by Mark Silva
President Bush, holding only his fourth solo press conference of the year today, also staged his first in the newly remodeled press briefing room of the West Wing, where it became clear rather quickly that the furniture and lighting are about all that is new in this room.
At one point, the president called on a reporter for the Washington Post, and a reporter for the Washington Times seated behind the Post man thought he had been tapped.
"Thank you, Mr. President...'' said the Times man.
"No, not you,''' Bush said.
"Ohhhh....'' moaned a roomful of reporters sounding somewhat like a Greek chorus missing only the robes.
"Okay, was that harsh?'' Bush asked.
"Yes,'' replied the chorus in unanimous admonishment.
"Like the new hall, I should have been more gentle?'' Bush asked, sparking laughter. "Do we ever use 'kinder and gentler'? No.''
So both the Times and the Post got their answers -- or at least responses.
Bush breaks in new stage. White House photo by Chris Greenberg.
And truth be told, when the president called on "Mark,'' there was a moment of silence in the room, with at least three Marks present, before this one piped up and grabbed the question -- about Bush's homeland security secretary saying he has a "gut feeling'' about an imminent terrorist attack against the U.S. despite an absence of any "credible intelligence'' on that.
What is the president's "gut'' telling him, this Mark asked.
"My gut tells me that -- which my head tells me, as well -- is that when we find a credible threat, I'll share it with people, to make sure that we protect the homeland,'' the president said. "My head also tells me that al Qaeda is a serious threat to our homeland.''
The president already had refused to "speculate'' on what the next progress report about the situation in Iraq in September might say. So when Ed Chen, reporter with Bloomberg News, asked a similar question, Bush basically told him he shouldn't expect any answer.
"Can I have a follow-up?'' Chen asked.
"Yes, you can,'' Bush said, "because you're about to realize I'm not going to answer your question -- (laughter in the room) -- except to say this: There's going to be great temptation to -- not "temptation," you won't be tempted, you will actually ask me to speculate about what David Petraeus will talk to us about when he comes home. And I just ask the American people to understand that the Commander-in-Chief must rely upon the wisdom and judgment of the military thinkers and planners.''
Bush isn't big on multiple-edged questions, or on follow-up questions.
And Bush suggested that there is really nothing new about this new press briefing room after David Gregory of NBC News followed up on this question:
"Last November, your own CIA Director... (told you) The inability of the (Iraqi) government to govern seems irreversible. He could not point to any milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around. And he said, in talking about the government, that it's balanced, but it cannot function... ''
"Yes,'' said Bush.
Gregory, right, pressed for followup. White House photo by Eric Draper.
"When you heard that,'' Gregory asked, "since that point, you think of how many hundreds of soldiers have been killed, how much money has been spent. Why shouldn't people conclude that you are either stubborn, in denial, but certainly not realistic about the strategy that you've pursued since then?''
Toward the end of a long answer, Bush said: "Remember, there's another political reconciliation track taking place, as well, and that's the one that's taking place at the grassroots level. (CIA Director) Mike Hayden talked about that, as well.''
"But you think you've been realistic about the strategy and what's possible?'' Gregory asked.
" Well -- thank you for the follow-up -- nothing has changed in the new room,'' Bush replied. "Anyway -- yes. As I told you last November, right about this time, I was part of that group of Americans who didn't approve of what was taking place in Iraq because it looked like all the efforts we had taken to that point in time were about to fail.
"In other words, sectarian violence was really raging,'' Bush said. "And I had a choice to make, and that was to pull back, as some suggested, and hope that the chaos and violence that might occur in the capital would not spill out across the country, or send more troops in to prevent the chaos and violence from happening in the first place -- and that's the decision I made. So it was a realistic appraisal by me.''
The grandest gesture of this press conference was Bush's pick for the first question: Newspaper columnist and veteran reporter Helen Thomas, who is an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq. Thomas holds a seat front and center in the new room.
"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,'' Thomas told Bush. "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?''
The president replied: "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,'' Bush said. "Obviously, it was a difficult decision for me to make, to send our brave troops, along with coalition troops, into Iraq. I firmly believe the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. Now the fundamental question facing America is will we stand with this young democracy, will we help them achieve stability, will we help them become an ally in this war against extremists and radicals that is not only evident in Iraq, but it's evident in Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories and Afghanistan.''
"We're at the beginning stages of a great ideological conflict between those who yearn for peace and those who want their children to grow up in a normal, decent society, and radicals and extremists who want to impose their dark vision on people throughout the world,'' he said.
"Iraq is obviously -- Helen, it's got the attention of the American people, as it should; this is a difficult war and it's a tough war,'' the president said. "But as I have consistently stated throughout this presidency, it is a necessary war to secure our peace.''
