Tuesday, April 13, 2004
I always worry for Bush on these things. He's just not good at them, and while he has the capability of delivering a good speech, and answering questions well, I've also seen him founder - even when reading from a prepared text.
I need not have worried tonight. He did very well. He came off sincere, firm and most of all committed - something we really need right now. The prepared speech was just what the doctor ordered, and he even handled the press questions well (Perfectly? No, but as well as you can expect an unimpressively articulate person to do.) - at length for each one and he didn't dodge a thing - in spite of a couple of reporters wasting questions on what amounts to the frivolous in tonight's context, like asking The President if he would apologize for 9/11. You certainly can't complain he wasn't on message. He stuck absolutely to Iraq and the War on Terror. If you don't get the connection between Iraq and 9/11 by now - that is, between a stable Middle East and 9/11 - then you never will. There wasn't one question on the economy.
Here's a transcript: The New York Times > Washington > Text of President Bush's Speech
This is good:
The success of free government in Iraq is vital for many reasons:
A free Iraq is vital because 25 million Iraqis have as much right to live in freedom as we do.
A free Iraq will stand as an example to reformers across the Middle East.
A free Iraq will show that America is on the side of Muslims who wish to live in peace, as we've already shown in Kuwait and Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan.
A free Iraq will confirm to a watching world that America's word, once given, can be relied upon, even in the toughest times.
Above all, the defeat of violence and terror in Iraq is vital to the defeat of violence and terror elsewhere and vital, therefore, to the safety of the American people.
Now is the time, and Iraq is the place, in which the enemies of the civilized world are testing the will of the civilized world. We must not waver.
I especially liked this next paragraph:
Not afraid to mention buses in Jerusalem as terror, not afraid to mention Daniel Pearl as a Jew. This President Gets It.
Update: One of the commenters at Roger Simon's mentions Iran as the elephant in the living room and questions why none of the reporters asked about it. It's a great point, and that's exactly what I mean when I say they were far more intent on questions that were "frivolous in tonight's context." The more I think about it, the more vacuous the press sounded. The questions didn't have to be adversarial, or go for a "gotcha," but they could have been informative and substanceful while still being tough.
Update2: Heh. Instapundit points to this bizarre past-tense AP report at the Washington Post published before the press conference even occured.
The president also faced questions about whether he ignored warning signs about the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and botched opportunities to eliminate the al Qaeda network. A memo given to Bush a month before the attacks said Osama bin Laden's supporters were in the United States planning attacks with explosives...
