Just in case you missed Bush's press conference the other day here is the link:
Bush's Prime Time Press Conference (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html)

Needless to say, it was nauseating.

Kudos to the reporters there (except Jim Angle from Fox News) for asking some incredibly high quality questions:

Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked. One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism?and

Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology [regarding the failure to prevent 9/11] from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?and

You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?Unfortunately Bush decided not to give responses to these questions. For instance, mistakes are just so rare and/or inconsequential that it's nearly impossible to even think of one! "I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it."

Here is another choice question:

"Your critics, including your Democratic opponent, say that's proof to them your coalition is window dressing. How would you answer those critics? And can you assure the American people that post-sovereignty, when the handover takes place, that there will be more burden sharing by allies, in terms of security forces?"In a typical deceptive response he replies, "John, my response is, I don't think people ought to demean the contributions of our friends into Iraq." In other words, "I won't show you any respect and answer your question."

Of less interest was a soon-to-be classic Bush quote:

Some of the debate really center around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing and free. I strongly disagree with that.
The sad thing is that this is only a sampling of the presidential clowning that went on.

I agree completely with your assessment. And it's about time the press has shown some spine and started asking a few tough questions. But where have these guys been for the last three years?

For a while it seemed to me that if you didn't support the war in Iraq, or if you knocked the president then you were unpatriotic. Martin Sheen got all kinds of hate mail because he was against the war. Maybe now people are realising that asking questions is a good thing, and you can be a patriot whilst still questioning your leader's decisions.

What's so good about nationalism anyway. Fight for the people, not the country.

As in "Will this benefit me and/or the people I want to help?" instead of "Is this American?"

I actually thought his speech, and the answers he gave were heartfelt. He believes that what he is doing is for the greater good. It's easy to go back to 9/11 three years after and say: why didn't you do this? How come you didn't do that. Armed with the gift of hindsight, it's easy to be critical.

I think Bush is able to make the tough choices in an effort to make the best LONG TERM decisions for the country and the world. I supported going to war in Iraq, and I still do. It's sad that people are dying there, but ultimately, I think that's what had to be done and the long term effects will be positive.

I don't think Bush lied about WMDs when he went to Congress for authorization to invade Iraq. I think that was the information he was receiving from the intelligence community. Also, Hussein had the capability to launch and delivery chemical and biological agents in the late 80s and early 90s during Desert Storm. It would have been logical to assume that during the intervening years between the Gulf War and the 2003 invasion that Hussein had improved his weapon and delivery systems. In light of the new threats 9/11 exposed, and Hussein's refusal to allow inspectors into his country, Saddam gave credibility to the threat Bush perceived. So he invaded.

The bottom line is that Saddam Hussein and his government was an oppressive regime that catered to terrorists bent on global destabilization. Saddam gave him a reason to attack, and he did. Despite the current difficulty in Iraq, I still think it was the right thing to do. I think the world will be far better for it in the long run.

I think it's difficult for most people to see the big picture, looking sometimes 10, 20 years into the future. The world is no longer pockets of isolated regions, global economies have made the world a much smaller place and every action by a nation can have serious global consequences. Rogue states like Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Iran, should be dealt with to ensure long term stability for the entire world.

America inherited the leadership position from Britain after World War II. Like it or not, global policing needs to be done, or there will be more 9/11 type attacks, more bombed train stations, and more innocent civilians taken hostage in the name of oppression.

I agree with the idea of global policing on the principle that we should remove known threats to people's lives. I still feel that Bush is not prepared for his position, I agree that his decisions are heartfelt but in my opinion that does not negate that fact that he seems incompetent. No matter how much he cares I would never willingly entrust this man with my safety, it's a question of proven skill. That and I've heard allegations of special interests.

Well said Belisarius!

That being said, what was the point of even having the Press Conference? The 30% of people who absolutely despise the man and will take every opportunity to call him stupid for his manner of speech will use this to further push their agenda (I wonder how many websites reported the number of times Bush said "ummm"?).

The parallel to the way Reagan was criticized is intrigueing to me. Reagan was considered a hawk, and a bumpkin. The left screamed that he was going to bankrupt the US and lead us to Armageddon with his policies. Of course in reality the policies broke the Soviet Union, and lead to a period of unprecedented growth of the US economy. I guess time will tell for Bush.

I really don’t understand what Bush hopped to accomplish with this event. I don't think that Bush has the charisma to pull the 40 to 60% of voters who are unsure of the war, but who don't despise him just for who he is, to his side via this type of venue.

