In what was billed as an unveiling of the President’s latest outfit, he once again appeared naked but for his usual flashy cowboy boots, big hat, and tie. White House watchers have long grown accustomed to the media not remarking on the President’s public nudity, but last night he made several astonishing announcements as well, which the mainstream media have chosen not to analyze in any way.

He announced that WMDs were found in Iraq. Though a prime justification for invading a sovereign nation which had not formally declared war nor in any discernable way threatened the US, this discovery didn’t elicit comment in follow-up questions. No one asked what kind of WMDs the President found, in what quantity, and the location of the discovery.

In another remarkable announcement that contradicts the findings of worldwide intelligence agencies and the 911 probe, the President also announced that Saddam Hussein was indeed involved with the 9-11 attacks. Except for 911 commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste’s categorical denial of any evidence suggesting such a thing on Air America this morning, other media had no reaction to the President’s shocking claim. His additional announcement that the invasion and occupation of Iraq prevented Libya’s application of mustard to a turkey on rye went similarly unexplored.

Nor did the unexpected appointment of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to the office of Secretary of State elicit post-speech questions, or even mild surprise. This isn’t really news as Rumsfeld has served as the administration’s de facto diplomatic representative abroad, showing his diplomatic skills with pithy statements like, “Hey France, fuck off!” and “Hey UN, fuck off.” Apparently, no media source has sought statements from former Secretary of State Colin Powell or newly-appointed DoubleSec Rumsfeld.

Reviews of the President’s latest outfit were largely positive, with more focus on the Great Leader’s confidence in his faith-based approach to clothing than on the actual items of clothing worn. (Real quotes and attributions in the extension.)

Calvin Woodward, Associated Press:

Well, he forgot his suit again but he’s not apologizing for the look. He’s sincere in his belief that he’s wearing one, though, which counts for something. On that he’s firm, which is also something. Hell, that’s the most important thing, because, as the President points out, Osama bin Laden dresses like shit. (04/14/04 AP/Woodward)

The Scotsman, op-ed:

First off, lefties dress like shite, alright? They make no apology, just sit back looking like shite. Shiites dress like shite. That bastard al-Sadr dresses like shite. Neo-cons might not make the appropriate choices in attire at all times, but Iraqis sure as shite dress like shite. Sure, John Kerry looks snappy occasionally but I’ll tell you who knew how to put himself together: Kissinger. And Condi? She knows how tough it is to dress appropriately all the time. The President looks fabulous and Mr. Blair looks snappy standing next to him. Maybe they’re not wearing pants, but what’s important is getting some clothes on those damn Iraqis. (04/13/04 Scotsman/Massie)

Christian Science Monitor:

Not everyone can pull off this look, but pull it off he does! What would you rather have: a President who wears pants, or someone who pretends so darn hard it’s like he’s wearing two, three, even four pairs? With an entire administration pretending just as hard, even Kerry supporters have to admit that’s an important asset.

The President is forceful, bold and manly striding forth in his “pants”. Will he cover his naked ass in the future? Who knows. Someday, at some future point, the administration may answer that question but for now, I’ll only ask it rhetorically and in a very very quiet voice. (04/13/04 CSM/Chinni)

Washington Post, Dana Milbank and Mike Allen:

He’s not wearing pants or a suit jacket, okay? Ahhhhgain. He’s not wearing a shirt either. No boxers or briefs, no loincloth. Not even an amusing, striped, novelty banana sock. He pretended pretty hard for most of his appearance that he was clothed but most of the time shivered like an unemployable Chippendales has-been. He appeared stunned for a moment when a courtier asked, hey naked guy, what’s up with the fucking nakedness? Kerry released a statement yesterday criticizing Bush’s pantslessness. The Bush campaign disagrees with that characterization and points to the President’s outstanding felted cowboy hat, which is big enough to be an outfit in itself, and beautifully stitched cowboy boots trimmed with real gold. They have also declassified documents showing that Richard Clarke once went out to his lawn to pick up his morning paper wearing nothing but a bathrobe. (04/14/04 WP/Millbank/Allen)

Associated Press, Jennifer Loven:

He sure was stylin last night, carrying off a bold, manly look not many ordinary guys would attempt. You don’t see this look on ordinary guys, because the President is no ordinary guy. Kerry said something or other about the importance of clothing and — blah blah blah who cares — the President sure looked classy explaining his classic sense of style to people who didn’t get the look he was going for. That’s because he’s a giant among men. I’ll bet he has an incredible cock. If you want an example of someone who is fashion clueless, check out that Osama guy. 04/14/04 AP/Loven

Washington Times opinion:

What a suit! What. A. Suit. It was the kind of menswear that would make Dolce & Fagbana rip out each other’s heart and eat it while still pounding a final resentful beat. Impeccably cut, of classic fabric with meticulous hand-stitched details, the only thing that could improve it was the selection of the perfect shirt. Amazingly, the shirt was better than perfect. It was pluperfect. It was more perfect than the shirt of Nessus would have been had it not burst into flame and burned alive its unfortunate contents. Who can match our courageous trend setter? Not the Iraqis with their pathetic droopwear or Kerry and Kennedy, who borrow each other’s loud ties. Oh, the fashion losers will harp on our President’s choice of accessories, but he’s not going to apologize or explain. He’s busy looking good for the American people, who seek his impeccable fashion guidance. 04/14/04 Washington Times – Lakely/Sammon

