The Ostroy Report

The Ostroy Report is a fresh, aggressive voice for Democrats and a watchdog of the GOP/Tea Party. We support President Obama and the Democratic agenda and seek to preserve the Senate majority while taking back the House. But we're also not afraid to criticize the left when necessary.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

The Bush Press Conference We'd Love to See But Never Will


Maybe we'll all be lucky enough some day to bear witness to something truly special from the White House and the mainstream press.....

President Bush: Thank you all for being here. As I've stated many times, America is at war. A war we're fighting with some very, very bad people. Real nasty folks. These Islamo-fascist terrorists are hellbent on our destruction, and the destruction of free nations everywhere. They hate the West, and they hate freedom. It's a very difficult battle against a hidden army of really bad folks who are willing to kill themselves to further their murderous cause against freedom. We must wage war against these killers wherever they are. It's been five years since this brutal enemy attacked us on our soil, killing 3000 innocent people in New York City, Washington, DC and Pennsylvania. We vowed to not only hunt down these terrorists and bring them to justice, but to eliminate their terror organizations so that they can't attack us again.

The battle we wage in Iraq is critical to achieving this goal, and Iraq is the central front in this war against Islamo-fascist terrorists. We must fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here. I cannot and will not allow them to attack America again. Now a lot of people in Washington are saying we should withdraw and I say that policy of cut and run would be a disaster. It would result in death, executions and ethnic cleaning and civil war. And the terrorists would win. They'd take over the country. And they'll start planning their next attack on America. And they'll be dominated by the real enemy, Iran. We must show resolve, and we must stay the course until the mission is complete.

Questions....David...

MSNBC's David Gregory: Mr. President, I'd like to ask you again what was asked of you two weeks ago by a reporter: what does the war in Iraq have to do with 9/11?

Bush: My answer is the same. Nothing.

Gregory: Why then, after all we now know about no WMD and no connections to al Qaeda, are you still discussing it in the same sentence every time you talk about the war on terror?

Bush: Because Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.

Gregory: But Iraq before the invasion was controlled by Saddam, and there was no presence of al Qaeda there. And the terrorists who attacked us were mainly from Saudi Arabia; not one was from Iraq. So, it would seem that it's only become the central front since the invasion. Are you denying then that we created the very thing we were most afraid of?

Bush: No. Next question...Helen...

Hearst's Helen Thomas: Mr. President, I'd like to stay on this subject. Is it not duplicitous therefore to continue referencing the 9/11 attacks every time you are asked about Iraq? Is this not an attempt to blatantly deceive the American people?

Bush: Er...um...no, it's not Helen. And I take offense to the accusation.

Thomas: The American people have a right to know why we're in Iraq, what the mission is, what the estimated costs are, and when our troops will return. So far we've been given nothing but talking points and double-speak. I will ask you a blunt question, Mr. President, and the American people would appreciate an honest answer: are we in Iraq to avenge the 9/11 attacks?

Bush: No. Let's move on. Ann....

ABC's Ann Compton: Mr. President, you keep stating that we're fighting "the terrorists" in Iraq. If, as you stated, these are not the 9/11 terrorists, who are they then? You use the term "terrorist" quite broadly sir, but don't you think Americans would be better served if our elected officials were honest with them about the enemies we're fighting. About who our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, are being sent off to kill. Who are we fighting in Iraq, sir?

Bush: Ann, I've said this a million times. We're fighting some very bad folks. Islamo-fascist terrorists who want to kill us again.

Compton: But see, there you go again, Mr. President, using deceptive words like "again" when you just admitted those we're fighting in Iraq are not terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. So I'll ask again, who are they?

Bush: Ann, let's give someone else a chance. Nora...nice blouse by the way (winks)...

MSNBC's Nora O'Donnell: Thank you sir. But if I may, I think we're onto something significant here which I will continue with as a follow up to Ann. The American people are being told repeatedly by you, VP Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Rice and many in the Republican leadership that we're indeed fighting "terrorists" in Iraq. But isn't it true that perhaps 95% of those we're fighting there are Iraqi insurgents and not al Qaeda terrorists? That the bloody, deadly insurgency began with Saddam loyalists as a direct result of the U.S.'s occupation, and is now also being fueled by Sunni vs. Shia violence? Is it not true that only 5% or less of those we're fighting in Iraq are foreign radical Muslim extremists?

