm not sure who Michael is but I'm moderately impressed. Of course at this point Michael should have screamed, "answer the question you fucking asshole. Answer the real question! Why are manipulating the public's ignorance so that you can have your war without end?"
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.
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?
Good to see we are back to the insignificant questions.
THE PRESIDENT: I guess there have been some that said, well, we should have taken preemptive action in Afghanistan, and then turned around and said we shouldn't have taken preemptive 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 Qaeda in that part of the world.
It would have been awfully hard to do, as well, by the way -- we would have had to -- we hadn't got our relationship right with Pakistan yet. The Caucus area would have been very difficult from which to base. It just seemed an impractical strategy at the time, and frankly, I didn't contemplate it.
I did contemplate a larger strategy as to how to deal with al Qaeda. We were shooting Cruise missiles, and with little effect. And I said, if we're going to go after al Qaeda, let's have a comprehensive strategy as to how to deal with it, with that entity.
After 9/11, the world changed for me, and I think changed for the country. It changed for me because, like many, we assumed oceans would protect us from harm, and that's not the case, it's not the reality of the 21st century. Oceans don't protect us. They don't protect us from killers. We're an open country, and we're a country that values our openness. And we're a hard country to defend. And, therefore, when we see threats overseas, we've got to take them -- look at them in a new light. And I've given my explanation of Iraq.
Maybe he is an idiot.
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.
We've had some success, Bill, as a result of the decision I took. Take Libya, for example. Libya was a nation that had -- we viewed as a terrorist -- a nation that sponsored terror, a nation that was dangerous because of weapons. And Colonel Gadhafi made the decision, and rightly so, to disclose and disarm, for the good of the world. By the way, they found, I think, 50 tons of mustard gas, 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. The A.Q. Khan bust, the network that we uncovered, thanks to the hard work of our intelligence-gathering agencies and the cooperation of the British, was another victory in the war against terror. This was a shadowy network of folks that were willing to sell state secrets to the highest bidder. And that, therefore, made the world more unstable and more dangerous. You've often heard me talk about my worry about weapons of mass destruction ending up in the hands of the wrong people. Well, you can understand why I feel that way, having seen the works of A.Q. Khan. It's a dangerous -- it was a dangerous network that we unraveled. And the world is better for it.
And so what I'm telling you is, is that sometimes we use military as a last resort, but other times we use our influence, diplomatic pressure, and our alliances, to unravel, uncover, expose people who want to do harm against the civilized world. We're at war. Iraq is a part of the war on terror. It is not the war on terror; it is a theater in the war on terror. And it's essential we win this battle in the war on terror. By winning this battle, it will make other victories more certain in the war against the terrorists.
Translation: we will only spread "freedom" if we want to.
Let's see here. Judy.
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.
And one of the things that's very important, Judy, as far as I'm concerned, is to never allow our youngsters to die in vain. And I made that pledge to their parents. Withdrawing from the battlefield of Iraq would be just that. And it's not going to happen under my watch.
The American people may decide to change -- that's democracy. I don't think so, I don't think so. And I look forward to making my case. I'm looking forward to the campaign. Now is the time to talk about winning this war on terror. Now is the time to make sure that the American people understand the stakes and the historic significance of what we're doing. And no matter where they may stand on this war, the thing I appreciate most about our country is the strong support given to the men and women in uniform. And it's vital support. It's important for those soldiers to know America stands with them. And we weep when they die, and we're proud of the victories they achieve.
One of the things I'm also proud of is what I hear from our soldiers. As I mentioned, I pinned the Purple Heart on some of the troops at the hospital there at Fort Hood, Texas. A guy looks at me and says, I can't wait to get back to my unit and fulfill the mission, Mr. President. The spirit is incredible. Our soldiers who have volunteered to go there understand the stakes. And I'm incredibly proud of them.
What a despicable asshole.
John.
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.)
Yeah and I wish Bush's unofficial press agency would ask some real questions so I didn't have to be so goddamn angry.
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 would have gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan. Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would have called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein. See, I happen to believe that we'll find out the truth on the weapons. That's why we've sent up the independent commission. I look forward to hearing the truth, exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm.
One of the things that Charlie Duelfer talked about was that he was surprised at the level of intimidation he found amongst people who should know about weapons, and their fear of talking about them because they don't want to be killed. There's a terror still in the soul of some of the people in Iraq; they're worried about getting killed, and, therefore, they're not going to talk.
Who's doing this? Why don't they want the weapons so they can kill Americans? The fact that this wasn't asked just shows how trained these reporters are.
But it will all settle out, John. We'll find out the truth about the weapons at some point in time. However, the fact that he had the capacity to make them bothers me today, just like it would have bothered me then. He's a dangerous man. He's a man who actually -- not only had weapons of mass destruction -- the reason I can say that with certainty is because he used them. And I have no doubt in my mind that he would like to have inflicted harm, or paid people to inflict harm, or trained people to inflict harm on America, because he hated us.
Hey George, I hate you and yet I have never planned to physically harm you. Talk about projection.
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.
Here is an example, not that there is a lack of them, where I would think slightly more of Bush if he is not being truthful.
Yes, Ann.
Apparently Bush isn't too bothered by this.
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.
Let's see, last question here. Hold on for a second. Those who yell will not be asked. I'll tell you a guy who I've never heard from -- Don.
Ain't democracy grand?
Q I appreciate it.
THE PRESIDENT: It's a well-received -- (laughter.)
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.
Somehow I don't think saying it is a tough fight but we our guaranteed a glorious victory is "somber."
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 wonder if Bush gets the irony of him responding to a question that contextually includes acknowledgement that Bush uses a lot of the same phrases over and over again with a string of phrases that Bush has used repeatedly before.
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.
What a robust debate! You can't complain about that.
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.
I don't know if I could stand the non-somber version of Bush's outlook.
***
This event began at "8:31 P.M. EDT" and ended at "END 9:32 P.M. EDT." I think it is just great that Bush could spend 61 minutes of his time.
***
I'm sure this Iraqi democracy thing will work out just fine and that it will not be a situation where the U.S. operates in any way to make the outcome turn out the way it wants it to, unless of course John Kerry becomes prez. Then we will all be looking at hammers and sickles. posted by micah holmquist at 4/14/2004 06:25:00 PM
