I’m not sure why I get excited about Bush’s press conferences; it’s not as if I expect informative answers and an insightful perspective on key events. Maybe I watch because I’m confident that the president will invariably get stuck on some important point, intentionally misstate the truth, and/or flub an answer entirely. It’s a bit like driving by a car wreck and not being able to look away.
By my notes, there were a few highlights to note from today’s event. First up, Iran.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. I want to follow up on Iran one more time. You saying today that you do not know if senior members of the Iranian government are, in fact, behind these explosives — that contradicts what U.S. officials said in Baghdad on Sunday. They said the highest levels of the Iranian government were behind this. It also — it seems to square with what General Pace has been saying, but contradicts with what your own press secretary said yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Can I — let me — I can’t say it more plainly: there are weapons in Iraq that are harming U.S. troops because of the Quds force. And as you know, I hope, that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. Whether Ahmadinejad ordered the Quds force to do this, I don’t think we know. But we do know that they’re there, and I intend to do something about it. And I’ve asked our commanders to do something about it. And we’re going to protect our troops.
Q But given some of contradictions, Mr. President —
THE PRESIDENT: There’s no contradiction that the weapons are there and they were provided by the Quds force, Ed.
Q What assurances can you give the American people that the intelligence this time will be accurate?
THE PRESIDENT: Ed, we know they’re there, we know they’re provided by the Quds force. We know the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. I don’t think we know who picked up the phone and said to the Quds force, go do this, but we know it’s a vital part of the Iranian government.
First, that was some really solid questioning from CNN’s Ed Henry, pushing Bush (respectfully) to explain himself. Second, there is a contradiction between the administration saying it’s sure that the highest levels of the Iranian government are responsible for using weapons against the U.S. and the president saying he isn’t sure. And third, as Spencer Ackerman noted, Bush is deliberately making “an argument by innuendo.”
Next up, whether Iraq is in a civil war.
Q Do you believe it’s a civil war, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: I can only tell you what people on the ground, whose judgment — it’s hard for me, living in this beautiful White House, to give you an assessment, firsthand assessment. I haven’t been there; you have, I haven’t.
That’s a great way for the president to demonstrate how in-touch he is, isn’t it? He’s living in the “beautiful White House,” so he’s hesitant to describe the conflict as a civil war.
The most entertaining exchange dealt with the Scooter Libby trial.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, we’ve now learned through sworn testimony that at least three members of your administration, other than Scooter Libby, leaked Valerie Plame’s identity to the media. None of these three is known to be under investigation. Without commenting on the Libby trial, then, can you tell us whether you authorized any of these three to do that, or were they authorized without your permission?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks, Pete. I’m not going to talk about any of it.
Q They’re not under investigation, though?
THE PRESIDENT: Peter, I’m not going to talk about any of it.
Q How about pardons, sir? Many people are asking whether you might pardon —
THE PRESIDENT: Not going to talk about it, Peter.
By the third refusal, the president was almost singing the words. One got the sense that this might be a sensitive subject for Bush.
And, finally, there was this exchange about those who dare to disagree with Bush about the war.
Q I’d like to follow on Sheryl’s question about undermining the troops. Do you have to support the war to support the war here? I mean, if you’re one of those Americans that thinks you’ve made a terrible mistake, that it’s destined to end badly, what do you do? If they speak out, are they by definition undermining the troops?
THE PRESIDENT: No, she actually asked “the enemy,” not “the troops.” But I’ll be glad to answer your question. No, I don’t think so at all. I think you can be against my decision and support the troops, absolutely. But the proof will be whether or not you provide them the money necessary to do the mission.
I said early in my comment — my answer to Sheryl was, somebody who doesn’t agree with my policy is just as patriotic a person as I am. Your question is valid. Can somebody say, we disagree with your tactics or strategy, but we support the military — absolutely, sure. But what’s going to be interesting is if they don’t provide the flexibility and support for our troops that are there to enforce the strategy that David Petraeus, the general on the ground, thinks is necessary to accomplish the mission.
As Josh Marshall put it, this was a bit like saying, “To be patriotic you don’t have to agree with my policy, but you do have to support it.”
Ultimately, grading on a curve, I’d give Bush a C-. His answers about Russia were almost coherent; his defense of the North Korean negotiations wasn’t completely ridiculous; and he managed to go the whole hour without saying “Democrat Party.” On the other hand, Bush seemed confused about Iran; scared of the Libby trial; and delusional about Iraq.
All in all, I’ve seen him worse.
