Interview with George W. Bush
Michael Barone had the privilige – together with seven other conservative columnists – to interview U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday afternoon. Michael reports about it for USNews here. It – logically – provides for an interesting read and more: he also posted an MP3 audio recording of the entire, one hour long, interview.
Bush, in essence, repeated his general message:
First of all, Bush started off with a lengthy monologue, trying to put a historical perspective on where we are now. He clearly sees his primary mission as protecting the American people from the terrorists who want to do everything they can to hurt and destroy us and our civilization. He makes the point that we ought to listen to their words when they threaten to kill us–even though our first instinct is to flinch and turn away from threats that, if taken seriously, are extremely disturbing. Later he returned to this theme. The September 11 attacks made it clear, he said, that we’re at war, and we’re still at war. These terrorists want to kill us and destroy our civilization, and they will use any excuse that comes to mind–Israel, the Crusades, and if not the Crusades then the cartoons.
More:
He quoted Gen. John Abizaid as saying that victory in Iraq will have a lot of positive effects in the Middle East. He notes that the military does not compile body counts of the enemy and that that makes it hard to quantify progress. In response to questioning, he said he might reconsider that decision.
He simply does not get it. The ‘columnists’ are not much better either: what ever happened to critical questions? Victory is important, everybody is aware of that. The problem is the allied forces are not victorious. Why is that? What does Bush believe he did wrong in the last couple of years? What can be improved right now? How? By whom? Security is still a major problem in Iraq: the situation is not getting less serious, instead it seems to be getting worse. How does Bush propose dealing with that? More Iraqi security forces? Fine. There already are a lot of them, they are – for now – not able to really deal with it. So question remains: how does he propose dealing with the security issue? Also: why is it that reports that were made public acted as if the insurgency would become less in 2007, while classified, internal reports state the opposite? What about electricity, which seems to be a major problem. The Iraqis, once again, are not able to deal with that themselves. How does Bush propose dealing with that problem? Who will he assign to deal with it? How much money will be available? Deadlines… Basic questions, but questions that – sadly – are not being asked within the administration itself.
Bush gave a peptalk while the Iraq-mess requires critical leadership. People – well I at least – are not interested in hearing that victory is important and that if the U.S. and allied forces are victorious the face of the Middle-East will be changed, etc. We know that. We are aware of that. The problem is that the Bush administration messed it up tremendously and that they continue to mess it up.
So, why did I describe the article / interview as ‘interesting’? Because it shows a particular mindset Bush has, a mindset that has to be changed but isn’t changing.
The transcript can be read here. Read it and wonder: does he actually tell us anything about how to truly solve the problems in Iraq, or does he simply state the obvious, very broad points that everybody can agree on? An example:
Q Mr. President, the war in Iraq has lasted almost as long as World War II for the United States. And as you mentioned, October was the deadliest month for American forces this year — in a year. Do you think we’re winning, and why?
And so it’s going to take a long time, Terry. I am confident we will succeed. I am confident we’ll succeed in Iraq. And the reason I’m confident we’ll succeed in Iraq is because the Iraqis want to succeed in Iraq. The ultimate victory in Iraq, which is a government that can sustain itself, govern itself, and defend itself, depends upon the Iraqi citizens and the Iraqi government doing the hard work necessary to protect their country. And our job is to help them achieve that objective. As a matter of fact, my view is the only way we lose in Iraq is if we leave before the job is done.
And I’m confident we can succeed in the broader war on terror, this ideological conflict. I’m confident because I believe the power of liberty will defeat the ideology of hate every time, if given a chance. I believe that the radicals represent the few in the Middle East. I believe the majority of people want to live in a peaceful world. That’s what I believe.
And:
Q Are we winning?THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely, we’re winning. Al Qaeda is on the run. As a matter of fact, the mastermind, or the people who they think is the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks is in our custody. We’ve now got a procedure for this person to go on trial, to be held for his account. Most of al Qaeda that planned the attacks on September the 11th have been brought to justice.
Extremists have now played their hand; the world can clearly see their ambitions. You know, when a Palestinian state began to show progress, extremists attacked Israel to stop the advance of a Palestinian state. They can’t stand democracies. Extremists and radicals want to undermine fragile democracy because it’s a defeat for their way of life, their ideology.
“Are we winning” is the question and Bush comes up with this? Is this a joke? Where are the facts? As I understand it, the insurgency in Iraq will be able to carry out even more attacks in 2007. Explain to me, how is the US (and the allied forces of course) winning in Iraq?
