I was disappointed by the President's performance on Meet the Press, but I don't think the roof caved in, I think it was a tremendous missed opportunity. Particularly on the question of how September 11th changes the way we have to evaluate acceptable risk, and on the question of whether the war with Iraq was worth it, I think there are clear, straightforward ways to articulate the administration's position -- and we didn't hear them yesterday.
But, of course, not that many people will have sat through an hour interview on a Sunday morning. That means impressions will be formed by clips and soundbites and news articles. The Post's this morning is a doosey. I don't know if it's fair to say, as some have, that Dana Milbank is biased against the President. But I do think it's fair to say he's biased in favor of always appearing hip, with it, snarky. Too much of his own personality and responses come through in his writing. We need a little less Dana, and a little more of what actually happened.
This article is a prime example. There are just nuances, subtleties, that divide Milbank's version of the interview from what I think happened. For one, note the opening paragraph, all of one sentence long:
President Bush acknowledged that he was apparently wrong in stating on the eve of war with Iraq that there was "no doubt" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Starting the article that way, framing it that way, makes it out that this was a huge concession, that the President made big news in the interview by giving in. Unfortunately, he fails to mention that the President also took a great deal of time going over the fact that David Kay said when he came back that Iraq may have been more dangerous than we thought, that his preliminary report and his statement upon his resignation both noted hundreds of WMD programs in violation of UN resolutions, meaning that Iraq was still a danger and that containment was failing. So, yes, there was a concession, but there was not a concession on the overall need for war or justification for war.
Milbank also notes that Bush "suggested" that attacks on his service during Vietnam disparage the Guard. I didn't interpret what he was saying in quite so stark a manner. I thought he was warning, telling people to keep care, not saying that this had actually happened yet. But that one's a matter of interpretation I think.
I don't think there is any interpretation on the President's statement regarding what his "greatest disappointment" has been. The way Milbank writes it up, he is taking blame for this, it's a failure, he has been unable to be a uniter, not a divider. The way it came off during the interview, the President felt he had tried hard but had come up against "this town," in other words Washington culture. He didn't seem to be saying at all that the fault was his.
So -- how will people respond to this interview? The President was not especially forceful. And he was not as articulate as he has on occasion been. There is room, lots of room, for every reporter to choose the frame he wants, the soundbite he wants, the quote he wants. It's what happens when there is a performance that is not commanding (so that they all want the same sound powerful soundbite) and also not a melt down (so that they all want the same sound bite --- think Howard Dean in Iowa.) The reporting, I think, won't be especially positive, but it will be all over the map. And the problems will be these kinds of niggling little nuances.
More worrisome will be the kinds of framing sentences provided here. If the storylines everywhere are "president admits intelligence wrong" without the corresponding "president tells parents the deaths were justified to keep America safe," then and only then is there a real problem.
Update: Should have included the part of the transcipt I was referring to. Here 'tis.
Why do you think you are perceived as such a divider?
BUSH: Gosh, I don't know, because I'm working hard to unite the country. As a matter of fact, it's the hardest part of being the president.
I was successful as the governor of Texas for bringing people together for the common good, and I must tell you, it's tough here in Washington. And frankly, it's the biggest disappointment that I've had so far, of coming to Washington. I'm not blaming anybody. It's just the environment here is such that it is difficult to find common ground.
I'll give you a classic case: the Medicare bill. The Medicare bill was a tough vote, but the Medicare bill is a bill that a lot of people could have signed on to, had it not been for, kind of the sense, well, Bush might win, we might lose, or, you know, Bush might lose, we might win kind of attitude.
And -- but I'll continue to work hard to unite the country. I don't speak ill of anybody in the process here. I think if you went back and looked at my comments, you'll see I don't attack. I don't hold up people. I talk about what I believe in, and I lead. And maybe, perhaps, I believe so strongly in what we're doing around the world or doing here at home...
I just don't think he's taking responsibility for a personal failure there.
Update: I'm surprised to be saying this, but I think the New York Times coverage is by far more balanced, and it starts with the opening paragraph. (It is interesting to note that this straight news piece is on the front page of the dead tree version. The news analysis piece, which I am also surprised to say is pretty good, is highlighted on the web page but appears on the jump in the dead tree version.)
President Bush on Sunday offered a preview of how he would defend his presidency, justifying the war in Iraq even though no banned weapons had been found there, saying he has acted aggressively to help the economy and presenting himself as a steady leader in perilous times.
But you can see the way the article frames the discussion in terms of the way the interview was about a range of issues, and the way those issues were used by the President to justify his record overall -- including the fact that he argued the war was justified despite the absense of WMD stockpiles. I recommend reading the Milbank piece and then the Stevenson piece; you can really see the way the frames come into play and the way the reporters take the material and how Milbank chooses to use the flexibility he has.
