President Bush gave a press conference July 12 dealing mostly with the Iraq War and the interim report that came out. I want to discuss and dissect some of the things discussed at this press conference. Now, I realize I am probably a little late ot the dance as others may have covered it by now, but guess what,I don't care. My blog, my post. Skip it if you don't want to read "old news." I think there were some serious, salient points that need to be discussed. Well, here goes.THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Thank you. Yesterday, America lost an extraordinary First Lady and a fine Texan, Lady Bird Johnson. She brought grace to the White House and beauty to our country. On behalf of the American people, Laura and I send our condolences to her daughters, Lynda and Luci, and we offer our prayers to the Johnson family.
Lady Bird Johnson was for highway beautification projects. Yes, the highways are prettier, but the American people paid for it. It is a sad time when anyone passes away however. So, our prayers to the Johnson family. Moving on.
Before I answer some of your questions, today I'd like to provide the American people with an update on the situation in Iraq. Since America began military operations in Iraq, the conflict there has gone through four major phases. The first phase was the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein. The second phase was the return of sovereignty to the Iraqi people and the holding of free elections. The third phase was the tragic escalation of sectarian violence sparked by the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra.
We've entered a fourth phase: deploying reinforcements and launching new operations to help Iraqis bring security to their people. I'm going to explain why the success of this new strategy is vital for protecting our people and bringing our troops home, which is a goal shared by all Americans. I'll brief you on the report we are sending to Congress. I'll discuss why a drawdown of forces that is not linked to the success of our operations would be a disaster.
As President, my most solemn responsibility is to keep the American people safe. So on my orders, good men and women are now fighting the terrorists on the front lines in Iraq. I've given our troops in Iraq clear objectives. And as they risk their lives to achieve these objectives, they need to know they have the unwavering support from the Commander-in-Chief, and they do. And they need the enemy to know that America is not going to back down. So when I speak to the American people about Iraq, I often emphasize the importance of maintaining our resolve and meeting our objectives.
I think the President gave a good summary. Of course, he might have added--Franks, Bremer, and others sugarcoated things until they got out of control and misjudged the situation, but like a good guy and boss I took the blame because I am CinC. Of course, unlike Bill Clinton, who blamed everyone else for everything that happened to him or his policies, this President has too much class for that. Unlike the Breck Girl, who feigns ignorance of Hollywood priced haircuts and blames his staff, this President has too much class.
The soldiers know you support them and are behind them, Sir, they need to know you have the strategy to win. They need to know you are listening to their leaders, and by proxy, to them. Back to the President:
As a result, sometimes the debate over Iraq is cast as a disagreement between those who want to keep our troops in Iraq and those who want to bring our troops home. And this is not the real debate. I don't know anyone who doesn't want to see the day when our brave servicemen and women can start coming home.
In my address to the nation in January, I put it this way: If we increase our support at this crucial moment we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home. The real debate over Iraq is between those who think the fight is lost or not worth the cost, and those that believe the fight can be won and that, as difficult as the fight is, the cost of defeat would be far higher.
I believe we can succeed in Iraq, and I know we must.
I wish the President would hammer this home everyday over the airwaves if need be, but he doesn't. The debate is not over keeping our men and women in torture in the sandy hell of Iraq or being nice and bringing them home. It is about getting the job done so in 5 or ten years we are not back there or are not exchanging nuclear lobbings with the region. That is what it is about. The notion that those of us who want to get the job done don't care about the soldiers is dead wrong. We care about them, that is precisely why we say we have to get this war won and not retreat. Barbara Boxer the other day invoked homeless Nam vets and said we wolud reap the same results from Iraq. Only if pro surrender people like her and Senator Voinovich get their way. Why are those Nam vets homeless and forgotten? Because they were not respected by Babs and the libs and were not allowed to get the job done. They were precipitously removed from the action and Vietnam fell and we got a black eye. If we want to give our current troops a generational black eye, then follow the surrender caucus. The President makes a great point. He isn't a sadistic dictator. He wants the troops home, but he wants them to get their mission done. This is about those who want to see America defeated vs. those who know that for us to be relevant, America must win in Iraq. This debate has been framed by the Left in the wrong way. Unfortunately, the White House has not used its resources effectively enough to get it back in the proper terms.