Another typical example of Bush’s mindset:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Are you considering sending more U.S. troops to Iraq? What would be the justification for it? And how reliable is this new timetable of 12 to 18 months?THE PRESIDENT: I will send more troops to Iraq if General Casey says, I need more troops in Iraq to achieve victory. And that’s the way I’ve been running this war. I have great faith in General Casey. I have great faith in Ambassador Khalilzad. I trust our commanders on the ground to give the best advice about how to achieve victory. I want to remind you, victory is a government that can sustain itself, govern itself — a country that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, and serves as an ally in the war on terror — which stands in stark contrast to a government that would be chaotic, that would be a safe haven for the enemy to launch attacks on us.
One might think, ‘well, that’s reasonable’. The problem is: it’s not reasonable. Bush can see the facts. No matter what General Casey tells him, Bush should look at the situation, read the assessments for 2007 and by doing so, one thing should be extremely clear: there were always too little troops in Iraq. From the getgo. In 2003 and now in 2006. In the end, Bush is responsible. Bush is the Commander-in-Chief.
27 Responses to “Interview with George W. Bush”
I haven’t listened to any of the presidents interviews or the press conference yesterday. I know it’s not right but I don’t think he has anything new to say. and the fact that he’s taking time to grace us (citizens) with his presence to answer a few questions just proves how important he thinks politics are. These appearances have little if nothing to do with winnng in Iraq and everything to do with winning an election for the GOP.
yeah exactly and that is why it frustrates me. Iraq is a mess and instead of giving real answers, we get some kind of peptalk.
Charles Jordan is completely correct. Thay might not be able to operate a reasonable policy, but they sure do know their politics.
It’s all about the base.
If any of those reporters might have asked difficult questions, they would not have been invited!!
Never–or at least very, very infrequently–being challenged is part of the problem the Bush Administration has. It’s more comfortable in the short run, but in the long run it means you never even have to ask yourself difficult questions.
These interviewers will spin it direcrtly to the base, just like the Bush Administration wants it to be spun.
That’s what’s going on here. It’s what always goes on with these guys, isn’t it?
That’s the key. It’s easy to blame the media for not asking the tough questions but there’s a reason those who come in contact with Bush don’t ask the tough questions. Those who are allowed to come in contact with Bush or any of the other high ranking admin figures are carefully screened so the admin knows they are friendly and won’t ask the tough questions that the rest of us are sitting home saying need to be asked.
The basic problem is that you don’t have to work in a bipartisan way if your party controls every branch of government. That might change here soon, then things will get interesting. I really don’t know how he will handle it, the “cut and run� statements are not going to play with a Congress that will be determining just how much money you get to spend on the war and everything else. I hope it will be time for a reality check, if there is no Democratic victory we will be two more years without any constraints and a much deeper hole.
Great post, Michael. One of your best yet, because I know how strongly you believe in the overall strategy of democratization in the Middle East. I can’t help but contrast Bush’s refusal to adjust personnel and strategy with Lincoln’s repeated firing of incompetent generals in the Army of the Potomac. Had Bush been President in the Civil War, George McClellan would never have been fired and the Confederacy would be a separate country right now.
Very good Michael.
Inablility to discern and value the truth is, and always has been the problem.
But it has never helped when good honost Americans got labeled as ‘traitors’ for trying to tell the truth.
That should have been the first clue.
The president hasn’t said anything that gives me any confidence that the situation in the ME is improving, or that he has any ideas on how to get it to improve. His own expression of confidence in the outcomes of his policies appears to be ideology-based and faith-based, rather than on any objective evidence. Just a belief in liberty and freedom won’t have much effect on the ability of the Iraqi government to achieve Bush’s stated benchmarks.
The fact that the change in strategy comes so close to an election that Bush really needs to end in victory, taken with the fact that he neglected to state the consequences for the Iraqi government failing to meet those benchmarks, tells me this is just more political rhetoric. Maliki stated that he has not agreed to these terms, and understood that the speech had more to do with the election than the war—that tells me all I need to know.
My opinion of Bush’s eventual placement among earlier presidents, is that he will rank all the way at the bottom, as a partisan incompetent, who deceived his countrymen about the war he couldn’t win, and demanded unquestioning loyalty from his fellow Republicans.
Bush’s management style has always been to be the motivator, and he seems to think that by just setting the overall agenda and tone that his subordinates will get the job done. That style of management can be effective, but only if the manager is a realist who can continually evaluate whether or not the subordinates are performing as they need to, and then deal with the situation when they are not. Instead of that type of realism, Bush is completely blinded by loyalty; if the subordinates share his vision, he thinks that is all it takes; he misses the critical factor that with this type of leadership, he is the one who provides the vision and then he has to put competent people in place to enact it, and he has to hold them accountable.
