While I don't intend for this post to become another in a long line of comments which pokes fun at the President's unscripted speaking skills, I must say, that I literally snorted my coffee while listening to this (audio here, transcript here) interview between NPR's Juan Williams and the President.
As an aside, I found it interesting that the President likely conditioned this interview on it being conducted by Juan, as Juan is also a Fox News contributor. While I think Juan is a great reporter, and in general, I take no issue with his reporting, it just strikes me as interesting that the Administration likely equated Juan with Fox. I don't think the questioning was particularly tough, but then again, no one really "goes after" a sitting President during an interview anyway. A couple of sections (well many sections, actually) which really stood out as I was listening:
-- "MR. WILLIAMS: Now, you've got a vote tomorrow in the Senate to consider a resolution opposing the troop buildup. Vice President Cheney said last week that vote would validate the insurgents' strategy. And so, do you agree?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, there's a lot of strong opinions about it. My attitude is – my feeling to the Senate echoes what Joe Lieberman said the other day – Senator Joe Lieberman – and that is it is ironic that the Senate would vote 81 to nothing to send a general into Iraq who believes he needs more troops to do the job and then send a contradictory message. The legislatures will – legislators will do what they feel like they've got to do, and, you know, we want to work with them as best we can to make it clear what the stakes of failure will be, and also make it clear to them that I think they have a responsibility to make sure our troops have what they need to do the missions."
In my mind, this is a classic Washington talking point. If the Congress had failed to confirm General Petraeus, the White House would have been up in arms about how it's the Executive who runs the conduct of the war, and that the Congress should let the President choose the people who he sees bet fit to conduct it. I don't think this confirmation has anything to do with the underlying question of whether or not we should withdraw from Iraq. We're there now, we need a commander in the theater, and Bush broadly has the right to choose that commander.
-- "MR. WILLIAMS: All right. You know, you mentioned timetables. NPR has a reporter embedded with the Minnesota National Guard in Iraq, and one of the soldiers there asked the question – says, my name is Specialist Ryan Schmidt (sp) from Forest Lake, Minnesota, and my question for you, Mr. President, is what if your plan for a troop surge to Baghdad does not work?" What do you think?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I would say to Ryan, I put it in place on the advice of a lot of smart people, particularly the military people who think it will work, and let us go into this aspect of the Iraqi strategy feeling it will work. But I will also assure Ryan that we're constantly adjusting to conditions on the ground."
I'm certainly not the first person to mention this, but I think it is completely disingenuous to suggest that we're undertaking the "surge" at the advice of our military leaders. Much has been written about how General Casey and others felt that increasing troop levels in Iraq was not the wisest course. It seems pretty obvious to me that Bush shopped around for military leaders who agreed with (or at least could tolerate silently) his conclusion and then installed them as the new leaders of the Iraq operation.
-- "MR. WILLIAMS: By the way, just quickly, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader says that if you have an incursion into Iran, he expects that you would come to the Senate for approval.
PRESIDENT BUSH: I have no intent upon incur—going into Iran. I mean, this is the kind of thing that happens in Washington. People ascribe, you know, motives to me beyond a simple statement – of course we'll protect our troops. I don't know how anybody can then say, well, protecting the troops means that we're going to invade Iran. If that's what he's talking about, there's – I mean, we will protect our interests in Iraq. That's what the American people expect us to do. That's definitely what our troops want to do, and that's what the families of our troops want us to do. And if we find the Iranians are moving weapons that will end up harming American troops, we'll deal with it."
Classic non-denial denial which almost dares the Iranians to step up activity in Iraq. This fits perfectly with the bluster foreign policy strategy which this Administration seems to thinks works well, and which the remaining informed observers think has been a miserable failure. For a more detailed discussion of this, see Friedman's piece in the NYT today (subscription required).
-- "MR. WILLIAMS: By the way, in the speech, you spoke about the Democrats. You said, you congratulated the Democrat majority. And I notice your prepared text said Democratic majority. I surely think that you know that for the Democrats, they think when you say Democrat, it's like fingernails on the blackboard. They don't like it. They like you to say Democratic.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah. Well, that was an oversight then. I mean, I'm not trying to needle. Look, I went into the hall saying we can work together and I was very sincere about it. I didn't even know I did it.
MR. WILLIAMS: OK.
PRESIDENT BUSH: And that I did, I didn't mean to be putting fingernails on the board, I meant to be saying why don't we show the American people we can actually work together? There is a lot of politics in Washington – in my judgment, needless politics. And it's almost like, if George Bush is for it, we're against it, and I – and if he's against it, we're for it. And the American people don't like that.
And I'm going to tell you some big issues we need to work on. One is entitlements. Your grandchildren are going to grow up with a Social Security system that is broke unless we do something about it. Now, I understand how hard that is. I mean, it's—But the solution can be done. But it requires a lot of political, you know, capital to be spent. And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it. So the idea that somehow I was trying to needle the Democrats, it's just – gosh, it's probably Texas. Who knows what it is. But I'm not that good at pronouncing words anyway, Juan."
This is where I did my spit take. An "oversight" which he ultimately chalked up to his lack of pronunciation...please. I think it's telling that the text of the speech had the name of the party correct - wouldn't want that kind of inflammatory dig in writing now would we? If he really doesn't know the distinction and how petty it is for him to use the "abbreviated form" than he is as clueless as people say....
-- "MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. President, you're bringing out a new budget next week, and I presume you're going to have healthcare, health insurance plan in it. To pay for some of the plan, some people who don't pay taxes on their health insurance plan now will have to pay taxes. Isn't that a tax increase for them?