So we're working to defeat al Qaeda and other extremists, and aid the rise of an Iraqi government that can protect its people, deliver basic services, and be an ally in the war against these extremists and radicals. By doing this, we'll create the conditions that would allow our troops to begin coming home, while securing our long-term national interest in Iraq and in the region.
See folks, this isn't about making sure George was right or his legacy, as the Left has made it out to be. If Bush gave a damn about his popular opinion or legacy, he would bring the troops home tomorrow and resign Saturday. However, he is about doing what is in the best interests of the nation. We need an Iraq on our side. It lies in the heart of the most volatile area on Earth. We need friends there, and not the type that are merely bought off then develop nukes and thumb their noses at us (see Iran).
When we start drawing down our forces in Iraq it will be because our military commanders say the conditions on the ground are right, not because pollsters say it will be good politics.
You know, the Left keeps talking about our troops and ineffective leadership and how the hate Bush. Think about how our troops would feel if they found out our Commander in Chief is making decisions not based on military intel but rather on what some poll says taken from a sample of country club libs and blue blood republicans? They would lose total heart. The President must make the tough decisions based on solid intel, not on what the polls say. How many Americans truly pay attention to what is going on down on the ground, the rates of incidence of terror, what areas are pacified? All most hear is what the drive by media says. For that, I partially blame the White House. However, reporters need to report, not filter.
Two months ago, in the supplemental appropriations bill funding our troops, Congress established 18 benchmarks to gauge the progress of the Iraqi government. They required we submit a full report to Congress by September the 15th. Today my administration has submitted to Congress an interim report that requires us to assess -- and I quote the bill -- "whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is or is not being achieved."
Of the 18 benchmarks Congress asked us to measure, we can report that satisfactory progress is being made in eight areas. For example, Iraqis provided the three brigades they promised for operations in and around Baghdad. And the Iraqi government is spending nearly $7.3 billion from its own funds this year to train, equip and modernize its forces. In eight other areas, the Iraqis have much more work to do. For example, they have not done enough to prepare for local elections or pass a law to share oil revenues. And in two remaining areas, progress was too mixed to be characterized one way or the other.
Those who believe that the battle in Iraq is lost will likely point to the unsatisfactory performance on some of the political benchmarks. Those of us who believe the battle in Iraq can and must be won see the satisfactory performance on several of the security benchmarks as a cause for optimism. Our strategy is built on a premise that progress on security will pave the way for political progress. So it's not surprising that political progress is lagging behind the security gains we are seeing. Economic development funds are critical to helping Iraq make this political progress. Today, I'm exercising the waiver authority granted me by Congress to release a substantial portion of those funds.
The bottom line is that this is a preliminary report and it comes less than a month after the final reinforcements arrived in Iraq. This September, as Congress has required, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will return to Washington to provide a more comprehensive assessment. By that time, we hope to see further improvement in the positive areas, the beginning of improvement in the negative areas. We'll also have a clearer picture of how the new strategy is unfolding, and be in a better position to judge where we need to make any adjustments.
In many ways, Iraq is like the immigration debate. Except this time, the White House is on the right side. You see, before you can have stable politics, you have to have security. It is like enforcement first, then guest program. However, liberals and blue blood country club republicans like George Traitorvich, Peter Dominsellouti, Chuck Hail al qudel and others don't get that. You need security before the other things come in, and if you look at the report, there are some encouraging signs, despite the media filtering. The other thing, and the President made this point well, is that this IS AN INTERIM REPORT, FILED JUST A MONTH AFTER THE FINAL REINFORCING ARRIVED IN IRAQ. If we based performance on just one month, then I say let's kick ou the Dem leadership in Congress. I mean, if we are so pompous to hold Iraq so rigidly to a timetable and benchmarks, then how's about setting up some similar benchmarks to grade Congress on? If we did that, we would be pulling out of Congress and redeploying elsewhere, because this Congress has accomplished little of substance, except bring out more traitors to the troops like RINOvich and the Surrender Caucus.