Maybe someone in his senior staff can put together a DVD to explain the situation to W. Without a threat to little Barney’s or his bimbo twins. I doubt if he will CARE. Those Islamo-Stooges want to kill little dogs.
Bush and Cheney seem inordinately interested in increasing the power of the executive, but don’t have the ability to handle it effectively. Then they refuse to acknowledge that failure, deflecting blame in a partisan manner to their opponents.
Rudi, as I begin to understand it… Rumsfeld and Cheney play an important role in this.
C.Stanley: exactly. He is not doing that. I read that some people say Bush is intellectually lazy, that pretty much sums it all up. He doesn’t ask. No follow up questions. Not ever.
Look: being a motivator is important. But he should also question what the hell they are doing. He doesn’t. That’s his major problem and he does not stop making that mistake.
It’s unbelievable.
Snark and Elrod thanks.
Kim Ritter is–no surprise–right.
They are managing to blame their own failures on their opponants’ attitude. It’s like Tinkerbell is dying because the audience didn’t applaud enough.
Does that make sense? It’s all I’ve got to explain how it’s worked.
Whatever it is, plenty of people have been buying it.
There’s certainly been deflection of blame and not enough accountability, but I don’t see that going on in this particular exchange. Bush pretty forcefully said that he does take responsibility; the trouble is that he didn’t say what he means by that- in other words, what is he going to do about it.
I agree with you, CS. Part of taking responsibility is actually making the changes that are necessary to make the policies work. Since he also said we are winning the war in Iraq, I don’t think he has much credibility anymore. My last comment referred to his pattern overall-not what he said yesterday.
I may be a jerk most of the time and particularly bitch about MvdG posts, but I should also give credit to good work.
This post was very good, thanks.
There will always be those prepared to defend Bush as a President- good on some things, weak on others. What is beyond debate at this point is his ability as a commander in chief.
Afghanistan was abandoned and is in the process of falling back into the hands of Al Qaeda’s best friends in all the world, the Taliban. Iraq is a defeat snatched from the jaws of victory, on the verge of civil war and will never be the democracy or the ally Bush fantasises about.
And the real enemy (that group behind 9/11, the ones who planned, paid for, and rejoiced at the deaths of 3000 innocent people), they just get stronger with their very own training ground in Iraq and their best buddies returning to power.
We needed a commander who could out-think America’s enemies, who was smarter and quicker and had more than slogans to wield. Who was honest enough to admit when things weren’t working, tough enough to ask his generals the hard questions, and man enough to listen and make the necessary changes when the bad news came.
Instead, we got a guy who, even now, with millions of Iraqi civilians facing into years of sectarian slaughter, would rather play politics than play to win.
From el presidente yesterday:
The President fails to grasp that “the people” need to know WHAT THE PLAN FOR VICTORY IS, not just that “we have a plan”.
As far as I can tell from the speech, the plan is to feed the American people the rhetorical runaround while “we” continue to “win” in Iraq?
I’m taking bets on how the number of days it takes for the President starts blaming the generals for lying to him about not needing troops.
Instead, we got a guy who, even now, with millions of Iraqi civilians facing into years of sectarian slaughter, would rather play politics than play to win.
Very true, truflo. I have been more critical of this president than of any other-partly because of what I see as overreaching for power, then incompetence in managing the power he has been given-most importantly in the two wars we are involved in. The task at hand is difficult and complicated beyond belief, and not too many believe any more that victory is close at hand.
To win he needs all Americans behind him, but he will never get their support. Why? Because his expertise is in campaigning and not policy-in dividing and conquering. He excels as the head of his party, but not as the head of the country. If he wants the support of all Americans he needs to draw in both sides to find a solution .
I believe a major reason that we are losing is because just as he decided we didn’t need the support of the international community, likewise he decided that he didn’t need the input of the Democrats-who represent half the country. I’ve never seen a president act so divisively in a time of war- and then expect the country to rally behind him. He plays to his base of core supporters- and that’s what he has left.
Republicans were asking this same exact question from 1992 to 2000. Pick sympathetic reporters who understand that hardball questions won’t get you another invite, and voila! Instant newsy love-fest.
Quite possibly the finest post you’ve made yet MvdG. You are starting to see very clearly why we have fallen to 53rd in the world in press freedom, because they gotta be friendly to Bush or no inteview.
On a side note if you can locate the films: A Face in the Crowd, and V for Vendetta I suggest seeing them.
