CBS News’ Katie Couric had an odd, six-minute interview with the president during his quick visit to Iraq on Monday, which CBS aired last night. There were a couple of noteworthy exchanges, but this one stood out.
Couric: The surge was designed to help the Iraqi government to move forward. Do you believe there really is tangible evidence worthy of 30,000 additional American troops?
President Bush: Oh absolutely. First of all there’s security…you cannot move forward without security. I mean if people are sitting around saying “I’m worried about my life”, it’s difficult to get political reconciliation. Security yields political reconciliation. This example [Anbar province] is the classic case of bottom-up reconciliation.
I don’t think so. Maybe the president is confused about what’s happened in Anbar province, or perhaps he just doesn’t know what “reconciliation” means, but the Awakening, while encouraging, is not an example of anyone reconciling with anyone else.
This continues to be a point of confusion for war supporters, so perhaps we should just take a moment to spell things out. A year ago, AQI wore out its welcome in Anbar — that tends to happen with al Qaeda, wherever they go — and Sunni tribes and militias decided to start driving them out. The U.S. decided to let them, and offered support to some of the same Sunnis who’ve been killing Americans for a few years.
“Reconciliation,” in Iraq, refers to resolving Shi’a and Sunni differences. When Sunni insurgents attack Sunni AQI, that’s good news, but to describe it as “reconciliation” is kind of bizarre.
For that matter, Couric’s question focused on “tangible evidence” of political progress as a result of the surge. In response, Bush pointed to Anbar, where the progress predates, and is unrelated to, the surge.
I wasn’t thrilled with Couric’s questions, but to her credit, at least she had the wherewithal to follow up with Bush on this point.
Couric: But this is a Sunni area, and you don’t have the sectarian problems that you do in other places in Iraq.
President Bush: Well you do have people who’s psyche was terribly scarred by Saddam Hussein…. Listen, it’s going to take time. And the question is, whether or not the United States of America understands the consequences of failure in Iraq. And I certainly hope they do and I will continue to make the case that failure in Iraq…in other words, if we leave Iraq before the job is done, the enemy will follow us home and that’s important for people to understand.
It was almost amusing to watch. Bush said Anbar is proof of surge-driven reconciliation. Couric suggests that doesn’t really make any sense. Bush says it doesn’t matter if it makes sense because Iraq’s civil war will follow us home.
Nearly five years after starting this conflict, the poor ol’ president still can’t offer coherent explanations for his own beliefs. In fact, Bush went on to tell Couric that critics of his policy don’t care about what happens in Iraq.
“I would hope that Congress would pay attention to what General Petraeus has to say. He is a…unless they really don’t care about failure. If people don’t care whether we fail or not it’s going to be a tough sell. If there are people in Congress like I think there are who are deeply concerned about the security of the United States, I think they will listen very carefully to what General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have to say.”
It was Bush at his most dickish.
So, Couric, and experienced and powerful journalist, naturally realized she’s been sold a bill of goods, right? Wrong.
One week before Gen. David Petraeus is expected to give his report on U.S. progress in Iraq, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric says she has already seen dramatic improvements in the country.
“We hear so much about things going bad, but real progress has been made there in terms of security and stability,” Couric said Tuesday. “I mean, obviously, infrastructure problems abound, but Sunnis and U.S. forces are working together. They banded together because they had a common enemy: al Qaeda.”
This clip was widely distributed this morning by the Republican National Committee.
As Prof. DeLong likes to ask, “Why oh why can’t we have a better press corps?”
Post Script: By the way, in a six-minute interview, Bush used the phrase “in other words” four times, each time for no apparent reason. It’s become his favorite verbal tic, and it’s exceedingly annoying. As Jon Stewart recently explained, “Here’s the thing, Mr. President. People who use the phrase, ‘in other words,’ think we don’t understand what they’re saying. We understand what you’re saying. The look on our face isn’t confusion. It’s disbelief. In other words, we understand, we just don’t f**king get it.”