Kerry Campaign's Diversity Questioned

A lack of minority representation at the upper levels of John Kerry’s presidential campaign threatens to weaken enthusiasm among black and Hispanic voters, two core constituencies, some Democrats and advocacy groups say.

Kerry’s inner circle - the dozen or so advisers who participate in the campaign’s most important decisions - is mostly white.

[. . .]

Some black officials and independent analysts expressed concerned about the campaign’s lack of racial diversity. Campaign officials and the leader of the Congressional Black Caucus said the criticism was unfounded.

“I am concerned about diversity, but more importantly I am concerned about the experience in that diversity - senior policy people who know people from one end of the country to the other,” said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., a caucus member.

He said the issue may dampen voter enthusiasm. “The senator should remedy this very quickly,” Jackson said.

Added Ron Walters, who worked on the presidential campaigns of Jesse Jackson Sr. and runs the African-American Leadership Institute at the University of Maryland: “There is a sense that Kerry’s people don’t get it.”

Campaign officials dispute the criticism, saying too much of the focus has been on the influence of Shrum, Devine and other consultants.

Excerpted from California Yankee

Posted by Dan Spencer at 05:36 PM | Comments (18) | TrackBack

Democrats Concerned About Kerry Message

Some Democrats are concerned about John Kerry’s slow development of a coherent message. Reuters reports:

At a time when he could be laying out the grand themes for his November battle with President Bush, the presumptive Democratic nominee has been fighting skirmishes with Republican surrogates over his service in Vietnam, his votes on taxes and national security and his claims of support from foreign leaders.

Critics say Kerry, who sometimes focuses on nuance in a medium that values broad strokes and easy to digest labels, has fumbled early opportunities to define his vision for the future and make the case for his campaign.

“I have no idea what the Kerry message is. He has no positive message at this point,” said Democratic consultant Doug Schoen, a former pollster for President Bill Clinton. “I know what his critique is of George Bush, but there has been a virtual absence of a Kerry message.”

There is also concern about how easily Kerry gets thrown off message and lets the Republicans get under his skin:

And in the eight weeks since he clinched the nomination, Kerry has often been thrown off his daily message by aggressive Republican attacks on his 20-year voting record as a Massachusetts senator or on his decorated stint in Vietnam and later opposition to the war.

A three-day bus tour of battleground states to talk about jobs earlier this week turned into a running fight over whether he claimed in 1971 to have thrown back his five medals from Vietnam in protest of the war, or just his ribbons.

Last week Kerry was forced to release his military and medical records after Republicans accused him of double-talk on whether they were available for public view and a former commander questioned if he deserved his first of three Purple Hearts.

Cross-Posted from California Yankee

Bush's Approval Rating at All-Time Low

This story is everywhere today. I’ve posted Reuters for no particular reason:

President Bush’s approval rating is at an all-time low and fewer than half of Americans now believe invading Iraq was the right thing to do, according to a CBS/New York Times poll released on Wednesday.

The poll found that if the presidential election due in November was held today, 46 percent of Americans would vote for Democrat John Kerry and 44 percent would vote for Bush — if independent Ralph Nader stayed out of the race.

The poll, with a sampling error of 3 percentage points, was conducted among 1,042 adults nationwide from Friday to Tuesday during a spate of fierce fighting in Iraq. More than 115 U.S. soldiers have been killed in combat this month.

Here’s a link to the NY Times story as well, which takes a “support for war is down” slant rather than the “approval rating is down” slant taken by Reuters.

Gore To Donate $6 Million to Democrats

Al Gore will donate more than $6 million to Democratic Party groups from his 2000 campaign funds.

According to the Associated Press:

The former vice president pledged to donate $4 million to the Democratic National Committee (news - web sites). The party’s Senate and House committees would each get $1 million, and the party from Gore’s home state of Tennessee would receive $250,000.

[. . .]

Most of the money comes from Gore’s general election legal and accounting compliance fund, which showed $6.6 million on March 31. The $240,000 going to the Florida Democratic Party comes from an account established to help pay for the 2000 recount drive.

Under FEC rules, Gore could not transfer or donate the money directly to the Kerry campaign.

"I gave back ... six, seven, eight, nine medals," Kerry said on WRC-TV in 1971

Yet Kerry now says he did not throw away - or “give back” - any of his medals.

In a videotape from 1971, obtained exclusively by ABCNEWS, Vietnam veteran John Kerry said he gave back his medals in order to “wake the country.” ABCNEWS.com

ABC News reports on Kerry’s contradictions regarding his medals in this report:

- - - - - - -

“I gave back, I can’t remember, six, seven, eight, nine medals,” Kerry said in an interview on a Washington, D.C., news program on WRC-TV called Viewpoints on Nov. 6, 1971, according to a tape obtained by ABCNEWS.

The statement directly contradicts Kerry’s most recent claims on the disputed subject to the Los Angeles Times last Friday. “I never ever implied that I did it, ” Kerry told the newspaper, responding to the question of whether he threw away his medals in protest.

- - - - - - -

The disputed incident happened 33 years ago this past weekend, on April 23, 1971, when Kerry led the group Vietnam Veterans Against the War in a protest against the war they fought.

In the 1971 Viewpoints interview, he made no mention of the ribbons or the medals belonging to another veteran.

- - - - - - -

Kerry’s explanation to Charlie Gibson of ABC’s “Good Morning America” only made things worse.

This is a duplicate of the original post on the nikita demosthenes website.

UPDATE:

CNN is running a poll: “Is Sen. John Kerry’s Vietnam War medals controversy a relevant campaign issue?” (Scroll down).

Meanwhile, Eschaton thinks the issue is “bogus.” And Instapundit thinks Kerry didn’t help himself in the “Good Morning America” interview with Charlie Gibson.

SECOND UPDATE:

Wonkette: Not to worry. Kerry’s not a hypocrite. He’s a Zen master.

