If you missed the press conference last night, like I did, have no fear. The White House has a full transcript and video. Read on for pithy armchair-wonk commentary.Again, the President asserts that Iraq is an imminent threat to national security. There’s no evidence of that — most attempts to draw a straight line from Iraq to national security have failed. Much of the evidence coming from this Administration has later proved false — he even reiterated Powell’s story about the poison plant in Northern Iraq. Wasn’t that plant famously missing when the media checked on it? Yet, again with this claim. It seems that the Administration has deliberately replaced logic with rhetoric. I want to hear the words “credibility gap” a lot more often.
There’s a great case to be made for Iraq being a threat to international security, but the likelihood of Iraq being so dire a threat as to warrant an invasion is wishful thinking. I wish this Administration would spend more time trying to make the Internationalist case, which would highlight our obligations as the sole superpower to take care of rogue nations like Iraq. This National Security case is going nowhere.
Where is the fancy slogan bunting, and am I the only one to think the backdrop suggests a church altar?
Good questions from the press. Specifically, if all countries are using the same pool of intelligence, why are we coming to such wildly different conclusions? What are the conditions under which we would unilaterally declare war? What are the potential risks? Does Saddam Hussein have to be killed or captured to consider the war a success? How much will it cost to fight the war?
All those questions were ducked, by the way.
I’m noticing his use of “my government” instead of “our government.”
He never directly acknowledges the angst of the general public, but at least twice acknowledges the sacrifice of military families instead. I’m taking that as a snub. Military families have a more immediate worry, of course, but I would expect a little more care. He’s putting the reputation and security of the country at risk, and that’s a concern for everyone — not just those doing the fighting. Especially nasty was the plug for military spending, like it was some kind of warm blanket that would make our concerns about the conduct of war go away.
I wonder when the networks will grow weary of these non-news prime time events. A press conference on the pending war in Iraq should include things like “How much will this war cost? Why won’t anyone support us? What are the risks of war?” If you’re not going to answer those very important questions, you don’t get to pre-empt Survivor.
Another huge credibility gap: That incessant droning on about how he doesn’t want war and IF war becomes necessary. Stop, please. It’s not fooling anyone. I support the war. I think it’s necessary. The administration needs to stop suggesting that there’s some realistic possibility that it can be avoided — that somehow Hussein will what? step aside? give up his weapons? find Jesus?
Did anyone else catch how Bush tends to refer to female reporters by first name — and smile at them — but refer to male reporters by full name?
LikeLike
Another huge credibility gap: That incessant droning on about how he doesn’t want war and IF war becomes necessary. Stop, please. It’s not fooling anyone. I support the war. I think it’s necessary. The administration needs to stop suggesting that there’s some realistic possibility that it can be avoided — that somehow Hussein will what? step aside? give up his weapons? find Jesus?
Did anyone else catch how Bush tends to refer to female reporters by first name — and smile at them — but refer to male reporters by full name?
LikeLike