From Today's RMN
Littwin: Bush - and supporters - at a loss for words
April 15, 2004
The president seemed caught by surprise - that's the nicest possible interpretation - even after the fourth version of the question at his news conference the other night.
If nothing else, Mr. Bush should have appreciated the reporters adopting his own style of argument - which is to repeat a theme, repeatedly.
If you listened, you heard the questions:
Wasn't he ever wrong?
And, if so, why couldn't he ever admit it?
I'm not sure all the questions at George W. Bush's prime-time news conference were particularly cogent. If there were repeated inquiries about Iraq, I'd like to have heard them addressing the problems with the present plan and how to fix it. Maybe an hour wasn't long enough.
But ever since Dick Clarke apologized for 9-11, that seems to be the only question worth asking: Don't you have something - anything - to apologize for, too?
For 9-11? For Iraq? Certainly someone should apologize for John Ashcroft.
There were two themes at this rare presidential news conference. The reporters kept to the apology line. Bush, meanwhile, argued for an hour that, despite the bad news from Iraq, everything was basically on track.
(He even tried to breathe new life into the old search for, yes, weapons of mass destruction. In discussing the difficulty of the search, he noted Libya hid mustard gas at a turkey farm. This, I'm guessing, is bad news for the Iraqi poultry industry.)
The post-conference reviews suggested Bush was either resolute or rigid. With Bush, his public speaking reviews always depend on whether you agree with him (he's terrible if you disagree; adequate if you agree.) In this case, though, even some pundit allies proved skittish and not just about the presidential, uh, syntax. There was Bill Kristol saying that Bush hadn't made his case. There was David Gergen saying much the same.
The reviews were nearly as bad as Bush's Meet the Press notices. I think we all know why the president is insisting on bringing Dick Cheney along with him to the 9-11 commission. Let's just say it's not for Cheney's smile.
Resolute or rigid, the president was definitely defiant. And in the Bush style, he made his case - what you might call a frills-free case. And then he made his case again.
Saddam was dangerous.
We are changing the world.
We must stay the course.
Followed by:
Saddam was dangerous.
We are changing the world.
We must stay the course.
Of course, saying it's so doesn't make it so. But saying it often does assure - for a president whose political future is suddenly at risk - that it's heard.
But also heard - again and again - was Bush stumbling over one version or another
of the doesn't-the-buck-stop-anywhere-near-
your-desk question.
Personally, I don't think it's fair to suggest Bush should have connected fly-into-buildings dots before 9-11. But it is fair to ask, particularly in a campaign where security is the principal issue, whether Bush was quick enough to understand the terror threat. That's what discussion of the Aug. 6 memo is all about.
And then there's the situation in Iraq. And the horrible photos to illustrate it.
In Bush's worst moment of the evening, he was asked what his biggest mistake has been since 9-11. That's presumably for the commissions to come.
Bush stumbled. He stuttered. He reminded me, for you film buffs, of Albert Brooks in Broadcast News.
He said he couldn't think of one mistake, but explained he was under pressure:
"You know, I hope I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't - you put me under the spot here and maybe I'm not quick, as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one."
The obvious Democratic response is to sponsor contests to see who can come up with the most Bush miscues. Maybe the winner can be John Kerry's vice presidential pick.
But this was not simply gotcha journalism. The issue is whether Bush, no fan of nuance, ever second-guesses his actions.
He says he would have attacked Iraq even if he knew there had been no weapons of mass destruction. Now you understand the situation. And you wonder about Bush's willingness to change course.
Many critics, from left and right, believe there aren't enough troops to do the job in Iraq.
Many critics, from left and right, wonder how you can plan to hand over sovereignty to a nation on June 30 when there's no one yet on the receiving end.
Many critics, particularly from the left, believe Bush continuously understates the nature of the insurgency. This is the Vietnam syndrome you keep hearing about.
Many critics, particularly John Kerry, insist that Bush admit that the present coalition is hardly internationalizing Iraq.
There are hard questions here. Presidential apologies - which everyone knows the Kerry campaign would dine on for months - won't help. Better answers, though, might.
