portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

government

Repetitive, Juvenile Press Performance

So new, I don't think there are any links up yet . . . President's Press Conference this morning . . . more of the same.
"Yeah, freedom! That's the ticket! And weapons . . . lots of 'em . . ."
Given that the President has held a record low for press conferences during his administration, the news that an impromptu question and answer period revolving around the announcement of a new Iraqi leader would occur this morning was greeted with hope by the myriad of reporters assembling at the White House.

The disappointing performance that followed left many, I am sure, feeling, "why did he bother?"

Technically speaking, the event was frustrating for viewers. The only live mike appeared to be on the podium and so questions asked by reporters were nearly inaudible. And since the President's reponses to all questions were practically interchangeable, it would have helped if either an aide or Mr. Bush himself had rephrased the questions before "answering" them.

Bush continues to employ a condescending and juvenile attitude toward members of the press, chastising them for their questions (as he did in an earlier conference when one addressed him as "sir" rather than "Mr. President"), berating one paper for asking a second question when, according to him, each news source was allowed to put foward only one question from its ranks and making comments about another reporter's suit and buttons.

Stuttering, inserting a multitudes of "uhs", repeating over and over again the same phrases about a free Iraq, staying the course, making Iraq an example in the Middle East, "latest reports from Afghanistan show people with a different expression on their faces", and a free Iraqi people, he brushed aside with irritation questions which sought to find out when the UN might act and what our arrangements with them might be. "You know the UN," he said, "Sometimes they move slow and sometimes they move fast. We wanna move fast."

I waited with curiousity to see if someone would ask about his display of Saddam's pistol. With only 35 minutes to work with, guess nobody wanted to waste their time on frivolty - or perhaps the reporters were all vetted first.

The big question remains . . . Where's the beef? What's the plan? Do we not discuss the nuts and bolts or the dust bunnies under the elaborate dust ruffle?

And it would help if we had a statesman in the White House who maintained a open and friendly demeanor, canned the irritation and fidgiting, and was capable of handling a turn of phrase and presenting his case without chasing his tail.

At about the 35 minute mark, Bush abruptly said goodbye, turned his back on the press corps and meandered into the White House.

Once again, it is painfully evident that G.W. Bush is no statesman.
thanks for the article, but WHO CARES 01.Jun.2004 10:40

?

USA is on (final?) course of Empire. there will be no "news" from our "leaders" except more of the same: wars, loss of civil liberties (oh darn), increased secrecy (and thus less 'news') etc.

personally am just waiting for the economy to completely collapse  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/289815.shtml - then there'll be some NEWS.

New plan harkens back to the 60's 01.Jun.2004 11:10

JR

The new plan involving "turnover" of "sovereignty" seems to involve propping up those prominent Iraqis who stayed in the country right on through the 1960's. This is in marked contrast to the previous policy of trying to put Ahmad Chalabi in charge of everything--a London banker who left Iraq in 1958.

The U.S. is now trying to prop up another guy who hasn't been in Iraq for three decades, his name is Allawi I think, and he looks like a great choice because not only is he a former Baath Party member, he also has links to the CIA and British intelligence. Sounds super!!

There are also rumors that the new "leadership" wants U.S. soldiers to stay in Iraq. This is consistent with the policy that Colin Powell laid out several weeks ago, when he said any new government in Iraq would have to cede power to the U.S. (military dictatorship) so what a fortunate coincidence that the U.S. picked Iraqi/London exiles feel the same way.

14 U.S. Military Bases Under Construction In Iraq 01.Jun.2004 11:27

pepe escobar

Iraqis also know that 14 US military bases are already under construction, enough to accommodate the (for the moment) 110,000 American soldiers who will stay in Iraq until at least 2007. No sovereign Iraqi government has approved the construction of these bases. Kimmitt - the No 2 Pentagon man in Iraq, and the one who launched total war on Fallujah - said the bases are "a blueprint for how we could operate in the Middle East". A ring of US military bases throughout what the Pentagon calls the Greater Middle East is a key element of the neo-conservative-driven strategy to control world energy resources as the way to control the destiny of America's economic rivals - the European Union and Northeast Asia.