SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (39394)4/14/2004 12:46:52 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 793838
 
On Message

George W. Bush ignores the press at his press conference and takes his message of steadfastness in Iraq right to the American people.

by Fred Barnes
04/13/2004 11:45:00 PM

WATCHING PRESIDENT BUSH'S PRESS CONFERENCE Tuesday night, you could see why he drives the press crazy. No matter what they asked, his answer was invariably the same: We're staying the course in Iraq. It's important to gaining freedom for Iraqis and winning the war on terror.

Not only that, he began the session with reporters by gobbling up 17 minutes of time they consider theirs. He devoted it to an opening statement--it was actually a speech--in which he said basically one thing: We're not flinching in Iraq. He was heroically on message, relentlessly repetitive, but effective in his own way.

Washington hates this type of public performance, which is characteristic of Bush. The press, the political community, the inside-the-Beltway lifers--they prefer a rich display of details, a bit of nuance, and some wit. Reporters, particularly, are soft on presidents who seem to like them or at least pretend to--or who pander to them.

Bush, of course, gives them none of that. He's not aiming to please the Washington crowd--the political elite. His audience is outside the Beltway--the mass--and he does surprisingly well in appealing to it. How does he do it? By being plain spoken and amiable and down to earth. By sounding more like Midland, Texas, than like Georgetown or Chevy Chase. By honing in on a single message and not giving reporters much else to write about. Bush tried Tuesday night to dictate the lead of stories.

If one was expecting a Kissingerian strategic case for America's intervention in Iraq, one wasn't
going to get it from Bush. His argument was simple. Freedom in Iraq is good for Iraqis, good for America, and good for the world. And though we've had some tough weeks recently, we're sticking in Iraq and with our plan to turn over sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30.

By my count, reporters got in 15 questions. I categorize them this way: six were seeking information, three were gotcha, three were accusations, one was obscure, one stupid, one showboating. This is a pretty good breakdown of questions. More often than not, the majority of them will be either gotcha or accusations.

One of the gotcha question was disingenuous. Elizabeth Bumiller of the New York Times asked about a statement by Bush to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in which he said he didn't feel "that sense of urgency" about terrorism before September 11. As any reporter would have known, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice had fleshed out the context of that quote in her testimony last Thursday before the 9/11 Commission. Bush was comparing his feeling before the September 11 attacks with how he felt afterwards.

Several questions were attempts by reporters to get Bush to admit mistakes. These are hardy perennials at presidential press conferences, and Bush wisely didn't take the bait. He knows the reporters won't treat an admission of a mistake as a admirable moment of introspection and candor. Rather, they'll jump on the admission and hammer him. Nor would he apologize for having allowed the September 11 attacks to occur, as his ex-aide Richard Clarke did recently. Bush said the blame was on Osama bin Laden.

The last question came from a fellow from National Public Radio, Don Gonyea, who queried Bush about his supposed failure as a communicator. Sure enough, Bush seized the opportunity to tout himself as a strong leader who can be counted on. "When I say something, I mean it," he declared. I suspect this answer didn't thrill the assembled reporters.

The press conference, only the third prime time one of his presidency, was Bush's idea. My guess is after several weeks of renewed fighting in Iraq and eroding support for the war, he wanted to get back on the political offensive. He may have done so. Polls in a day or two will tell us.

Bush left nothing to chance. Many viewers were unlikely to hang around for the full 62 minutes of the press conference. So he delivered his message right at the top and without interference from the reporters. We're not changing course in Iraq, he said. We're hanging in there. It was a message that no viewer could have missed and one that reporters have heard too often.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

weeklystandard.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (39394)4/14/2004 1:06:05 PM
From: michael97123  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793838
 
Some liberals may not. I wouldnt include Biden, Bayh, Bob Kerrey in that camp. John Kerry needs to define himself better and surround himself with folks who understand this. Just because bush is a conservative doesnt mean he understood the WOT vis a vis iraq. For better or worse by deposing saddam this admin opened up a can of worms in iraq that some think better left unopened at least for awhile longer so we could concentrate more on bin laden. I was in the bush camp and still am because I believed he had wmds and was prepared to share them. It turns out different perhaps and that is unlucky for bush. True test now is the implementation of Plan B. What do you think about an alliance with Sistani? I have mentioned that possibility today in several posts and folks seem to be ignoring it. I suspect the reason is that some here think that Bagdad will soon resemble Peoria. We need to get the best deal we can and create an iraqi face on the solution to this problem. It aint going to be the exiles from Detroit and it cant be just the Kurds and we certainly dont want the iranian type shiaa. That leaves us with Sistani who may provide enough glue to hold iraq together while taking care of his own shiaa menace al sadr and supporting the US in our attempts to wipe out sunni baathists and wahabis and iranian and syrian provacateurs. Mike



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (39394)4/14/2004 3:18:48 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793838
 
Familiar Scene

Feeding continues, so terror continues.