Give the guy a break. Maybe Kerry left his medals in his family’s SUV.

Kerry's Tour Of Duty

The Washington Post has an article that provides the most detailed overview of John Kerry’s military service I’ve seen to date … read it here. It helps clear up much of the confusion about his time of service … including the question I hear all the time, “How long was he in Vietnam, anyway?”

Answer: He was in the Navy from 1966 to 1970, but some of that time was served in the US, and some off-shore of Vietnam. He spent four months “in country,” during which he received his much acclaimed accommodations.

Of note—the article also links to this site: www.vietnamveteransagainstkerry.com

Bush's strength surprises some pollsters

MSNBC reports on the surprising strength of the Bush polling numbers in several usually Democratic states here.

Respectability & Civility

Michele and I choose to permit comments at Command Post because we believe the ability to participate in journalism is inherent to the nature of our site, and that the ability to exchange and argue over ideas is at the core of a vigorous democracy.

That said, our comments area is not a forum in which anything goes. We believe the democratic way of life, and a better understanding of humanity, are furthered not by any discourse, but by reasoned discourse. Our vision for the Command Post comments is a forum that not only permits the participation in journalism, that not only facilitates the exchange of perspectives, but that does so as a reflection of human civility.

So: We welcome you to post comments at Command Post, and we encourage you take part in our marketplace of ideas, be you left, right, or center; red, blue, or green; Christian, Muslim, or atheist. If you do, our comment policy is very simple. We welcome comments that are:

• Respectable: “Worthy of respect; fitted to awaken esteem; deserving regard; hence, of good repute; not mean.”

• Civil: “Not rude; marked by satisfactory (or especially minimal) adherence to social usages and sufficient but not noteworthy consideration for others.”

It’s a simple policy. It provides an enormous field for the exchange of ideas. It allows vigorous and heated arguments over policy or philosophy. It welcomes the familiar and the arcane, the banal and the compelling, the grave and the humorous.

It is also a policy we will enforce. We will delete comments that we feel do not meet the simple standards of respect and civility, and we will ban the IP address of those posting such comments. If you feel you have been treated unfairly as a result of this policy, we welcome your appeal via email. If your appeal is neither respectable nor civil, it is an appeal we will ignore.

What does the policy mean in application? Where we will draw the boundaries? We don’t know. We suppose our experience will be much as Justice Potter Stewart described the limitation of pornographic speech: we’ll know it when we see it. We can’t guarantee we won’t make bad calls. We can’t guarantee we won’t upset one or more of our readers. But we can guarantee that no deletion or IP ban will ever be because of a point of view; it will always be because a point of view was articulated with neither respect nor civility. We don’t want to engage in censorship, we want to engage in sense.

A commitment to respectable and civil commentary on a weblog. It may sound high minded. It may sound like not much fun. But it’s our forum, and it’s what we’ll allow. Readers disappointed in our perspective are welcome to create their own sites and maintain their own comment forums. Because we choose to believe that most people are reasonable … that they want an intelligent exchange of perspectives … that all things being equal, they’d choose not to engage in an online slugfest of slanderous rubes … we think it’s the right way to go.

So that’s what we’re going to try and create, and if we can’t do so, well, then frankly, we’d prefer not to have comments at Command Post. Because at the end of the day, this is a hobby for us. We derive virtually no economic benefit from Command Post. Our reward, and we presume the reward for our contributors, is intangible—the pride that comes from building something that others value, that is a unique first step for decentralized journalism. Command Post is something Michele and I love, and frankly it’s something of which we want to feel proud. Hateful, biting, insulting commentary does not make us feel proud. It robs us of one of the only rewards we derive from the site … our ability to say, “Look at what we made … it’s good, and it’s a model of what the online exchange of ideas and information can be.”

We will not be robbed. We have anywhere from 15,000 to 120,000 visitors a day to our corner of the blogosphere … we’re more than happy to alienate a handful if it’s the means of creating a forum of civil exchange for the remainder. And deep in our hearts, independent of the fact that such a forum is something we’ll feel better about, something of which we’ll be proud, we also believe such a forum is something the remainder will value, visit, and enjoy.

So, jump on in, but please keep it respectable and civil. It’s all we ask, and thanks for reading The Post.

Cheney Rallies Anti-Abortion Group

From the New York Times:

Five days before a major march for abortion rights is expected in the nation’s capital to protest the Bush administration’s actions, Vice President Dick Cheney rallied the administration’s allies in the anti-abortion movement Tuesday night.

Kerry's Shift From Officer To Activist

The LA Times has a review of how Kerry went from officer to antiwar activist in 1971 here.

GOP Reps Attack Kerry Antiwar Record

House Republicans attacked Kerry’s 1971 antiwar activities yesterday on the House floor. The Dems were, for the most part, surprised, and ultimately rallied to defend Kerry (and tossed in a jab or two at the Bush military record as well).

Ahh, kids. Read more at WaPo.

Earth Day Arguments

The Washington Post offers a review of the Kerry/Bush point-counterpoint on environmental issues here.

Update: More on the issue here at the NY Times.

Kerry On Wetlands Loss

Local campaign promise #342: John Kerry was in St. Bernard Parish, LA yesterday tellling the locals that the loss of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands is a national problem that demands swift action. Read more at NOLA.

Kerry Travels With Four Potential VPs

The Boston Globe is reporting that John Kerry has hit the campaign trail with four potential running mates:

• Max Cleland
• John Edwards
• Bob Graham (!)
• Bill Nelson

Place your wagers now, and remember that you can’t tell the players without a scorecard.

Kerry Launches New Ad Campaign

It’s about “building a stronger America,” and according to the Kerry media relations office:

The first two in what will be a series of ads emphasize John Kerry’s clear strategy to win the peace in Iraq and his plan to rebuild America by putting our economy back on track, creating new and better jobs, expanding access to affordable health care and improving our nation’s schools.

