zimv20
Oct 28, 2003, 11:41 AM
only the 10th one since sworn in, bush held a press conference today.
sadly, i didn't catch all of it. but i got most of the Q&A.
notable (paraphrase):
reporter: are you able to promise that US troop strength in iraq will be reduced by next year, this time?
bush: that's a trick question and i'm not going to answer it.
<edit>
got the transcript now: link (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/28/politics/28TEXT_BUSH.html?pagewanted=print&position=)
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
You recently put Condoleezza Rice, your national security adviser, in charge of the management of the administration's Iraq policy. What has effectively changed since she's been in charge?
And a second question: Can you promise a year from now that you will have reduced the number of troops in Iraq?
BUSH: The second question is a trick question, so I won't answer it.
The first question was Condoleezza Rice. Her job is to coordinate inter-agency. She's doing a fine job of coordinating inter-agency. She's doing what her -- I mean, the role of the national security adviser is to not only provide good advice to the president, which she does on a regular basis -- I value her judgment and her intelligence -- but her job is also to deal inter-agency and to help unstick things that may get stuck. That's the best way to put it. She's an unsticker...
</edit>
......
he was doing a lot of not answering, though in most instances he'd talk a lot and avoid the issue.
one reporter asked a pointed question about intelligence problems wrt iraq's WMD. specifically, has bush been surprised at the discrepancy?
bush rambled for a bit, and, to my horror, concluded that the pre-war intelligence was "good" and "solid." i think, at that point, bush himself realized what he'd said, then got quiet and withdrawn and repeated some things he'd said pre-war, about hussein being able to hide things well.
<edit>
Sir, David Kay's interim report cited substantial evidence of a secretive weapons program, but the absence of any substantial stores of chemical or biological weapons there have caused some people even who supported the war to feel somehow betrayed.
Can you explain to those Americans, sir, whether you are surprised those weapons haven't turned up, why they haven't turned up and whether you feel that your administration's credibility has been affected in any way by that?
BUSH: (snip) It was intelligence gathered from a variety of sources that clearly said Saddam Hussein was a threat. And given the attacks of September the 11th, it was -- you know, we needed to enforce U.N. resolution for the security of the world, and we did. We took action based upon good, solid intelligence. It was the right thing to do to make America more secure and the world more peaceful.
And David Kay continues to ferret out the truth. Saddam Hussein is a man who hid programs and weapons for years. He was a master at hiding things. And so, David Kay will continue his search.
</edit>
.......
a reporter asked if he could ask a followup question.
bush (again, paraphrase): if you're going to interrupt me, then, no, no followup.
<edit>
BUSH: Excuse me. Particularly since you interrupted me, no.
</edit>
sadly, i didn't catch all of it. but i got most of the Q&A.
notable (paraphrase):
reporter: are you able to promise that US troop strength in iraq will be reduced by next year, this time?
bush: that's a trick question and i'm not going to answer it.
<edit>
got the transcript now: link (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/28/politics/28TEXT_BUSH.html?pagewanted=print&position=)
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
You recently put Condoleezza Rice, your national security adviser, in charge of the management of the administration's Iraq policy. What has effectively changed since she's been in charge?
And a second question: Can you promise a year from now that you will have reduced the number of troops in Iraq?
BUSH: The second question is a trick question, so I won't answer it.
The first question was Condoleezza Rice. Her job is to coordinate inter-agency. She's doing a fine job of coordinating inter-agency. She's doing what her -- I mean, the role of the national security adviser is to not only provide good advice to the president, which she does on a regular basis -- I value her judgment and her intelligence -- but her job is also to deal inter-agency and to help unstick things that may get stuck. That's the best way to put it. She's an unsticker...
</edit>
......
he was doing a lot of not answering, though in most instances he'd talk a lot and avoid the issue.
one reporter asked a pointed question about intelligence problems wrt iraq's WMD. specifically, has bush been surprised at the discrepancy?
bush rambled for a bit, and, to my horror, concluded that the pre-war intelligence was "good" and "solid." i think, at that point, bush himself realized what he'd said, then got quiet and withdrawn and repeated some things he'd said pre-war, about hussein being able to hide things well.
<edit>
Sir, David Kay's interim report cited substantial evidence of a secretive weapons program, but the absence of any substantial stores of chemical or biological weapons there have caused some people even who supported the war to feel somehow betrayed.
Can you explain to those Americans, sir, whether you are surprised those weapons haven't turned up, why they haven't turned up and whether you feel that your administration's credibility has been affected in any way by that?
BUSH: (snip) It was intelligence gathered from a variety of sources that clearly said Saddam Hussein was a threat. And given the attacks of September the 11th, it was -- you know, we needed to enforce U.N. resolution for the security of the world, and we did. We took action based upon good, solid intelligence. It was the right thing to do to make America more secure and the world more peaceful.
And David Kay continues to ferret out the truth. Saddam Hussein is a man who hid programs and weapons for years. He was a master at hiding things. And so, David Kay will continue his search.
</edit>
.......
a reporter asked if he could ask a followup question.
bush (again, paraphrase): if you're going to interrupt me, then, no, no followup.
<edit>
BUSH: Excuse me. Particularly since you interrupted me, no.
</edit>