Bush: Um...that's correct.

O'Donnell: Then why does your administration constantly attempt to confuse the two and as a result confuse the American people?

Bush: Nora look, the people we're fighting want to kill us. To destroy the freedoms we enjoy. And they want to attack us again. I won't let that happen. Next question...Andrea...

O'Donnell: No Mr. President. Excuse me. I would like an answer to my question. Why is your administration not leveling with the American people? They deserve to know the truth. Why do you continue to portray Iraq as the response to 9/11? As revenge against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, which, unlike Iraq, did attack us? Stop stonewalling please and tell the American people the truth about this war! (to applause in the room)

Bush (visibly disturbed): Nora you are out of line. Next question. Jim....

NY Times' Jim Rutenberg: I'm sorry, Mr. President, but you are clearly on the line here today for some straight answers. Since we're not in Iraq avenging 9/11, when will you and your cabinet stop blurring the lines as if we are?

Bush (belligerent): My goodness Jim, don't you people understand the gravity of the situation we're facing? We're fighting...

Rutenberg (interrupts): With all due respect sir, we don't. And we'd like more than talking points and spin. America's been told we need to fight in Iraq because of terrorists, yet you yourself admit Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and that less than 5% of those fighting us there are radical Islamists. You must've seen all the latest polls showing that Americans no longer support the war and no longer see it as part of the broader war against terror. Yet you and your cabinet continue to perpetrate this myth, and the public, quite frankly, is fed up. History will judge you sir not solely by why you took the nation to war, but by your words ands actions thereafter as well.

Bush: This is startin' to sound like an inquisition, people. Let's bring the focus back on this war on terror we're....(interrupted loudly by many reporters shouting questions at once)

Gregory: Mr. President, why are you and key Republicans like Rick Santorum and Dennis Hastert taking credit for the foiled terror plot in Great Britain when U.S. intelligence had nothing to do with it?

CBS News' Bill Plante: Why do we continue to spend most of our precious financial and military resources in Iraq if we're not truly fighting terrorists there while Afghanistan continues to fall back into Taliban/al Qaeda hands?

CNN's Suzanne Malveaux: Why can't you find, capture or kill bin Laden after five years?

Washington Post's Michael Abramowitz: When will you fire Rumsfeld for botching this war from the start to every step since?

Chicago Tribune's Mark Silva: Since we killed Al Qaeda in Iraq's leader Zarqawi, the violence of the insurgency and civil war has escalated...why should we care that the #2 guy, Hamad Jama al-Saedi, has been captured? And, just how many #2's are there?

Thomas: Are you afraid, Mr. President, that if the Democrats win back the House this November that they will immediately begin conducting investigations into your administration's campaign of deception and war crimes...which could ultimately lead to your impeachment?

Fox News' James Rosen: Given what the Brits just did, wasn't Sen. John Kerry right when he said fighting terrorists is the job of law enforcement agencies not the military? Why are we wasting our time in Iraq when this money and manpower could be spent shoring up DHS, CIA, FBI, state/local police and special forces?

Los Angeles Times' James Gerstenzang: Can you please tell us how we "win" in Iraq given how it appears the country is falling apart under civil war?

AP's Terrence Hunt: Why are many key Republican incumbents refusing to campaign with you?

USA Today's Richard Benedetto: Please tell the American people why....

With that last question, Karl Rove hurriedly approaches the lectern in the White House press room, whispers in the president's ear, the president turns to the throng of reporters, says "Thank you all" and the two of them quickly exit the room, leaving the press stunned and rushing to the phones. The news reports that night, and the next day's headlines, are: "President Skewered by Frustrated Media Demanding Accountability and Answers About the War and the Deception Over the Terrorist Threat." Within days, Bush's approval ratings drop to the low 20's, the worst ever for a sitting U.S. president.

12 Comments:

  • At 4:34 PM, Blogger BALLS AND MY WORD™ said…

    Nice work Andy. This would be a better option than the Second American Revolution.

