fGoT's Press Conference - 4/13/04

Transcript

This has been tough weeks in that country.

The former Governor of Texas didn't even make it two sentences before his illiteracy reared its ugly head and irritated me.

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.

First off, way to go George! You've manage to successfully unite former sworn enemies (Shiite and Sunni Muslims) under a common goal...the destruction of U.S. forces in Iraq. Next, it should be noted that democracy isn't something you can foist upon anyone. The Iraqi people would have to first want democracy in order to have hopes for it or to have those hopes destroyed. But George, in his rush to "secure" the oil fields of Iraq and make the Middle East safe for U.S. "interests" (in other words, business ventures), never bothered to ask the Iraqis if they wanted us to bring them democracy. In fact, many Iraqis have stated that democracy can't work in Iraq. The whole invasion was a farce. Saddam was no more a threat to his neighbors or the world than any other megalomaniacal dictator and the Iraqis were hardly begging for democracy. It was a power grab, pure and simple.

The violence we have seen is a power grab by these extreme and ruthless elements. It's not a civil war. It's not a popular uprising. Most of Iraq is relatively stable.

This is commonly known as "damage control". But not a very good example of it. To simply claim that what people are saying (Iraq will erupt in civil war, Iraq is unstable, there will be popular uprisings, etc.) isn't true without evidence -- and contrary to the fact that Iraq isn't stable and that there are popular uprisings -- can hardly be considered compelling. And what the hell is "relative" stability?

Most Iraqis by far reject violence and oppose dictatorship.

This is probably true. Which is why they want us out. They view you, George, as the oppressive dictator who has brought violence and destruction to them.

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.

Wow...now there's a revelation! The puppet government hand-picked by the hawks in Washington want the same thing as the hawks in Washington. Amazing!

By helping secure a free Iraq, Americans serving in that country are protecting their fellow citizens.

Oh, come on! This is such bullshit! I can't believe we, as a nation, let the fGoT get away with making such baseless claims. Saddam/Iraq was never a threat to the U.S. -- at least not any more than, say, North Korea and we seem to be managing that threat just dandy without the need for an all-out invasion of their country.

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.

Translation: "I'm a good war pResident, aren't I!"

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.

I guess anyone not of an Abrahamic faith can just piss off, then, is that it? They can just suffer in the hell that George has created by sending their children/spouses/parents to die for his political-financial war.

America's armed forces are performing brilliantly, with all the skill and honor we expect of them.

Oh, yeah. That's readily apparent. Just look at all the peace and prosperity in Iraq! See what a good job our soldiers are doing? I thought their mission was to bring peace and stability and prosperity and democracy to Iraq. Maybe it was just to kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. In that case, "Mission Accomplished"!

We're constantly reviewing their needs.

They need to not be in a country they don't belong getting shot at! Or maybe they just need enough Kevlar to go around. That might be nice. Or maybe they need hazard pay, or decent benefits once they return. That might be nice.

Troop strength now and in the future is determined by the situation on the ground.

The situation is bad.

If additional forces are needed, I will send them -- provided it doesn't require me sending anyone I know. If additional resources are needed, we will provide them -- provided it doesn't cut into my estate.

Okay, so I embellished. A little. Call it artistic license.

As a proud, 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're a liberating power, as nations in Europe and Asia can attest as well.

And the nations in Central and South America? And Southeast Asia? (Think Panama, think Vietnam, think Grenada, etc, etc). How would they feel about our status as a "liberating" power? I think they all have a slightly different perspective.

We will not step back from our pledge. On June 30th, Iraqi sovereignty will be placed in Iraqi hands.

Really? Will the Iraqi people get a vote? No? Hmm...as evidenced by the not-so-slow erosion of our voting rights here in America, it's clear that the fGoT has a horribly twisted idea of how democracy works.

Sovereignty involves more than a date and a ceremony. It requires Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own future.

