Bush on Meet the Press

I missed the President's appearance this morning, and so was looking forward to the transcript and reviews from colleagues and pundits. Well, never mind, because it's all over the map: Several of my friends thought it a disaster. Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner quotes one pundit as saying "If he loses this year, this will be the day he lost it," and Tim Graham appears to agree. Yet Andrew Sullivan--no friend of the President--sees the glass more than half full: "It's his best self-defense yet. And I liked his modest way of putting it." And Cliff May (also on The Corner) was positive:

I thought it possible that Russert would wrestle him quickly to the mat and pin him for a three-count. It did not seem to me that that is what took place. Bush will never be a silver-tongued smoothie, but there's a benefit to that. He also never sounds rehearsed--and no amount of rehearsal is likely to change that.

Also: Bush genuinely holds beliefs and convictions, and that comes through. It is one of the characteristics that make millions of Americans trust and admire him--even while it repels tens of thousands of relativist intellectuals who are convinced that ambivalence and Hamlet-like indecision are the natural conditions of the thinking man.

A couple of other friends were equally upbeat.

So which is it? I dunno. But Justin Katz provides (via InstaPundit) a stark example of the daily media distortions that--strangely enough--always err to the left, never to the right:

AP story Bush said former chief weapons inspector David Kay, who has said that U.S. intelligence was "almost all wrong" about Saddam's arms, said Saddam found the "capacity to produce weapons.

David Kay's actual language [M]any governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, [Jacques] Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD. The Germans certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD. It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing.

Katz highlights the crucial gap between the press and the truth:

Kay is clearly saying that everybody was wrong about the extent of Iraq's existing WMD stockpiles, not that anybody in particular was wrong about everything. One could perhaps suggest that the AP just let a little bit of a grammatical error slip in--which would be unforgivable enough for an international news wire to do--except that reporter Deb Riechmann used "U.S. intelligence" to represent a group that included such varied parties as David Kay himself, the French, and the Germans (and perhaps even Saddam Hussein).

This is precisely the reason that I find myself instinctively searching for original transcripts. Now, that would be a worthwhile service: a wire that provided the actual words that people use, in context.

I'm more convinced than ever that there's two sets of media: the dominant newspapers and TV that hate Bush regardless of his policy, and another bunch prepared to consider the President on his merits. Press bias probably ensures negative headlines about Bush's interview in tomorrow's papers. I hope Americans are more like the second bunch and judge for themselves come November.

Update:

Rob Dreher, part of the panel of the MTP interview, give his review at The Corner:

The thing that gets to me after having read the MTP transcript a second time is how buried in many of the president's answers are solid points. I think Bush has a knockout case for the Iraq war, and his handling of the war on terror. I also know that quite a few people disagree with me. Bush, of all people, should be able to make the case powerfully. If he can't, that telegraphs to people confusion and a lack of confidence in the case, I think. This stuff matters. And because I thoroughly agree with you, John, that the war on terror is the only thing that really matters this fall, I urgently want the president and his team to master this stuff before the Democratic attack machine, aided and abetted by the anti-Bush media, get cranked up. There's far too much at risk here.

To which I can add only: Yeah, what he said.

Further Update:

Peggy Noonan agrees that Bush's "performance was not impressive."