The fight in Iraq is part of a broader struggle that's unfolding across the region. The same region in Iran -- the same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons and threatening to wipe Israel off the map is also providing sophisticated IEDs to extremists in Iraq who are using them to kill American soldiers. The same Hezbollah terrorists who are waging war against the forces of democracy in Lebanon are training extremists to do the same against coalition forces in Iraq. The same Syrian regime that provides support and sanctuary for Islamic jihad and Hamas has refused to close its airport in Damascus to suicide bombers headed to Iraq. All these extremist groups would be emboldened by a precipitous American withdrawal, which would confuse and frighten friends and allies in the region.
I guess W didn't get the memo that this is just about bumper stickers. The London stuff? Illusion. The sicko lib who tried to kill an Airman? Hyperbole. The evidence of more terror cells in the US? A halliburton holographic trick. Of course, I am being silly, but the Left is being dangerous in its continual denial of the facts that we are in a global war for civilization. Al Gore talks about people who have legitimate questions about global warming as deniers, well the true deniers are those who would say we are not in a global war on terror and Iraq is not the central front in it (paging Mr. Edwards, see Dr. Zawahiri, please).
The strategy that General Petraeus and the troops he commands are now carrying out is the best opportunity to bring us to this point. So I ask Congress to provide them with the time and resources they need. The men and women of the United States military have made enormous sacrifices in Iraq. They have achieved great things, and the best way to begin bringing them home is to make sure our new strategy succeeds.
This means, Dems, Congress is just about funding the war, not running it. If you want to defund the troops, the blood is on your hands. Me, I am the President, and I listen to military commanders ON THE GROUND. Not General Pelosi and her dog Murtha. I mean, imagine this was during WW2 and we had just had the battle at Kesserine Pass in North Africa. Congress would be screaming for FDR to pull the troops out of North Africa and send them into the slaughter on France or redeploy to, I don't know, India. How Ludicrious was that, after just one battle, albeit where we were slaughtered. OR, it would be like in the first few days of Iwo Jima, as losses mounted on that hellhole, that Congress quit funding the war because too many men were dying per mile. Come on now. People just don't get it. And this first question by raging psycho lib and charter member of the "aren't they dead yet?" club, Helen Thomas:
Q Mr. President, you started this war, a war of your choosing, and you can end it alone, today, at this point -- bring in peacekeepers, U.N. peacekeepers. Two million Iraqis have fled their country as refugees. Two million more are displaced. Thousands and thousands are dead. Don't you understand, you brought the al Qaeda into Iraq.
THE PRESIDENT: Actually, I was hoping to solve the Iraqi issue diplomatically. That's why I went to the United Nations and worked with the United Nations Security Council, which unanimously passed a resolution that said disclose, disarm or face serious consequences. That was the message, the clear message to Saddam Hussein. He chose the course.
Q Didn't we go into Iraq --
THE PRESIDENT: It was his decision to make. Obviously, it was a difficult decision for me to make, to send our brave troops, along with coalition troops, into Iraq. I firmly believe the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. Now the fundamental question facing America is will we stand with this young democracy, will we help them achieve stability, will we help them become an ally in this war against extremists and radicals that is not only evident in Iraq, but it's evident in Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories and Afghanistan.
We're at the beginning stages of a great ideological conflict between those who yearn for peace and those who want their children to grow up in a normal, decent society, and radicals and extremists who want to impose their dark vision on people throughout the world. Iraq is obviously -- Helen, it's got the attention of the American people, as it should; this is a difficult war and it's a tough war. But as I have consistently stated throughout this presidency, it is a necessary war to secure our peace.
