Goose Steps and Hip Wiggles

Good Questions

Some of you may remember last summer, when plucky Irish television reporter Carole Coleman infuriated Bush during a 10-minute interview before his trip to Ireland. (See my July 1, 2004, column for more.)

I finally had a chance yesterday to comb through all the interviews that Bush granted to reporters from the Baltics, the Netherlands, Russia and Georgia before leaving on this latest trip. Some of them are proof, once again, that international reporters sometimes ask the toughest questions -- and evoke the most puzzling answers.

Here's Latvian television:

"Q The sentiment of anti-Americanism, as I'm sure you know, is quite widespread in Europe, and in my country, as well. Do you think there is any degree of your own fault in the fact that this sentiment is on the rise or --

"THE PRESIDENT: I made some hard decisions. You know, going into Iraq was a hard decision and I can understand people not liking that. But I would hope people in Europe would understand that freedom is not owned only by Europeans, that people around the world deserve to be free."

Here's Estonian television:

"Q Latest surveys show that the numbers of terrorism are increasing, not decreasing.

"THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

"Q Why is that?

"THE PRESIDENT: Well --

"Q You have made a lot of efforts.

"THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that's why. If we weren't trying to find the enemy and bring him to justice, the world would look relatively peaceful. But we're on the offense. And so when you engage the enemy, when you try to bring them to justice, they don't like to be brought to justice."

Bush also spoke to a group of foreign print journalists. Here's that transcript:

"Q: Mr. President, you are a transformational, they call it, and promoting democracy in the world is a very ambitious goal; and achieve peace, changing the world, and it's also acknowledging Europe. But such a far-reaching idealism can also easily lead to moral inconsistencies that risk to undermine your credibility. For instance, how does the way detainees at Guantanamo Bay are being handled, how does that relate to your promotion of democracy and the rule of law?

"THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. That, and, for example, the pictures people saw about the prison -- prison abuse is different from the detainees in Guantanamo. We're working our way forward, so that they -- and our courts, by the way, are adjudicating this. It is a clear, transparent review of the decision I made by the courts, so everybody can see it. And they're being argued in the courts as we speak. People are being treated humanely. They were illegal non-combatants, however, and I made the decision they did not pertain to the Geneva Convention. They were not -- these were terrorists. Obviously, we've looked at Iraq differently.

"I can understand people being concerned about prison abuse when they see the pictures out of Abu Ghraib, and it made Americans universally sick, because the actions of those folks didn't represent the heart and soul of America, didn't represent the sentiments of the American people. And I am an idealistic person, because I believe in what is possible. I believe that freedom is universal, and I believe, if given a chance, people will seize the moment.

"But I'm also a realistic person, and I'm realistic enough to know that images on TV have sullied our country's image, at times. And we've just got to continue to spread -- tell people the truth, be open about the mistakes of Abu Ghraib, hold people to account."

The reporter, not dissuaded by that answer, asked for more.

"Q: Would you say -- can I follow up?

"THE PRESIDENT: Yes, sure.

"Q: You say you are a realistic person, but there's also a problem with the limits. What are the limits of your idealistic policy? Does every autocratic regime, like Iran, just fear -- just to have fear of the American military power?

Bush's long, meandering answer to that question is worth reading, too.

Finally, on Russian television , Bush spoke about Nazism, among other things. "It's an extremist point of view that believes that you should be able to trample the rights of minorities. It was the Nazis who annihilated millions of Jews, for example and there's a classic example of the rights of minorities being trampled."

Leave It to the Dutch

The Carole Coleman award, however, has to go to Wouter Kurpershoek, a correspondent for Dutch NOS television.

Here is the transcript , and here is the video of his interview.

After Bush explained that his desire for freedom justifies his foreign policy, Kurpershoek asked:

"Q But the interesting thing is, Mr. President, that we all agree, also in Europe, about your goals -- democracy, freedom, safety in the world.

"THE PRESIDENT: Sure.

"Q Does it frustrate you sometimes that -- for example, in The Netherlands they did a poll before you are coming now that vast part of the population does not agree with the way you're handling world affairs, for example.

"THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know --

"Q Is it frustrating?

"THE PRESIDENT: No, it doesn't. I mean, I --

"Q It must be a little, though.

"THE PRESIDENT: No, it doesn't; it doesn't frustrate me. I make decisions on what I think is right. That's what leaders do. The other day in a press conference I was asked about polls here in America. I said, a leader who tries to lead based upon polls is like a dog chasing his tail. That's not how you lead. No, I feel comfortable with the decisions I've made.

"Q Is it maybe, then, a communication problem?