And as Bush attempted to make his way out of the crowded new room after nearly an hour of press confering, Martha Raddatz of ABC News snagged him with another question about the status of al Qaeda today. Bush, who might have easily pivoted and turned toward the exit had this press conference been held in wider quarters such as the formal East Room, remained to answer the question -- raising yet another question about when the next conference might be held in this intimate new room where followups are permitted and oversights made right.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I like how Bush refers to the war --"its a difficult war, a tough war." Aren't most wars? Its a war, period. The fact that he says this just reminds me of how easy he, Cheney and Rumsfeld must of stupidly thought this was going to be. Most wars are tough, sir. There's more to it than landing on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit to celebrate.
Posted by: kb | July 12, 2007 4:43 PM
Hey Mark,
Just a suggestion for a slow news day (maybe the weekend). Post a sense of the mechanics of the WH press corps and how it works (or doesn't). For instance, I have no idea how many reporters were in the Brady Room today (other than three Marks). What's the pecking order for questions, and how is that arranged, etc? How does the press pool work?
You get the idea. I'm not looking for trade secrets, just a better sense of what goes on.
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | July 12, 2007 5:06 PM
kb,
This is actually progress for the word challenged president. He may have gotten out of his rut of sayin', "war is hard". What gave him the clue, all those casualties?
"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —President Bush, discussing the Iraq war with Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, after Robertson told him he should prepare the American people for casualties.
Rove denies Bush said this, Pat Robertson didn't back down on his statement to the contrary.
Posted by: dt | July 12, 2007 5:16 PM
Mark Silva,
I don't know how you and your colleagues do it.
I watched the press conference on TV and I wanted to pull my hair out listening to the non-answers coming out of the moron-in-chief.
Posted by: Doug Zook | July 12, 2007 5:35 PM
And what does the scumbag-in-chief tell us from his ivory tower - he is aware someone in his mis-administration leaked Plame's name!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19728346/
Excuse me while I go toss my cookies.
Posted by: snitramc | July 12, 2007 6:03 PM
-CHENEY'S GOT A GUN-
apologies to Aerosmith
Click...oh no, Cheney what'a ya done
Click..oh no, that's the sound of Cheney's gun
Click..oh no now that's the sound..it's the sound
Run run run
Run run run
Cheney's got a gun
Cheney's got a gun
White House Press corp is on the run
He's lookin' straight at the sun
What's he gonna do?
They say ol' Cheney can't be arrested
They say he's above the law
Now that Cheney's got a gun
Whole White House Press Corp is on the run
Cheney's got a gun
Cheney's got a gun
He kicked his dog today
Johnny D can't stop him now
Cheney's got a gun
Cheney's got a gun...oh no
Mark and Frank are runnin' for cover
Little Johnny is a turncoat
He tellin' Cheney where we at
Cheney's got a gun
Cheney's got a gun
Run
Run
Run
Posted by: John E | July 12, 2007 6:52 PM
Wait, hold the HTML! It gets worse. Bush is recently quoted as saying, "Obviously, it was a difficult decision for me to make, to send our brave troops, along with coalition troops, into Iraq."
He sent coalition troops into Iraq? HE sent them??? And all this time I thought Tony Blair was in charge of the British Army. These losers view the entire world as their sandbox. Somebody better give newly impeached president chainsaw and his commander-in-bootlicking bushbo a new box of crayons. They can continue to draw the world in their perverted view as they retire to millions of blood dollars compliments of dead and maimed American soldiers.
Posted by: snitramc | July 12, 2007 7:11 PM
Clearly Doogie doesn't work either. I am getting a good sense of the Loony Left. Folks who don't work, pester those who do work, and be angry at the world all day long.
Anyway, Mark, since you noted this is Bush's fourth solo press conference of the year, could you please tell us how many solo press conferences Bill Clinton had, especially his last term in office?
Posted by: John D | July 12, 2007 7:34 PM
"Obviously, it was a difficult decision for me to make, to send our brave troops, along with coalition troops, into Iraq."
Posted by: snitramc | July 12, 2007 7:11 PM
I wonder how truely difficult it was for this president to send those fine troops to war. Seems to me that whole fetid neo-con cabal had an Iraq invasion in their sights long before 9/11 even occurred.
Maybe even our most fervent Bush apologists (you know who you are!) might find this interesting reading: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Posted by: Dan Maun | July 12, 2007 10:39 PM
Not sure if anybody bothered to read that scary stuff from those fine lads at the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC (http address included in my previous post). If you didn't, then allow me to paste one paragraph here:
"Several original PNAC members, including Cheney, Khalilzad and the Bush family, have ties to the oil industry. Many other members have been long-time fixtures in the U.S. military establishment or Cold War "strategic studies," including Elliott Abrams, Dick Cheney, Paula Dobriansky, Aaron Friedberg, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald H. Rumsfeld, John R. Bolton, Vin Weber, and Paul Dundes Wolfowitz. It should not be surprising, therefore, that while the group devotes inordinate attention to Iraq, its most general focus has been on a need to "re-arm America." The prospect of mining oil riches may explain part of the group's focus on Iraq, but this motivation has been buried under the rhetoric of national security and the need for strong national defense."