I find it interesting that as this young democracy has taken hold, radicals and extremists kill innocent people to stop its advance. And that ought to be a clear signal to the American people that these are dangerous people and their ambition is not just contained to Iraq. Their ambition is to continue to hurt the American people. My attitude is we ought to defeat them there so we don't have to face them here, and that we ought to defeat their ideology with a more hopeful form of government.
If you are going to ask the question, you detritus of human flesh, at least let the man answer it. I love this one. YOU STARTED THE WAR IN IRAQ, IT IS YOUR FAULT. Um, no, insipid cow, it was Saddam's fault. He had his chance. You see, you libs love to distort history, and the President does an able job of telling what actually happened. Remember the 17 resolutions and a decade of nothing from the UN? Remember 1441? UN peacekeepers? The UN is too chickenshit to even have any representation? And you talk about Americans dying? Just who do you think would make up the bulk of the peacekeeping force? And Helen, how are those peacekeepers doing in Rwanda? How did they do under Wes Clark's command? How did the Americans under the UN banner do in Kosovo? In Somalia? Just once, i wish someone would say, Helen, you dumb bitch, your casket is waiting, your time is gone, please shut the hell up. You know, to hear these people tell it, Saddam was compliant with the UN totally, and he was never duplicit, and he was begging for peace. Let's look at everything you hacks wrote during Clinton's regime. Let's look at his defiance even as he was running to the spider hole. You stupid cow, a home is waiting for you.
Next question:
Q Mr. President, you're facing a rebellion from Republican -- key Republican senators who want you to change course and begin reducing the U.S. combat role. Given the mixed report that you present today, how do you persuade Republicans to stick with you as they look ahead to the next elections?
THE PRESIDENT: A couple of things. First of all, I respect those Republicans that you're referring to. I presume you're referring to friends of mine, like Lugar -- Senator Lugar, Domenici, yes. These are good, honorable people. I've spoken to them and I listen very carefully to what they have to say.
First of all, they share my concern that a precipitous withdrawal would embolden al Qaeda. And they also understand that we can't let al Qaeda gain safe haven inside of Iraq. I appreciate their calls and I appreciate their desire to work with the White House to be in a position where we can sustain a presence in Iraq.
What I tell them is this, just what I've told you, is that as the Commander-in-Chief of the greatest military ever, I have an obligation, a sincere and serious obligation, to hear out my commander on the ground. And I will take his recommendation. And as I mentioned, to talk to Bob Gates about it, as well as the Joint Chiefs about it, as well as consult with members of the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, as I make a decision about the way forward in Iraq.
And so I -- you know, I value the advice of those senators. I appreciate their concerns about the situation in Iraq, and I am going to continue listening to them.
In other words, you chickenhearted turncoats on the troops can crow all you want. Your opinions mean about as much as that pile of birds**t on the porch. What matters is what the military folks say. And, who the hell made you CinC? Last time I looked at the Constitution, that is my job. So, until you want to grow a pair and defund the troops, if you so believe in surrender, you don't matter.
Q Mr. President, in addition to members of your own party, the American public is clamoring for a change of course in Iraq. Why are you so resistant to that idea, and how much longer are you willing to give the surge to work before considering a change in this policy?
THE PRESIDENT: First, I understand why the American people are -- you know, they're tired of the war. There is -- people are -- there is a war fatigue in America. It's affecting our psychology. I've said this before. I understand that this is an ugly war. It's a war in which an enemy will kill innocent men, women and children in order to achieve a political objective. It doesn't surprise me that there is deep concern amongst our people.
Part of that concern is whether or not we can win; whether or not the objective is achievable. People don't want our troops in harm's way if that which we are trying to achieve can't be accomplished. I feel the same way. I cannot look a mother and father of a troop in the eye and say, I'm sending your kid into combat, but I don't think we can achieve the objective. I wouldn't do that to a parent or a husband or wife of a soldier.
