Transcript of "News Conference"

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Transcript of "News Conference"
46
Wed, 04-14-2004 - 12:00pm

Bush's opening statement

President opens third prime-time news conference
with 16-minute statement on Iraq conflict




BUSH ANSWERS FIRST QUESTION DURING NATIONALLY TELEVISED NEWS CONFERENCE
Jason Reed / Reuters

President Bush answers the first question Tuesday after his opening remarks at a White House news conference.



MSNBC

Updated: 11:00 p.m. ET April  13, 2004


Below are the remarks President Bush made as he opened his third prime-time news conference since he took over the White House

Good evening.

Before I take your questions, let me speak with the American people about the situation in Iraq.


This has been tough weeks in that country.  Coalition forces have encountered serious violence in some areas of Iraq.  Our military commanders report that this violence is being instigated by three groups.


Some remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime, along with Islamic militants, have attacked coalition forces in the city of Fallujah.  Terrorists from other countries have infiltrated Iraq to incite and organize attacks.


In the south of Iraq, coalition forces face riots and attacks that are being incited by a radical cleric named al-Sadr.  He has assembled some of his supporters into an illegal militia and publicly supported the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.  Al-Sadr's methods of violence and intimidation are widely repudiated by other Iraqi Shi'a.  He has been indicted by Iraqi authorities for the murder of a prominent Shi'a cleric.

Although these instigations of violence come from different factions, they share common goals.  They want to run us out of Iraq and destroy the democratic hopes of the Iraqi people.  The violence we have seen is a power grab by these extreme and ruthless elements. It's not a civil war.  It's not a popular uprising.  Most of Iraq is relatively stabile.  Most Iraqis by far reject violence and oppose dictatorship.

In forums where Iraqis have met to discuss their political future and in all the proceedings of the Iraqi Governing Council, Iraqis have clear commitments.  They want strong protections for individual rights.  They want their independence and they want their freedom.


America's commitment to freedom in Iraq is consistent with our ideals and required by our interests.


Iraq will either be a peaceful democratic country or it will again be a source of violence, a haven for territory, and a threat to America and to the world.  By helping secure a free Iraq, Americans serving in that country are protecting their fellow citizens.  Our nation is grateful to them all and to their families that face hardship and long separation. 


This weekend at a Fort Hood hospital, I presented a purple heart to some of our wounded.  I had the honor of thanking them on behalf of all Americans.  Other men and women have paid an even greater cost. Our nation honors the memory of those who have been killed.  And we pray that their families will find God's comfort in the midst of their grief. 


As I've said to those who have lost loved ones, we will finish the work of the fallen.  America's armed forces are performing brilliantly with all the skill and honor we expect of them.


We're constantly reviewing their needs.  Troop strength now and in the future is determined by the situation on the ground.  If additional forces are needed, I will send them.  If additional resources are needed, we will provide them. 


The people of our country are united behind our men and women in uniform.  And this government will do all that is necessary to assure success of their historic mission. 


One central commitment of that mission is the transfer of sovereignty back to the Iraqi people.  We have set a deadline of June 30th.  It is important that we meet that deadline.  As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation, and neither does America.  We're not an imperial power, as nations such as Japan and Germany can attest.  We're a liberating power, as nations in Europe and Asia can attest, as well. 


America's objective in Iraq is limited and it is firm.


We seek an independent, free and secure Iraq.


Were the coalition to step back from the June 30th pledge, many Iraqis would question our intentions and feel their hopes betrayed, and those in Iraqi who trade in hatred and conspiracy theories would find a larger audience and gain the stronger hand.


We will not step back from our pledged.  On June 30th, Iraqi sovereignty will be placed in Iraqi hands.  Sovereignty involves more than a date and a ceremony.  It requires Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own future.  Iraqi authorities are now confronting the security challenge of the last several weeks.  In Fallujah, coalition forces have suspected offensive operations, allowing members of the Iraqi Governing Council and local leaders to work on the restoration of central authority in that city.