    Too bad the traitors masquerading as the "Press" have already proven themselves worthless.

    Lucky for the elite the majority of Americans are lazy,materialistic,uneducated sloths that are more concerned with Brad and Angelina than War crimes carried out in their name.

     
  • At 5:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Another garbage piece of commentary by the OstroyReport.

    Your implication that we are not fighting the 9/11 terrorists, who attacked us is ridiculous considering THEY ARE DEAD. Remember the died when they flew airplanes into our buildings??

    No matter where we are fighting on this globe, Democrats can always say, "but these are not the terrorists who attacked us..."

    By the way, there were Al Qaeda AND other international terrorists in Iraq BEFORE our invasion of Iraq.

    - Saddam Hussein provided Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals used in the bombing, with money and housing for his participation in the WTC93 attack after he fled the US to the safety of Baghdad.

    - Mohammed Abbas was captured in Baghdad as he tried to escape the invasion to neighboring Syria, Middle East Newsline reported.

    - "Al Qaeda In Iraq" leader Musab al-Zarqawi (jordanian) fled afghanistan for the safety of Baghdad following the US invasion of Afghanistan. Saddam provided him with medical attention and housing.

     
  • At 6:59 PM, Blogger Joe said…

    He doesn’t mean the very terrorists who flew the planes, numbnut, he means al Qaeda the organization under the direction of Osama bin Laden who committed the murders!

    Mohammed Abbas was not al Qaeda he was a Palestinian terrorist, a member of the Palestine Liberation Front, an splinter group of Arafat’s PLO, fighting against Israel's occupation of Palestinian land. He was an old man a has-been by the time he settled in Iraq. He was no longer involved in terrorism and was apologizing for his prior acts. But we are under no obligation to forgive him for his past sins. As a result of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian interim peace agreement, however, Abbas and other PLO members were granted immunity for violent acts committed before the signing of the September 1993 Oslo agreement. Point is he was not al Qaeda, he was a has-been and had nothing to do with September 11.

    Musab al-Zarqawi was in Kurdish controlled northern Iraq north of the No Fly Zone prior to Saddam's fall from power. He briefly went to Baghdad for medical treatment. A CIA report in late 2004 concluded that it had no evidence Saddam's government was involved in, or aware of, his Baghdad medical treatment, and that "There’s no conclusive evidence the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Zarqawi." He returned to the Kurdish controlled North beyond Saddam’s control. He like the Kurds wanted to overthrow Saddam and opened a terror training camp in the North for that purpose. Prior to the Iraq War Osama bin Laden was calling for the Iraqis to rise up and overthrow Saddam because he (Saddam) was too secular. He drank and loved American movies especially the Godfather which he was obsessed with. He dressed in the finest tailored Western suits and surrounded himself in Western opulence. When the Bush Administration began moves to invade Iraq suddenly bin Laden started calling on Iraqis to fight against the American infidels as he called them. If we had called off the attack no doubt bin Laden would have renewed his calls for the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam who he saw as too Western and not a good Muslim.

    Bush himself has admitted that Saddam’s Iraq was not behind the 9-11 attacks, but he keeps mentioning the September 11 attacks in the same breath when he mentions Iraq because he knows it confuses stupid people.

    General George W. Casey Jr., commanding general of our forces in Iraq and the highest ranking soldier with boots on the ground in Iraq has repeatedly said that no more than 5% of the insurgents in Iraq are foreigners. 95% or more of the insurgents are Iraqis who want US and British forces out of their country. He bases this on the experience of our fighting men and women in Iraq. Politicians may tell you that Iraq is overrun with foreign jihadists, but our senior military leaders actually fighting in Iraq say that’s horseshit.

     
  • At 8:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Eh... nice to dream about - but couldn't ever happen. You've got dumb-ya using big words and pronouncing them correctly, even seeming half-coherent. Never happen.

     
  • At 11:40 PM, Blogger Steve Bremner said…

    You make it look easy. Sad thing is it probably would be that easy if we had reporters with any amount of tenacity.

    Glad to see the chowderheads are reading your blog. Sooner or later they will emerge from their slumber. When they do they will be as mad as hornets.