I believe we can succeed and I believe we are making security progress that will enable the political tract to succeed, as well. And the report, by the way, which is, as accurately noted, is being submitted today, is written a little less than a month after the full complement of troops arrived.
I went to the country in January and said I have made this decision. I said what was happening on the ground was unsatisfactory in Iraq. In consultation with a lot of folks, I came to the conclusion that we needed to send more troops into Iraq, not less, in order to provide stability, in order to be able to enhance the security of the people there. And David asked for a certain number of troops -- David Petraeus asked for a certain number -- General Petraeus asked for a certain number of troops, and he just got them a couple of weeks ago.
Military -- it takes a while to move our troops, as the experts know. You just can't load them all in one airplane or one big ship and get them into theater. We had to stage the arrival of our troops. And after they arrived in Iraq, it took a while to get them into their missions. Since the reinforcements arrived, things have changed.
For example, I would remind you that Anbar province was considered lost. Maybe some of you reported that last fall. And yet, today, because of what we call bottom-up reconciliation, Anbar province has changed dramatically. The same thing is now beginning to happen in Diyala province. There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where violence is down. There are still car bombs, most of which have the al Qaeda signature on them, but they're declining. In other words, so there's some measurable progress.
And you asked, how long does one wait? I will repeat, as the Commander-in-Chief of a great military who has supported this military and will continue to support this military, not only with my -- with insisting that we get resources to them, but with -- by respecting the command structure, I'm going to wait for David to come back -- David Petraeus to come back and give us the report on what he sees. And then we'll use that data, that -- his report to work with the rest of the military chain of command, and members of Congress, to make another decision, if need be.
My answer would have been: the reason I don't blindly follow what you say the American people want is that I see hard data, not filtered crap that you bungholes feed the sheep every night with. I also remember history, and don't care to have another Vietnam syndrome. I understand that stuff takes time, while you morons in the press think this should have been over yesterday.
The President is right. We are suffering from War fatigue. However, this is not new. Just before Iwo Jima, we were very tired of the war. In Flags of our Fathers, the film by Clint Eastwood, this is shown. However, the American people saw the brave sacrifice of the Marines, personified in that picture, and they got behind the final push. Of course, we didn't have a media that was opposed to victory back then. Now we have to not only fight the terrorists, but our own Bundist media.
And I love the part about looking soldiers and families in the eye. The libs can't do that. Look at that footage of Chris Matthews and the angry vet. He tries to look away, he is totally passive. Where is that resolve Chris? Dick Durbin can't look troops in the eye. Ted Kennedy and Hillary Rodham Rodham can because they have no soul anyway. Nancy Pelosi can because she doesn't care. George RINOvich can because he doesn't give a damn, and besides, he is crying for them. This President does not want our troops' deaths to be for nothing, unlike the Dems, who don't give a damn about our troops except as political pawns. And again, the President says he will listen to those who actually know a damn thing about combat, rather than those who only saw action at the Battle of Chappaquiddick or the Battle of Falling Tears.
Q You talk about all the troops now being in place, and only in place the last three weeks or a month. Yet three-quarters of the troops for the surge were in place during the period when this July interim report was written. Are you willing to keep the surge going, no matter what General Petraeus says, if there is no substantial Iraqi political progress by September?
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. You're asking me to speculate on what my frame of mind will be in September, and I would just ask that you give -- General Petraeus to come back and brief me. And then, of course, I'll be glad to answer your questions along that line.