The other thing that really pisses me off is that he won't back down from this "the WMD's just haven't been fount yet" mantra. Unless we have them already, and he is just keeping them under wraps for the election, or unless he is prepared to plant them just in time for the election :nono: , he needs to play his get out of jail free card. It is so easy! He should point out that everyone, including the UN, France, Clinton, Kerry, and even Hans himself stated before the war that they believed that Saddam had WMD's. Saddam did everything they could to make us believe he had them. Why bribe inspectors, destroy buildings prior to them being inspected, and have large trucks showing up at other scheduled inspections sites just prior to their inspection if he was not hiding something? Bush should come out and say that if Saddam was doing all these things to destroy the WMD's, that Saddam should have come clean, and that Bush would have then supported the UN's efforts to verify the process. Then start making the point that the entire war was not only about WMD's, but was about setting up a stable example of Democracy in the ME, and about ending the tyranny of Saddam’s evil regime. Would this have swayed the 30% of people who just hate him? No, but it would have pulled some of those who are in the middle toward him.

Instead of this Bush brings up some chem weapons that Egypt turned over, and instead of being able to use that as a success story for the liberation, he weakens it by using it instead as a example of how easy it is to hide this stuff, and how hard it is to find it. Boohoo Mr. President, you and yours promised that you would find them, so either put up or shut up about them. :mad:

Sorry Mr. Bush, but I can only give you a C- on this one, not so much based upon the message or delivery, but upon the strategy employed.

@Ankiseth-Vanir

The questions that you cite as evidence of good journalism would be thrown out of any court of law as leading or inflammatory.

The purpose of Journalism is to provide information, not determine how much to slant that information.

Given the absurd and ridiculous wording of your self proclaimed "high quality questions", I felt the President answered honestly and with more restraint than I might of had...I'd have called in a MEF to take the bastards out.

Oh, and go back and read the entire answer that you have taken Some of the debate really center around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing and free. I strongly disagree with that.
from (and out of context). It is actually a fairly straight forward and reasonable answer to a much larger question.

Look what I can do when I cut and paste from your post... high reporters are incredibly nauseating.
I could not agree with you more.

I also echo Darkwolfs concern as to why the WMD issue seems to continue as a broken record...if he screwed up, like all the other players mentioned in Darkwolf's post, then admit it and put it behind us...don't keep stringing us along thinking eventually all of America will forget.

@ Hack
The purpose of Journalism is to provide information, not determine how much to slant that information. I couldn't agree more. But you're confusing the party who was guilty of the slanting (the president and his lame, evasive answers) and the party who sought information in this case (the press, who's given the white house a free pass to say pretty much whatever they wanted for the last 2.5 years).
I felt the President answered honestly and with more restraintReally?

Q. Mr. President, Why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9/11 commission? And Mr. President, who will you be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30?

A. We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over. And secondly, because the the 9/11 commission wants to ask us questions. That's why we're meeting, and I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.

Q. Mr. President, I was asking why you're appearing together rather than separately, which was their request.

A. Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them.

---

If, to you, answering "honestly and showing restraint" means dodging questions left and right and changing the subject with lame talking points, I shudder to think what your definition of a flat out lie is. The only restraint he showed was in repeatedly restraining himself from giving a straight answer.

OK, DR

Looks to me like he gave an answer to every question asked. Looks to me that you don't like the answers he gave.

I agree that the press has often been the Administration's lap dog in the first years of the Bush Presidency...that often they failed to ask difficult or even worthwhile questions and seemed to fawn in a most disgraceful way.

I guess I'll leave it that both sides are attempting to slant the information to benefit their own interests...I'll go along with that...just don't call it quality journalism when most of the questions are worded in such a way as to presuppose an answer.

btw, the reason the prez and vp are appearing together is highly classified. You may note that since 9/11 they never make appearances together in public...this "post 9/11" dual appearance is a ruse intended to draw bin Laden out of hiding to attempt a suicide bombing. :p

I just have to say that many of you have it completely wrong about the WMD's. I cant talk about Kerry for I dont know but I know that France, Germany, Blix and the others who advices caution said that there is no evidence that Iraq has WMD's there might be of course but until we know we should wait. The distrust and eggthrowing towards the inspectors is also sickening as is many peoples assessment of their work. They had been in Iraq on and off for more than ten years and all the time they had dismantled whatever Saddam might have had. Saddam was shady and he did look suspicious, but do you know what I think? I think the bastard knew the US would come for him whatever he did and as the arrogant SOB he is he tried to save some face. Looking at what various Bush officals are now saying it seems that for once Saddam was right. Bush II was going to invade Iraq no matter what and every reason from WMD's to liberation was just for show.