     
  • At 12:20 AM, Blogger gandhi said…

    My own personal question for Bush:

    Sir, many people around the globe are confused by your comparison of violent extremists from the Middle East and Fascist Nazis from WWII. Many consider such a comparison hypocritical and deliberately mis-leading, given your own militant, nationalistic, far-right agenda. Of course, your grandfather, Prescott Bush, was convicted of trading with the Nazis during WWII. Like many wealthy US citizens, Prescott Bush was keen to take advantage of lax post-Depression laws and investment opportunities in Germany as Hitler rose to power. Indeed, there was a concerted effort by the some of the wealthiest US citizens to ensure that the US did not enter WWII. Many even wanted to enter on the Axis's side, rather than join the Allies. This caused President Roosevelt to warn that "among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing."

    Sir, you have stripped US citizens of their civil rights, in defiance of the US Constitution. You have invaded a foreign country on the basis of lies, in defiance of international law. You have overseen the secret rendition, torture and detention without trial of prisoners, in defiance of the Geneva Convention. You have burdened generations of US children with astronomical debts while handing out tax breaks to the richest of the rich. Is it not true, sir, that you, in fact, are the real Fascist? The real Nazi? The real Terrorist?

     
  • At 2:09 AM, Anonymous James C. said…

    Well done Andy. Although it's an entertaining piece, I think it's high-time reporters address the real issues and ask the "unapproved" questions. They need to display some courage and get to the core of the issue(s). That's what the viewer wants. Most reporters do a half-ass job. They are basically collecting a check. They have zero passion for what they do. They have no intention of getting at the truth and it shows. I can only hope the press will take a lesson from your blog. The comment by gandhi was brilliant. This is exactly how we should approach Bush. He needs to be exposed for what he is, just a repug frontman.

     
  • At 3:46 PM, Anonymous What a great letter !! said…

    Dear Senator Reid:

    Thank you for your September 4 letter to the President. I am responding on his behalf.

    A useful discussion of what we need to do in Iraq requires an accurate and fair-minded description of our current policy: As the President has explained, our goal is an Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself. In order to achieve this goal, we are pursuing a strategy along three main tracks -- political, economic, and security. Along each of these tracks, we are constantly adjusting our tactics to meet conditions on the ground. We have witnessed both successes and setbacks along the way, which is the story of every war that has been waged and won.

    Your letter recites four elements of a proposed “new direction” in Iraq. Three of those elements reflect well-established Administration policy; the fourth is dangerously misguided.

    First, you propose "transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection." That is what we are now doing, and have been doing for several years. Our efforts to train the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have evolved and accelerated over the past three years. Our military has had substantial success in building the Iraqi Army -- and increasingly we have seen the Iraqi Army take the lead in fighting the enemies of a free Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces still must rely on U.S. support, both in direct combat and especially in key combat support functions. But any fair-minded reading of the current situation must recognize that the ISF are unquestionably more capable and shouldering a greater portion of the burden than a year ago -- and because of the extraordinary efforts of the United States military, we expect they will become increasingly capable with each passing month. Your recommendation that we focus on counter-terrorism training and operations -- which is the most demanding task facing our troops -- tracks not only with our policy but also our understanding, as well as the understanding of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, that Iraq is a central front in the war against terror.

    Second, your letter proposes "working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources." You are once again urging that the Bush Administration adopt an approach that has not only been embraced, but is now being executed. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is pursuing a national reconciliation project. It is an undertaking that (a) was devised by the Iraqis; (b) has the support of the United States, our coalition partners and the United Nations; and (c) is now being implemented. Further, in Iraq's political evolution, the Sunnis, who boycotted the first Iraq election, are now much more involved in the political process. Prime Minister Maliki is head of a free government that represents all communities in Iraq for the first time in that nation's history. It is in the context of this broad-based, unity government, and the lasting national compact that government is pursuing, that the Iraqis will consider what amendments might be required to the constitution that the Iraqi people adopted last year. On the matter of disarming militias: that is precisely what Prime Minister al-Maliki is working to do. Indeed, Coalition leaders are working with him and his ministers to devise and implement a program to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate members of militias and other illegal armed groups.

