|
CounterPunch
March 10,
2003
Thought, Care and
Attention
Bush's "Press"
Conference
By GARY LEUPP
It's my understanding that a presidential press
conference is a question-and-answer session intended to facilitate
communication. Reporters should ask questions that are on people's
minds, and the executive should honestly respond. But after President
Bush's press conference March 6 even CNN's Aaron Brown noted
a couple of times that Dubya hadn't answered many questions.
Rather, he used the occasion to reiterate "with little urgency
and no perceptible passion" (Tom Shales, Washington Post,
March 7) the simple thesis behind the Iraq attack, plainly stated
by Bush in his response to a question from Ron Fournier: "Iraq
is a part of the war on terror."
This thesis is in fact rejected by many,
including top former government and military officials, who complain
that the Iraq war will divert resources away from the
"war on terrorism" as they conceive of it. The Bushites
have been very deliberately blurring the lines between the war
to eliminate al-Qaeda (itself a nebulous enterprise, given the
array of groups with real or imagined, slight or substantial
bin Laden connections) and projected wars against Iraq and other
"terrorist" targets with no connection to bin Laden.
Through subliminal manipulations, disinformation, and lies, they've
generated an imaginary universe in which Evil=Terrorism=Anti-Americanism
surround us like a war band of angry natives circling around
a vulnerable party of decent Christian white folks in Conestoga
wagons.
They have gotten away with it, to a great
extent at least, since so many actually swallow the idea that
al-Qaeda and Baghdad are both part of this vast Evil the U.S.
must heroically contain or defeat, and have in fact been in cahoots.
But they've also generated the inevitable question: "Will
striking at Iraq increase or decrease terrorist threats to Americans?"
The U.S. intelligence community, staffed with professionals,
has stated quite clearly that the terror threat will rise
due to the (understandable) indignation that the aggression will
provoke, not only in the Arab and Islamic worlds, but pretty
much everywhere, including such countries as Spain, Britain,
Australia, Italy, etc. whose governments assist the U.S. but
whose peoples firmly oppose it.
So at a real presidential news conference,
you'd expect this question to be clearly posed and answered.
But here's what happened.
Veteran CNN reporter John King asked
Bush: " as you prepare the American people for the possibility
of military conflict, could you share with us any of the scenarios
your advisors have shared with you about worse-case scenarios,
in terms of the potential cost of American lives, the potential
cost to the American economy, and the potential risks of retaliatory
terrorist strikes here at home?"
Bush replied that it was his job to protect
America, having sworn on the Bible to do so. Saddam, he reiterated
(for the fifth time), was a threat, a torturer and murderer.
He said that he could "deal with the threat" and has
"hope it can be done peacefully." But he seemed to
lose focus. ("There were times," noted Pulitzer Prize-winning
Shales, "when it appeared his train of thought had jumped
the tracks. Occasionally he would stare blankly into space during
lengthy pauses between statements -- pauses that once or twice
threatened to be endless... Watching him was like counting sheep...")
"The rest of your six-point question?"
asked the impishly grinning Commander-in-Chief, of reporter King,
who reminded him: "The potential price in terms of lives
and the economy, terrorism."
And the President replied: "The
price of doing nothing exceeds the price of taking action, if
we have to. We'll do everything we can to minimize the loss of
life. The price of the attacks on America, the cost of the attacks
on America on September the 11th were enormous. They were significant.
And I am not willing to take that chance again, John." (This
raises the question, how did he take the chance before? By not
attacking Iraq before September 11? Did this make sense to any
thinking person listening?)
The President is not willing to
not go to war (and to thereby inevitably generate more
hatred for the U.S. than has ever existed in the nation's history).
The war planning process, and accompanying rhetoric and provocations,
has already convinced Europeans that the U.S. is a greater threat
to the world than Iraq. No problem (smirk smirk). The biggest
antiwar demonstrations last month took place in the countries
whose governments most support the U.S.: Spain, Italy, Britain.
Not an issue (smug piercing of the lips). Arab street is starting
to mobilize. We can handle it (myopic pause).
Question: Don't you think lots of people
who aren't much sympathetic to al-Qaeda now will be motivated
to attack U.S. interests, including in this country, to avenge
what everyone from the Pope in Rome to the radical left see as
an illegal, immoral, unjustifiable war on Iraq?
Bush can't answer (maybe cannot even
hear) that question. But his key advisors can. "We know
there will be a backlash, more anger, hate and violence in the
world, including here at home," they'll be apt to say. "But
we think it's worth it. We're going to reorganize Southwest Asia
and the Arab world, in this New American Century, according to
our plans. We have the military strength to challenge all enemies,
including terrorists, and to protect our Homeland from foreign
terrorists and their local supporters (like those protesting
war on Iraq) through appropriate security measures. We're thinking
big, we're thinking out of the box, we're thinking God's Plan,
we're thinking Full Spectrum Dominance, we're thinking Europe
and Japan over a barrel for decades to come. What's another 9/11
or two compared to that victory, that our children will sing
about?"
