Have I mentioned lately how much I love presidential press conferences? Today, Bush appeared for an hour in the fancy-schmancy new briefing room, though the actual Q&A was about half that (the president read a lengthy statement at the outset about the latest White House report on “progress” in Iraq).
Nevertheless, there were some noteworthy exchanges. I’m going to break this up into three posts — Iraq, al Qaeda, and Plame scandal. First up, Iraq policy.
Q: Mr. President, you started this war, a war of your choosing, and you can end it alone, today, at this point — bring in peacekeepers, U.N. peacekeepers. Two million Iraqis have fled their country as refugees. Two million more are displaced. Thousands and thousands are dead. Don’t you understand, you brought the al Qaeda into Iraq.
Bush: Actually, I was hoping to solve the Iraqi issue diplomatically. That’s why I went to the United Nations and worked with the United Nations Security Council, which unanimously passed a resolution that said disclose, disarm or face serious consequences. That was the message, the clear message to Saddam Hussein. He chose the course…. It was his decision to make.
How did Saddam chose this course? U.N. weapons inspectors were in the country. They couldn’t find non-existent weapons, so Bush took them out. This was whose decision?
Q: Mr. President, in addition to members of your own party, the American public is clamoring for a change of course in Iraq. Why are you so resistant to that idea, and how much longer are you willing to give the surge to work before considering a change in this policy?
Bush: First, I understand why the American people are — you know, they’re tired of the war. There is — people are — there is a war fatigue in America. It’s affecting our psychology.
Yes, it’s our fault. We’re letting Bush’s failed policy get to us. Bush could change the policy, but he prefers that we change our attitude. For a White House that tends to hate putting the president “on the couch,” it looks like Bush has put the whole country “on the couch.”
“David asked for a certain number of troops — David Petraeus asked for a certain number — General Petraeus asked for a certain number of troops, and he just got them a couple of weeks ago.”
Bush is intent on characterizing the surge as having just gotten underway. This is absurd. The escalation began in January. As one reporter reminded Bush, “[T]hree-quarters of the troops for the surge were in place during the period when this July interim report was written.”
Q: But there has been no substantial political progress, even with three-quarters of the troops in there. Will you keep that going through September, even if there isn’t?
Bush: Martha, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have felt all along that the security situation needed to change in order for there to be political progress. It’s very hard for a young democracy to function with the violence that was raging. Secondly, there’s a lot of — a lot of the past that needs to be worked through the system. I mean, living under the brutal tyrant Saddam Hussein created a lot of anxiety and a lot of tensions and a lot of rivalry, and it’s going to take a while to work it through. But they couldn’t work through those tensions and rivalries in the midst of serious violence.
They still can’t work through those “tensions” and they’re still in “the midst of serious violence.” For that matter, the “tensions” between Sunnis and Shia in Iraq pre-date Saddam’s dictatorship by a few centuries.
“Let me make sure you understand what I’m saying. Congress has all the right in the world to fund. That’s their main involvement in this war, which is to provide funds for our troops. What you’re asking is whether or not Congress ought to be basically determining how troops are positioned, or troop strength. And I don’t think that would be good for the country.”
When it comes to the war, in other words, Congress is nothing more than an ATM. It has “all the right in the world” to give Bush money. Anything else is entirely unacceptable.
Q: You have spoken passionately about the consequences of failure in Iraq. Your critics say you failed to send enough troops there at the start, failed to keep al Qaeda from stepping into the void created by the collapse of Saddam’s army, failed to put enough pressure on Iraq’s government to make the political reconciliation necessary to keep the sectarian violence the country is suffering from now from occurring. So why should the American people feel you have the vision for victory in Iraq, sir?
Bush: Those are all legitimate questions that I’m sure historians will analyze.
I don’t think the president understood the question. We’re looking for some sense of why anyone should believe anything Bush says about he war, since he’s gotten literally everything wrong for nearly five years. The point isn’t to pass this off for future generations to look back on; the point is to convince the nation that the president still deserves our trust.
The fact that Bush couldn’t answer the question tells us about all we need to know.