Bush Fails to Reassure

Not to mention that for Bush to argue that the leaders of a government are culpable for whatever happens under their watch is quite antithetical to the position he himself has adopted when it comes to taking responsibility for the torture and abuse of prisoners, the murder of civilians, and other blunders and atrocities committed in the war on terror.

Among the other highlight from yesterday's press conference:

When asked if he believes Iraq is in at state of civil war, Bush suddenly pled ignorance: "It's hard for me, living in this beautiful White House, to give you an assessment, firsthand assessment," he said.

But since when has that ever stopped him from reaching judgments about Iraq? Never, that's when. I suspect that statement will come back to haunt him.

When asked how people who oppose his policies in Iraq can express that opposition without being accused of emboldening the enemy, Bush responded: "I think you can be against my decision and support the troops, absolutely. But the proof will be whether or not you provide them the money necessary to do the mission."

In other words, as liberal blogger Josh Marshall put it: "Bush: To be patriotic you don't have to agree with my policy, but you do have to support it."

Here's the transcript of the press conference. Here's the video.

A Call for a Closer Textual Analysis

Journalists -- and in particular daily newspaper reporters -- have an understandable tendency to try to summarize things, and to do so in a way that doesn't leave the reader confused.

But administration statements, particularly when military action may be in the offing, need to be parsed meticulously. Even if it gets messy and complicated.

Josh Marshall, who was really on a roll yesterday, writes: "President Bush is intentionally giving Americans the impression that we know something we don't. . . .

"After the Iran war, we'll probably be walked back and shown that President Bush never really said that the [Iranian] Qods force was giving these weapons to the people using them against US troops. He didn't fib. We just didn't listen closely enough. He was just saying that the Qods folks gave them to someone. But he wasn't saying who. So before all our soldiers die and before the president makes yet a million more screw ups for which we'll pay for decades into the future, let's look closely at what he's actually saying."

Bush's Fundamental Problem

Karen DeYoung writes in The Washington Post: "The specter of the war in Iraq -- a war the Bush administration denied it was planning, supported by evidence that turned out to be false -- looms large over administration policy toward Iran. . . .