Q But there has been no substantial political progress, even with three-quarters of the troops in there.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I mentioned --
Reporters have got to be the stupidest people on earth. The President just said he will take the advice of the commanders on the ground, yet this dumb moronic twit named Martha keeps up with, well what if? Hello! News Bimbo! We don't know what it will be like in September! This is just a month after the end of the op. We don't know the results yet. Don't you listen, or were you looking a your own reflection again. And, I love how they talk about the political progress.....What, our troops are supposed to storm Iraqi parliament and at gunpoint say 'dammit, get those oil revenues distributed or the party starts here.'? Moron, security comes first, then political stability. Pay attention.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. A question for you about the process you're describing of your decision-making as Commander-in-Chief. Have you entertained the idea that at some point Congress may take some of that sole decision-making power away, through legislation? And can you tell us, are you still committed to vetoing any troop withdrawal deadline?
THE PRESIDENT: You mean in this interim period? Yes. I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding our troops. I'm certainly interested in their opinion, but trying to run a war through resolution is a prescription for failure, as far as I'm concerned, and we can't afford to fail.
I'll work with Congress; I'll listen to Congress. Congress has got all the right to appropriate money. But the idea of telling our military how to conduct operations, for example, or how to deal with troop strength, I don't think it makes sense. I don't think it makes sense today, nor do I think it's a good precedent for the future. And so the role of the Commander-in-Chief is, of course, to consult with Congress.
Q So if Reed-Levin or anything like it were to pass and set a --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I would hope they wouldn't pass, Jim. But I --
Q But what if they've got --
THE PRESIDENT: Let me make sure you understand what I'm saying. Congress has all the right in the world to fund. That's their main involvement in this war, which is to provide funds for our troops. What you're asking is whether or not Congress ought to be basically determining how troops are positioned, or troop strength. And I don't think that would be good for the country.
Not only does it not make sense, it is against the founding document, the Constitution. The President is commander in chief, not Nancy Pelosi (don't tell her that, she will have you shot). Too have a bunch of synchopatic pantywaists too wavering to polls decide the positioning of our military would cripple it in bureaucratic garbage. This is precisely why the powers are structured they way they are. And I love the challenge. Congress, you have no power other than defunding the troops. If you want to do that, it is on you. The President needs to be more strident about this and get the message out what a Constitutional assault this is.
Q But you think you've been realistic about the strategy and what's possible?
THE PRESIDENT: Well -- thank you for the follow-up -- nothing has changed in the new room. Anyway -- yes. As I told you last November, right about this time, I was part of that group of Americans who didn't approve of what was taking place in Iraq because it looked like all the efforts we had taken to that point in time were about to fail. In other words, sectarian violence was really raging. And I had a choice to make, and that was to pull back, as some suggested, and hope that the chaos and violence that might occur in the capital would not spill out across the country, or send more troops in to prevent the chaos and violence from happening in the first place -- and that's the decision I made. So it was a realistic appraisal by me.
What's realistic, as well, is to understand the consequences of what will happen if we fail in Iraq. In other words, people aren't just going to be content with driving America out of Iraq. Al Qaeda wants to hurt us here. That's their objective. That's what they would like to do. They have got an ideology that they believe that the world ought to live under, and that one way to help spread that ideology is to harm the American people, harm American interests. The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that's why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.
So I've been realistic about the consequences of failure. I have been realistic about what needs to happen on the ground in order for there to be success. And it's been hard work, and the American people see this hard work. And one of the reasons it is hard work is because on our TV screens are these violent killings, perpetuated by people who have done us harm in the past. And that ought to be a lesson for the American people, to understand that what happens in Iraq and overseas matters to the security of the United States of America.
Yes, ma'am.
Q But, sir, on that point, what evidence can you present to the American people that the people who attacked the United States on September the 11th are, in fact, the same people who are responsible for the bombings taking place in Iraq? What evidence can you present? And also, are you saying, sir, that al Qaeda in Iraq is the same organization being run by Osama bin Laden, himself?
THE PRESIDENT: Al Qaeda in Iraq has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And the guys who had perpetuated the attacks on America -- obviously, the guys on the airplane are dead, and the commanders, many of those are either dead or in captivity, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But the people in Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq, has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And we need to take al Qaeda in Iraq seriously, just like we need to take al Qaeda anywhere in the world seriously.
