Today as I contemplated the commentary I've been hearing on Obama's press conference last night, I thought about the observations made here and elsewhere on the differences between our 44th president's response to the press and George Bush's. I agreed and rec'd references to Obama's ability to "speak in complete sentences" and not be an "embarrasment" to American citizens in stark contrast to Bush, and reacted positively to Obama's "professorial" style. Clearly, Bush was no comparison to my cool, collected and articulate president. I admit I wasn't as inclined to listen to entire Bush press conferences while he was in office and would often find myself yelling at the t.v. or becomming too frustrated and turing it off. But today I decided, for the sake of reference, to look up some footage and transcripts of previous Bush pressers and found one that prompted me to write this diary. The date was March 6, 2003, and it was, I believe, a transcript of the final press conference before the war with Iraq.
Many have lamented the press' sorry questioning of Bush leading up to the war with Iraq. Why wasn't he asked more forcefully about the presence pf weapons of mass destruction? Why didn't we give the inspectors more time? Why, in the face of opposition to the war here and abroad, was the Bush administration so determined to go to war anyway? And what was so compelling about the "intelligence" that gave them this determinination? We have asked these questions so many times since that fateful year, and when in fact it became clear that no weapons of mass destruction would be found, we asked them more vehemently.
What surprised me though when I read the transcript, was not the lack of questioning by the press, but the over-simplistic and circular logic that Bush used to justify this war.
Question on the "rush to war":
Since you made it clear just now that you don't think that Saddam has disarmed and we have a quarter million troops in the Persian Gulf and now that you've called on the world to be ready to use force as a last resort, are we just days away from the point at which you decide whether or not we go to war? And what harm would it do to give Saddam a final ultimatum, a two- or three-day deadline to disarm or face force?
Here's a portion Bush's response:
He hasn't disarmed. So we're working with Security Council members to resolve this issue at the Security Council.....Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Iraq is a country that has got terrorist ties, it's a country with wealth, it's a country that trains terrorists, a country that could arm terrorists. And our fellow Americans must understand, in this new war against terror, that we not only must chase down al Qaeda terrorists, we must deal with weapons of mass destruction as well.
Question on the credibility of the intelligence:
Mr. President, you and your top advisers, notably Secretary of State Powell, have repeatedly said that we have shared with our allies all of the current, up-to-date intelligence information that proves the imminence of the threat we face from Saddam Hussein and that they have been sharing their intelligence as well. If all of these nations, all of them our normal allies, have access to the same intelligence information, why is it that they are reluctant to think that the threat is so real, so imminent that we need to move to the brink of war now?
Another portion of Bush's reply:
Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation. September the 11th changed the strategic thinking, at least as far as I was concerned, for how to protect our country. My job is to protect the American people.
It used to be that we could think that you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror.
September the 11th should say to the American people that we are now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home.
About the opposition to war:
Sir, if you haven't already made the choice to go to war, can you tell us what you are waiting to hear or see before you do make that decision?
And if I may, during a recent demonstration many of the protesters suggested that the U.S. was a threat to peace, which prompted you to wonder out loud why they didn't see Saddam Hussein as a threat to peace.
I wonder why you think so many people around the world take a different view of the threat that Saddam Hussein poses than you and your allies.
Bush:
....I'm hopeful that he does disarm.
But in the name of peace and the security of our people, if he won't do so voluntarily, we will disarm him, and other nations will join him — join us in disarming him.
And that creates a certain sense of anxiety. I understand that. Nobody likes war.
The only thing I can do is assure the loved ones of those who wear our uniform that if we have to go to war, if war is upon us because Saddam Hussein has made that choice, we will have the best equipment available for our troops, the best plan available for victory, and we will respect innocent life in Iraq...
What's most disturbing about this particular response is the that the opposite occured. Moreover, our country was on the brink of war, but there were NO follow-up questions to any of Bush's responses.
I don't want to forget the Bush presidency. Remembering keeps the current state of our nation in perspective, and makes me realize that the point of a press conference is not the press conference at all, particulary when so much attention is given to who Obama "smacked down", what mediea outlets were ignored, or the merits of Obama's "style". What is crucial, however is the content, depth of thought ,and reasoning (even if I disagree) of a president's responses that matters most.