Truespeak

As if he were trying to prove my point from yesterday, President Bush held a train wreck of a press conference today with Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Appearing together in the White House Rose Garden for what should have been a tailor-made photo-op, the two men each read a prepared statement basically kissing each other's asses. Everything seemed to be going as planned. Then Bush did the unthinkable; he said "We'll take a couple of questions now." That's when the wheels started coming off.

From the very first question it was clear that Bush was in over his head.

QUESTION: Two more Americans have been beheaded, more than 300 Iraqis have been killed in the last week, Fallujah is out of government control and U.S. and Iraqi forces have been unable to bring security to diplomatic and commercial centers of Baghdad.

Why haven't U.S. forces been able to capture or kill al-Zarqawi, who's blamed for much of the violence? And what's your answer to General John Abizaid's statement that, "I think we will need more troops than we currently have"?

BUSH: If that's what he says -- he was in my office this morning, he didn't say that to me. But if he were to say that, I'd listen to him. Just like I've said all along that when our commanders say that they need support, they'll get support, because we're going to succeed in this mission.

The first part of the question was how come we haven't found Zarqawi? We're looking for him. He hides.

Really? He's hiding? Well, that explains everything. No wonder we haven't found him, he's pulling that old bin Laden trick. Who would have thought that he'd be hiding. Are you kidding me? This is his answer? Sure, he went on to make some unrelated statements about thugs and the war on terror, but he never answered the question.

Question two:

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) level with the American people about how tough it is there. How do your respond to him?

BUSH: It's hard work in Iraq. Everybody knows that. We see it on our TV.

My message is that we will stay the course and stand with these people so that they become free. It's in our national interest we do so.
.....
And I believe a leader must be consistent and clear and not change positions when times get tough. And the times have been hard. These are hard times.

But I understand what mixed messages do. You can embolden an enemy by sending mixed messages. You can dispirit the Iraqi people by sending mixed messages. You send the wrong message to our troops by sending mixed messages.

That's why I will continue to lead with clarity in a resolute way. Because I understand the stakes. These are high stakes and we'll succeed.

In other words, he's not leveling with anyone. Notice the talking points: stay the course, consistent, mixed messages, clarity. They're all there, but still no answer.

Question three came from the Iraqi press and was pretty much a softball about funding for Iraq so we'll skip that one.

Question four was asked by NBC's David Gregory. Unfortunately, the only transcript I can find comes from Fox News and they've cut the majority of the question. I had to do with the current situation in Iraq (beheadings, kidnapping, bombings, etc.) and ended as follows:

QUESTION: the central theme of your campaign is that America is safer because of the invasion of Iraq.

Can you understand why Americans may not believe you?

BUSH: No. Anybody who says that we're safer with Saddam Hussein in power is wrong.

We went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein defied the demands of the free world. We went into Iraq after diplomacy had failed and we went into Iraq because I understand, after September 11th, we must take threats seriously before they come to hurt us.

And I think it's a preposterous claim to say that America would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power. I certainly know that that's the case for America and I certainly know that's the case for the Iraqi people.

These are the people who were tortured. This good man was in bed in a London flat and he wakes up with two Saddam henchmen there with axes trying to cut him to pieces with an ax.

And fortunately, he's alive today. Fortunately, we call him friend and ally. But he knows what it means to have lived under a society in which a thug like Saddam Hussein would send people with axes to try to kill him in bed in a London flat.

No, this world is better off with Saddam Hussein in prison.

As you can see, he failed yet again to answer the question. But lo and behold, Gregory had the balls to call him on it.

QUESTION: Sir, may I just follow? Because I don't think you're really answering the question.

I mean, I think you're responding to Senator Kerry. There are beheadings regularly, the insurgent violence continues, and there are no weapons of mass destruction.

My question is, can you understand that Americans may not believe you when you say that America is actually safer today?

BUSH: Imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein were still in power. This is a man who harbored terrorists: Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Zarqawi. This is a man who's a sworn enemy of the United States of America. This is a man who used weapons of mass destruction.

Going from tyranny to democracy's hard work. But I think the argument that says that if Saddam Hussein were still in power we'd be better off is wrong.

Still no answer, just talking points. Unfortunately, the transcript fails to convey the entire picture here. When Gregory accused the president of not answering the question, Bush let out an exassperated sigh reminiscent of Al Gore in the first 2000 debate. It was as if he couldn't believe someone would have the audacity to point that out in front of the cameras. He quickly moved on to question five:

QUESTION: Sir, I'd like you to answer Senator Kerry and other critics who accuse you of hypocrisy or opportunism, when on the one hand you put so much stock in the CIA when it said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and now say it is just guessing when it paints a pessimistic picture of the political transition.....

BUSH: .....Listen, the other day I was asked about the NIE, which is a national intelligence estimate. This is a report that talks about possibilities about what can happen in Iraq, not probabilities.

I used an unfortunate word, "guess." I should have used "estimate."

And the CIA came and said, "This is a possibility, this is a possibility and this is a possibility." But what's important for the American people to hear is reality. And the reality's right here in the form of the prime minister. And he is explaining what is happening on the ground. That's the best report.

And this report was written in July. And now we are here in September. And, as I said, "estimate" would have been a better word.

So he would have replaced "guess" with "estimate." Big deal, it doesn't change what he said. Even with the alternate wording, he's claiming that our intelligence agencies are estimating. Did they estimate that Saddam had WMD? Did they estimate that an attack from Saddam was imminent? Did they estimate about Saddam's ties to al Qaeda? I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly feel more secure knowing that our government is operating on estimates. At this point, Bush still hasn't answered a single legitimate question. It would continue like this for the remaining three questions.

As I said yesterday, President Bush is out of answers. He's been reduced to nonsensical ramblings and speaking in soundbites. The best thing for the Kerry campaign at this point is to hope that Bush holds more press conferences. The more he talks, the worse he looks.

What I don't understand is why he was allowed to take questions today. Karl Rove had the perfect photo-op. It was all there: the new Iraqi Prime Minister, the President, the flags representing each country, the rose garden, the White House; it was perfect. Then he let Bush go without a net and it all went to hell. God, I can't wait for the debates. Kerry's going to kill him.