At Bush/Karzai press conference, White House press corps again failed to challenge Bush's misleading and nonsensical answers by Time management training

At Bush/Karzai press conference, White House press corps again failed to challenge Bush's misleading and nonsensical answers

by @ Sat, 21 Oct 2006 12:19:03 -0600 In his answers during a September 26 joint with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, President Bush described Americans who think the Iraq war has made the country less safe as "na i ve" and rebutted claims that the conflict has contributed to the growing terrorist threat by repeating his illogical argument that "[w]e weren t in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th." But not only did the White House press corps fail to challenge Bush s non-responsive remarks during the press conference, several print outlets -- including the Associated Press, The New York Times, and The Washington Post -- uncritically reported them shortly thereafter.
The format of the September 26 press conference allowed for two questions from the U.

S. press and two questions from the international and Afghan press accompanying Karzai on his visit. The first question came from Associated Press staff writer Jennifer Loven, who brought up the conclusion of an April National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) ( after the press conference) that the Iraq war has led to an increase in global terrorism.

Loven asked Bush, "Even after hearing that one of the major conclusions of the NIE in April was that the Iraq war has fueled terror growth around the world, why have you continued to say that the Iraq war has made this country safer?" Bush responded by describing those who think the Iraq war "makes us less safe" as "na i ve." He then attempted to rebut the very idea that the Iraq war could have aided terrorist recruitment worldwide:

BUSH: Some people have guessed what s in the report and have concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake.

I strongly disagree. I think it s na i ve. I think it s a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe.

BUSH: You know, to suggest that if we weren t in Iraq, we would see a rosier scenario with fewer extremists joining the radical movement requires us to ignore 20 years of experience. We weren t in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th. We weren t in Iraq, and thousands of fighters were trained in terror camps inside your country, Mr.

President. We weren t in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. We weren t in Iraq when they bombed the [USS] Cole.

We weren t in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. My judgment is, if we weren t in Iraq, they d find some other excuse, because they have ambitions. They kill in order to achieve their objectives.

Bush also questioned the political motivations behind the leak of the NIE conclusion, which he claimed was disclosed in order to "create confusion in the minds of the American people":

BUSH: [H]ere we are, coming down the stretch in an election campaign, and it s on the front page of your newspapers. Isn t that interesting? Somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes.

BUSH: But once again, there s a leak out of our government, coming right down the stretch in this campaign. To create confusion in the minds of the American people, in my judgment, is why they leaked it.

Bush s answer could have provoked several follow-up questions:

• You say that it is na i ve to believe that the Iraq war has made us less safe.

  Are you saying that the U.S. intelligence experts who authored the report are na i ve?

  Yesterday, on ABC s World News Tonight, your own Homeland Security adviser Fran Townsend even acknowledged that the NIE concluded that "there has been a greater spread of extremism across the world, making it more likely that we will see attacks against U.S. interests around the world over time.

  " Was she being na i ve as well?

• In dismissing concerns about the Iraq war s effect on terrorist recruitment, you noted that we were not in Iraq when Al Qaeda carried out the 9-11 attacks. But who is arguing that terrorists didn t exist prior to September 11, 2001?

  Do you not think it possible that the terrorist threat could have grown since then?

• You say that if we weren t in Iraq, the terrorists would find "some other excuse" to get people to join their ranks. But the NIE reportedly concluded not only that Iraq is being used for propaganda purposes, but also that it is being effectively used to swell the ranks of the terrorists.

  Was it a mistake to give the terrorists an "excuse" that they have effectively used to make the world more dangerous?

• You say the NIE conclusion was leaked to "create confusion" about Iraq among the American people. Are you saying that making public the intelligence community s conclusion that the Iraq war is swelling the ranks of terrorists is "confus[ing]" the American people?

  If so, why?

Loven did manage to ask a follow-up question regarding whether Bush s decision to declassify the NIE s key judgments was "a political act." But this question did not address the clear flaws in Bush s answer.

The second U.S. reporter to question him also failed to follow up on Bush s answer.

Instead, she asked that he respond to former President Bill Clinton s recent assertion that the Bush administration did not hold meetings on the Al Qaeda threat in the eight months prior to 9-11. Bush quickly dismissed the question, saying, "I m not going to comment on, you know, other comments."
While the abbreviated format did not give other White House correspondents an opportunity to challenge Bush on his answers, they could have raised such questions in their reports immediately following the press conference.

But to the contrary, the initial print articles uncritically reported the dubious remarks highlighted above. For instance, Associated Press diplomatic writer Barry Schweid led his September 26 with Bush s comment that those who believe the Iraq war has worsened terrorism are "na i ve":

President Bush on Tuesday said it is naive and a mistake to think that the war with Iraq has worsened terrorism, disputing a national intelligence assessment by his own administration. He said he was declassifying part of the report.