He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours. Colin Powell in February 2001

We are able to keep arms from him [Saddam]. His military forces have not been rebuilt.
Condoleezza Rice in July 2001

I think people are overlooking another major point. Saddam has been at odds with most of the other countries around him for years. Take the whole war with Iran for example. What's going to deter them from attacking him? The fact that he has WMD of course. Maybe the reason Saddam portrayed this whole WMD thin was to provide some reason for other countries around him not to take advantage of the weakened state he was in after Desert Storm.
A second reason could have been, that by saying he had WMD, he could negotiate some sort of settlement with the west citing retaliation as a bargaining tool.
I will be the first to say that I think Saddam underestimated the resolve of the west to go after him, but I don't think all questions about his WMD capability have been asked yet.

I agree with the idea of global policing on the principle that we should remove known threats to people's lives. I still feel that Bush is not prepared for his position, I agree that his decisions are heartfelt but in my opinion that does not negate that fact that he seems incompetent.Duh.

I add that I profoundly distrust his neo-con advisors. IMO they are deluded and dangerous ideologues who have steered America into quite a mess - willingly or by incompetence - I can't decide what would be worse. To a good deal they determined Bush's foreign policy, the part that primarily concerns me.

IMO Bush's speech was a striking display of his weakness. Actually I didn't expect to see Rove preparing him so poorly: Faced with a tough question he started to stammer. What does he do when faced with a tough problem? Waiting for some talking points?

I daresay Bush might, despite his limitations, with prudent advisors, have been a decent president, but then, I'd prefer a president who is a little less dependent so to say ... anyone who saw that poor man stammering and searching his talking point cards for rescue knows what I mean.

So, if I were Republican American, I'd say something like that: A well advised Bush for pres, why not? But with the neo-cons??! Well, then rather Kerry.

Look, I'm no Bush fan, but I actually have to agree with some of what Hacken Slash said. Some of the questions asked were completely ridiculous, and almost impossible to answer. For example:

Q April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. What does that say to you and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?
It assumes that Iraq is turning into another Vietnam. Over 50,000 U.S. dead in Vietnam, about 700 dead in Iraq. If it's turning into another Vietnam, we've got a long, long way to go. We'll have to fight Iraqi insurgents for about another 75 years to hit that total.

What's your best prediction on how long U.S. troops will have to be in Iraq? Puh-lease. That would require knowing how many insurgents are within Iraq, where they are, and how long it will take for the Iraqi government to come up with a competent police and military service, and there's no way to know any of those things.

And, secondly, in the wake of these two conflicts, what is the appropriate threat level to justify action in perhaps other situations going forward? It would be so nice if response to terrorism had a one-size-fits-all answer. That question is impossible to answer, threats will be handled as they come up, and every unique situation calls for a unique stategy. If it didn't we'd already be at war with North Korea, Iran and Syria.

Finally on the part about the 9/11 commission, I believe Bush is being completely forthright. If nothing else, Bush is a patriot, so when he says:

I'm sick when I think about the death that took place on that day. and

And the answer is that had I had any inkling whatsoever that the people were going to fly airplanes into buildings, we would have moved heaven and earth to save the country I belive him.

I would have liked to have seen better answers for some of the questions asked, but I think so many people on this board are so anti-Bush that they can't take anything he says seriously, or look at anything he does objectively. Overall, I thought that the speech was very good, and his handling of the questions after the speech were fair. Some were not answered simply because no one could have answered them.

Well said, joacqin!
Makes me wonder why some people just keep repeating 'facts' that they and others know to be invalid and, well, simply not true. Maybe in the hope that one day the opposition will begin to tire refuting them? Drone on long enough and they will be accepted as truth.

Really, just keep repeating a lie until people believe it?

I guess you must be right, we even convinced the French Foreign ministry of it:

Q - To make it clearer, did France know, did it suspect that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or not?

I think everyone had suspicions at the time. The purpose in all those negotiations was precisely to clear up the suspicions, to see what was behind them and, if need be, to act accordingly. The substance of the debate in fall 2002 was that. http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/actu/article.gb.asp?ART=40258

That statement was made Feb 3rd of this year.