In other words, once June 30th passes, it's no longer our problem. If Iraq implodes, it'll be because of their own shortcomings and failings. It'll have nothing to do with us and the downward spiral into which we forced them.

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.

Then what the hell is the point of "turning over" Iraq to the Iraqis?? If our military is still the dominant force in Iraq, we will hardly have turned over control.

Having helped Iraqis establish a new government, coalition military forces will help Iraqis to protect their government from external aggression and internal subversion.

So...our military will remain in order to ensure that the U.S. puppet government isn't threatened by any actual Iraqis.

The terrorists who take hostages or plants (sic) 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.

...is the same as the terrorist who blows up an abortion clinic or murders gynocologists with shotguns and sniper rifles.

None of these acts is the work of a religion.

Maybe not directly, but religion certainly has a way of fueling the fire and enabling and motivating extremists, now doesn't it.

All are the work of a fanatical political ideology.

You ought to know, eh George?

They seek to oppress and persecute women.

And you would never advocate that the rights of women be infringed, now would you, George? I guess by pushing for a ban on women's reproductive freedom, you're just trying to protect women, right? Funny. That's the same thing Muslim extremists say when they force women to wear burqas and to walk behind men or ride in the back of a car or when they tell them they can't have an education.

And they seek weapons of mass destruction, to blackmail and murder on a massive scale.

More empty rhetoric and fear mongering.

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.

Come on, George, don't be afraid to call it what your predecessors called it: the domino theory. Except that I guess you can't call it that since the domino theory proved not to be true and how useful is an empty, fallacious theory. Well, apparently quite, if you just rename it.

For the first time, the civilized world has provided a concerted response to the ideology of terror -- a series of powerful, effective blows.

Yes, we have been getting our asses kicked in Fallujah, haven't we.

The terrorists have lost the shelter of the Taliban and the training camps in Afghanistan. They have lost safe havens in Pakistan.

Yeah, right!

They lost an ally in Baghdad.

They never had an ally in Baghdad. More fear mongering and lies.

And perhaps more frightening to these men and their movement, the terrorists are seeing the advance of freedom and reform in the greater Middle East.

Where, exactly?

The consequences of failure in Iraq would be unthinkable.

They're not unthinkable, George, they're reality. Look around you!

And now for the "unscripted" portion of the press conference. Let's count the "on message" phrases used to avoid answering the question asked, shall we?

stay the course...A free Iraq...we're making progress...we're doing the right thing...I just don't make decisions that way (based on polls)...We're changing the world, and the world will be better off...the advance of freedom...advance toward a free society...

We interrupt this fun little exercise to bring you the following question, asked by a reporter at the press conference and promptly not answered by the fGoT.

QUESTION: 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 of false premises?

Now there's a question for you! If only the press had the balls to press the issue when George avoids the question.

And now back to our regularly scheduled reckoning of on-message buzz phrases:

...Saddam Hussein was a threat...he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people (which we sold him)...He was a threat because he coddled terrorists (much like we do. Hello Mr. Sharon, how are you today?)...He was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States...he refused to disarm (acutally, Saddam did disarm)...We knew they were hiding things (huh...apparently they were hiding the fact that they weren't hiding anything. so well, that Bush thought they really were hiding something)...A country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting caught (hypocritical ass!...physician, heal thy self!)...Saddam had the ability to produce biological and chemical weapons...he was a danger...It's their oil, and they'll use it to reconstruct the country...This guy was a torturer, a killer, a maimer. There's mass graves...he was a horrible individual...

Okay, time for another breather.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE), 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?

BUSH: Let me put that quote to Woodward in context, because he had asked me if I was -- something about killing bin Laden. That's what the question was.

And I said, you know, compared to how I felt at the time, after the attack, I didn't have that -- and I also went on to say, my blood wasn't boiling, I think is what the quote said.

Oh, hey, well, thanks for clearing that all up.

Oh, hey...here's another good question that didn't get answered:

QUESTION: 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 that there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?

And back to the accounting task...

