The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] Not Unlike Canada's Press. Tom, Are you listening? :-)

  The usual mangled speech but Bush is let off the hook in rare press

      By Rupert Cornwell in Washington

31 July 2003

It didn't reveal much, but the White House press corps were grateful for
anything. George Bush's press conference yesterday was only the ninth he
has held in 30 months of office and a offered rare chance for reporters
to get to grips with the most disciplined, and arguably the most
secretive, White House of modern times. Except that they didn't.

This ought to have been a tricky occasion for the President. His poll
ratings are sagging, budget deficits are ballooning, jobs are vanishing
and American soldiers are dying almost daily in Iraq. And not one of
Saddam's alleged weapons has turned up. But in the end it was a breeze.

The main lesson to emerge from the 50-minute session, the first since
the invasion of Iraq four months ago, was how easily the chief executive
evaded any serious damage - and how the reporters made it easy for him
to do so.

The Bush on display was familiar: a bit macho, a bit matey and
condescending. On occasion he flashed that unappealing smirk, or a spark
of temper when a trusted aide was challenged. For a man who does not
like being asked to explain himself, he looked relaxed and in command
not only of his audience, but also (by his own unexacting standards) of
the English language.

There were the usual odd breakdowns in brain-mouth co-ordination. "I
will never assume the restraint and goodwill of dangerous enemies when
lives of our citizens are at work," he proclaimed during a chest-beating
passage about pursuing the war against terrorism. On occasion he moved
his hands silently groping for words. But the ones he finally came up
with more or less did the job.

As usual, reporters did not follow up each other's questions. At one
point Mr Bush was pressed on the dodgy pre-war intelligence (and the
even dodgier use made of it) about Saddam's supposed weapons'
programmes. Predictably, he launched into an answer about how much
better the world off was without Saddam Hussein.

The reporter pressed him but Mr Bush cut him off, calling the next
question - which was about gay marriage. The President, as only to be
expected, didn't think it was a good idea. The chance to pin him down
was gone.

 From then on it was downhill all the way. We saw the truculent Bush
("Since I'm in charge of the war on terror, we won't reveal source and
methods," he said of his refusal to declassify 28 pages of the
congressional report on the 11 September attacks). Then there was the
carelessly dismissive Bush ("I didn't expect Thomas Jefferson to emerge
in Iraq in a 90-day period," he said of the shambles there).

The 43rd President is known to view journalists as a tiresome
accompaniment to power. While this was only Mr Bush's ninth press
conference, Bill Clinton had held 33 by this stage of his presidency,
and Mr Bush's father an astonishing 61. If yesterday was anything to go
by, he can risk a few more.

Bush Q&A

Why is Condoleezza Rice not being held accountable for the statement
that the White House has acknowledged was a mistake in your State of the
Union address regarding Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium? Also, do
you take personal responsibility for that inaccuracy?

Bush: I take responsibility for everything I say, of course. And I
analysed a thorough body of intelligence ... that led me to the
conclusion that it was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
America is lucky to have [Ms Rice's] service. Period.

How close is the US to capturing Saddam?

I can't say for sure whether our troops are closing in on Saddam. We're
closer than we were yesterday. All I know is, we're on the hunt.

Were the links [with al-Qa'ida] exaggerated to justify war? Or can you
offer us some definitive evidence that Saddam was working with al-Qa'ida

Yes ... but it's going to take time to gather the evidence and analyse
the mounds, ... the miles of documents we have uncovered.

Has the US has lost credibility by building the case for war on
sometimes flimsy or, some have complained, non-existent evidence?

I'm confident that our search will yield that which I strongly believe,
that Saddam had a weapons programme.

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]