Hans Blix stated the following on 3/28/04:

Yes, I, too, believed there were weapons. I began to be skeptical when we went to sites that were given to us by U.S. intelligence and we found nothing. They said this is the best intelligence we have, and I said, if this is the best, what is the rest? http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/28/magazine/28QUESTIONS.html?ex=1082174400&en=9e8268bfc90296c7&ei=5070

Well duh Mr. Blix, of course you didn't find anything, your inspectors had already been bought and paid for by Saddam, and your offices were bugged. Big surprise.
edit: Per joacqin post far below, I have to admit that this arguement is invalid as I cannot locate the article I read that sited at least one of the UN inspectors being bribed. My apologies :o

As far as the quotes from Powell and Rice, I call that a red herring. Define significant. Enough too kill a few thousand people in a subway, or enough to kill another 100 thousand of his neighbors (and Iraqi's for that matter)? We weren't all that worried about his military attacking the Saudis or Iran. One of the things we were worried about was him providing aid to terrorists, and since he was already providing money to families of homicide bombers, it wasn't that far of a reach to think of him giving them a few cubic liters of sarin or VX.

I believe we can safely state that Saddam will not be providing aid to terrorists any time in the near future.

Hopefully he will be taking the eternal celestial dirt nap before the near future expires.

[ April 17, 2004, 03:11: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

Darkwolf, Well duh Mr. Blix, of course you didn't find anything, your inspectors had already been bought and paid for by Saddam, and your offices were bugged. Big surprise.You're entirely entitled your opinion Darkwolf, but bitter reality hints on that there were no WMD in Iraq, so do say: US Uberinspector Kay (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109431,00.html), explaining: Nearly all WMD Claims Wrong (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/26/1075087961163.html) Bush himself (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/28/politics/28PREX.html?ex=1082174400&en=c7c11e26ba0a8c63&ei=5070) Condi (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1135321,00.html) and Powell (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109409,00.html) ... Wolfowitz wasn't 'concerned' about WMD (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92566,00.html) and the Iraqis themselves are pretty sure too that there were no WMD (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85532,00.html), and it seems Israel knew it too but seemingly 'forgot' to tell the US (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1140458,00.html)..... so what exactly should have Blix found in your opinion? That probably doesn't really matter, you'd likely loathe him whatever he sais because he's from the UN.

But then, even your "real inspectors" didn't find anything - unbribed by Saddam and with offices unbugged, with unhindered access to everyone and anything in Iraq. But then - real and ready WMD's morphed to mere know how and evil intentions for one day. Iraqs WMD program was a papertiger (you just *have to* look at image of the two top secret WMD documents found by US inspectors! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A60340-2004Jan6&notFound=true))

Now lemme guess, they all got it wrong - the missing WMD are in Syria (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107946,00.html) or Iran now (http://www.sundayherald.com/34271) (excellent article btw) ... :rolleyes:

PS: And as with the "Saddam had WMD" myth always comes the other shoe: There also was no link between 911 and Saddam - according to Bush (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97527,00.html) and Rummy (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97525,00.html) ... just in case.

PPS: But then, maybe Bush's emphasis on the missile shield before 911, the final defense at the fourth frontier, had a deeper purpose ... :borg: maybe Saddam had links with aliens (http://english.pravda.ru/main/2003/01/31/42821.html) and Saddam had to be taken out to prevent them from taking over the world :borg: ... I could almost understand Bush lying about WMD then :shake:

Hacken-Slash your argument would be strengthened if you actually showed HOW I took things out of context. Instead you took MY post out of context in a sad, misleading, and inane manner in order to prove a point that I *could* have taken the quotes out of context (which I didn't).

The only evidence you provide is the quote I posted as a joke. It was a comedic aside, how did you not realize that?

The questions that you cite as evidence of good journalism would be thrown out of any court of law as leading or inflammatory.
What's your point? I didn't see a judge or bailiff. The press asked some hard, fair questions and Bush refused to answer them. If they were "leading" or "inflammatory" (which they weren't), then Bush could have responded "no comment," thereby allowing him to retain the last shred of dignity he had left. Instead he opted to treat the American people like idiots by filibustering at every conceivable time he could.

The purpose of Journalism is to provide information, not determine how much to slant that information. True, but how does this apply to this particular situation? Unsupported rhetoric will only take you so far. Please characterize the "slants," you observed.