The country was not on a war footing, and yet the enemy was at war with us. And it didn't take me long to put us on a war footing. And we've been on a war ever since...we must deal with gathering threats...the country wasn't on war footing, and yet we're at war...we weren't on a war footing...I still know Saddam Hussein was a threat...the world is better off without Saddam Hussein...we would have moved heaven and earth to save the country...had we had any inkling that this was going to happ...we must remain steadfast and strong...the country really wasn't on a war footing...Iraq is a part of the war on terror...I'm of the belief that we'll find out the truth on the weapons (we already have...there aren't any there)...They could still be there. They could be hidden...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 (irrelevant to the current invasion, two totally different times frames being talked about)...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 (like you, George?)...we'll stay the course, we'll complete the job...My message to our troops is, we'll stay the course and complete the job...if I tried to fine-tune my messages based upon polls...

This might be the biggest avoidance of a question yet:

QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?

BUSH: We'll 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.

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.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.

BUSH: 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.

So, let me get this straight. The answer to "Why are you and the VP appearing together in front of the 9/11 commission?" is "We're looking forward to answering the 9/11 commission's questions".

QUESTION: 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?

BUSH: And the, frankly, mood of the world would have been astounded had the United States acted unilaterally in trying to deal with al-Qaida in that part of the world.

Oh, you mean like how the world as astounded and outraged when the U.S. acted unilaterally against Iraq?

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.

Yeah, huge success that was. An operation like that can't be carried out by one person. And even if it could, once he was busted, what happened? He was immediately pardoned. Huge success there!

This was a shadowy network of folks that were willing to sell state secrets to the highest bidder.

So it wasn't just one man. Did we bust the whole lot of them? Do we even know who "they" were?

QUESTION: 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 learned from it?

BUSH: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.

In other words, "...so Karl could've told me what to say".

John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've 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 answer, but it hadn't yet.

Surprise, surprise! Nothing popped in to the fGoT's head. How shocking!

I hope -- I don't want to sound like I have 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.

He's confident he's made mistakes, but he can't come up with one. Huh. Sounds a lot like WMD in Iraq. He's confident that they're there, but he can't come up with them. And if there's one thing that's for sure, it's that Bush has made mistakes. Oh, and that he's not quick -- on his feet, on his ass, laying down...

This is the war that other presidents will be facing as we head into the 21st century.

We're already in the 21st century. We headed into it last century. It would be nice if the Repugs would join us here in the 21st century where women control their bodies, where gays and lesbians are treated as equal citizens, where we don't fight holy wars and where we don't believe in archaic mythology.

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.

Just not the way George is going about it. See below.

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.

George just doesn't get it. You have to give a voice to those who don't have one. You can't just march in to their contry and say, "Here! Have some freedom! Do it like we do!" Terrorism exists because people have been forced in to a corner and have no other option. If you give them other options, if you give them a voice and listen to them, the terrorism will stop. Violence only begets violence, as evidence by the current debacle in Iraq and in Israel/Palestine.

So long as I'm the president, I will press for freedom. I believe so strongly in the power of freedom.

But only for those who share your extreme ideology.

You know why I do? Because I've seen freedom work right here in our own country.

You mean like at Diebold, where they've developed the technology to rig elections without any trace? You mean like in your endorsement of granting gays and lesbians equal rights? You mean like in in your support of women's reproductive rights? The only freedom George believes in is the freedom of the uber-wealthy to be free of responsibility or the burden of paying their fair share for maintaining society.

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.

Just so long as they're rich, white, and man and woman, not man and man or woman and woman, and so long as the man has final say over what he woman can do.

QUESTION: Following on both Judy 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 have failed as a communicator on this topic.

BUSH: Gosh, I don't know. I mean ...

QUESTION: Well, you deliver a lot of speeches, and a lot of them contain similar phrases and may 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. It's pretty somber.

BUSH: A pretty somber assessment today, Don, yes.

QUESTION: But 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?

Another good question that never got answered.