"Some people have guessed what s in the report and concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree," Bush said.

Mr.

Bush said that people were drawing the wrong conclusion from the leaked news reports.
"Some people have guessed what s in the report and concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake," the president said. "I strongly disagree.

"
"I think it s na i ve. I think it s a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm against the American people makes us less safe."
Meanwhile, the September 26 Washington Post on the press conference by staff writer Bill Brubaker uncritically reported Bush s statement that "[w]e weren t in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th," as well as his claim that the leak of the NIE was intended to confuse the public:

Bush charged at the news conference that political opponents leaked select parts of the National Intelligence Estimate to media organizations last weekend "to create confusion in the minds of the American people" in the weeks before November s mid-term elections.

"Somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes," Bush said. "I think it s a bad habit for our government to declassify every time there is a leak."
With Karzai looking on, Bush said the war in Iraq has not increased the threat of terrorism.

"You know, to suggest that if we weren t in Iraq we would see a rosier scenario, with fewer extremists joining the radical movement, requires us to ignore 20 years of experience," Bush said. "We weren t in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th. We weren t in Iraq and thousands of fighters were trained in terror camps inside your country, Mr.

President. We weren t in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993."
Later, Bush added: "My judgment is: The only way to protect this country is to stay on the offense.

It is preposterous to think, if we were to withdaw, and hope for the best, things would turn out fine, against this enemy."

Welcome to the Penguin podcast, this week featuring John Rain, deadly assassin and star of Barry Eisler's thrilling new novel, One Last Kill.
For information about any of the authors and books featured in these podcasts, plus features, interviews and news on the best in UK fiction and non-fiction, visit .

Barry Eisler spent three years in a covert position with the CIA's Directorate of Operations. During his time with the Agency, he was trained in small arms, long arms, hand to hand combat, improvised explosive devices, small water craft, air drops to friendly forces, surveillance, counter-surveillance, counter-terrorism, agent recruitment and management and interrogation and manipulation techniques. After leaving the CIA he went to live and work in Japan - where he earnt his black belt in judo from the Kodokan International Judo Centre in Tokyo.

He now lives in California.
In One Last Kill Rain has a new employer, Israeli intelligence organization the Mossad, which wants him to fix a problem in Manila; and a new partner, Dox, whose good-ol' boy persona masks a sniper as deadly as Rain himself. He also has a new hope: that by using his talents in the service of something good, he might atone for all the lives he has already taken.

How to Fish with Chris Yates, George Monbiot on global warming and many more from the best books and authors around.

New CBS anchor Couric did not challenge Bush falsehoods, gushed: "[P]eople admire so much your ability to adhere to your principles" In a September 6 with President Bush at the White House, newly minted CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric allowed the president to make numerous false and misleading claims regarding the Iraq war s effect on terrorism recruitment, the administration s warrantless domestic surveillance program, the ongoing hunt for Osama bin Laden, and the current state of port security in the United States. Further, Couric s interview featured a number of softball questions. For instance, she asked Bush, "You have said, We can t cut and run on more than one occasion.

We have to stay until we win, otherwise, we ll be fighting the terrorists here at home on our own streets. So, what do you mean exactly by that, Mr. President?

" Elsewhere in the interview, she told Bush that "people admire so much your ability to adhere to your principles," and asked, "You have said, Mr. President, that America is safer, but we are not yet safe. .

.. When you think about the threats out there, what is your biggest fear?

"
During their discussion of Iraq, Couric asked Bush the following "philosophical question": whether "U.S. policy, vis- -vis Iraq, and the United States close alliance with Israel .

.. have galvanized terrorists worldwide.

In other words, these policies have created more terrorists than they have eliminated." As he did when asked a similar question in a recent NBC News , Bush responded that "we weren t in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001, when 19 killers killed 3,000 Americans." He went on to say of the argument in question, "I just don t agree with it, particularly, since the facts are different.

In other words, they attacked us before we went to Iraq."
But the logic behind Bush s response is severely skewed. That terrorists carried out attacks prior to the U.

S.-led invasion of Iraq in no way rebuts the argument that the war has "galvanized" terrorist organizations and helped them grow their ranks. Moreover, Bush s disagreement with the factual basis for this argument is contradicted by several government analyses finding that U.

S. actions in Iraq have aided terrorist groups recruiting and provided them with a training ground for their new followers. These include the State Department s 2005 annual terrorism and a January 2005 from the CIA s National Intelligence Council, as Media Matters .

But rather than address the clear flaws in Bush s answer, Couric proceeded to a question regarding diplomacy.
This segment of Couric s interview appeared on the September 6 broadcast of the CBS special Five Years Later: How Safe Are We?
While discussing the tools used by the government to protect against the terrorist threat, Couric allowed Bush to falsely suggest that critics of his administration s warrantless domestic surveillance program are opposed to eavesdropping on the electronic communications of suspected terrorists.