Given the absurd and ridiculous wording of your self proclaimed "high quality questions", I felt the President answered honestly and with more restraint than I might of had...I'd have called in a MEF to take the bastards out.Lets be sure we can differentiate between "responses" and "answers," because the former was in excess whereas the latter was AWOL.

@Ankiseth

Maybe if you don't see the slant, it's because you are standing at the same slant.

Kinda a frog in the boiling water thing.

Aldeth has already pulled out some of the better examples of leading and unanswerable questions...take a look at them. There is no need for me to paste and cut more. Given the vague, rambling and leading nature of the questions, it is no surprise to me that the President "ummmed" a few times.

I disagree that the President, or any politician can answer "no comment" in an election year...that is sure death.

Hey, you've got your slant, I'm sure I've got mine.

And no, I had no idea you were making a comedic aside. Maybe next time, for my benefit, surround it with "smilies".

I disagree that the President, or any politician can answer "no comment" in an election year...that is sure death.
Why should Dubya care? He did say, "... as to whether or not I make decisions based upon polls, I don't. I just don't make decisions that way." So why should he care? Oh, here you go: :grin:

Ragusa,

Almost all of your post is a red herring.

I am not going to waste my time disputing it point by point.

"The war on terrorism". The President announced long ago that we would not stand for nations that continue to support terrorism. He never stated that this is a war on terrorist states that support attacks on the US, as that would make us hypocrites (like the French Government criticizing us while carrying on many non-UN endorsed military activities). Iraq was a unique opportunity to take out a regime that supported terrorism, flaunted the UN resolutions regarding their bio and chem weapons, was abusive to its citizens, was already a destabilizing factor in the Middle East, and (given the threat of N. Korea) a regime we could take without having to commit our entire military forces.

You have claimed that I am blinded by whatever group or person you happen to be taking issue with at the moment. Perhaps you should take a good look and make sure you are not blinded by your own government’s displeasure at the vast amounts of money it lost in potential contracts with Saddam's regime, because if wasn't for that I would bet that Germany would be a member of the coalition. It is truly amazing that the 3 nations that stand strongest against this war were the same 3 nations that had the most to lose monetarily. :rolleyes:

Borrowing from Dendri:

Makes me wonder why some people just keep repeating 'facts' that they and others know to be invalid and, well, simply not true. Maybe in the hope that one day the opposition will begin to tire refuting them? Drone on long enough and they will be accepted as truth. Those against the war keep trying to pin the President down by saying the war was about just one thing, and half the time it wasn't even ever about that at all. One day it is "Mr. President, the only reason we went to Iraq because you said there were WMD's", then next it is, "Mr. President you lead us all to believe that Iraq was involved in the attack on 9/11", then when those lose their luster they switch to, "this war is only because Bush is avenging the assassination attempt on his daddy's life", or "Bush is just trying to finish what his daddy couldn't" (of course we could have, but the UN begged us to stop). These attempts to pin the decision to liberate Iraq down to being only about one issue are purely political and are morally and intellectually bankrupt, as well as being an insult to the men and women who have paid with their lives in an attempt to make the world a safer place.

Can you answer any one of these questions with a no?

Did Saddam sponsor terrorism?
Is the world going to be a safer place with Saddam out of power?
Were al Qeada members trained in Iraq?
Were high ranking al Qeada members given refuge in Baghdad?
Were tens of thousands of Iraqi's tortured and murdered under Saddam's regime?
Did Saddam refuse to honor the terms of the cease-fire?

Now that we know some of the reasons we went there, lets ask some other questions.

Did Saddam's regime owe Russia approximately $8 billion (or more)?
Did those overseeing the "Oil for Food" program for the UN make enormous amounts of money from those "humanitarian" activities?
Did the French sell prohibited weapons to the Saddam during the embargo?
Did Saddam's regime offer large contracts to Germany if they would oppose the war?

I have no personal problem with those who argue that the liberation of Iraq destabilizes the Middle East, and will only lead to more violence. Those opinions may turn out to be valid (though I will still argue that they will turn out to be wrong). But in my opinion, the rest of this crap is despicable.

Perhaps you should take a good look and make sure you are not blinded by your own government’s displeasure at the vast amounts of money it lost in potential contracts with Saddam's regime, because if wasn't for that I would bet that Germany would be a member of the coalition. Yes, and look at all the money American contractors received as a result of the war (our money by the way). Your accusation cuts both ways, Darkwolf.