Read the press release here. (Via ED)

What's He Saying?

The UPI has an analysis piece by Martin Seiff arguing that Kerry has money (indeed, recent fundraising has exceeded expectations), but lacks a message as Bush still leads on a number of key voter perceptions.

Can't Make Up Your Mind?

Among the .04 percent who remain undecided? Then visit ABC/Time Magazine’s President Match.

Most interesting description of the 2004 Campaign I've seen so far

AP: Saudi Ambassador Denies Oil-Election Link

The Saudi ambassador to the United States on Wednesday denied any link between the U.S. presidential election campaign and a Saudi pledge to the Bush administration to push for lower oil prices.

There was “no quid pro quo,” Prince Bandar bin Sultan told reporters after a meeting with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice about the latest terrorist strike in Saudi Arabia.

“I cannot say we’re not aware that you are going through your seasonal tribal warfare now so it’s very dangerous to open one’s mouth here on any issue,” said Bandar. “I hope Senator Kerry has heard my explanation about the oil and he can be assured that we didn’t make any deals that could interfere in our friends’ internal affairs.”

Seasonal tribal warfare? Kinda catchy, isn’t it?

Welcome to the 2004 Seasonal Tribal Warfare section of Command Post!

Nader wants rapid pullout from Iraq

BALTIMORE SUN: Nader wants rapid pullout from Iraq

Ralph Nader, still laboring to get his presidential campaign off the ground, now calls himself a “muscular peace candidate.”

Nader, an independent, remains a marginal player in this year’s election. He is likely to be shut out of fall debates, has little campaign money and faces a struggle to get his name on the ballot in many states.

But the anti-corporate activist apparently senses an opening for an anti-war candidate in the ‘04 contest.

Nader is advocating a pullout, within six months, of all U.S. military forces from Iraq. He argues that Democratic candidate John Kerry is “making a big mistake” by adopting a “stay-the-course” position in the face of rising anti-U.S. violence in Iraq.

“The peace movement in this country is going to have an interesting choice” in November, Nader told a group of reporters in Washington yesterday.

Nader wants Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney impeached for taking the nation to war without a formal declaration by Congress. But he also labels Kerry a “war candidate.” He sharply criticized the Massachusetts senator for refusing to admit that the war, which he voted to authorize, was a mistake and for supporting the continued U.S. occupation.

“He’s stuck in the Iraq quagmire the way Bush is,” Nader said.

Reno and Clarke praise the USA Patriot Act

Praise for the USA Patriot Act - and its effect in breaking down Jamie Gorelick’s “wall” preventing the sharing of intelligence between U.S. agenices - is coming from some unusual additions to the “vast right wing conspiracy.”

- - - - - - -

- - - - - - -

This is a duplicate of the original post on the nikita demosthenes website.

Bush Leads 48-43 Among Reg Voters

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll has President Bush leading John Kerry 48% to 43% among registered voters, with Ralph Nader polling at 6%, representing a reverse of polling from late March, in which Kerry led 48% to 44%. The poll was conducted April 15-18. The Washington Post (reg req) reports:

President Bush holds significant advantages over John F. Kerry in public perceptions of who is better equipped to deal with Iraq and the war on terrorism, and he has reduced the advantages his Democratic challenger held last month on many domestic issues, according to a Washington Post-ABC News Poll.

… By 49 percent to 44 percent, Bush was viewed as better able to deal with the country’s biggest problems. Five weeks ago, those numbers were reversed. By comfortable margins, voters saw Bush as stronger than Kerry on key national security issues.

On the economy, Bush has erased Kerry’s 12-point edge and is tied with the senator from Massachusetts on who can better deal with the country’s economic problems.

Bush Leads Kerry 50-44 Among LVs

According to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, President Bush leads John Kerry 50% to 44% among likely voters. The poll was taken Friday through Sunday. The poll represents a four-point increase in support over a similar poll taken in early April.

USA Today reports: Analysts say the lack of movement underscores how polarized the electorate is. About six months before Election Day, they say, most people’s minds are made up.

“I don’t think anything barring a major calamity of some sort will have much of an impact between now and November,” says independent pollster John Zogby. “The nation is split down the middle.”

Kerry Reneges on Promise to Make All Military Records Public

The Boston Globe reports this morning that Kerry has backed off his pledge release all of his military records:

Kerry, in an interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” was asked whether he would follow President Bush’s example and release all of his military records. “I have,” Kerry said. “I’ve shown them — they’re available for you to come and look at.” He added that “people can come and see them at headquarters.”

Kerry has not released the formal evaluations from superior officers, although his campaign has given a letter from a commanding officer that recommended him for service aboard Navy patrol boats and also reports for the Silver and Bronze stars that laud Kerry’s actions in combat. By comparison, retired Army General Wesley K. Clark released hundreds of pages of his records during the Democratic primary campaign, including all evaluations of him by his superiors.

Dick Morris: "Dubya In Trouble"

Gotta love (or hate) Dick Morris, and now that he’s writing for the New York Post, a hot helping of Morris is always just around the corner. Here’s his latest:

BOTH of the polling organizations that track the presidential race in daily surveys have concluded that the contest has settled into a stalemate. Scott Rasmussen reports that for eight of the last nine days, President Bush has gotten 45 to 46 percent of the vote, while Sen. John Kerry ranged from 44 to 46 percent. John Zogby shows Kerry ahead by three and reports little movement either way.

This “tie” is terrible news for the Bush camp.

Why?

One of the (very few) immutable laws of politics is that the undecided vote almost always goes against the incumbent. Consider the past seven presidential elections in which an incumbent ran (1964, ‘72, ‘76, ‘80, ‘84, ‘92, and ‘96) - that is, look at the final vote versus the last Gallup or Harris polls. My analysis shows that the challengers (Goldwater, McGovern, Carter, Reagan, Mondale, Perot, Clinton, and Dole) got 85 percent of the undecided vote. Even incumbents who won got only 15 percent of those who reported that they were undecided in the final polls.