Andrew and Pyst: thanks.
Pyst: I heard a lot about V for Vendetta. Very positive. I will watch it.
You gotta see “A Face in the Crowd” as well Michael. It mirrors the eventual rise of the modern socio/politcal pundits we see today such as Rush, and O’Reilly, eventho the film came out in 1957. Lonesome Rhodes (main character) uses his down home regular man image to drive his personal agendas/need for power/fame. It’s almost as if the modern pundits studied that film frame by frame, and soaked it all in.
It makes it hard to watch “The Andy Griffith Show” for awhile after seeing it LOL.
The unspoken but implicit question in the “interview” was “Mr. President, may we kiss your posterior?? Please, please, please?!?!?!”. Hey, I’m watching my language here.
BofA:
I don’t think 2800 soldiers died from 1992 to 2000 for a WMD War.
BofA:
You make a common ideologically-based mistake which is to assume that Dems = Reps and Reps = Dems, but with different faces, and that the game of politics is the same no matter who plays it. Or perhaps it is the mistake to simply see only arguments that support the Dems and dimiss those that attack the Reps, rather than really assess the nuanced truth in the matter. I must disagree with your position. You can’t just reverse the accusation.
With Bush came a hard shift in the way the administration controlled the message and favoured media outlets sympathetic to its ideology.
While every administration has of course tried to spin to their advantage, the current administration takes the promotion of their message to another level (almost force-feeding). The Bush administration has spun like everyone else, but also systematically intimidated, coerced, and squeezed out media with messages contrary to the party line. And there apppear to be very strong links between certain media outlets (e.g., Fox) and this adminstration. There many documented instances of the ways in which the Bush adminstration has controlled the media (e.g., if you don’t report what we want, you won’t get access any more), and of the ways in which the media have neutered themselves and dulled the debate when confronted with this administration’s bullying tactics (or is that strategies).
I think if you were to actually study the public record, you might find freer debate and more vigourous reporting of underlying issues during previous administrations since 1980, whether democrat or republican. I think that particularly Clinton invited a lot of debate and difficult questions, because he was such a damn good orateur he knew he could do a very good job of spinning his response (he did not have to rely so much on chaperoning and controlling the media to get his message out there). Of course, the freer, less controlled press was eventually to his detriment, and there were a lot of critical questions asked by the media which if they did not unseat him, certainly impaired his ability to govern in the way he wanted to. But that’s the way it should be! There should be critical questioning. (It is unfortunate that the critical questioning was more around his dalliances than any questionable policies he might have had). Under the Bush Machine, however, it’s a different story, and the media is a lot more restricted and self-censuring. In my humble opinion.
In Canada, we have seen the same kinds of transformation in our administrtions. We went from a Liberal majority under Jean Chretien to a Liberal minority government under Paul Martin to now a Conservative minority government under Steven Harper. Paul Martin, whatever his faults, believes in a liberal ideology of transparency, free debate, etc., with the sincere notion that if you are mostly honest, discuss the logic and dimensions of the issues openly, and do your best to put a brave face on the limitations and failures of government, that the public will come around to your position. This was ultimately to his detriment as he just looked wishy washy, as he did not have the Clintonesque skill or oration to really pull this off. Many people really wanted to hear a simpler message, and to hear strong assertions of policy (even if unrealistic). Now that Steven Harper is in power, he has implemented all kinds of Bush-like measures with his press:
- he almost never deviates from his prepared messages and slogans, ignoring other questions
- he sometimes entertains no questions after a press statement
- his Ministers and Members of Parlaiment are not allowed to speak directly to the press, unless they are first cleared by his office
- he has made several attempts to control the media conferences in ways none of his predecessors ever did
Of course, these strategies have been met with considerably more suspicion by the Canadian public and the press. Not that I am trying to say the Canadian public in general is superior or more savvy in any way than the American public
– just that the Steven Harper machine is much more amateurish about all this than say the George Bush machine. It’s a matter of scale and resources I suppose.
Again, we see a conservatively minded government with a strong ideological message taking tactical steps to keep the message and the reporting of it as uni-directional as possible, sometimes to the detriment of public debate and free discussion. I don’t mean to sound conspiracy minded, but this is a conscious and premeditated strategy of conservative governments everywhere. It is the product of conservative think tanks and high priced conservative consultants. Luckily we still have free enough media and forums for debate like this one, that the holes in the message will eventually come to light (regardless of Liberal/Conservative Republican/Democrat). It just takes longer when administrations do so much to deliberately quash facts and quash critical debate. Another reason to be wary of further pseudo-facist measures to control the media…