Notice how many of those names have found refuge in the Bush administration?
But what's mind-boggling about these uber-wackos is their stated manifesto, if you will. It may be somewhat long, but your eyes will really bug out: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Yep, it's the complete neo-con blueprint that Bush followed. And Bush has the gall to say that it was "a difficult decision?" Hell, the decision to send those troops was made long before he even took office. When 9/11 happened, these sick bastards in unision cried out, "Thank the Lord!"
Posted by: Dan Maun | July 12, 2007 11:28 PM
Not sure if anybody bothered to read that scary stuff from those fine lads at the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC (http address included in my previous post). If you didn't, then allow me to paste one paragraph here:
"Several original PNAC members, including Cheney, Khalilzad and the Bush family, have ties to the oil industry. Many other members have been long-time fixtures in the U.S. military establishment or Cold War "strategic studies," including Elliott Abrams, Dick Cheney, Paula Dobriansky, Aaron Friedberg, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald H. Rumsfeld, John R. Bolton, Vin Weber, and Paul Dundes Wolfowitz. It should not be surprising, therefore, that while the group devotes inordinate attention to Iraq, its most general focus has been on a need to "re-arm America." The prospect of mining oil riches may explain part of the group's focus on Iraq, but this motivation has been buried under the rhetoric of national security and the need for strong national defense."
Notice how many of those names have found refuge in the Bush administration?
But what's mind-boggling about these uber-wackos is their stated manifesto, if you will. It may be somewhat long, but your eyes will really bug out: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Yep, it's the complete neo-con blueprint that Bush followed. And Bush has the gall to say that it was "a difficult decision?" Hell, the decision to send those troops was made long before he even took office. When 9/11 happened, these sick bastards in unision cried out, "Thank the Lord!"
Posted by: Dan M | July 13, 2007 6:18 AM
Little Johnny D:
You really are tossing up those softballs to us liberals again. You know, how everything Bush does has to be compared to Clinton? Why is it that you can't get over the fact that it has been almost 7 years since he left office?
And by the way, I do work - it seems most of the right wing whack jobs are the ones who don't work - look how high Rush Limbaugh's radio ratings are! And check out the average age of O'Reilly's audience. I believe it is somewhere in the 60's.
Posted by: BobinATL | July 13, 2007 9:37 AM
Oh Bobin, actually studies show that Limbaugh's audience tends to be well educated and employed. You see, us right wing whack jobs can work AND listen to the radio at the same time!!
O'Reilly's audience? Sorry, but his audience numbers are quite strong, especially on the television side of things.
Curious, does your job have anything to do with a mop and a broom?
Posted by: John D | July 13, 2007 12:54 PM
Hey John D.- Does Billy O'Reilly ever discuss his sexual harassment incident on Fox Lies?? What about Limbaugh and his drug/ viagra problems and his adultery and multiple marriages?? And as for your nemesis, Bill Clinton, I recall his approval rating was in the mid 60's when he left office. He would have probably been elected to a third term if that was allowed. As for this illegitimate Mr. Bush...what's his approval rating these days?? He'll go down as the worst President in U.S. history.
Posted by: Doug R. | July 13, 2007 1:38 PM
Curious, does your job have anything to do with a mop and a broom?
Posted by: John D | July 13, 2007 12:54 PM
Why do you mock people for the work they do? You realize your job doesn't define who you are. You pig
Posted by: jethro | July 13, 2007 4:12 PM
No, Johnny, it does not involve a mop and a broom. It involves my using my MBA - which occasionally embarrasses me, since W is "The MBA President" - remember?
And you did not state that O'Reilly's TV numbers have been steadily going DOWN over the past year, while Keith Olbermann's ratings on MSNBC have been going up. Must be all those old viewers of BillO's dying off.
Unfortunately, most of you have already proven that you cannot THINK and listen to Limbaugh at the same time. Which is why his listeners are called "Dittoheads" - anything Rush says, they repeat as fact.
Posted by: BobinATL | July 13, 2007 5:13 PM
JuanD,
As a matter of fact, right now, all liberals have a job using a mop and a bucket. We're cleaning up the mess left by president chainsaw, chimpy mcbushbo and all the neo-con fascists and their assorted apologistas. It's dirty work, but someone has to do it.
Posted by: snitramc | July 13, 2007 6:25 PM
Bobin, O'Reilly still triples to quadruples Olbermann on a nightly basis. In fact, O'Reilly's repeats still do better than Olbermann's original airing.
Snitramic, please use that mop and broom in Springfield and Chicago. The Democrats running this state and Crooked County are about as dirty as one could possibly get. Heck, pigs in slop are cleaner than that bunch.
Posted by: John D | July 13, 2007 7:37 PM