President Bush submitted to a 25-minute interview Tuesday with the three Washington Post White House correspondents: Peter Baker, Michael Fletcher, and Michael Abramowitz. The transcript in today's Post leaves the definite impression it was another game of asking "when will you submit to the will of the Democrats, er, the people?" The tone of questioning suggests Bush is denying the reality that America is now in the capable hands of a MoveOn.org majority, and demands that he "listen" to their wish list, since his wishes are no longer viable:
Given the election results, is increasing the troop level in Iraq even a viable possibility or option?
Yes, Mike, all options are viable.
– given the political will out there?
Well, all options are viable. I think what the people want is -- they want a couple of things. They want to see Democrats and Republicans work together to achieve a common objective, and they want us to win in Iraq....
But the election results seemed people wanted to bring the venture in Iraq to closure. That seemed to be the strong lesson. And what indications are there that you're actually listening to that sentiment?
Oh, Mike, look, I want to achieve the objective....There's not a lot of people saying, "Get out now." Most Americans are saying, "We want to achieve the objective."
But there are a lot of people who are saying, "Let's get out with a phased deployment over a certain period of time."
If they felt -- if that leads to victory, it needs to be seriously considered. And I'm considering all options and listening very carefully to a lot of good people who have got different opinions about how to proceed.
The Posties also tried to force the president to acknowledge we've lost Iraq, that it's a "fiasco," to quote one of the reporter/authors at the Post. Bush explained that he is speaking to four audiences when he talks about progress on the war front: the first is the American people. But the second is the enemy, the third is the Iraqi people, and the fourth is the troops. He wants to send a message of determination and resolve. Then he turned to the "objective" press:
Anyway, you just need to know that's who I'm speaking to when I speak. And to you, of course. You're the objective filter through which my -- (Laughter.)
I suspect your message gets out. (Laughter.)
I do want to say something about the press. I hope you realize that, one, I enjoy the relationship, and two, know it is vital for my presidency. You can't exist without me, and I can't exist without you. And I generally respect the hard work of the press corps. I don't necessarily generally respect every word you write, but nevertheless, I do respect the fact that you're a hardworking group of people seeking the truth. And we're necessary for each other. And that relationship can either be a positive relationship or a suspicious, harmful relationship. And I have worked hard to make it a positive relationship. And I think it is, generally, I do believe it is. And I bear no ill will, and I don't think you do, either.
We appreciate that, and you've certainly been good for business --
Good. That's what decision-makers do, Peter, people who seize the moment and make decisions to lead give people things to write about.
I suspect the liberal base of the Washington Post's audience won't like Peter Baker suggesting Bush has been "good for business." They'll suggest he's been horrible for the country, regardless of the Washington Post Company bottom line.