Did those overseeing the "Oil for Food" program for the UN make enormous amounts of money from those "humanitarian" activities?As a matter of fact yes. The US and UK oversaw the Oil for Food program. Remember? They sit in the UN Security Council and they dispatched their people in the sanctions comitee.
And the US did iirc some 45% of the deals with Iraq in the Oil-for-Food program, much more than anyone else - all that while Saddam was well in power.

And no, my post is not a red herring. I didn't turn away from the topic, I replied to a point you made. And except for that: All the people who said there were no WMD were quoted real, and that no WMD have been found yet is a fact too and that it is about the actual consensus in the intel community that there likely have never been WMD in Iraq since, say, 1997, is a fact too (so, no imminent threat in 2003). And no, Saddam had no 911 links, despite all the people who still insist on that, because they want to - it is nonsense.

All that isn't a liberal conspiracy to piss you off or to bash Bush. It's reality. Have a peek.

I cannot understand how people can get so bloody hysterical about Bush and legitimate critique on his policy. On another board I recently saw someone weeping about "blind ignorance" - a benighted relative wanted to vote for :eek: Kerry !!! :eek:

[ April 16, 2004, 11:47: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Darkwolf, do you have any substance to your repeated claims that the inspectors were bribed? That is a vile accusation and I would be surprised if you have any foundation for it except your will to discredit anyone who doesnt follow the same beliefs as you. As for their offices being bugged, yup, that they were. The real issue is by whom? It wasnt Saddam or anyone else in the Middle East who bugged Blix and his team, it was the US and the UK.

joacqin,

I have to admit that I cannot locate the article that sited at least one of the UN inspectors being bribed. I have edited my post above to reflect this.

I have not given up on this though, and when I locate the article I had, or another one, I will post it. Unfortunately any web searches regaring bribery turn up a ton of articles alledging Iraq bribed those against the war (primarily Russia) and allegations that the Bush administration bribed almost everyone.

On the original topic of Bush's press conference, regardless of how I feel about Bush and his policies lately, from a political standpoint I think he did an excellent job.
There was really no other way he could have answered those questions.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. To move to the 9/11 Commission. You, yourself, have acknowledged that Osama bin Laden was not a central focus of the administration in the months before September 11th. "I was not on point," you told the journalist, Bob Woodward, "I didn't feel that sense of urgency." Two-and-a-half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th? and

Q Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked. One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism? And do you believe there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up? also

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9/11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one? Could you imagine all the sounds bites available? How many times would he be quoted by his opposition or even Kerry in campaign adds if he apologized or admited a mistake.
Not answering them or go around the question is the best thing any one could have done.

And why should he apologize for 9/11? He was not the one who flew the planes into those buildings.

Another great analysis from stratfor.com

Bush's Crisis: Articulating a Strategy in Iraq and the Wider War
Apr 15, 2004

Summary

President George W. Bush's press conference on Tuesday evening was fascinating in its generation of a new core justification for the Iraq campaign: building a democratic Iraq. It is unclear why Bush would find this a compelling justification for the invasion, but it is more unclear why the administration continues to generate unconvincing arguments for its Iraq policy, rather than putting forward a crisp, strategic and -- above all -- real justification.

Analysis

It is clear that the current crisis in Iraq was not expected by the Bush administration. That in itself ought not to be a problem. Even the most successful war is filled with unexpected and unpleasant surprises. D-Day in Normandy was completely fouled up; the German Ardennes offensive caught the Allies by surprise. No war goes as expected. However, in order to recover from the unexpected, it is necessary to have a clear strategic framework from which you are operating. This means a clearly understood concept of how the pieces of the war fit together -- a concept that can be clearly articulated to both the military and the public. Without a framework that defines where you are going, you can never figure out where you are. It becomes impossible to place the unexpected in an understandable context, and it becomes impossible to build trust among the political leadership, the military and the nation. This is why the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam was unmanageable -- yet the Ardennes offensive of 1944-1945 was readily managed.

In a January 2003 piece titled "Smoke and Mirrors: The United States, Iraq and Deception", we commented on the core of the coming Iraq campaign, which was that the public justification for the war (weapons of mass destruction) and the strategic purpose of the war (a step in redefining regional geopolitics) were at odds. We argued that: "In a war that will last for years, maintaining one's conceptual footing is critical. If that footing cannot be maintained -- if the requirements of the war and the requirements of strategic clarity are incompatible -- there are more serious issues involved than the future of Iraq."