Bush said, "One of the controversial programs has been this notion about listening to people who are from outside the country, calling in." He then added, "I know it s created controversy, but nevertheless, it is a tool to make sure that we get the intelligence necessary." Bush s claim that the controversy regards "listening to people who are from outside the country, calling in" echoes a line from his 2006 State of the Union , in which Bush claimed that the warrantless surveillance program is "essential to the security of America.

If there are people inside our country who are talking with Al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again," It also echoes attacks on critics of the warrantless surveillance program by Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman and senior White House adviser Karl Rove; Mehlman in August that Democrats want to "surrender" the ability to eavesdrop on terrorists, and Rove in January that they "disagree" with the proposition that "if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they re calling and why."
But as Media Matters has , Democratic leaders and other critics of the program -- including Republicans in Congress and prominent conservatives -- have explicitly acknowledged the need for U.S.

intelligence agencies to spy on suspected terrorists but have said that the government should conduct such surveillance in accordance with the law. Nonetheless, Couric let Bush s " " stand.
This portion of Couric s interview with Bush did not air on CBS, but it was included in the available on CBSNews.

com.
At one point in the interview, Couric asked Bush why the United States has not managed to find bin Laden in the five years since 9-11. Bush responded, "[W]e re on the hunt, obviously.

" Couric then asked whether his capture mattered, to which Bush answered, "Yeah, it does matter. Of course. It matters.

He s ...

the head of Al Qaeda." But Couric failed to ask Bush why, during a March 13, 2002, , he said, "Truly, I am not that concerned about [bin Laden]," or why he subsequently having made that statement during the third debate of the 2004 presidential election.
Bush went on to tell Couric, "[W]e ll get him.

It s just a matter of time. We ve got a unit in the CIA who is spending a lot of time thinking about these high-value targets." But a July 4 New York Times confirmed that the CIA had in late 2005 disbanded the unit "that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants.

" Couric failed to mention this, despite the fact that CBS News subsequently that former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, the first head of the bin Laden unit, had declared the decision "a mistake" and "a questionable decision."
During the interview, Couric questioned Bush regarding the current state of homeland security. On the issue of port security, Couric noted that approximately 10 percent "of cargo that s coming into our ports is thoroughly checked.

" In response, Bush conceded that he is concerned about weaknesses in homeland security, but went on to claim that the United States is screening the bulk of the U.S.-bound cargo at foreign ports.

He said, "We understand who s likely to ship materials. We ..

. understand cargo that needs to be inspected. And oftentimes, most of the time, we re able to secure cargo and be comfortable about what s coming into the country before it comes to the ports.

" He further noted that while only ten percent of the cargo is being screened at U.S. ports, "that doesn t mean that we re not aware of what s coming into this country.

"
In fact, an August 2006 Rand Corporation reported that the activities at foreign ports allows inspectors "to screen and validate the contents of containers shipping to the United States," but highlighted the fact that this program covers only "50 percent of traffic in the largest ports" and noted that its "effectiveness against smuggling has not been tested, and there still are large volumes of containers that enter the country without any screening or inspection. Because of this ongoing vulnerability, Rand concluded that a terrorist attack at a U.S.

port "seems quite plausible." The study received significant attention following the recent bomb scare at the Port of Seattle. Nonetheless, Couric did not challenge Bush s claim that "most of the time" U.

S.-bound containers are screened at foreign ports.
This segment of Couric s interview did not air on CBS, but was included in the interview footage available on CBSNews.

com.
COURIC: You have said, Mr. President, that America is safer, but we are not yet safe.

BUSH: Right.
COURIC: When you think about the threats out there, what is your biggest fear?
BUSH: Well, my biggest fear is somebody will come in and slip in this country and kill Americans.

And I can t tell you how. Obviously, there would be the spectacular. That would be the use of some kind of biological weapon or weapon of mass destruction.

But as we learned recently from the British plots, people were, you know, gonna get on airplanes and blow up airplanes with innocent people flying to America.
And -- you know, one way to look at it is we have to be right 100 percent of the time in order to protect this country, and they gotta be right once. And it s just a -- just a fact of life.

The -- the -- we re facing an enemy, Katie, that just doesn t care about innocent life. I mean, they really are evil people.
They -- they -- they -- they just don t care if somebody suffers in order for them to achieve a -- a mean.

And -- and that makes an awfully ruthless enemy to deal with. And -- and I say we re safer because we ve done a lot to protect the country. I mean, the mentality has changed a lot.

I mean, you know, the -- the matters we now recognized, we gotta talk better inter -- interagency. That means the CIA and the FBI have got to share data. And Congress passed some laws that enable them to do so without, you know, violating law.

