Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
John.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. So many questions, so little time.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, keep your question short, then. (Laughter.)
Q I'll do my best, sir. But, sir, you've shown a remarkable spirit of candor in the last couple of weeks in your conversation and speeches about Iraq. And I'm wondering if, in that spirit, I might ask you a question that you didn't seem to have an answer for the last time you were asked, and that is, what would you say is the biggest mistake you've made during your presidency, and what have you learned from it?
THE PRESIDENT: Answering Dickerson's question. No, I -- the last time those questions were asked, I really felt like it was an attempt for me to say it was a mistake to go into Iraq. And it wasn't a mistake to go into Iraq. It was the right decision to make.
I think that, John, there's going to be a lot of analysis done on the decisions on the ground in Iraq. For example, I'm fully aware that some have said it was a mistake not to put enough troops there immediately -- or more troops. I made my decision based upon the recommendations of Tommy Franks, and I still think it was the right decision to make. But history will judge.
I said the other day that a mistake was trying to train a civilian defense force and an Iraqi army at the same time, but not giving the civilian defense force enough training and tools necessary to be able to battle a group of thugs and killers. And so we adjusted.
And the point I'm trying to make to the American people in this, as you said, candid dialogue -- I hope I've been candid all along; but in the candid dialogue -- is to say, we're constantly changing our tactics to meet the changing tactics of an enemy. And that's important for our citizens to understand.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Bush Blitzes Beltway, Cheney Cabals in Kabul
While Dick Cheney participated in an emotional, teary-eyed Parliamentary session in Kabul, Afghanistan, George Bush left the Green Zone and entered hostile territory today in Washington (see Michelle Malkin and Lorie Byrd's -Hell Yes, Baby - Santa has Come Early!- post).
"This is the second day that Vice President Dick Cheney had brought attention to important democratic events that have stemmed from the Bush administration's hawkish foreign policy."
-Associated Press(?)-
DELEGATES WEEP AS AFGHANISTAN OPENS PARLIAMENT!
BBC VIDEO HERE
In the first time in more than three decades Afghanistan opens Parliament....
Kathianne said:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-2.html#
The MSM were flying their true colors throughout, the snarkiest:
Kathianne said:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-2.html#
The MSM were flying their true colors throughout, the snarkiest:
The White House Wakes Up By David White
Posted: Wednesday, December 21, 2005
ARTICLES
New York Sun
Publication Date: December 21, 2005
As a former speechwriter in the Bush administration--starting as an intern in the White House, and ending as the chief speechwriter for a Cabinet secretary--it was with great trepidation that I watched Sunday night's speech. With the president's poll numbers hovering between 35% and 40% ever since Hurricane Katrina, it seemed as if the White House had entirely given up in the press war. And in giving up in that war, they were putting the real war at risk. Public support can only go so low before troops must come home.
If Sunday night's speech is a sign of things to come, then it will go down as a decisive break not just from the Bush of the past few months, but from the Bush of the past few years. In bringing his argument directly into people's living rooms--with candid, intelligent words--the president and his team finally may have realized that they've been a punching bag for far too long, and they actually have a case to make.
Over the past few years, the hardest thing for any conservative journalist to admit is that the White House has been entirely unhelpful. When the Clinton team had positive economic news, his Cabinet secretaries appeared on every morning talk show--perfectly happy to give Bill all the credit. With the Bush White House, we're lucky if economic figures even make the news. This despite the fact that we're enjoying a red-hot economy.
The same can be said about Social Security. That fight wasn't lost because of any Democratic grand strategy--even with the help of AARP, Howard Dean could have never pulled off such a feat. Rather, President Bush's nationwide tour of "town hall meetings" appeared amateurish. All he needed was a decent piece of legislation and a few serious speeches. The rest would have taken care of itself.
If it weren't for FOX News, talk radio, conservative magazines, and the blogosphere, it's doubtful that any good news would be heard over the chorus of the administration's critics. To a degree, this is understandable--press bias is undoubtedly real (as confirmed, yet again, by a new UCLA-led study), and indisputably anti-Bush. Hence why Cindy Sheehan's every move--not to mention those of Rep. Jack Murtha--receives blanket coverage, while the Iraqi elections have already been relegated to the back pages.
Nonetheless, this treatment is no excuse for the Bush White House to give up, and that's exactly what it had been doing. In 2004, for example, the White House most certainly would have ignored Dan Rather's "documents," even though the story began unraveling only hours after the "60 Minutes II" broadcast.
With Iraq, their behavior has been the same. With the exception of a few soaring speeches (namely, his second term inaugural), the president has been entirely unwilling to take any credit for improvements in Iraq. But Sunday's speech was different. As conservative blogger Gateway Pundit proclaimed after the address," After Only 1,000 Days, Bush Takes Credit for Iraq."
If only he were kidding. Perhaps then the public would be more aware of the remarkable progress we've made. It was, to prove Gateway Pundit's point, the first time that Mr. Bush spoke so honestly about the war, and took full credit--and blame--for its consequences. In the 16-minute address, Mr. Bush spoke of himself 25 times, and twice described the war as "my decision."
This honesty--along with his direct, nonpartisan appeals to the American people--will once again put Iraq on the political table. Why? To quote Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds, it's "because he thinks we're winning, and he wants credit. By November 2006, and especially November 2008, he thinks that'll be obvious, and he wants to lay down his marker now on what he believed--and what the other side did."
...