    Third, your letter calls for "convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort." The International Compact for Iraq, launched recently by the sovereign Iraqi government and the United Nations, is the best way to work with regional and international partners to make substantial economic progress in Iraq, help revitalize the economic reconstruction and rebuilding of that nation, and support a fair and just political settlement in Iraq -- all while preserving Iraqi sovereignty. This effort is well under way, it has momentum, and I urge you to support it.

    Three of the key proposals found in your letter, then, are already reflected in current U.S. and Iraqi policy in the region.

    On the fourth element of your proposed “new direction,” however, we do disagree strongly. Our strategy calls for redeploying troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of defending their nation, and when our military commanders believe the time is right. Your proposal is driven by none of these factors; instead, it would have U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year, without regard to the conditions on the ground. Because your letter lacks specifics, it is difficult to determine exactly what is contemplated by the “phased redeployment” you propose. (One such proposal, advanced by Representative Murtha, a signatory to your letter, suggested that U.S. forces should be redeployed as a “quick reaction force” to Okinawa, which is nearly 5,000 miles from Baghdad).

    Regardless of the specifics you envision by “phased redeployment,” any premature withdrawal of U.S forces would have disastrous consequences for America’s security. Such a policy would embolden our terrorist enemies; betray the hopes of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control of huge oil reserves; shatter the confidence our regional allies have in America; undermine the spread of democracy in the Middle East; and mean the sacrifices of American troops would have been in vain. This “new direction” would lead to a crippling defeat for America and a staggering victory for Islamic extremists. That is not a direction this President will follow. The President is being guided by a commitment to victory -- and that plan, in turn, is being driven by the counsel and recommendations of our military commanders in the region.

    Finally, your letter calls for replacing Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. We strongly disagree.

    Secretary Rumsfeld is an honorable and able public servant. Under his leadership, the United States Armed Forces and our allies have overthrown two brutal tyrannies and liberated more than 50 million people. Al Qaeda has suffered tremendous blows. Secretary Rumsfeld has pursued vigorously the President’s vision for a transformed U.S. military. And he has played a lead role in forging and implementing many of the policies you now recommend in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld retains the full confidence of the President.

    We appreciate your stated interest in working with the Administration on policies that honor the sacrifice of our troops and promote our national security, which we believe can be accomplished only through victory in this central front in the War on Terror.

    Sincerely,

    Joshua B. Bolten
    Chief of Staff

     
  • At 5:57 PM, Anonymous Irish guy who hates republicans said…

    the second comment on here by anonymous where he says "Your implication that we are not fighting the 9/11 terrorists, who attacked us is ridiculous considering THEY ARE DEAD. Remember the died when they flew airplanes into our buildings??" Is the typical LAME response of any bush/republican supporter, hes going for the "who is they" type of scoulding your english teacher would give you when you are 99% but not 100% specific, obviously "they" is AL QAEDA. republicans will use any shit they can find these days to try and justify there mental views

     
  • At 9:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Irish Guy,
    If 'they' is obviously Al Qaeda, what is the problem with fighting "Al Qaeda in Iraq" in Iraq?

     
  • At 10:31 PM, Anonymous James C. said…

    The problem with fighting AQ in Iraq is Iraq has become nothing but a quagmire. No more than 5% of the insurgents are AQ in Iraq. We have never had enough troops there to do the job. AQ and the Taliban is thriving in Afghanistan. O.B. Laden is alive and well. He is free to do as he pleases. The US neo-con (so-called) leadership need to kick-rocks. They need to get the hell out. The US has suffered enough under their rule. The American People have been disapointed and lied to at every turn. Enough is enough. Most Americans know very well after 5 years of hogwash spewing from the mouths of our imitation administration. The jig is up repugs it's time to get your sorry ass's out. And let real patriots take us in a new direction. We can do so much better for America. Repugs pack your bags and go home or go wherever filthy, greedy liars go. Count your blessings and the spoils of your criminal conduct. Give it a rest. Come back to fight another day. You have done nothing but embarass most Americans with your faulty ill conceived plans.

     
  • At 3:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Who cares what Bolton thinks or says? And, why can't we see a letter from the President? I laugh even as I ask the question.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home