Reigster & Chug, Register & Chug

The Christian Science Monitor reports on what the campaigns are doing to increase voter turnout at our institutions of higher learning. Of course, the example in the lead is Yale … I’d rather see what sort of tactics they’re using to generate interest at ASU. Voter registration jello shooter, anyone? I offer that link as a public service. The Command Post: We Care.

Latest Poll: Kerry Leads (By A Hair)

Bloomberg reports that “Kerry Leads Bush in Poll With Help of Independents.” This would be the Zogby poll, if you’re scoring at home.

Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, has support from 47 percent of likely voters to Bush’s 44 percent, according to the poll conducted April 15-17. Among self-described independents, Kerry, 60, leads Bush, 57, 48 percent to 38 percent. About 7 percent of voters are undecided. The survey of 1,049 adults has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

It's About The Oiiiiil!

The San Francisco Chronicle: Oil erupts as issue in presidential campaign. “Oil erupts.” Gotta love that Magic Eight Ball Headline Generator. Regardless, SFC says it’s “no surprise that Sen. John Kerry and President Bush are drawing their campaign battle lines over how to fix America’s dependence on costly foreign oil.” So don’t be surprised. Via ED.

Log Cabin Republicans Discuss Bush Endorsement

A personal account from the Log Cabin Republican National Convention April 16-18.

The scroll on the bottom of CNN read that the Log Cabin Republicans—the nation’s leading gay GOP group—were meeting in Palm Springs to discuss whether to endorse President Bush. The Los Angeles Times reported the same. Observers on the left tried to set up a non-endorsement of the President as a defeat.

But no endorsement was going to come out of the Log Cabin Convention in Palm Springs.

During the Saturday afternoon discussion of the endorsement process, LCR President Patrick Guerrero laid out clearly how it was going to work. Th 25-member national Board of Directors would meet sometime during or near the Republican National Convention to vote on one of two options—endorse the President or make no endorsement.

Delegates to the convention, however, were asked their opinions on the matter. Many felt that the Board should clearly articulate several things—what has George Bush done for the gay community and why, as Republicans, would the group support George Bush.

Many of the advancements for the gay community under Bush were achieved under the radar of public scrutiny, according the the Log Cabin staff. Following September 11, for example, LCR worked with the justice department to allow New York to include domestic partners in survivor benefits… The Office of National AIDS policy was elevated to a position just below Cabinet-level… Under previous Republican administrations, this may not have happened, but most of the public never hears of them.

The question of marriage equality weighed heavily. Should George Bush’s opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians on this issue be enough to outweigh all of the reasons the group would endorse him? John Kerry’s opposition to marriage equality did not keep the Stonewall Democrats from backing the Mass. Senator for President.

Officially, no straw poll was taken. Of the five breakout sessions for the discussion, however, the straw-poll-that-did-not-happen showed that, by a 2-1 margin members of the Log Cabin Republicans would have endorsed Bush on Saturday if they were given the choice.

I disagreed. I did not feel LCR had positioned itself to make the endorsement in a way that the group and its endorsement would be credible.

Between now and August, the Log Cabins will be engaging in a public and open debate among its members about how to approach its endorsement process. The group hopes to meet with the Campaign to try to further build the record of accomplishments for the gay community and to hold the President to the promises made when LCR endorsed him in 2000.

Log Cabin will also be looking at the tenor and the tone of the President and of the Convention. If New York 2004 is like Philadelphia in 2000—where the party casts a big tent—I expect LCR to come on board and endorse George Bush. If New York is more like Houston in 1992, where the religious right launches a new cultural war, expect no endorsement.

Unlike the religiouis right which threatens to walk away from the party or to stay home, the Log Cabin Republicans have built a reputation as being the most loyal to the party—sticking to Republican principles despite the pressure they get from their party and their community.

The one million gay votes George Bush received in 2000 (including 50,000 in Florida) could be at stake in this endorsement process. With the nation so closely divided, the President must realize that the gay vote could be the decisive factor in his re-election campaign.

Kerry Pressured to Release Tax Returns

Campaign finance reform activists and Republicans are pressuring John Kerry and his wife, ketchup heiress Teresa Heinz Kerry. The New York Sun reports (subscription req’d):

The returns released by Mr. Kerry’s presidential campaign show that the couple chose the “married filing separately” option. Mrs. Heinz Kerry’s returns were not disclosed.

“Anytime you have some running for president or vice president, the public really wants to take a look at the people and any potential conflicts that exist, and the source of their income,” said Mr. Noble, who runs a Washington watchdog group, the Center for Responsive Politics. He said of Mr. Kerry, “There have been questions about how much he benefits from her assets.”

The New York Post also reports:

There was new GOP pressure on Democrat John Kerry to release the tax returns of his mega-rich $525 million wife Teresa yesterday after it was learned that Kerry once said a politician who refuses to release tax returns can’t be trusted.

At that time Kerry claimed a wealthy candidate must release returns to prove he pays a fair share in “a tax system that isn’t fair and lets the super-rich get off.”

So far, Heinz Kerry seems unlikely to release the returns, according to this article in The Boston Herald:

“As she is not a candidate for any office, she will not be making additional disclosures,” said Jeff Lewis, Heinz Kerry’s chief of staff.

… She gave the legal limit, $2,000, to his campaign and legally can’t use shared assets to assist him. But she has noted several times that, if fired upon, she might fire back in so-called ”issue ads” to help - which is legal as long as the ads aren’t coordinated with the campaign.

Poll-a-palooza

President Bush leads Sen. John Kerry in Oregon now, 47 percent to 45 percent, according to a University of Oregon poll:

Despite a 48,000 Democratic edge in party registration, the state appears “to be trending Republican,” said Joel Bloom, a UO political scientist who directed the survey.