White House Communications Director Dan
Bartlett (who must have a very challenging job) told the Washington
Post March 7 that in Bush's news conference "the public
will see the thought and care and attention [Bush has] given
to a lot of the different questions that are being asked about
the diplomatic side and the military side and the potential post-Iraq
issue. These are all legitimate questions that he has answers
for and wants to talk about." But Bush didn't.
Barlett also said that the Bush White
House holds fewer news conferences than some administrations
because "if you have a message you're trying to deliver,
a news conference can go in a different direction." (That
is, if there is some chance it won't be a mere opportunity for
propaganda but a genuine question and answer session---as is
actually suggested by the term "press conference.")
"In this case, we know what the questions are going to be,
and those are the ones we want to answer."
Thank about that! The White House communications
director says prior to Bush's zombie-like podium exercise that
it will show the "thought and care and attention" he's
given to all the nuances of the contemporary situation in the
world, and that a fine showing is expected, because "we
know what the questions will be" and Bush wants to answer
them. And then Dubya answers nothing, tiredly repeats himself
trotting out the old discredited shibboleths, causing even Aaron
Brown to notice that he was peering down at notes to recall key
phrases.
Mr. Bartlett, you did your job. The public
saw the thought and care and attention your boss has given to
the different questions that are being asked. By his "press
conference" Bush sought to prepare the public for war within
days or weeks. Afterwards, CNN's unscientific online poll showed
64% of Americans wanting to wait months (58%) or weeks (6%) before
attacking Iraq. The president failed, again, to make his case.
That's a very good thing.
Gary Leupp
is an an associate professor, Department of History, Tufts University
and coordinator, Asian Studies Program.
He can be reached at: gleupp@tufts.edu
Yesterday's
Features
The Black Commentator
All
About Clarence
Ben Granby
Nightmare
in Rafah
Fidel Castro
Bush's
War on the Dark Corners of the World
Niranjan Ramakrishnan
Riding
the Tiger in India: Will the World's Largest Democracy Become
a Religio-Fascist Purgatory?
Linda Heard
Make Way for Reality Politics
Alex Lynch
Tragedy of the Ridiculous War
Paul D'Amato
Obey
the US or Pay the Price
Ron Jacobs
Peace Treaties, Nukes and North Korea
Shulamit Aloni
Murder
Under the Cover of Rigtheousness
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax--Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
March 8 /
9, 2003
Edward Said
Who's
In Charge?
Bruce Jackson
Elegy
for Two Giraffes and a Zebra
Perry Anderson
The Casuistries of Peace and
War
Joanne Mariner
Patriot
Act II's Attack on Punishment
William Lind
A Warning from Clausewitz on 4th Generation Warfare
Sam Husseini
Why
So Long for Iraq to Comply? Follow the Policy
Forrest Hylton
Business as Usual in Bolivia?
David Lindorff
Race and the Death Penalty in Pennsylvania
Ben Tripp
Is There
a Eurologist in the House?
Anthony Gancarski
W's Personal Jesus
Jon Elmer
An Interview with William Blum
Douglas Valentine
The Clash of the Icons
Norman Madarasz
Radical Politics and the Writer:
Maurice Blanchot
Gordon Solberg
There's
Got to be a Better Way
Poets' Basement
Guthrie, Engel, Bernard
Weekend Website
The
White House
February 28,
2003
Alexander
Cockburn
Meet
the New Yorker's Chief Hack: Jeffrey Goldberg
Saul Landau
Now
It's Personal
Michael Neumann
A Plea for Hysteria
Karima Bennoume
The UN: Tool for Peace or War?
The Black
Commentator
The Rev. Sharpton and the Soul of the Democrats
Jennifer Loewenstein
Don't Turn Off the War
Richard Levins
Cuba's Biological Weapons: Why the World Needs More of Them
M. Shahid Alam
Is This a Clash of Civilizations?
Clay Conrad
Juries
and Judges: What's Relevant?
Ben Tripp
Speaking in Tongues: a Guide to Gibberish in the Age of Bush
Eliot Katz
To Declare Preemptive War is to Declare a Bankrupt Imagination
Kurt Nimmo
Paying Through the Nose to Kill Iraqi Kids
Matt Vidal
George W. Bonaparte
Mark Zepezauer
Why the Right Hates America
Mickey Z.
The Anti----War Talk I Never Gave
Jerry Kroth
Jung and the Space Shuttle Revisited
Shyam Oberoi
Chronicle of a War Foretold
Ron Jacobs
What If the Firebombing of Baghdad Were a Nightclub Fire?
Poets' Basement
Eliot Katz and Jim Cohn
Website of
the Weekend
Defense
Tech
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|