By Rachel Ehrenfeld

“I am the beating arm for Hezbollah and Hamas here in Iraq," declared Muqtada al-Sadr last week. Yet, despite President's Bush's statement Tuesday night that "The violence we are seeing in Iraq is familiar, " the U.S. fails to directly acknowledge that there is no difference between the Shiite and Sunni militias in Iraq and Palestinian terrorism. As a matter of fact, it was the Palestinian-Jordanian Musab al-Zarkawi (whose real name is Fedel Nazzel Khalayleh), one of al Qaeda's major operatives in Iraq, helped to coordinate the infiltration of Palestinian, Yemenite, Afghani, North African, and other insurgents, into Iraq.

The horrid pictures of a raging, incited mob, lynching uniformed soldiers in broad daylight, have certainly been seen before — not only in Mogadishu, but also in the Palestinian territories. In October 2002, the Palestinians murdered, dismembered, and dragged the bodies of two Israeli soldiers throughout the streets of Ramallah in the West Bank.

Even the use of mosques as military forts, and ambulances to transport terrorists with their armaments, has been practiced for many years by the Palestinian terrorists. What we see in Iraq is really not much different than what we have been witnessing in the West Bank and Gaza for the last decade, only here, American and Coalition forces are the targets.

The historical and persisting failure of the U.S. and the West to denounce the Palestinian terrorists' atrocities, and to put an end to their activities, was clearly perceived as a weakness by the Islamists. This weakness is now being exploited by al Qaeda and other Muslim fundamentalists, who have taken up arms against the U.S. and Coalition forces.

Al-Zarkawi, and his group, Anzar al Islam, like Hamas, al Qaeda, and other Muslim fundamentalist terrorists, adhere to the teachings of the Muslim brotherhood, and call upon their followers in Iraq, as in the Palestinian territories, "to burn the earth under the occupiers' feet." Similar statements are made by Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi, who, in a televised address two weeks ago, pointed out the similarities between the U.S. and Israel: "We knew that Bush is the enemy of God, the enemy of Islam and Muslims. America declared war against God. Sharon declared war against God and God declared war against America, Bush and Sharon." He went on to say that, "The war of God continues against them and I can see the victory coming up from the land of Palestine by the hand of Hamas." Now that al-Sadr sees himself as a representative of Hamas, he added Iraq to the equation.

The increasing violence in Iraq, supported by foreign insurgencies from Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, will be as difficult to control as the ongoing terror activities by the Palestinians. As long as tens of millions of dollars in funding from Iran continue to fuel the thousands of unemployed and disenfranchised that have joined al-Sadr's Shiite militia, and as long as tens of millions will continue to flow from Saudi Arabia to Palestinian terror organizations, terrorism will continue.

Despite the Saudi crackdown on dissidents in the Kingdom and their claims that they are taking steps to stop both terrorism and terrorist funding, and even despite Condoleezza Rice's recent praise of the Saudi Kingdom's cooperation in the war on terrorism, Saudi money continue to fuel terrorist activities against the U.S. and Israel.

Recent revelations about the transfer of millions of dollars in suspicious transactions by the Saudis through Riggs Bank in Washington, D.C., including to some Muslim charities that have been identified as fronts for al Qaeda, cast doubt on the sincerity of Saudi cooperation in stopping the funds for terrorism.

Similarly, of all the Arab League countries, Saudi Arabia is the only one that continues to fund the Palestinian Authority, led by Yasser Arafat, who, as a U.S. investigation just concluded, approved the attack on a U.S. embassy convoy in which three Americans were killed in 2003. The Saudi contribution, even before latest "reforms" in the PA were announced, amounts to $15.4 million every two months, and at least $50 million continues to flow to Hamas "charities" in the West Bank and Gaza.

The jihadist ideology, both on the Sunni and Shiite fronts, will not be easy to change. And despite the president's assertion that we have deprived the terrorists of their shelter and many of their leaders, we could do much more to prevent them from carrying out their "holy war" against us — we should do more to cut off their funds.

— Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed — and How to Stop It, is director of the New York-based American Center for Democracy.

nationalreview.com