View Full Version : Press conference: Bush takes responsibility for WMD claim


Tiassa
07-30-03, 04:40 PM
Bush: "I take responsibility for everything I say"

". . . . You look like you just came." (President Bush to a reporter named Kate, 7.30.2003)

The above quote from the President to a female reporter is intentionally taken out of context. He is, in fact, welcoming her to the press corps, and probably intended to say, "You look like you just arrived," in the sense that he did not recognize her as a press corps regular.

But let there be no question about the headline quotation. George Bush has quietly, officially, declared his responsibility for controversial statements pertaining to Saddam Hussein's WMD programs in his State of the Union address:Q: Mr. President, you often speak about the need for accountability in many areas. I wonder then, why is Dr. Condoleezza Rice not being held accountable for the statement that your own White House has acknowledged was a mistake in your State of the Union address regarding Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium? And also, do you take personal responsibility for that inaccuracy?

THE PRESIDENT: I take personal responsibility for everything I say, of course. Absolutely. I also take responsibility for making decisions on war and peace. And I analyzed a thorough body of intelligence -- good, solid, sound intelligence -- that led me to come to the conclusion that it was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

We gave the world a chance to do it. We had -- remember there's -- again, I don't want to get repetitive here, but it's important to remind everybody that there was 12 resolutions that came out of the United Nations because others recognized the threat of Saddam Hussein. Twelve times the United Nations Security Council passed resolutions in recognition of the threat that he posed. And the difference was, is that some were not willing to act on those resolutions. We were -- along with a lot of other countries -- because he posed a threat.

Dr. Condoleezza Rice is an honest, fabulous person. And America is lucky to have her service. Period. (1)Today's presidential news conference is the first since March 6, 2003. As the BBC puts it: Since then, there has been the war itself, growing concern about difficulties still being faced by US troops in Iraq and a row over the intelligence used to justify the attack.

Other issues have also come up - Mr Bush's controversial tax cut, violence in Liberia, renewed criticism of the intelligence services who failed to stop the 11 September attacks and, most recently, allegations that the White House is trying to protect Saudi Arabia with its refusal to declassify a congressional report on those attacks. (2)It seems that Bush's admission is, for the early moment, underplayed. Tomorrow's editorials will tell, but the Washington Post, earlier this week, went so far as to publish an editorial beseeching the President to hold a news conference: "At this point in the Bush administration, quarterly would be an improvement." (3)

In the end, though, the major press seems to focus where the White House wants it. The news conference title at the White House website is, "President Bush Discusses Top Priorities for the US". Headlines floating around the news sources discuss that "Al Qaeda is still a threat", that the President is discussing priorities for the nation. Absent is the headline that President Bush has accepted responsibility for the erroneous statements concerning Saddam Hussein and African uranium.

If the editorial pages are kind to Bush's statement tomorrow, we might suspect something afoot; the President has taken responsibility for conveying inaccurate information to the country which helped convey the case for an "illegal" war.

However, if next week's editorial pages and cartoonists continue to hound Bush about when he will take responsibility for the WMD claim, it will suggest strongly that Americans have stopped paying attention and are just waiting for the next pretty lights over the Axis of Evil. I wonder what "NewsHour" will bring later tonight?

Notes on today's news conference:

- There is definitely a reason the President is kept distant from the press as the BBC suggests. The conference is peppered with some absolutely insane moments. Give it a read. Bush is occasionally downright incoherent, and occasionally as accidentally poetic as his Defense Secretary.

- Nation-building is officially the duty of the UN, it seems. See the President's response to Liberia issues.

- Bush gets the sound-bite for the week: "You know, it's kind of a -- we're not used to recalls in Texas, for example, thankfully." (Responding to question about recall election of California Governor Gray Davis.)

- Bush also gets the obfuscation award for the week; his response to a question regarding the $15b pledge to fight AIDS. I don't think he's trying to obfuscate, though. I think he actually has this much trouble speaking without a script.

- The White House is actively seeking to design legislation to stop the flowering of civil rights for homosexuals.

But with this conference, it seems a new chapter in the Bush Saga opens with a whimper and not a bang. The next couple of weeks had better be interesting insofar as the political response and punditry are concerned, or else it's time to start looking around for the Last Will and Testament of the Old Republic. (An interesting phrase when used to refer to a relatively young empire.) The general news-consumer market ... I don't expect much of a reaction from the average American. Murderous lies are something so commonplace in politics that Americans may have simply given in. They don't actually care. They're just bored out of their skulls.

(1) President Bush Discusses Top Priorities for U.S.. Press conference - Crawford, Texas, July 30, 2003[/i]. See - http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030730-1.html
(2) How Bush shuns the media. BBC, July 30, 2003. See - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3110591.stm
(3) "Meet the Press". Washington Post, July 29, 2003. Page A16. See - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59679-2003Jul28.html

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

CounslerCoffee
07-30-03, 10:02 PM
John, the Foreign Minister did come and speak to me. And I told him this: I said, we have an ongoing investigation about what may or may not have taken place prior to September the 11th. And therefore, it is important for us to hold this information close so that those who are being investigated aren't alerted.

Any chance he might be talking about the Saudis?

Love the T.S. Eliot reference, Tiassa.

The White House is actively seeking to design legislation to stop the flowering of civil rights for homosexuals.

Is this true? I haven't heard much on this. Article perhaps?

Iris
07-30-03, 11:20 PM
http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=9439&sd=07/31/03
Thursday, July 31, 2003

Bush confirms his opposition to same-sex marriage

President Bush said Wednesday that he has government lawyers working on a law that would define marriage as a union between a woman and a man, casting aside calls to legalize gay marriage. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other, and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that," the president said at a wide-ranging news conference in the White House Rose Garden.

NY Times Link. (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/31/national/31BUSH.html?ex=1060228800&en=e91cba24432a968d&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE)

July 31, 2003

By NEIL A. LEWIS

WASHINGTON, July 30 — President Bush said today that while he believed Americans should treat gays in a welcoming and respectful manner, he remained firmly opposed to gay marriages and that administration lawyers were working to ensure that the term "marriage" would cover only unions between men and women.

Tiassa
07-31-03, 03:12 AM
But it's an amazing Bushism. Check it out:Q: Thank you, sir. Mr. President, many of your supporters believe that homosexuality is immoral. They believe that it's been given too much acceptance in policy terms and culturally. As someone who's spoken out in strongly moral terms, what's your view on homosexuality?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I am mindful that we're all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own. I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country. On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage. And that's really where the issue is heading here in Washington, and that is the definition of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that. (transcript .... (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030730-1.html))I mean, really, George ....

That's one of the funniest Bushisms I've come across.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Zero
07-31-03, 08:08 AM
Actually, it shouldn't be. It should be tiresome by now.

airavata
07-31-03, 10:27 AM
Bush keeps harping on about how the international community felt that Saddam was a threat. He seems to believe that the end justifies the means. Worst of all, he takes full responsibility for the situation. As the democrats have no real presidential contendors, I see nothing to stop Bush from getting re-elected.