Three and a half years into his term of office, Bush had his third prime-time press conference on Tuesday, April 13. Although he knew all but one of the questions in advance, per his requirement, he still managed to avoid answering most of them. The rest of this piece is basically a response to some of his introductory comments and what I will charitably call his “responses” to questions posed by the press.

To start with, I have to agree with a couple of the points he made: “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.” This may actually be an understatement. Should the United States leave Iraq, Iraq would likely become the main training camp for al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. This scenario is the fault of the United States, which removed Saddam Hussein who, though a brutal tyrant, did not allow al-Qaeda training camps to operate in the country. At any rate, given the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, few things would better help al-Qaeda to regroup than a failed state in civil war (which Iraq would develop into, if it is not already).

“If additional forces are needed, I will send them. If additional resources are needed, we will provide them.” I had thought that the point of this press conference was to assure Americans that the situation in Iraq is not out of control. Yet Bush announced no new strategy for improving conditions in Iraq other than saying he will be listening to General Abizaid. This is not a plan of action, it is throwing more young Americans at Iraq in hopes of quieting the people who want change.

“Were the coalition to step back from the June 30 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.” This may be true. The only way Iraqis will have faith in the United States is if they see an effective plan that gives them a government they want. “Transferring power” on a meaningless date to an unready government will similarly betray their hopes.

“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.” The advance of freedom and reform has yet to be seen. While the prospect of a westernized democracy would in fact anger fundamentalists (be it Muslim, Christian, Hindu, etc.), let’s not forget that the terrorists rightly see the U.S. occupation of Iraq as a major recruitment opportunity. Every day that conditions in Iraq do not improve for the Iraqis, more people will believe the United States cares only for Iraq’s oil and Israel’s security—which seems to be fairly accurate. This plays into my favorite line of the night.

“We’re not an imperial power.” Oh, we aren’t? Perhaps we do not have military bases on every continent, or warships in every sea? Perhaps the United States is not an imperial power in the overt, pre-World War II days of Japan, but that only makes us a different kind of imperial power. That is why we are a target. Osama bin Laden targets the United States principally because it occupies Saudi Arabia—the land of the two Holies, I believe he calls it. Yes, we occupy it at the request of its unelected, despotic regime. But does that negate the imperial nature of our power? The United States has long had a strongly isolationist streak which seems to prevent anyone from admitting that it is an empire. Silly.

When it came time for the questions, Bush actually answered a few of them. Then came this one:

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 of false premises?

Bush first responds, “We can no longer hope that oceans protect us from harm.” This was one of his talking points. Only it totally ignores the fact that the first attack in the early ’90s on the World Trade Center should have made us realize the ocean-defense was not working. Or perhaps the warning from Richard Clarke in January 2001 that al-Qaeda cells were in the country, or the now-famous President’s Daily Briefing of August 6 which warned that bin Laden was determined to strike inside the United States.

“The United Nations passed a Security Council resolution unanimously that said, disarm or face serious consequences. And he refused to disarm.” Hussein was pretty much disarmed. This is why no one has been able to find the banned weapons—even though Rumsfeld said we knew where they were.

Having not answered the first part of the question, Bush moved on to not answer the second part. “Well, the oil revenues, they’re bigger than we thought they would be at this point in time.” This is an interesting answer. If Iraq has more money now than we thought it would, why has Bush needed to spend so much money from American taxes? Has the administration released any papers that show how much reconstruction is costing and where the money comes from or where it ends up? And just where is Ken Lay? Is he arranging for the Iraq reconstruction accounting?

Regarding the last part of the question, Bush says, “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.” Guerrilla warfare can only succeed if the population shelters the guerrillas. If the majority of Iraqis were grateful to the U.S. troops and acted in the ways that Bush & Co. suggested they would before the war, then they would turn in, or extra-judiciously hang those who attack the troops. They do not—at least not in significant numbers. This is telling—especially as attacks are on the rise.

Next question: “Two and a half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?”

The next evasion continues for some time as Bush discusses how badly he feels for the families and the outrage he experienced on Sept. 11. “There are some things I wish we’d have done, when I look back.” He lists a number of things—but never answers the question. This is interesting because he does not come out and say, “I do not feel responsible because I know that we did everything we could to protect the country.” Nor does he say, “I was the Commander-in-Chief and I failed so I do have some sense of responsibility.” Instead, he ignores the question. When he is next asked if it is a fair criticism that he never admits a mistake, he refuses to answer the question, which is in itself an answer.

Later, when pressed about the possibility of making an apology similar to Clarke’s, Bush says “the person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden.” This is misdirection at its best. Indeed, Osama bin Laden is responsible for the attack. Responsibility. That has long been a Republican buzz word. Personal responsibility—take responsibility for your actions. Bush’s responsibility as president of the United States was, and continues to be, protecting the citizens of the United States. He failed. A government’s reason for being is ostensibly to protect the citizens. This is why many believe Bush should apologize. That being said, placing the blame on bin Laden was a nice redirect.

“We knew he had designs on us. We knew he hated us. But there was nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government, that could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.” This is nothing less than a stupid failure of intelligence. As detailed in Inside al Qaeda, Global Network of Terror by Rohan Gunaratna, this terrorist strategy was not new. The Armed Islamic Group of Algeria—one of the many terrorist organizations that make up the al-Qaeda network—had attempted to fly an Airbus, fully fueled, into the Eiffel Tower in 1994. They nearly succeeded. Plans to use planes in this manner had been disrupted by intelligence agencies before Sept. 11. Failure to anticipate these attacks was not a failure of imagination, but rather a failure to pay attention to terrorists who use new tactics. It is said the army always prepares to fight the last war—intelligence apparently has the same mentality. Ultimately, the Bush administration’s use of the “we did not see it coming” excuse shows either incompetence or laziness.

Regarding the August 6 President’s Daily Briefing: “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, he would serve it as a blackmail.” Bear in mind that the administration is under fire for not acting on the President’s Daily Briefing. It has countered by saying the warnings were too vague—if only the threat was more specific, then they would have moved both “heaven and earth” and “mountains” (depending on the person speaking) to prevent it. So basically Bush is saying that if the President’s Daily Briefing was more clear, they would have done something. Apparently the idea that bin Laden was going to seize a plane to bargain for a prisoner was not enough motivation for the administration to do something about formulating an anti-terrorism policy. Interesting. So there is a line somewhere between seizing one plane and crashing four planes into buildings at which point the administration will act. It will be helpful for the American people to know where exactly this line is.

The press conference was a waste of time. Bush refused to answer the important questions honestly; he chose instead to deflect or ignore most of the questions while failing to reassure anyone that the situation in Iraq would soon improve.