He thinks taxes are the reason why.

Former Vice President Al Gore took Oregon over Bush in 2000, by several thousand votes out of more than 1.5 million cast. Oregon has 7 electoral votes in this year’s race.

Earlier this week, word came out that Bush was also leading Kerry in New Jersey, in a three-way race with Ralph Nader. Gore also took New Jersey in 2000.

In Pennsylvania, Bush lead Kerry by 46 percent to 40 percent in a poll taken two weeks ago. Gore took Pennsylvania in 2000 by a 51 percent to 47 percent margin over Bush. The Keystone state has 21 electoral votes in 2004.

Oregon, Pennsylvania and New Jersey add up to 44 electoral votes that Kerry couldn’t even make up if he won Florida in their place.

(Cross-posted at Late Final.)

Press Conference Roundup

A roundup of today’s press on last night’s conference (via ED):

• Boston Herald: President’s prime-time show hits all the right notes

• Chicago Tribune: Bush stands firm, but remains sketchy on details

• BBC: More theatre than substance

• WaPo: President Is Long On Resolve but Short on Details

(Looks like the Chicago Tribune and WaPo use the same “Headline Generator Magic 8 Ball.)

Bush To Cut Back On Advertising

The LA Times is reporting that the President’s re-election team is scaling back its massive television advertising.

Presidential Press Conference TCP Poll & Open Thread

We’ve posted a new TCP poll about last night’s press conference over in the right-hand column, and for those who missed our chat last night, this post is an open comment thread regarding his performance. Have at it (and remember our request for respectful treatment of fellow readers).

Update: One of last night’s chat participants has a review of the TCP chat on his blog.

Full Press Conference Text

From WhiteHouse.gov

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Before I take your questions, let me speak with the American people about the situation in Iraq.

This has been tough weeks in that country. Coalition forces have encountered serious violence in some areas of Iraq. Our military commanders report that this violence is being instigated by three groups: Some remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime, along with Islamic militants have attacked coalition forces in the city of Fallujah. Terrorists from other countries have infiltrated Iraq to incite and organize attacks. In the south of Iraq, coalition forces face riots and attacks that are being incited by a radical cleric named al-Sadr. He has assembled some of his supporters into an illegal militia, and publicly supported the terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. Al-Sadr’s methods of violence and intimidation are widely repudiated by other Iraqi Shia. He’s been indicted by Iraqi authorities for the murder of a prominent Shia cleric.

Although these instigations of violence come from different factions, they share common goals. They want to run us out of Iraq and destroy the democratic hopes of the Iraqi people. The violence we have seen is a power grab by these extreme and ruthless elements.

It’s not a civil war; it’s not a popular uprising. Most of Iraq is relatively stable. Most Iraqis, by far, reject violence and oppose dictatorship. In forums where Iraqis have met to discuss their political future, and in all the proceedings of the Iraqi Governing Council, Iraqis have expressed clear commitments. They want strong protections for individual rights; they want their independence; and they want their freedom.

America’s commitment to freedom in Iraq is consistent with our ideals, and required by our interests. Iraq will either be a peaceful, democratic country, or it will again be a source of violence, a haven for terror, and a threat to America and to the world. By helping to secure a free Iraq, Americans serving in that country are protecting their fellow citizens. Our nation is grateful to them all, and to their families that face hardship and long separation.

This weekend, at a Fort Hood hospital, I presented a Purple Heart to some of our wounded; had the honor of thanking them on behalf of all Americans. Other men and women have paid an even greater cost. Our nation honors the memory of those who have been killed, and we pray that their families will find God’s comfort in the midst of their grief. As I have said to those who have lost loved ones, we will finish the work of the fallen.

America’s armed forces are performing brilliantly, with all the skill and honor we expect of them. We’re constantly reviewing their needs. Troop strength, now and in the future, is determined by the situation on the ground. If additional forces are needed, I will send them. If additional resources are needed, we will provide them. The people of our country are united behind our men and women in uniform, and this government will do all that is necessary to assure the success of their historic mission.

One central commitment of that mission is the transfer of sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. We have set a deadline of June 30th. It is important that we meet that deadline. As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation — and neither does America. We’re not an imperial power, as nations such as Japan and Germany can attest. We are a liberating power, as nations in Europe and Asia can attest, as well. America’s objective in Iraq is limited, and it is firm: We seek an independent, free and secure Iraq.

Were the coalition to step back from the June 30th pledge, many Iraqis would question our intentions and feel their hopes betrayed. And those in Iraq who trade in hatred and conspiracy theories would find a larger audience and gain a stronger hand. We will not step back from our pledge. On June 30th, Iraqi sovereignty will be placed in Iraqi hands.

Sovereignty involves more than a date and a ceremony. It requires Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own future. Iraqi authorities are now confronting the security challenge of the last several weeks. In Fallujah, coalition forces have suspended offensive operations, allowing members of the Iraqi Governing Council and local leaders to work on the restoration of central authority in that city. These leaders are communicating with the insurgents to ensure an orderly turnover of that city to Iraqi forces, so that the resumption of military action does not become necessary. They’re also insisting that those who killed and mutilated four American contract workers be handed over for trial and punishment. In addition, members of the Governing Council are seeking to resolve the situation in the south. Al-Sadr must answer the charges against him and disband his illegal militia.

Our coalition is standing with responsible Iraqi leaders as they establish growing authority in their country. The transition to sovereignty requires that we demonstrate confidence in Iraqis, and we have that confidence. Many Iraqi leaders are showing great personal courage, and their example will bring out the same quality in others. The transition to sovereignty also requires an atmosphere of security, and our coalition is working to provide that security. We will continue taking the greatest care to prevent harm to innocent civilians; yet we will not permit the spread of chaos and violence. I have directed our military commanders to make every preparation to use decisive force, if necessary, to maintain order and to protect our troops.

The nation of Iraq is moving toward self-rule, and Iraqis and Americans will see evidence in the months to come. On June 30th, when the flag of free Iraq is raised, Iraqi officials will assume full responsibility for the ministries of government. On that day, the transitional administrative law, including a bill of rights that is unprecedented in the Arab world, will take full effect.

The United States, and all the nations of our coalition, will establish normal diplomatic relations with the Iraqi government. An American embassy will open, and an American ambassador will be posted.

According to the schedule already approved by the Governing Council, Iraq will hold elections for a national assembly no later than next January. That assembly will draft a new, permanent constitution which will be presented to the Iraqi people in a national referendum held in October of next year. Iraqis will then elect a permanent government by December 15, 2005 — an event that will mark the completion of Iraq’s transition from dictatorship to freedom.

Other nations and international institutions are stepping up to their responsibilities in building a free and secure Iraq. We’re working closely with the United Nations envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, and with Iraqis to determine the exact form of the government that will receive sovereignty on June 30th. The United Nations election assistance team, headed by Karina Parelli (phonetic), is in Iraq, developing plans for next January’s election. NATO is providing support for the Polish-led multinational division in Iraq. And 17 of NATO’s 26 members are contributing forces to maintain security.

Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of State Rumsfeld, and a number of NATO defense and foreign ministers are exploring a more formal role for NATO, such as turning the Polish-led division into a NATO operation, and giving NATO specific responsibilities for border control.

Iraqi’s neighbors also have responsibilities to make their region more stable. So I am sending Deputy Secretary of State Armitage to the Middle East to discuss with these nations our common interest in a free and independent Iraq, and how they can help achieve this goal.

As we’ve made clear all along, our commitment to the success and security of Iraq will not end on June 30th. On July 1st, and beyond, our reconstruction assistance will continue, and our military commitment will continue. Having helped Iraqis establish a new government, coalition military forces will help Iraqis to protect their government from external aggression and internal subversion.

The success of free government in Iraq is vital for many reasons. A free Iraq is vital because 25 million Iraqis have as much right to live in freedom as we do. A free Iraq will stand as an example to reformers across the Middle East. A free Iraq will show that America is on the side of Muslims who wish to live in peace, as we have already shown in Kuwait and Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan. A free Iraq will confirm to a watching world that America’s word, once given, can be relied upon, even in the toughest times.

Above all, the defeat of violence and terror in Iraq is vital to the defeat of violence and terror elsewhere; and vital, therefore, to the safety of the American people. Now is the time, and Iraq is the place, in which the enemies of the civilized world are testing the will of the civilized world. We must not waver.

The violence we are seeing in Iraq is familiar. The terrorist who takes hostages, or plants a roadside bomb near Baghdad is serving the same ideology of murder that kills innocent people on trains in Madrid, and murders children on buses in Jerusalem, and blows up a nightclub in Bali, and cuts the throat of a young reporter for being a Jew.

We’ve seen the same ideology of murder in the killing of 241 Marines in Beirut, the first attack on the World Trade Center, in the destruction of two embassies in Africa, in the attack on the USS Cole, and in the merciless horror inflicted upon thousands of innocent men and women and children on September the 11th, 2001.

None of these acts is the work of a religion; all are the work of a fanatical, political ideology. The servants of this ideology seek tyranny in the Middle East and beyond. They seek to oppress and persecute women. They seek the death of Jews and Christians, and every Muslim who desires peace over theocratic terror. They seek to intimidate America into panic and retreat, and to set free nations against each other. And they seek weapons of mass destruction, to blackmail and murder on a massive scale.

Over the last several decades, we’ve seen that any concession or retreat on our part will only embolden this enemy and invite more bloodshed. And the enemy has seen, over the last 31 months, that we will no longer live in denial or seek to appease them. For the first time, the civilized world has provided a concerted response to the ideology of terror — a series of powerful, effective blows.

The terrorists have lost the shelter of the Taliban and the training camps in Afghanistan. They’ve lost safe havens in Pakistan. They lost an ally in Baghdad. And Libya has turned its back on terror. They’ve lost many leaders in an unrelenting international manhunt. And perhaps most frightening to these men and their movement, the terrorists are seeing the advance of freedom and reform in the greater Middle East.

A desperate enemy is also a dangerous enemy, and our work may become more difficult before it is finished. No one can predict all the hazards that lie ahead, or the costs they will bring. Yet, in this conflict, there is no safe alternative to resolute action. The consequences of failure in Iraq would be unthinkable. Every friend of America and Iraq would be betrayed to prison and murder as a new tyranny arose. Every enemy of America and the world would celebrate, proclaiming our weakness and decadence, and using that victory to recruit a new generation of killers.

We will succeed in Iraq. We’re carrying out a decision that has already been made and will not change: Iraq will be a free, independent country, and America and the Middle East will be safer because of it. Our coalition has the means and the will to prevail. We serve the cause of liberty, and that is, always and everywhere, a cause worth serving.

Now, I’ll be glad to take your questions. I will start with you.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half Americans now support it. What does that say to you and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

THE PRESIDENT: I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops, and sends the wrong message to the enemy. Look, this is hard work. It’s hard to advance freedom in a country that has been strangled by tyranny. And, yet, we must stay the course, because the end result is in our nation’s interest.

A secure and free Iraq is an historic opportunity to change the world and make America more secure. A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East will have incredible change. It’s hard — freedom is not easy to achieve. We had a little trouble in our country achieving freedom. And we’ve been there a year, Terry. I know it seems like a long time, it seems like a long time to the loved ones whose troops have been overseas. But when you think about where the country has come from, it’s a relatively short period of time. And we’re making progress.

There’s no question it’s been a tough, tough series of weeks for the American people. It’s been really tough for the families. I understand that. It’s been tough on this administration. But we’re doing the right thing.

And as to whether or not I make decisions based upon polls, I don’t. I just don’t make decisions that way. I fully understand the consequences of what we’re doing. We’re changing the world. And the world will be better off and America will be more secure as a result of the actions we’re taking.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. What’s your best prediction on how long U.S. troops will have to be in Iraq? And it sounds like you will have to add some troops; is that a fair assessment?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I — first of all, that’s up to General Abizaid, and he’s clearly indicating that he may want more troops. It’s coming up through the chain of command. If that’s what he wants, that’s what he gets. Generally, we’ve had about 115,000 troops in Iraq. There’s 135,000 now, as a result of the changeover from one division to the next. If he wants to keep troops there to help, I’m more than willing to say, “Yes, General Abizaid.”

I talk to General Abizaid quite frequently. I’m constantly asking him, does he have what he needs — whether it be in troop strength, or in equipment. He and General Sanchez talk all the time. And if he makes the recommendation, he’ll get it.

In terms of how long we’ll be there: as long as necessary, and not one day more. The Iraqi people need us there to help with security. They need us there to fight off these violent few who are doing everything they can to resist the advance of freedom. And I mentioned who they are.

And as I mentioned in my opening remarks, our commanders on the ground have got the authority necessary to deal with violence, and will — and will in firm fashion. And that’s what, by far, the vast majority of the Iraqis want — they want security so they can advance toward a free society.

Once we transfer sovereignty, we’ll enter into a security agreement with the government to which we pass sovereignty, the entity to which we pass sovereignty. And we’ll need to be there for a while. We’ll also need to continue training the Iraqi troops. I was disappointed in the performance of some of the troops. Some of the units performed brilliantly; some of them didn’t, and we need to find out why.

If they’re lacking equipment, we’ll get them equipment. If there needs to be more intense training, we’ll get more intense training. But, eventually, Iraq’s security is going to be handled by the Iraqi people, themselves.

Let’s see here — Terry.

Q Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers, that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we know where they are. How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents, who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series a false premises?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me step back and review my thinking prior to going into Iraq. First, the lesson of September the 11th is, when this nation sees a threat, a gathering threat, we’ve got to deal with it. We can no longer hope that oceans protect us from harm. Every threat we must take seriously.

Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders. He was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States. That’s the assessment that I made from the intelligence, the assessment that Congress made from the intelligence; that’s the exact same assessment that the United Nations Security Council made with the intelligence.

I went to the U.N., as you might recall, and said, either you take care of him, or we will. Any time an American President says, if you don’t, we will, we better be prepared to. And I was prepared to. I thought it was important for the United Nations Security Council that when it says something, it means something, for the sake of security in the world. See, the war on terror had changed the calculations. We needed to work with people. People needed to come together to work. And, therefore, empty words would embolden the actions of those who are willing to kill indiscriminately.

The United Nations passed a Security Council resolution unanimously that said, disarm or face serious consequences. And he refused to disarm.

I thought it was very interesting that Charlie Duelfer, who just came back — he’s the head of the Iraqi Survey Group — reported some interesting findings from his recent tour there. And one of the things was, he was amazed at how deceptive the Iraqis had been toward UNMOVIC and UNSCOM; deceptive in hiding things. We knew they were hiding things — a country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting caught. And that was part of our calculation. Charlie confirmed that. He also confirmed that Saddam had a — the ability to produce biological and chemical weapons. In other words, he was a danger. He had long-range missiles that were undeclared to the United Nations; he was a danger. And so we dealt with him.

What else — part of the question — oh, oil revenues. Well, the oil revenues are — they’re bigger than we thought they would be at this point in time. I mean, one year after the liberation of Iraq, the revenues of the oil stream is pretty darn significant. One of the things I was concerned about prior to going into Iraq was that the oil fields would be destroyed. But they weren’t, they’re now up and running. And that money is — it will benefit the Iraqi people. It’s their oil, and they’ll use it to reconstruct the country.

Finally, the attitude of the Iraqis toward the American people — it’s an interesting question. They’re really pleased we got rid of Saddam Hussein. And you can understand why. This is a guy who was a torturer, a killer, a maimer; there’s mass graves. I mean, he was a horrible individual that really shocked the country in many ways, shocked it into a kind of — a fear of making decisions toward liberty. That’s what we’ve seen recently. Some citizens are fearful of stepping up. And they were happy — they’re not happy they’re occupied. I wouldn’t be happy if I were occupied either. They do want us there to help with security, and that’s why this transfer of sovereignty is an important signal to send, and it’s why it’s also important for them to hear we will stand with them until they become a free country.

Elisabeth.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. To move to the 9/11 Commission. You, yourself, have acknowledged that Osama bin Laden was not a central focus of the administration in the months before September 11th. “I was not on point,” you told the journalist, Bob Woodward, “I didn’t feel that sense of urgency.” Two-and-a-half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: Let me put that quote to Woodward in context. He had asked me if I was — something about killing bin Laden. That’s what the question was. And I said, compared to how I felt at the time, after the attack, I didn’t have that — I also went on to say, my blood wasn’t boiling, I think is what the quote said. I didn’t see — I mean, I didn’t have that great sense of outrage that I felt on September the 11th. I was — on that day I was angry and sad: angry that al Qaeda had — well, at the time, thought al Qaeda, found out shortly thereafter it was al Qaeda — had unleashed this attack; sad for those who lost their life.

Your question — do I feel —

Q Do you feel a sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I feel incredibly grieved when I meet with family members, and I do quite frequently. I grieve for the incredible loss of life that they feel, the emptiness they feel.

There are some things I wish we’d have done when I look back. I mean, hindsight is easy. It’s easy for a President to stand up and say, now that I know what happened, it would have been nice if there were certain things in place; for example, a homeland security department. And why I — I say that because it’s — that provides the ability for our agencies to coordinate better and to work together better than it was before.

I think the hearings will show that the Patriot Act is an important change in the law that will allow the FBI and the CIA to better share information together. We were kind of stove-piped, I guess is a way to describe it. There was kind of — departments that at times didn’t communicate, because of law, in the FBI’s case.

And the other thing I look back on and realize is that we weren’t on a war footing. The country was not on a war footing, and yet the enemy was at war with us. And it’s — it didn’t take me long to put us on a war footing. And we’ve been on war ever since. The lessons of 9/11 that I — one lesson was, we must deal with gathering threats. And that’s part of the reason I dealt with Iraq the way I did.

The other lesson is, is that this country must go on the offense and stay on the offense. In order to secure the country, we must do everything in our power to find these killers and bring them to justice, before they hurt us again. I’m afraid they want to hurt us again. They’re still there.

They can be right one time; we’ve got to be right a hundred percent of the time in order to protect the country. It’s a mighty task. But our government has changed since the 9/11 attacks. We’re better equipped to respond; we’re better at sharing intelligence. But we’ve still got a lot of work to do.

Dave.

Q Mr. President, I’d like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked. One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it’s WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism? And do you believe there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think, as I mentioned, it’s — the country wasn’t on war footing, and yet we’re at war. And that’s just a reality, Dave. I mean, that’s — that was the situation that existed prior to 9/11, because the truth of the matter is, most in the country never felt that we’d be vulnerable to an attack such as the one that Osama bin Laden unleashed on us. We knew he had designs on us, we knew he hated us. But there was a — nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.

The people know where I stand. I mean, in terms of Iraq, I was very clear about what I believed. And, of course, I want to know why we haven’t found a weapon yet. But I still know Saddam Hussein was a threat, and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. I don’t think anybody can — maybe people can argue that. I know the Iraqi people don’t believe that, that they’re better off with Saddam Hussein — would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power. I also know that there’s an historic opportunity here to change the world. And it’s very important for the loved ones of our troops to understand that the mission is an important, vital mission for the security of America and for the ability to change the world for the better.

Let’s see — Ed.

Q Mr. President, good evening. You’ve talked on the — I’d like to ask you about the August 6th PDB.

THE PRESIDENT: Sure.

Q You mentioned it at Fort Hood on Sunday. You said — you pointed out that it did not warn of a hijacking of airplanes to crash into buildings, but that it warned of hijacking to, obviously, take hostages and to secure the release of extremists being held by the U.S. Did that trigger some specific actions on your part and the administration, since it dealt with potentially hundreds of lives and a blackmail attempt on the United States government?

THE PRESIDENT: Ed, I asked for the briefing. And the reason I did is because there had been a lot of threat intelligence from overseas. And so — part of it had to do with Genoa, the G8 conference that I was going to attend. And I asked, at that point in time, let’s make sure we are paying attention here at home, as well. And that’s what triggered the report.

The report, itself, I’ve characterized as mainly history, and I think when you look at it you’ll see that it was talking about ‘97 and ‘98 and ‘99. It was also an indication, as you mentioned, that bin Laden might want to hijack an airplane, but as you said, not to fly into a building, but perhaps to release a person in jail. In other words, serve it as a blackmail.

And of course, that concerns me. All those reports concern me. As a matter of fact, I was dealing with terrorism a lot as the President when George Tenet came in to brief me. I mean, that’s where I got my information. I changed the way that — the relationship between the President and the CIA Director. And I wanted Tenet in the Oval Office all the time. And we had briefings about terrorist threats. This was a summary.

Now, in what’s called the PDB, there was a warning about bin Laden’s desires on America, but, frankly, I didn’t think that was anything new. Major newspapers had talked about bin Laden’s desires on hurting America. What was interesting in there was that there was a report that the FBI was conducting field investigations. And I — that was good news that they were doing their job.

The way my administration worked, Ed, is that I met with Tenet all the time, obviously met with my principals a lot. We talked about threats that had emerged. We had a counterterrorism group meeting on a regular basis to analyze the threats that came in. Had there been a threat that required action by anybody in the government, I would have dealt with it. In other words, had they come up and said, this is where we see something happening, you can rest assured that the people of this government would have responded, and responded in a forceful way.

I mean, one of the things about Elisabeth’s question was, I step back and I’ve asked myself a lot, is there anything we could have done to stop the attacks. Of course, I’ve asked that question — as have many people of my government. Nobody wants this to happen to America. And the answer is that had I had any inkling whatsoever that the people were going to fly airplanes into buildings, we would have moved heaven and earth to save the country — just like we’re working hard to prevent a further attack.

Let’s see — Jim.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You mentioned the PDB and the assurance you got that the FBI was working on terrorism investigations here. The number they had used was 70. But we learned today in the September 11th hearings that the Acting Director of the FBI at the time says — now says the FBI tells him that number was wrong, that he doesn’t even know how it got into your PDB. And two of the commissioners strongly suggested the number was exaggerated. Have you learned anything else about that report since that time? And do you now believe you were falsely comforted by the FBI?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I heard about that today, obviously, and my response to that was I expect to get valid information. As the ultimate decision-maker for this country, I expect information that comes to my desk to be real and valid. And I presume the 9/11 Commission will find out — will follow up on his suggestions and his recollection and garner the truth.

That is an important part of the 9/11 Commission’s job, is to analyze what went on and what could have, perhaps, been done differently so that we can better secure America for the future. But, of course, I expect to get valid information. I can’t make good decisions unless I get valid information.

Q Has the FBI come back to you, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I haven’t talked to anybody today. But I will, though. We’ll find out.

John.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9/11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, I can understand why people in my administration anguished over the fact that people lost their life. I feel the same way. I mean, I’m sick when I think about the death that took place on that day. And as I mentioned, I’ve met with a lot of family members and I do the best I do to console them about the loss of their loved one. As I mentioned, I oftentimes think about what I could have done differently. I can assure the American people that had we had any inkling that thi