I think the press should be commended tonight

They asked a bunch of very good questions. Here's every question in the NY Times transcript so far (they are transcribing aqap and posting even before it is complete - how kewl is that!)

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half of Americans now support it.
What does that say to you? And how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. What's your best pre
diction on how long U.S. troops will have to be in Iraq? And it sounds like you will have to add some troops. Is that a fair assessment?

QUESTION: Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq: that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers; that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction but, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we know where they are.
How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series of false premises?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE), Mr. President. To move to the 9-11 commission, you yourself have acknowledged that Osama bin Laden was not a central focus of the administration in the months before September 11th. I was not on point, you told the journalist Bob Woodward. I didn't feel that sense of urgency.
Two and a half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?

QUESTION: Personal responsibility for September 11th?

QUESTION: Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked.
One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9-11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism, and do you believe that there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?

QUESTION: Mr. President, good evening. I'd like to ask you about the August 6th PDB.

QUESTION: You've mentioned it at Fort Hood on Sunday. You pointed out that it did not warn of a hijacking of airplanes to crash into buildings, but that it warned of hijacking to obviously take hostages and to secure the release of extremists that are being held by the U.S.
Did that trigger some specific actions on your part in the administration, since it dealt with potentially hundreds of lives and a blackmail attempt on the United States government?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You mentioned the PDB and the assurance you got that the FBI was working on terrorism investigations here. The number they had used was 70.
But we learned today in the September 11th hearings that the acting director of the FBI at the time now says the FBI tells him that number was wrong, that he doesn't even know how it got into your PDB. And two of the commissioners strongly suggested the number was exaggerated.
Have you learned anything else about that report since that time? And do you now believe you were falsely comforted by the FBI?

QUESTION: Has the FBI come back to you, sir?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9-11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you prepared to give them one?

QUESTION: Mr. President, thank you. You mentioned that 17 of the 26 NATO members providing some help on the ground in Iraq. But if you look at the numbers -- 135,000 U.S. troops, 10,000 or 12,000 British troops. Then the next largest, perhaps even the second- largest contingent of guns on the ground are private contractors, literally hired guns.
Your critics, including your Democratic opponents, say that's proof to them your coalition is window dressing. How would you answer those critics?
And can you assure the American people that, post-sovereignty, when the handover takes place, that there will be more burden-sharing by allies in terms of security forces?

QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

QUESTION: You have been accused of letting the 9-11 threat mature too far, but not letting the Iraq threat mature far enough. First, could you respond to that general criticism?
And, secondly, in the wake of these two conflicts, what is the appropriate threat level to justify action in perhaps other situations going forward?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, you've made it very clear tonight that you're committed to continuing the mission in Iraq, yet, as Terry pointed out, increasing numbers of Americans have qualms about it. And this is an election year.

BUSH: Yes.

QUESTION: Will it have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.

You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?

...now if we can get some real answers that don't allude to "turkey farms" and "brown-skinned people".

On CNBC, "American Enemy Dennis Miller" had on "actor" Jason Pollack who claimed to be a Democrat even though he supported the war in Iraq on the grounds that we "just needed to show the world that we can kick ass".

:puke:

from an early post I made (to save time typing)

Bush/Rove TOLD the reporters to go for broke......

The pres who won't answer any questions ever... won't meet with anyone.... that's a problem for bush, esp since he goes before the commission. He needs to appear as if he is capable of CANDOR. This is a staged event.

Rove had to go for broke...roll bush out as if he is ACCOUNTABLE to the people via the press.

He weighed it out: one day in the middle of April 2004.... let bush take some heat for 1/2 hour.;... any problems arise from his rambling/inept answers? they have MONTHS to propagandize it...

Bush TOLD the reporters to ask these questions... these hard questions...

Then bush can say FOREVER.. "I Answered that already!" And all the stupid freepers can say, "He answered for that.... move on."

This is a HUGELY staged event... HUGELY>

I am willing to believe that Bush has an ear piece so he can get instructions from Rove, et. al. But I don't agree that he "wanted" the press to ask tough questions so as to "to appear as if he is capable of CANDOR".

I think Rove viewed the inevitability of this press conference a lot like how he must view Iraq. Out of his control.

this was a strange 'out of the ordinary' event./....

Pleasing to the entirety of the population -- right and left -- because we had REAL questions. But this is a one-time deal.. I think.

Earpiece or scripted questions or not.... Bush can afford to have one really BAD hour with the public this early. And I think Rove KNEW that he had parade the president out before the people. He was getting too much criticism, esp about his little attack dog team who does all the talking for him.

So when the press asks softballs, they are doing Bush's bidding; when the press asks tough questions, they are also doing Bush's bidding?

Excuse me, but that doesn't make any sense.

--Peter

EDIT: spelling

but there is evidence enough of SCRIPTING (when bush took the a couple of unscripted questions, such as: what was your biggest mistake and what lessons have you learned?) it was SCRIPTED.

Watch the press bounce right back to the same bull. Then you tell me why, for no reason at all, on April 13th, they asked good questions and it never happened EVER again. That's my prediction. We will see.....

but the "answers" left a lot to be desired.

Bu$h revealed that with the question from John (#13, blue tie). Bu$h had rehearsed the answers to almost every question. It was obvious. "John" tripped him, momentarily. Otherwise, Bu$h stayed "on-message". The message is Iraq. I'll post my notes tomorrow, when things load more quickly.