These leaders are communicating with the insurgents to ensure an orderly turnover of that city to Iraqi forces so that the resumption of military action does not become necessary.  They're also insisting that those who killed and mutilated four American contract workers be handed over for trial and punishment.  In addition, members of the Governing Council are seeking to resolve the situation in the south. Al-Sadr must answer the charges against him and disband his illegal militia. 


Our coalition is standing with responsible Iraqi leaders as they establish growing authority in their country.  The transition to sovereignty requires that we demonstrate confidence in Iraqis, and we have that confidence.  Many Iraqi leaders are showing greater personal courage, and their example will bring out the same quality in others. 


The transition to sovereignty also requires an atmosphere of security, and our coalition is working to provide that security.  We will continue taking the greatest care to prevent harm to innocent civilians, yet we will not permit the spread of chaos and violence.


I have directed our military commanders to make every preparation to use decisive force if necessary to maintain order and to protect our troops.


The nation of Iraq is moving toward self-rule, and Iraqis and Americans will see evidence in the months to come.  On June 30th, when the flag of a free Iraq is raised, Iraqi officials will assume full responsibility for the ministries of government.  On that day the Transitional Administrative Law, including a bill of rights that is unprecedented in the Arab world, will take full effect.  The United States and all the nations of our coalition will establish normal diplomatic relations with the Iraqi government.  An American embassy will open, and an American ambassador will be posted.


According to the schedule already approved by the Governing Council, Iraq will hold elections for a national assembly no later than next January.


That assembly will draft a new permanent constitution which will be presented to the Iraqi people in a national referendum held in October of next year.  Iraqis will then elect a permanent government by December 15th, 2005, an event that will mark the completion of Iraq's transition from dictatorship to freedom.


Other nations and international institutions are stepping up to their responsibilities in building a free and secure Iraq.  We're working closely with the United Nations envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, and with Iraqis to determine the exact form of the government that will receive sovereignty on June 30th. 


The United Nations election assistance team, headed by Carina Perelli, is in Iraq developing plans for next January's election. NATO is providing support for the Polish-led multinational division in Iraq and 17 of NATO's 26 members are contributing forces to maintain security.


Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of State Rumsfeld and a number of NATO defense and foreign minister are exploring a more formal role for NATO, such as turning the Polish-led division into a NATO operation and giving NATO specific responsibilities for border control.


Iraqis' neighbors also have responsibilities to make their region more stable, so I'm sending Deputy Secretary of State Armitage to the Middle East to discuss with these nations our common interest in a free and independent Iraq and how they can help achieve this goal.


As we've made clear all along, our commitment to the success and security of Iraq will not end on June 30th.  On July 1st and beyond, our reconstruction assistance will continue, and our military commitment will continue.  Having helped Iraqis establish a new government, coalition military forces will help Iraqis to protect their government from external aggression and internal subversion.


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. 


The violence we are seeing in Iraq is familiar.  The terrorist who takes hostages or plants a roadside bomb near Baghdad is serving the same ideology of murder that kills innocent people on trains in Madrid, and murders children on buses in Jerusalem, and blows up a nightclub in Bali, and cuts the throat of a young reporter for being a Jew. 


We've seen the same ideology of murder in the killing of 241 Marines in Beirut, the first attack on the World Trade Center, and the destruction of two embassies in Africa; in the attack on the USS Cole, and in the merciless horror inflicted upon thousands of innocent men and women and children on September the 11th, 2001.


None of these acts is the work of a religion.  All are the work  of a fanatical political ideology.  The servants of this ideology seek  tyranny in the Middle East and beyond.  They seek to oppress and  persecute women.  They seek the death of Jews and Christians, and  every Muslim who desires peace over theocratic terror.  They seek to  intimidate America into panic and retreat, and to set free nations  against each other.  And they seek weapons of mass destruction to  blackmail and murder on a massive scale.


Over the last several decades, we've seen that any concession or  retreat on our part will only embolden this enemy and invite more  bloodshed.  And the enemy has seen over the last 31 months that we  will no longer live in denial or seek to appease them.