I guess they think Zawhiri is just jokin when he talks about the brothers in Iraq. I guess they think he is reading from Cheney's talking points about Iraq being the central front. The friggin bad guys are saying this stuff, not just Bush! Wake the hell up people, buy a friggin clue!
We pause from the Iraq Gotcha! game to replay the Scooter Libby Gotcha! game, and in this case, the President falters terribly:
Q You spoke very soberly and seriously in your statement about how you weighed different legal questions in coming to your decision on that commutation. But one issue that you did not address was the issue of the morality of your most senior advisors leaking the name of a confidential intelligence operator. Now that the case is over -- it's not something you've ever spoken to -- can you say whether you're at all disappointed in the behavior of those senior advisors? And have you communicated that disappointment to them in any way?
THE PRESIDENT: Michael, I -- first of all, the Scooter Libby decision was, I thought, a fair and balanced decision. Secondly, I haven't spent a lot of time talking about the testimony that people throughout my administration were forced to give as a result of the special prosecutor. I didn't ask them during the time and I haven't asked them since.
I'm aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person, and I've often thought about what would have happened had that person come forth and said, I did it. Would we have had this, you know, endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter? But it's been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House, and it's run its course and now we're going to move on.
Rather than say someone unknown, what the President should have said was, "well, I saw a rogue prosecutor who felt he had to charge someone with something, and while Scooter did break the law, it did not rise to the level that it was handled with. Also, let me say that if you want to talk about the leak, ask Richard Armitage. If I could fire him, I would, but the leaker is no longer working for the adminstration. If you would like to discuss this further, ask Armitage. As for me, it is over, I have a responsibility for the American people. Scooteron.org, for more details on buying a clue and talking about stuff that matters. next question." That would have been my response.
Now we return to the attempts to get W to pull a RINOvich and cry about Iraq.
Q Good morning, Mr. President. Given the events on the ground in Iraq and the politics here at home, has U.S. military deployment to Iraq reached the ceiling, or can you allow any further military escalation?
THE PRESIDENT: You're trying to do what Martha very skillfully tried to get me to do, and that was to --
Q Can I have a follow-up?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you can, because you're about to realize I'm not going to answer your question -- (laughter) -- except to say this: There's going to be great temptation to -- not "temptation," you won't be tempted, you will actually ask me to speculate about what David Petraeus will talk to us about when he comes home. And I just ask the American people to understand that the Commander-in-Chief must rely upon the wisdom and judgment of the military thinkers and planners. It's very important that there be that solid connection of trust between me and those who are in the field taking incredible risk.
And so, Ed, I'm going to wait to see what David has to say. I'm not going to prejudge what he may say.
In other words, Ed, we have to get the reports first, before we make the decision. You know, like when you have a test on your kidneys. You don't remove one first then the report comes in that everything was ok. God bless it, these people went to college, didn't they? Maybe THAT explains the stupidity.
Q The intelligence analysts are saying al Qaeda has reconstituted in areas of Pakistan, saying the threat to the West is greater than ever now, as great as 2001. What's --
THE PRESIDENT: Okay --
Q Okay, you tell us what --
THE PRESIDENT: I'm glad you asked, thank you. Thank you, I appreciate that opportunity to --
Q Thank you for coming back, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm happy to do it. This is not the new me. I mean, this is just an aberration. In other words --
Q It's over next time.
THE PRESIDENT: -- I'm not going to leave and then come back because somebody yells something at me.
Q Like China.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, exactly. (Laughter.) Thank you, David. I appreciate that. Exactly.
There is a perception in the coverage that al Qaeda may be as strong today as they were prior to September the 11th. That's just simply not the case. I think the report will say, since 2001, not prior to September the 11th, 2001.