Bush did not stay "on message". Not even close. He rambled endlessly, and once in a while spit a brief segment of his message out before commencing on a brand new ramble.

--Peter

*rambling endlessly and falling over is "off message."

It's a subtle difference. :)

Peter,

Not to argue, we have both been here too long to do that. However, I have some observations.

Did you hear one word about the economy? The environment? About corporate scandal? About energy issues (other that Iraq oil fields)? Did you hear one word about domestic problems, other than the "War on Terra"? I did not (not that I really expected to).

You are absolutely correct, he did ramble endlessly. But he kept the discussion pretty much on Iraq. That is because they vetted the reporters' questions days ago. It was scripted, rehearsed in a sound studio, and executed fairly well (relative to Bu$h's checkered record with the press).

I am not defending the asshole. I watched the fiasco hoping he would fall on his face ("shaking like a cat scratching shit on a sidewalk" as I wrote earlier today, or "shaking like an old dog shittin' peach pits" as I wrote last night). He was neither the cat nor the dog. Relative to his capabilities, he was at his best.

Mac

So, given the herd mentality of the press, it is to be expected that everyone wants to ask questions that center on Iraq.

In the middle of 2002, all the questions were about corporate scandals, since that was the big news at the time.

I don't think this is evidence for 'vetting' questions beforehand. Too many of these questions were implicit attacks on the Bush's attitude and policies for me to believe that they were vetted.

In my mind, nothing about it was executed fairly well. The opening statement was drearily presented, overly long, and basically just a repetition of the news events of recent days; the Q&A session was largely incoherent.

--Peter

Bu$h was startled. He said "John, that was not the question you submitted." Then Bu$h hemmed-and-hawed and gaffed it off. The cat came screaming out of the bag. Not only was the PC scripted, but those off-script questions were soft-balls.

To buttress my argument, why was Helen Thomas not called upon? You know, I know, and the world knows. Karl Rove played this "press conference" like E. Power Biggs played the organ.

That's why Helen Thomas is never called on during these prime-time events. Bush was clearly picking reporter's names off of a list in front of him --- probably a list of those officially approved by Rove.

But I still don't think there is any evidence that the questions were scripted or vetted by the White House. To me, the evidence (i.e., the incoherence of the replies) suggests the opposite. When Bush is scripted, he can give a coherent performance. But that clearly wasn't the case today.

--Peter

gee, not ONE question on the economy, medi-gate, plame, etc. etc. Think how many subjects there are to cover! That fierce press didn't touch ONE of them. Not one. THEY were on message.... as in, they were scripted.

the questions were presubmitted...How much more of their BS is the people going to take! Throw them out.

doubt those questions were pre-approved...He stumbled way too much on them...

There were 15 reporters called on by Bu$h. All by first name and perhaps by an assigned seating chart to help Bu$h. His answers to all questions lead right back to Iraq, one way or the other.

His strangest answer came to a question I never heard asked (and I was sitting there with a big yellow legal pad and a Bic pen). To reporter #3 (blue tie) Bu$h rambled an answer (scripted by it's detail - IMHO) that ended up with something like this: "And I thing the oil revenue question ..." There was no question asked of Iraqi oil revenue that I heard. If that is the case, why did he gratuitously mention "Iraq oil revenue." Why did he not, in the same breath, mention Cheney's "Energy Task Force."

C'mon, we all knew Bush would trudge out the same old answers but the cool part was to hear the questions. Some of which were damaging.

And, of course, the best answers were the non-answers: Why you and Cheney together? "well, because the 9/11 commission has questions that they want to hear answers from us on the questions that they have that we can answer"

Ok, have you ever made a mistake: "well, I can't think of any, jeez you put me on the spot, I may have made some mistakes maybe someday someone will tell me what my mistakes were if I ever made any"

a question from Bill Sammon of the "moonie" Times.

They still were not good enough and I don't think they should be commended for finally starting to do their job.

I understand what you are saying, and I will take what I can get, but in order for us to get our country back we need the press to stand up and be counted.

He went back to the "No one ever expected airplanes to be used as missiles" bullshit again and no one called him on it. No one called him on anything really. The one guy caught him off guard and he was silent for a long time before saying "I should have had that question in writing beforehand". The whole thing was a joke.

Chimp was a total blank on a response. The interesting thing to me is that chimp implies that he had any input on the decision to trade Sammy. Any moran knows the the chimp was just around for his name much less baseball wisdom... Just another legend from the "Lie House" that is floated to suggest that the idiot has executive skills.

Would have been easy for ONE reporter out of the 15 that asked questions to ask about the $250 BILLION Medicare Bill Fraud the White House told to Congress.

THEY LIED ABOUT THE COSTS TO CONGRESS when they knew it would cost more than $400 billion.

Two or three questions aside, there was a lot of hot air by some of the "press."

9/11 Commission and the increasingly horrendous situation in Iraq, now amped up with hostage-taking and the finding of more bodies of those considered missing.

Besides, they didn't have the whole hour to throw questions at him. He ate up quite a bit of it with his All-Iraq-All-the-Time opening remarks.

Those bootlickers gave him a soft and easy three years under their protection. They're culpable in this mess we're in, and will have to do a shitload more before they'll get any gratitude from me.

the questions were weak as hell, the answers were the presidential equivalent of "the dog ate my homework."

i've heard tougher questions asked in a check out line at a winn dixie

No one commends me when I do mine....Maybe if I go above and beyond the call of duty....but they didn't do that.

RC