For the first time the civilized world has provided a concerted  response to the ideology of terror: a series of powerful, effective  blows.  The terrorists have lost the shelter of the Taliban and the  training camps in Afghanistan.


They've lost safe havens in Pakistan.  They lost an ally in Baghdad.  And Libya has turned its back on terror.  They've lost many leaders in  an unrelenting international manhunt.  And perhaps most frightening to  these men and their movement, the terrorists are seeing the advance of  freedom and reform in the greater Middle East.


A desperate enemy is also a dangerous enemy, and our work may  become more difficult before it is finished.  No one can predict all  the hazards that lie ahead or the costs they will bring.  Yet in this  conflict, there is no safe alternative to resolute action.  The  consequences of failure in Iraq would be unthinkable.  Every friend of  America in Iraq would be betrayed to prison and murder as a new  tyranny arose.  Every enemy of America in the world would celebrate,  proclaiming our weakness and decadence and using that victory to  recruit a new generation of killers.


We will succeed in Iraq.  We're carrying out a decision that has  already been made and will not change.  Iraq will be a free,  independent country and America and the Middle East will be safer  because of it.  Our coalition has the means and the will to prevail.  We serve the cause of liberty and that is always and everywhere a  cause worth serving.


Now I'll be glad to take your questions.


 Â© 2004 MSNBC Interactive

cl-nwtreehugger


 


Community Leader: In The News & Sports Talk


I can also be found at Washington, TV Shows & QOTW


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Wed, 04-14-2004 - 12:04pm

President responds to questions

Transcript of queries, responses at news conference


Updated: 10:23 p.m.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Wed, 04-14-2004 - 1:41pm
<>

Compare this with the following:

Iraq: The wolf is at the door

By Ehsan Ahrari

With reports on Wednesday of United States warplanes and helicopter gunships firing machine-guns, rockets and cannons at gunmen in the besieged city of Fallujah, a brief truce is being strained to the limit. Reports from non-US sources describe that hundreds of Iraqis have died in Fallujah as a result of a week's intense fighting between Sunnis and the US troops. One Shi'ite member of the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) has suspended his membership in that body, and four others have threatened to follow suit in protest against what they label as "collective punishment" of Fallujah residents by the occupation forces for the death and mutilation of the bodies of four American security workers. One member of the IGC has even described that operation as "genocide". If the discussions of a quagmire in Iraq were previously dismissed by the Bush administration as hyperbolic, this time all indications are that the wolf is, indeed, at the door.

One year ago on April 9 Iraqis were celebrating the toppling of a giant-sized statue of Saddam Hussein, an event that will forever be remembered as the defining moment of the end of a brutal era in Iraq. On the first anniversary of that event, on April 9, there was another defining - albeit not a heavily publicized - moment: a US Marine was tearing down the poster of the young Shi'ite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, from the same pedestal that had once carried the statue of the Iraqi dictator. Except, unlike Saddam, Muqtada has emerged as a leader whose popularity is perceptibly increasing. He has already declared his intention of becoming a "martyr" in the Iraqi quest for independence that still defies the besieged nation. Now, a growing number of Iraqis are fighting the awesome military might of the US, their erstwhile "liberator". The unfolding tragedy in Iraq promises to contain even more tragic chapters and gruesome events than before.

The outbreak of hostilities in Fallujah, and the holy Shi'ite city of Najaf, reported to be turning into a powerful basis for cooperation between the Sunnis and Shi'ites of Iraq, marks a development beyond the wildest imagination of fiction writers. That cooperation is based on a common perception that "enemies" in Iraq are Western occupation forces, especially its leader, the United States.

One wonders what motivated L Paul Bremer, America's viceroy in Iraq and head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), and the US military commanders to resort to tough actions in Fallujah and Najaf, and to declare Muqtada an "outlaw", or by threatening to use "overwhelming force" to punish those who mutilated the bodies of the American contractors. In the case of Fallujah, the perpetrators of the mutilation could have been extracted through negotiations with city elders or tribal leaders. In the case of Muqtada, the CPA's best option would have been to continue to ignore him as a minor irritation, instead of deciding to confront him through such actions as closing down his newspaper, arresting his aide, and going to the extent of threatening to kill him if he resisted arrest.