During President George W. Bush's press conference this week, that passage came to mind again. The press conference focused on what has become the new justification for the war -- bringing Western-style democracy to Iraq. A subsidiary theme was that Iraq had been a potential threat to the United States because it "coddled" terrorists. Mounting a multidivisional assault on a fairly large nation for these reasons might be superficially convincing, but they could not be the main reasons for invasion -- and they weren't. We will not repeat what we regard as the main line of reasoning behind the invasion, because our readers are fully familiar with our read of the situation. We will merely reassert that the real reason -- the capture of the most strategic country in the region in order to exert pressure on regimes that were in some way enablers of al Qaeda -- was more plausible, persuasive and defensible than the various public explanations, from links to al Qaeda to WMD to bringing democracy to the Iraqi masses. Such logic might work when it comes to sending a few Marines on a temporary mission to Haiti, but not for sending more than 130,000 troops to Iraq for an open-ended commitment.

Answers and Platitudes

Bush's inability and/or unwillingness to articulate a coherent strategic justification for the Iraq campaign -- one that integrates the campaign with the general war on Islamists that began Sept. 11 -- is at the root of his political crisis right now. If the primary purpose of the U.S. invasion of Iraq was to bring democracy to Iraq, then enduring the pain of the current crisis will make little sense to the American public. Taken in isolation, bringing democracy to Iraq may be a worthy goal, but not one taking moral precedence over bringing democracy to several dozen other countries -- and certainly not a project worth the sacrifices now being made necessary.

If, on the other hand, the invasion was an integral part of the war that began Sept. 11, then Bush will generate public support for it. The problem that Bush has -- and it showed itself vividly in his press conference -- is that he and the rest of his administration are simply unable to embed Iraq in the general strategy of the broader war. Bush asserts that it is part of that war, but then uses the specific justification of bringing democracy to Iraq as his rationale. Unless you want to argue that democratizing Iraq -- assuming that is possible -- has strategic implications more significant than democratizing other countries, the explanation doesn't work. The explanation that does work -- that the invasion of Iraq was a stepping-stone toward changes in behavior in other countries of the region -- is never given.

We therefore wind up with an explanation that is only superficially plausible, and a price that appears to be excessive, given the stated goal. The president and his administration do not seem willing to provide a coherent explanation of the strategy behind the Iraq campaign. What was the United States hoping to achieve when it invaded Iraq, and what is it defending now? There are good answers to these questions, but Bush stays with platitudes.

This is not only odd, but also it has substantial political implications for Bush and the United States. First, by providing no coherent answer, he leaves himself open to critics who are ascribing motives to his policy -- everything from controlling the world's oil supply, to the familial passion to destroy Saddam Hussein, to a Jewish world conspiracy. The Bush administration, having created an intellectual vacuum, can't complain when others, trying to understand what the administration is doing, gin up these theories. The administration has asked for it.

There is an even more important dimension to this. The single most important thing that happened during the recent offensive in Iraq was that the United States entered into negotiations for the first time with the Sunni guerrillas in Al Fallujah. The United States has now traveled a path that began with Donald Rumsfeld's dismissing the guerrillas as a disorganized band of dead-enders and led to the belief (shared by us) that they had been fairly defeated in December 2003 -- and now to negotiations that were initiated by the United States. The negotiations began with a simple, limited cease-fire and have extended to a longer, more open-ended truce.

The United States is facing the fact that the Sunni guerrillas have not only not been defeated, but that they are sufficiently well organized and supported by the broader Sunni population that negotiations are possible with them. There is an organized Sunni command authority that planned and executed this operation and is now weighing U.S. offers on a truce. That is a huge change in the U.S. perception of the Sunni guerrillas. Negotiations are also something that the administration would never have contemplated two weeks ago, regardless of how limited the topic might be. The idea that the United States needed to negotiate anything was unthinkable.

This is not the only negotiation going on at the moment. There are negotiations with the Muqtada al-Sadr group. Negotiations with the Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani group. Discussions with the Iranians. Iraq is swirling with negotiations, offers, bluffs, double crosses and lies. It is quite a circus at the moment, with at least three major players (the Sunnis, the Shia, the United States) who are in turn fragmented in all sorts of fascinating ways -- and this doesn't even begin to include the Kurds and other minorities.