We gotta talk to -- we gotta share intelligence with our friends.
Because one of the successes -- because the British operation -- it s because they knew some things and we knew some things, and our people got together and just talked about it. One of the controversial programs has been this notion about listening to people who are from outside the country, calling in or inside the country, calling out, to determine their intentions.

And I -- that s a vital tool. I know it s created controversy, but nevertheless, it is a tool to make sure that we get the intelligence necessary.
COURIC: Let s talk about cargos.

COURIC: Let s talk about ports in this country. I know that only 10 percent -- actually nine percent of the cargo that s coming into our ports is thoroughly checked. And when it comes to -- to railway security, there are about 100 federal inspectors dedicated to passenger and freight security on our railroads throughout the entire country.

Does that concern you?
BUSH: If -- if there s any -- you know, weakness, it concerns me. And it should concern anybody.

But let me talk about ports. You know, one of the things we ve done is we got a new way of inspecting cargo, and that is inspecting cargo before it leaves the port. Say like it s coming in from Singapore.

We -- we understand who s likely to ship materials. We understand cargo that needs to be inspected.
And oftentimes, most of the time, we re able to secure cargo and be comfortable about what s coming into the country before it comes to the ports.

And that makes sense. That make -- you know, basically -- is able to -- let us focus on, as you said, the 10 percent. But that doesn t mean that we re not aware of what s coming into this country.

COURIC: Let me ask you about some of the 9-11 Commission recommendations.
BUSH: OK.
COURIC: Conversely, I guess, Mr.

President, while people admire so much your ability to adhere to your principles, there is also criticism, as you say, there will always be critics --
BUSH: Yeah.
COURIC: -- that -- that -- you re inflexible and that your position doesn t change with changing circumstances.
BUSH: I am inflexible when it comes to making sure that we don t get hit again.

And you bet I m gonna remain strong about making sure that the world we leave behind is a more peaceful world.
[..

.] COURIC: You have said, "We can t cut and run," on more than one occasion. "We have to stay until we win, otherwise, we ll be fighting the terrorists here at home on our own streets.

" So, what do you mean exactly by that, Mr. President?
BUSH: Well, I mean that a defeat in Iraq will embolden the enemy and will provide the enemy more opportunity to train, plan, to attack us.

That s what I mean. There -- it s -- you know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror. I believe it.

But the American people have gotta understand that a defeat in Iraq -- in other words, if this government there fails, the terrorists will be emboldened, the radicals will topple moderate governments.
COURIC: Why hasn t he [bin Laden] been caught five years later?
BUSH: Yeah -- no, that s a good question.

I mean, he s hiding. And -- we re on the hunt, obviously. We --
COURIC: Does it matter?

BUSH: Yeah, it does matter. Of course. It matters.

He s -- he s the head of Al Qaeda. And -- but one thing is for certain, though, he s -- he s not moving like he used to. Another thing is he s -- he s, you know, not communicating like he used to.

And -- and we ll get him. It s just a matter of time. We ve got a unit in the CIA who is spending a lot of time thinking about these high-value targets.

It s not just Osama bin Laden. It s his number-two man, [Ayman al-] Zawahiri, and there are others. The good news for the American people is that we re -- we made a lot of progress in dismantling Al Qaeda, the Al Qaeda command structure that ordered the attacks not only on the USS Cole and our embassies but on -- on 9-11.

COURIC: I know we re almost out of time, Mr. President, and you have a very busy day ahead. But one philosophical question that many people have that I d like you to respond to, if you could, is that U.

S. policy, vis- -vis Iraq, and the United States close alliance with Israel, certainly highlighted in recent events between Israel and Lebanon, have galvanized terrorists worldwide. In other words, these policies have created more terrorists than they have eliminated.

BUSH: Yeah.
COURIC: How do you respond to that?
BUSH: Well, the first thing I would tell people that we weren t in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001, when 19 killers killed 3,000 Americans in the most brutal attack on our -- on our soil -- ever.

COURIC: But they were from Saudi Arabia.
BUSH: No, but they re -- but -- but they share the same jihadist mentality, this radicalism. See, that s the interesting thing about this war, Katie.

It s -- we re not facing a nation-state. We re facing people from other nation -- around the -- around the globe, frankly, that share an ideology and the desire to achieve objectives through killing innocent people.

And so, it s a -- and so my first answer is on Iraq, the notion that somehow defending ourselves create -- is -- it s created -- made us more vulnerable, just -- I just don t agree with it, particularly, since the facts are different.

In other words, they attacked us before we went to Iraq.

#57 MML Podcast for Friday, September 8th, 2006 Remember the thoughts, ideas and opinions expressed on this podcast are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of any past, current or future employer.