For the CPA, prior to the events that led to the escalation of violence in the northern and southern portions of Iraq, the supreme objective was to see that the symbolic transition of authority to the IGC was carried out as smoothly as possible. Fanning the flames of anger through threats of retribution in Fallujah, or heightening confrontation with Muqtada were not measures that would serve America's best interests in Iraq. The consequences for talking tough or reacting impulsively are too severe and serious for America's overall purpose.

Now the forces of moderation - members of the IGC and even Shi'ite leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani - will be constantly looking over their shoulders if they were to maintain their moderate modus operandi. Political moderation is likely to be seen as an "appeasement" of the occupiers and as "collaboration" more now than ever before. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the alleged al-Qaeda operative in Iraq - who is reported to be the mastermind of a number of terrorist attacks against American forces and Iraqis - could not have imagined a more friendly environment in which to accelerate the pace of his campaign of terror against forces of civility in Iraq, especially against those Iraqis who still dare to dream of a stable and democratic Iraq, and who still have half a mind of cooperating with the Americans.

The feelings of anger, anxiety and insecurity among the IGC were highlighted by the fact that one Shi'ite member, Abdul Karim Mohammedawi, has suspended his membership, and four other members - Salma Khafaji (Shi'ite woman), Ghazi Ajil Yawer (a Sunni from Mosul), Hassani (a representative of Iraqi Islamic Party) - are reportedly contemplating to follow suit.

More to the point, Adnan Pachachi, a senior Sunni member of IGC - and previously a vocal supporter of the occupation, and a person who was showcased by the Bush administration as a representative of the "new" Iraq - has publicly condemned US actions. He told al-Arabiyya television: "We consider the action carried out by US forces illegal and totally unacceptable. We denounce the military operations carried out by the American forces because, in effect, it is collective punishment on the residents of Fallujah." Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, a spokesman of the US military, responded: "Nothing can be further from the truth. We run extremely precise operations focused on people we have intelligence on for crimes of violence against the coalition and against the Iraqi people."

Another member of the IGC, Hachim Hassani, stated: "The coalition has opened too many fronts in Iraq, alienating a large swath of the population. The Iraqi people now equate democracy with bloodshed." A resident of Fallujah was even more poignant when he observed: "It is only 300,000 people living here, a small city, but the way the Americans are fighting it's as if they are fighting a whole continent. Is this the reconstruction and the freedom Bush is talking about? We prefer Saddam's repression."

The very survival of the IGC as a viable entity depends not only on the declaration of a meaningful ceasefire in Fallujah, but, more substantially, on the successful participation of its members to negotiate some sort of resolution.

There is little doubt that the American military power will be able to silence and subjugate the dissenters and protagonists in Iraq, at least for now. But the enormous resentment that its brutal use of force is creating in Iraq is likely to become a profound reason why a Christian superpower will fail in proselytizing Muslim Iraqis into believing in the inherent superiority of democracy. Unfortunately from the Bush administration's perspectives, as the Shi'ites and Sunnis continue to cooperate to oust the US from their country, conflict in Iraq is increasingly perceived along religious lines, not just by Iraqis, but also by most of the Arab Middle East.

If the purpose of the US's continued occupation of Iraq is to create democracy, that purpose is presently witnessing its darkest hour. When will the US bring an end to its occupation of Iraq? Currently, we only hear that it is there to stay for the long haul. How can democracy emerge as a viable form of government if, in the process of its creation, Washington continues to alienate a large number of Iraqis on a sustained basis? Even if the United Nations were to take charge of rebuilding Iraq - an option that is frequently mentioned as US forces continue to face stiffened resistance to their high profile presence and strong-armed maneuvering in that country - the world body has to operate on the basis of some sort of a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops, especially American ones.