"THE PRESIDENT: I don't know, I don't follow the Dutch media, don't know what's being said in Holland.

"Q Well, when people are being asked about you, or America, they admire, again, your goals, but when you talk about -- for example -- about the war on terror, and you see freedom and democracy, the Dutch see that, as well, but they also see, for example, prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib prison; or Guantanamo Bay, where prisoners are being held without charge; or the Americans who do not want their soldiers in The Hague for the tribunal, to be accountable.

"THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have different --

"Q So they see that problem.

"THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, all Americans, including me, reject Abu Ghraib. That was an aberration. That's not what America stands for. And if people are concerned about the tactics, I understand that. But the goal is peace. And now is the time to work together to achieve peace.

"Q How do you want to do that? What do you want to tell the Dutch people?

"THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish. But you asked me, do I worry about polls -- I don't, that's not what leaders do. Leaders who sit around and read polls all the time are leaders that don't lead.

"Q But the Dutch people are interested in --

"THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish, please. And I have an obligation to lead. And we're making progress. You saw eight-and-a-half million people voted in Iraq. They defied the terrorists, they defied the suicide bombers, because they desire to be free. And now we have an obligation to work to help that country develop into a democracy, because the lesson of Europe, of working together as democracies, has yielded peace."

And More About the Dutch Roundtable

I wrote in yesterday's column about the tough questions Bush apparently faced from a group of Dutch students. I say "apparently" because the press was ushered out of the room after the first two.

Well, Dutch NOS television caught up with some of the students afterward, and as far as I can tell from this highly amusing and only somewhat helpful automated translation , after the press was ushered out, one student asked Bush if he realizes his policies have frightened moderate Muslims. And another student apparently asked about the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Judicial Watch

Jim VandeHei and Charles Babington write in The Washington Post: "President Bush yesterday called for an immediate vote on two of his most controversial judicial nominations, increasing pressure on Senate Republicans to consider a historic rule change that would make it easier for him, and future presidents, to reshape the federal bench, including the Supreme Court."

Here's the text of Bush's statement.

Scam Watch

Brian Krebs writes in washingtonpost.com's Security Fix blog: "A new e-mail scam is making its rounds online, trying to trick White House employees into handing over their personal and financial data at a fake banking Web site."

Preserving Trust

A few relevant excerpts from the New York Times committee's report to the executive editor about preserving readers' trust:

"[O]ur charge from the executive editor included the question whether we should instruct our reporters to walk out of anonymous background briefings. We do believe the paper should encourage reporters to push back by objecting to the ground rules as the briefings begin, especially those conducted by public affairs spokesmen whose job is normally to speak on the record. We do not believe, however, that we have much to gain by unilaterally boycotting such sessions or by trying to work in concert with other news organizations -- which in any case are notably reluctant to join such a group effort."

And, on labeling commentary:

"We can hardly expect readers to understand the grab bag of labels we use to identify various types of articles in the paper. Many of us do not understand them either. (How does a Washington Memo differ from a White House Letter? What distinguishes News Analysis from an analytical news story? What's the difference between Critic's Notebook and TV Watch?)

"It is important to differentiate columnists in the news pages from those on the Op-Ed pages, who enjoy much greater leeway. Columnists and critics in the news pages are permitted to express professional points of view about what they cover."

Gannon and Vanity Fair

The much-anticipated Vanity Fair story about Jeff Gannon, by David Margolick and Richard Goodin , is now online.

Here's what they write about what Gannon says he was trying to accomplish with the questions he asked in the White House briefing room:

"His question had to stand out. It had to be punchy, distinctive, not something the 'old media' would ask. It had to advance the conservative agenda, something about abortion or tax cuts or religion or the war in Iraq that his constituency, the people in the red states and counties of America, would care about. It should be friendly toward the administration, not another of the cheap shots, the gotcha questions, he felt everyone else asked. Ideally, it should be conspicuous enough to prompt a memorable response, or at least to make a point in itself.

"And it had to call attention to Jeff Gannon. The daily question was all part of Gannon's grand strategy not just to elicit news but to become a journalistic force in his own right. Now that he had re-christened himself 'Jeff Gannon' -- James Guckert was his given name -- he had to create and extend what he calls 'the Jeff Gannon brand.' Only a few years earlier, he'd been keeping the books at an auto-body shop in eastern Pennsylvania, and, if you believe his Web sites, hiring himself out as a male escort for other men. . . . But now, as the White House correspondent for an obscure operation called Talon News -- actually little more than a collection of amateurs and true believers posting a hodgepodge of right-wing 'news' items online daily for Bobby Eberle, a Texas Republican activist -- he had become a fixture at the daily briefing."