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.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.