So, once again, the media ran with a quote and prejudged it. The action line was--Bush War done nothing, al queda back to full strength...and that is simply not the case. Of course, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin ran to the mikes like children to say, the President cannot have it both ways. He isn't, he is telling it like it is,you two little piglets on the government teat. The report clearly says since 2001, not pre 911. Of course, when has the truth ever stopped you all and your ilk from spewing the s**t you have for the last six years? And, when can we expect Congress to meet the benchmarks the Dems set up for it during the last elections? When can we defund Congress for failing in the benchmarks of governance? Hmm?
Here is the lamest question ever, an attempt to get this President to do some bellybutton gazing....He only partially concedes.
Q How hard is it for you to conduct the war without popular support? Do you, personally -- do you ever have trouble balancing between doing what you think is the right thing and following the will of the majority of the public, which is really the essence of democracy?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it is. And, first of all, I can fully understand why people are tired of the war. The question they have is, can we win it? And of course I'm concerned about whether or not the American people are in this fight. I believe, however, that when they really think about the consequences if we were to precipitously withdraw, they begin to say to themselves, maybe we ought to win this, maybe we ought to have a stable Iraq.
Their question, it seems like to me, is, can we succeed? And that's a very important, legitimate question for anybody to ask. I think many people understand we must succeed, and I think a lot of people understand we've got to wait for the generals to make these military decisions. I suspect -- I know this, Ed, that if our troops thought that I was taking a poll to decide how to conduct this war, they would be very concerned about the mission. In other words, if our troops said, well, here we are in combat, and we've got a Commander-in-Chief who is running a focus group -- in other words, politics is more important to him than our safety and/or our strategy -- that would dispirit our troops.
And there's a lot of constituencies in this fight -- clearly the American people, who are paying for this, is the major constituency. And I repeat to you, Ed, I understand that there -- this violence has affected them. And a lot of people don't think we can win. There's a lot of people in Congress who don't think we can win, as well, and therefore their attitude is, get out.
My concern with that strategy, something that Mike Hayden also discussed, is that just getting out may sound simple, and it may affect polls, but it would have long-term, serious security consequences for the United States. And so, Ed, sometimes you just have to make the decisions based upon what you think is right. My most important job is to help secure this country, and therefore, the decisions in Iraq are all aimed at helping do that job. And that's what I firmly believe.
A second constituency is the military. And I repeat to you, I'm pretty confident our military do not want their Commander-in-Chief making political decisions about their future.
A third constituency that matters to me a lot is military families. These are good folks who are making huge sacrifices, and they support their loved ones. And I don't think they want their Commander-in-Chief making decisions based upon popularity.
Another constituency group that is important for me to talk to is the Iraqis. Obviously, I want the Iraqi government to understand that we expect there to be reconciliation top down; that we want to see laws passed. I think they've got that message. They know full well that the American government and the American people expect to see tangible evidence of working together; that's what the benchmarks are aimed to do.
But they also need to know that I am making decisions based upon our security interests, of course, but also helping them succeed, and that a poll is not going to determine the course of action by the United States. What will determine the course of actions is, will the decisions that we have made help secure our country for the long run?
And, finally, another constituency is the enemy, who are wondering whether or not America has got the resolve and the determination to stay after them. And so that's what I think about, Ed.
You know, I guess I'm like any other political figure -- everybody wants to be loved, just sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't enable you to be loved. And so when it's all said and done, Ed, if you ever come down and visit the old, tired, me down there in Crawford, I will be able to say I looked in the mirror and made decisions based upon principle, not based upon politics. And that's important to me.
You see, unlike those lameasses on the Left and the spineless sacks of goosedung like Domenici, Lugar, Hagel, RINOvich, Snowe, and co., this President cares about principle, not scoring reelection points. But, I don't think for a minute the Dems or the surrender republicans have trouble looking in the mirror. That would mean they have two essential qualities: moral fiber and a soul. I have seen evidence of neither.