PRESIDENT BUSH: No, really what it is, it's a rewriting of the tax code. We've got a tax code today that says if you get your insurance from a large employer, for example, it's part of your – it's a non-taxable event. And yet if you're an individual, like Juan Williams out there as an independent contractor, and you buy your own health insurance, you're at a tax disadvantage. And so I'm asking the Congress to reform the tax code to treat everybody fairly. And in my judgment, such a plan will encourage and enable more individuals to be able to buy health insurance, which will help us deal with the uninsured. "
Love to hear the President dancing around this one. If I was inclined, I could go out and find one of the 1000's of times this Administration has claimed that allowing the Bush tax cuts to sunset in 2010 would be a tax increase. While the underlying principal of the plan is indeed very "conservative" in its interpretation of the underlying economics of health care, it is sweetly ironic (not to mention internally inconsistent with conservative economic thought) that it relies on a tax increase to provide the correct incentives. As for my take on the plan - I think that the Administration's contention that the market for health care is broken because people aren't forced to contemplate and internalize the cost of the care they purchase is largely correct though I also think the idea that providing a non-refundable tax deduction to solve this problem is laughable.
-- "MR. WILLIAMS: So, some people would say, well, if you believe in spending restraint, why haven't you vetoed one bill, you know, one appropriations bill?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Because the United States Congress that was controlled by Republicans exercised spending restraint. Now, I didn't particularly like – the size of the pie was what I requested. It's some of the pieces of the pie that I didn't particularly care for, but that is why the president needs a line-item veto, and that is why Congress has got to reform the earmark process. What the American people need to understand is that sometimes special projects get put into bills without ever having seen the light of the day. In other words, they don't get voted on; they just show up, and we need transparency in the earmark process, and expose the process to hearings and votes so that the American people will know that any project was fully heard on the floor of the House and the Senate."
Another spit take. Also, I think at this point in the interview, the President started to get tired, because many of the answers from here on out are nearly indecipherable. To argue that the GOP Congress exercised spending restraint is akin to arguing that that the sky is green. Furthermore, to imply that earmarks are the problem which is causing the budget deficit is also absurd. Earmarks are problematic for other reasons, but their impact on the long term deficit and debt are practically a rounding error.
-- "MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. President, you have talked about Harry Truman and the challenges that President Truman faced during his time here. He wasn't popular toward the end of his presidency, but history ended up judging him very well. Is that your hope now?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, you know, Juan, my hope is that we see improvement in Baghdad. My vision is dealing with the problems at hand. I have got a lot on my agenda and believe we are going to get a lot done. At home, we want the economy to remain strong, and we want our children educated. That is why I'm pushing for a reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. And abroad, I'm not only working with a great team to deal with Iraq, but we're dealing with Iran, Middle Eastern peace, North Korea. I mean, there is a lot of issues we are dealing with.
My own view is that history will take care of itself. History has a long reach to it. I told people that last year I read three analyses of Washington's administration, and my attitude is if they are still writing about the first president, the 43rd doesn't need to worry about it. And so, the other thing is, is that, I think it's very important for people – for a president to make decisions based upon principles. You know, you can be popular, but you may be wrong. And I would rather, when it's all said and done, get back home and look in the mirror and say, I didn't compromise the principles that are etched into my soul in order to be a popular guy. What I want to do is solve problems for the American people and yield the peace that we all want."
There's actually an interesting nugget in this answer which I think illuminates the President's decision-making process. He says that he makes decisions based on "principals." Not data, not evidence, not necessity, not analysis, but principal. Forget for a minute that I could argue that given extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo, waterboarding, the Military Commissions Act, the Terrorist Surveillance Program...the list goes on and on, that he is NOT acting on principals, or if he his, his principals are different from those which are consistent with the history and traditions our country. In any decision-making process, principals play a role, but so many other things, including, I might add, being somewhat respectful of the wishes of the people. But a principals-based approach sure cuts down on the reading, doesn't it.
And finally, this:
"MR. WILLIAMS: One last thing, Mr. President. When you look at the quality of intelligence that you're getting about the nuclear program in Iran right now, do you think it's better than the quality of intelligence you were getting about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
PRESIDENT BUSH: No question that there is a certain skepticism about intelligence. We all thought that that – that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and "we all" being not only the administration, but members from both political parties in the Congress. The previous administration felt that the intelligence indicated there was weapons of mass destruction. The international community – in other words, I just want you to know that there was a universal belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction including critics of Iraq, like the French, who voted for 1441 in the Security Council.
And therefore when it turned out not to be true, there is a certain skepticism about intel. And however, the skepticism about intel, while it needs to be tempered by, you know, the – by an analysis of statements or other fragments of intelligence – what I am trying to say that I take the Iranian nuclear threat very seriously even though the intel on Iraq was not what it was thought to be, and we have to.
Now – so how do you solve the problem on intel? Well, you get more human intelligence. You constantly reevaluate the system itself and make sure that these really fine souls that work for the different intelligence agencies are given the tools they need. And so – look, I'm like a lot of Americans that say, well, if it wasn't right in Iraq, how do you know it's right in Iran? And so we are constantly evaluating, and answering this legitimate question by always working to get as good intelligence as we can."
This to me seems like at best a laundry list of catch phrases and impact words which he strung together in an attempt to answer the question as innocuously as possible. At worst, it's borderline unintelligible. How exactly does one temper skepticism about intel with "analysis of statements or other fragments of intelligence." Eventually, the President cut to the chase and just delivered what he *wants* the answer/outcome to be, without really worrying about if/why the intel. process might be broken.....
Good stuff.
