Bush press conference more of same

During a rare press conference last night, President Bush stammered when asked whether he had any regrets about the last year -- a question for which he clearly had not prepared. The eventual answer he gave -- vague and disconnected -- exemplified the squandered chance to make his case to the American people about why we went to war. Given the turmoil in Iraq it was a good time to grant a rare press conference, but his remarks rarely deviated from the same rhetoric we have been hearing for months.

In a time of war, the President's steadfast resolution to our commitments in Iraq was commendable. He clearly articulated the US's commitment to a stable and democratic Iraq. He made it clear that our goal was to liberate the country, not occupy it. Were we to slow our efforts to stabilize and democratize the country, he argued, it would serve to embolden rebels within the country.

Equally reassuring was his apparent openness to greater levels of international action in Iraq. The president said he sought a greater role for NATO's allies in the peacekeeping and nation building efforts. He spoke about the United Nations using perhaps the kindest terms to date. Reality has burst the bubble military planners lived in when they believed post-war democratization of Iraq would be straightforward. It was heartening to hear that the administration -- so comfortable with virtual unilateralism just months ago -- was warming up to the idea of getting more of the world involved.

Yet the president left many unanswered questions, and ultimately most of what he said felt canned. With regard to the pre-Sept. 11 warnings, we heard the now-familiar declaimer that Bush would have "moved heaven and earth" if he had known what was coming. He stated that no one in his administration or the previous could have anticipated terrorists crashing airliners into buildings.

When a reporter brought up the various intelligence reports that indicated such a possibility, he refused to answer, as he did another similarly worded question.

Similarly, he reverted to the party line when pressed about the complete lack of WMD in Iraq. In his disappointingly familiar black and white terms, he replied that the world was better off without Saddam Hussein. He said the dictator represented a threat to the region, and to the US. What he still could not explain was why the war had to be waged when it did, over the strenuous objections of the UN and our allies who were asking for more time.

Though he reiterated his commitment to handing off Iraq in just over 80 days, Bush could not elaborate one the nature of the change, nor who would receive the handoff. Though the reporter posed the question twice, he would not explain why he would only testify before the Sept. 11 commission with Vice President Cheney at his side -- contrary to the requests of the commission.

When asked if he had done a poor job communicating his policy with the American public, the President replied that he had done the best job he could. If it was not good enough, he mused, perhaps he should study how to communicate better. Given the dearth of meaningful information at the conference, the president would be wise to consider his own words.