Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |   E-mail Dan  |  
Page 4 of 5   <       >

'No One Suffers More Than the President'

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

In either case, it seems to me that what we should be looking for in an interview with Bush is not whether he talks a lot, it's whether he says something new, whether he offers additional insight into his decision-making process, whether he shows any sign of changing his approach, and whether he confronts the actual arguments of his critics. None of that happened last night.

If Rose had come to the interview prepared to confront Bush with documented facts that contradict his stated positions, it might have been otherwise. But Rose's facilitating was, well, just that.

Some Highlights

"Rose: If the surge doesn't work, I mean, we find out at the end of the summer, everybody asked -- and John McCain said there is no plan B. Is there a plan B?

"Bush: Plan B is to make plan A work, and that's what we're talking to David about. And you know, he's -- he's -- he's just going to let us know where he thinks we stand at the end of the summer. . . .

"Rose: But you have to have a strategy -- that's your responsibility -- to have a strategy in case it doesn't work.

"Bush: We're constantly planning and constantly adjusting and constantly making changes. That's exactly what happened here. . . .

"Rose: Can you imagine a circumstance in which you would have to say, we did our best, good men and good women sacrificed their life, but we can't in the end do what we want to do, and we have to leave?

"Bush: No. I can't imagine that, because I believe that with time, this Iraqi government is going to be able to reconcile and move forward. It is not going to be a pretty picture. Of course, our government wasn't so pretty in its early stages either. And -- but I believe that -- I believe this can work. I do, yes."

Bush's most aggressive argument against a timetable for withdrawal involves predictions about what would happen.

As he said yesterday morning at the White House: "I strongly believe that the Democrats' proposal would undermine our troops and threaten the safety of the American people here at home. . . .

"It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you start to plan withdrawing. If we were to do so, the enemy would simply mark their calendars and begin plotting how to take over a country when we leave.

"We know what could happen next. Just as al Qaeda used Afghanistan as a base to plan attacks of September the 11th, al Qaeda could make Iraq a base to plan even more deadly attacks. . . . . Precipitous withdrawal . . . would embolden our enemies and confirm their belief that America is weak. It could unleash chaos in Iraq that could spread across the entire region. It would be an invitation to the enemy to attack America and our friends around the world. And, ultimately, a precipitous withdrawal would increase the probability that American troops would one day have to return to Iraq and confront an enemy that's even more dangerous."


<             4        >


© 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive