Media Makes Message; President Speaks Through Action

In responding to my post about constraints on leaders' candor, Paul Craddick writes:

I think Justin's point definitely has merit; every time Bush and his administration have disappointed me with equivocation and avoidance of an issue, I have attenuated my disapproval by thinking of extenuating circumstances along the same lines. But if a politician is to stand for anything, at some point he/she needs to make bold and show willingness to be raked over the coals. And here I recall a valuable observation by one of my mentors at college: the moment anything interesting is said, it's amenable to misunderstanding and misrepresentation. There's little point in holding press conferences - which nominally aim at addressing questions of concern to the nation - if no serious effort is made to stake out a clear position.

First, I'm not sure what, about President Bush's position vis-à-vis Iraq and September 11, isn't clear. It may not be what Paul would like it to be, or its phrasing mightn't include exigencies that Paul would prefer, but I'd be willing to bet that he, along with most Americans, could paraphrase what that position is.

Second, correcting for press bias remains necessary, but it further must be considered that a threshold exists after which bold statements can't reach the people for whom they're intended. At some point a brave political risk becomes reckless bravado. Even if a prime-time press conference reaches a significant portion of the intended audience, weeks and months of media hammering away at what was said can transform the message. To some extent, the questions that the reporters asked already shaped our impression of the press conference in ways that obfuscate what the President said:

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? ...

Two-and-a-half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th? ...

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? ...

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? ...

After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it? ...

I guess I just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any way? You don't have many of these press conferences, where you engage in this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to really make the case to the American public?

The last question is almost laughable in the context of this post. That the first question incorporates the spinning "we know where they are" meme illustrates the degree to which distortions compound. It's only my assessment, obviously, but these reporters were fishing for a headline. What could the President have possibly said? "Yup. It was right there in front of me; I missed it, and the deaths of thousands of Americans will be on my head until the day I join them in the grave." No, what he did say is perfectly reasonable:

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. ...

I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference...

Looking again at Paul's proposal for what Bush could say about the matter of WMDs, I note that — although, overall, he offers what I believe to be an appropriately qualified synopsis — he inserts this language, which would surely be cast as a preparation for backpedaling:

... there's no question that we haven't found what we - and Intelligence agencies 'round the world - were expecting. And that's not good.

Though we don't know to what extent, it's appearing more and more likely that we were all mistaken - our administration and Intelligence agencies, the previous administration, friends of the United States, UNSCOM, and others.

Indeed, that's the common wisdom, these days, and we already have evidence of how it would be handled coming from administration lips. Adding in Paul's accurate point about Hussein's capacity to make biological and chemical weapons, it seems that the President actually put forward more or less the same argument, but without the tone of admission of guilt, and without conceding as much regarding the likelihood of actually finding weapons (emphasis added):

Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would have called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein. See, I happen to believe that we'll find out the truth on the weapons. That's why we've sent up the independent commission. I look forward to hearing the truth, exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm [in Libya].

... We'll find out the truth about the weapons at some point in time. However, the fact that he had the capacity to make them bothers me today, just like it would have bothered me then. He's a dangerous man. He's a man who actually -- not only had weapons of mass destruction -- the reason I can say that with certainty is because he used them. And I have no doubt in my mind that he would like to have inflicted harm, or paid people to inflict harm, or trained people to inflict harm on America, because he hated us.

One can presume that the President's being obstinate for political purposes, or one can believe, remembering that he's got much more information than we do, that the President is being straightforward about his actual assessment. Whatever the case, it oughtn't be forgotten that our information is sifted and spun so thoroughly that entirely conflicting realities can be and are constructed. One side in this struggle is disingenuously pulling the truth toward what it would like it to be, and frankly, I find more evidence that it is the media.

Now, I don't think the administration always strikes the balance well between candor and sidestepping when it comes to specific issues. And ultimately the President is responsible for finding ways to communicate with the public. But isn't he? Despite the hostile media, isn't President get his message to the people?

I feel strongly about what we're doing. I feel strongly that the course this administration has taken will make America more secure and the world more free, and, therefore, the world more peaceful. It's a conviction that's deep in my soul. And I will say it as best as I possibly can to the American people.

I look forward to the debate and the campaign. I look forward to helping -- for the American people to hear, what is a proper use of American power; do we have an obligation to lead, or should we shirk responsibility. That's how I view this debate. And I look forward to making it, Don. I'll do it the best I possibly can. I'll give it the best shot. I'll speak as plainly as I can.

One thing is for certain, though, about me -- and the world has learned this -- when I say something, I mean it. And the credibility of the United States is incredibly important for keeping world peace and freedom.

It seems to me that the administration speaks through its actions, leaving it only to convey with words that it says what it means and means what it does.