However, there are no indications to date that the US is thinking about pulling out of Iraq. No one should view this proposition as a sole representative of the thinking and commitment of George W Bush. John Kerry, if he were to be elected as the next US president, is not likely to "cut and run" from Iraq, he has said on many occasions. If the preceding is not the description of Iraq turning into a quagmire for the United States, then no one knows what else it really is.

Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic analyst.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FD15Ak03.html

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2004
Wed, 04-14-2004 - 1:59pm
I'm surprised I haven't seen any commentary on last night's press conference, unless I missed it here somewhere.

I thought Bush did very well on his opening remarks and into the beginning of the questioning, but there was a distinct hesitancy as the press conference wore on. The questions of the reporters didn't cover too many issues, as it seemed like they were trying to get him to answer a few questions he didn't really want to and they kept coming back to them and following up on each, other rather than presenting new topics.

The one disappointment that really stood out for me was his response to the question about him admitting being wrong. Why can't Bush ever show a little flair on this type of question? In my view, the way to respond to that was to start with a quip like, "Well, if you ask Laura, she'll tell you that I am wrong on occasion." I have finally pinpointed what I really don't like about watching Bush speak: the man has absolutely no charm, and I think it really hurts his presentation because he appears stiff, uncomfortable and lacking presence when he can't bring occasional relief to the tense moments of such an event.

I was very surprised at his negative review of the Iraqi troops, and thought he could have really softened that statement.

I am also surpised that there was absolutely no mention of the condition of America or the state of Americans. I know the conference was primarily to address Iraq, but consider your audience.

Anyway, that's my take.

Glassy

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Wed, 04-14-2004 - 2:26pm

He does fine with 'scripted' opening remarks...but get him answering questions and his facade crumbles.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Wed, 04-14-2004 - 4:47pm

You know I have a hard time listening to Bush.....

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Wed, 04-14-2004 - 5:26pm
That's funny, I had the opposite view. I thought he did OK (I'd give him a b- on the opening remarks) but did very well responding to the questions. I thought he was really strong and closed well.

minnie

Avatar for moon627
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 04-14-2004 - 5:32pm
I agree about his speech impedement - all that bumbling and stumbling over words is embarrassing and hard to watch - sometimes i just have to look away or change channels. I tried to view it with non-partisan eyes and was able to see where he's coming from with all the bad news coming out of Iraq lately and the way things have been going if we want our troops to get out alive we do need to give them more support - but i still cant help feeling we never should have gone there in the first place and all his excuses about bad-bad saddam will never justify it in my opinion. And why couldnt he just say that yes he's sorry ?
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Wed, 04-14-2004 - 6:03pm

I think his ending remarks were delivered pretty well, they had nothing to do with the question at hand and were CLEARLY written as a speech for him.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Wed, 04-14-2004 - 6:27pm
No, he's definitely not slick like President Clinton was. It is easy to miss Clinton's charisma and charm, that's for sure - but I think he does come off as sincere and strong. In my opinion, that's more important.

You have to admit some of the questions were inane and seemed to come out of left field. I think he was genuinely stumped when the reporter asked him what mistakes he has made since he's been in office. Leaders simply cannot spend their time constantly second guessing themselves and wringing their hands over decisions that they have made. I think that he sincerely believes that he has made the right decisions with the information that he had. I'm glad he couldn't come up with an answer, I respect him for that.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-01-2004
Wed, 04-14-2004 - 9:40pm
" a powerful basis for cooperation between the Sunnis and Shi'ites of Iraq, marks a development beyond the wildest imagination of fiction writers. That cooperation is based on a common perception that "enemies" in Iraq are Western occupation forces, especially its leader, the United States."

Only a short time ago, one of the main worries was that between the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds civil war would break out in Iraq. Now it seem that the Sunnis and Shias are united against the U.S. Could it be that we are just not understanding that although Sunnis and Shias may have differences within their religion, that ultimately they are all Muslims? A kind of I may not like or agree with my brother, but he is my brother and if you you attack him, you attack me and we will stand together against you? Where does that leave the Kurds?

Pages