Making Alliances

The United States is going to have to make alliances. Its core alliance with the majority Shia has to be redefined in the wake of al-Sadr's uprising. Even if al-Sadr is destroyed with his militia, the United States and the Shia will have much to talk about. Far more important, the United States is now talking to the Sunni guerrillas. That might or might not lead anywhere, but it is vitally important to all sides, no matter what comes of it. The United States has recognized that the Sunni enemy is a competent authority in some sense -- and that changes everything.

The United States will combine military action with political maneuvering. That is logical and inevitable in this sort of war. But as deals are cut with a variety of players, how will Bush's argument that the United States is building democracy in Iraq fly? The United States will be building coalitions. Whether it is a democracy is another matter. Indeed, it was al-Sistani demanding elections (which he knew the Shia would win) and the president putting off elections -- declaring at the press conference that he would not bend to Shiite demands on a timetable.

The problem that Bush has created is that there is no conceptual framework in which to understand these maneuvers. Building democracy in Iraq is not really compatible with the deals that are going to have to be cut. It is not that cutting deals is a bad idea. It is not that the current crisis cannot be overcome with a combination of political and military action. The problem is that no one will know how the United States is doing, because it has not defined a conceptual framework for what it is trying to accomplish in Iraq -- or how Iraq fits into the war on the jihadists.

Bush Political Crisis

This is creating a massive political crisis for Bush domestically. The public knows there is a crisis in Iraq, but there is little understanding of how to judge whether the crisis is being managed. If the only criterion is the creation of democracy, that is not only a distant goal, but also one that will be undermined by necessary U.S. deal-making. Democracy -- by any definition that the American public can recognize -- is not coming to Iraq anytime soon. If that is the mark of success, Bush's only hope is that he won't be kept to a tight timetable. What is worse for Bush is that, in his news conference, he framed the coming presidential election as basically a referendum on his policy in Iraq. The less that policy is understood, and the more Iraq appears uncontrollable, the more vulnerable Bush will be to charges that the Iraq war was unjustified, and that it is a distraction from the wider war -- which the American electorate better understands and widely supports.

He is facing John Kerry, who has shrewdly chosen to call neither for a withdrawal from Iraq nor for an end to the war on the Islamist world. Kerry's enormous advantage is that he can articulate a strategy without having to take responsibility for anything in the past. He can therefore argue that Bush's impulses were correct, but that he lacked a systematic strategy. Stratfor said in its annual forecast that the election was Bush's to lose. We now have to say that he is making an outstanding attempt to lose it.

Obviously, the administration has a strategy in Iraq and the Islamic world. It is a strategy that is discussed inside the administration and is clearly visible outside. Obviously, there will be military and political reversals. The strategy and the reversals are far more understandable than the decisions the Bush administration has made in presenting them. It has adopted a two-tier policy: a complex and nearly hidden strategic plan and a superficial public presentation.

It could be argued that in a democratic society like the United States, it is impossible to lay bare the cold-blooded reasoning behind a war, and that the war needs to be presented in a palatable fashion. This might be true -- and there are examples of both approaches in American history -- but we tend to think that in the face of Sept. 11, only a cold-blooded plan, whose outlines are publicly presented and accepted, can work. We could be wrong, but on this we have no doubt. Even if the administration is correct in its assumption that there must be a two-tier approach to the public presentation of the war, it has done a terrible job in articulating its public justification.

The administration has held only three press conferences. Some explain this by saying that the president is too inarticulate to withstand public grilling. We don't buy that. He is not the greatest orator by any means, but he doesn't do that badly. His problem is that he will not engage on the core strategic question. Franklin Roosevelt, our best wartime president bar none -- who should be the model for any wartime president -- spoke on and off the record with reporters, continually and with shocking frankness when we look back on it. He did not hesitate to discuss strategy -- from Germany First to relations with Joseph Stalin. He filled the public space with detail and managed public expectations brilliantly, even during the terrible first six months of the war.

We are convinced that the Bush administration has a defensible strategy. It is not a simple one and not one that can be made completely public, but it is a defensible strategy. If President Bush decides not to articulate it, it will be interesting to see whether President Kerry does, because we are convinced that if Bush keeps going in the direction he is going, he will lose the election. The president's public presentation of the war is designed to exploit success, not to withstand reversals and hardships. What is fascinating is that political operatives like Karl Rove, the president's political adviser, can't seem to get their arms around this simple fact: The current communications strategy is not working. They seem frozen in place, seemingly hoping that something will turn up. We doubt strongly that building democracy in Iraq is the cry that will rally the American nation.