The value of a Bush interview with Brit Hume (FOX News) is questionable, so it was notable that he also submitted to questioning by Jim Lehrer, an interview with some interesting aspects. It also helps that a transcript allows one to view the result without having to deal with listening to President Bush -- a duty I find akin to nails on a blackboard, just less benign.
Respecting to a question respecting the NYT article referenced in the last post, the President refused to discuss the matter (he justified it, however, in his Saturday Radio Address ... again see, e.g., the NYT), but noted that:
I think the point that Americans really want to know is twofold. One, are we doing everything we can to protect the people? And two, are we protecting civil liberties as we do so?
And my answer to both is yes, we are.
Of course, as I spell out here, the two matters are interrelated, and his actions violated both. Bush also clarified -- suggesting the perils of taking his words to mean what they seem -- that when he told Hume that Tom DeLay was in his opinion "innocent," he only meant in a "legal until declared guilty" sort of way. Bush also noted that unlike in the case of that "ongoing investigation," the special prosecutor himself suggested the President restrain from discussing the Plame matter. Okay, but "ongoing investigation" itself was the test set forth by the Press Secretary.
The President also clarified the definition of "victory" in Iraq:
And the definition of victory which is really an important thing for the American people to understand is that we have an ally in the war on terror, that democracy is able to sustain itself and defend itself, and the Iraqi people feel that the security forces that we've trained up are capable of defending themselves against the violent.
Pursuant to a follow-up question, he agreed this was not the normal definition of the word "victory," but that this is a different sort of war. Nonetheless, what exactly "able to sustain itself and defend itself" means is unclear. Likewise, what is the test that the Iraqi people "feel" that the forces are "capable?" Also, the first test is telling -- an ally -- no specification of said ally being secular and so forth. This is honest ... and to the degree one can take it seriously, the definition is of some value.
there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the attack of 9/11. I agree. I've never said that and never made that case prior to going into Iraq. ... Well, I think they are related in the war on terror because he had terrorist connections, as you might remember. Again, he was a sworn enemy and he'd had weapons of mass destruction, had used them.
He and his aides, however, implied as such as to the Hussein connection by repeatedly connecting the two. Compare this as well to his comments in respect to the (few) foreign fighters in Iraq, which he connected to the bombings in Africa and so forth. In fact, nearly all of the resistance in home grown, in response to our own invasion of Iraq. And, even here, he had to connect Saddam to 9/11, setting forth relatively weak links. The use of "had" is interesting as well. What are these weapons? Where did they come from? What did his ertswhile allies do afterwards. Etc.
Anyway, the so-called "wide-ranging" interview by necessity was not too deep -- challenges to his claims and statements were brief, and the net result is a large amount of boilerplate. But, some useful comments, for what they are worth.