The New York Times:

The President appeared in public naked again. Why we strive for novel ways of saying this anymore, we don’t know. He was naked yesterday. He will be naked tomorrow. He’s a chronic nudist. If anyone should wear clothing, it’s him because his body is nothing to shake a stick at. More likely than not, his body will be shaking at the stick even while standing still. (04/14/04 NYT opinion)

Larry King Live:

Larry King: The President showed off his new outfit and earlier today, John Ashcroft was seen wandering around with his shvang showing and wearing a piece of baloney on his head. Mr. Kean, your review of the President’s outfit?

THOMAS KEAN, CHAIRMAN, 9/11 COMMISSION: Well, he wore what he wore and it’s not my place to judge his fashion choices. He did look good wearing it.

KING: Congressman Hamilton

LEE HAMILTON, VICE CHAIRMAN, 9/11 COMMISSION: He wasn’t exactly wearing pants, was he? I can see why people might object to that important omission of pants in what would qualify as a great suit.

KING: What about Ashcroft? The shvang? The baloney?

KEAN: Pants, no pants, we’re still looking at the cracks in the intelligence system. We know that those agencies do want to appear in public clothed. The important thing is that they be pantsed so as not to embarrass the Attorney General or the President in the future.

KING: Congressman Hamilton?

HAMILTON: This administration has given us a lot of good pointers on addressing rampant pantslessness in the government outside the Executive Branch.

…

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), KY, MAJORITY WHIP: The President was, and has been, impeccably dressed. His suit was outstanding. Did you see that fabric? Nice weave. Beautiful weave. The Afghans and Iraqis would die for such a weave. He’s going to set a trend around the world, just you watch. …

GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D), NM, FMR. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: Well, he did carry it off, I think. He wasn’t exactly wearing pants, was he? As for a trend, no one seems to be riding his coattails, which he doesn’t have cause he never wears a jacket either. 04/13/04 CNN/Larry King

Newsnight with Aaron Brown:

[Half an hour of surveillance footage show the President appearing publicly in increasingly abbreviated costume. Various angles, closeups, times and places dispute in advance that charges of the Great Leader’s public nudity are partisan, irrational or based on jealousy about his firm ass and incredible man-rod. Also caught on film: John Ashcroft with his pants down.]

JONAH GOLDBERG, “THE NATIONAL REVIEW”: Not everyone gets the President’s sense of style, which figures, but he may have to, at some point, choose his outfits more carefully. He does look fabulous, mainly because he’s as comfortable in his suits as he is in his own skin, but some people don’t get his look. The not apologizing is part of the look. Perhaps he might consider throwing on some kind of garment that covers the legs and groinal area while still allowing freedom of motion.

JOHN HARWOOD, POLITICAL EDITOR, “THE WALL STREET JOURNAL”: Bottom line, he looked good. Not everyone could pull off that look. He can.

JUDY GOODFLUFF, CNN: Well some reporters made negative comments about the President’s outfit but he’s comfortable in what he’s wearing so I guess that’s something. I don’t know if he’s setting off a trend, though. I don’t know, I just don’t know. I barely pass the bare minimum requirement to be Soylent Green.

…

FAREED ZAKARIA: I’ve seen what people are wearing around the world. No one dresses like this or wants to. He looked ridiculous. He wasn’t wearing pants, a jacket, a shirt, a vest, underpants, socks, sock garters. He didn’t carry a linen hankie, a billfold, an appropriate watch. He had neither a collar bar nor a stickpin. No one dresses like this in the Middle East and what’s more, they have the same sense to cover their gonads as to come in out of the rain. Look, no one’s going to wear that atrocity Bush wore yesterday. Not NATO, not the UN, not France or Germany. He keeps comparing his look to the kind of classic styling of Truman and Roosevelt. Pardon me, they wore pants. They’d never appear publicly in that ridiculous get-up Bush was wearing.

…

HOSNI MUBARAK, PRESIDENT, EGYPT: Tell Ariel Sharon to put on some fucking pants. We’re sick of looking at his fat ass.

BROWN: Palestinians dress like shit or are often completely and offensivelynaked.

MUBARAK: They don’t have closets, dressing rooms, or a pot to piss in. But put some fucking pants on Sharon already. 04/13/04 CNN/Aaron Brown

(Actual quotes and sources in the extension.)

Calvin Woodward, Associated Press:

President Bush had no apologies to make Tuesday night, and he was almost apologetic about it. Despite the failures highlighted in the government’s pre-Sept. 11 intelligence operations, despite the futile search to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and all the recent violence there, Bush came up empty when asked – repeatedly – if he’d made mistakes.

“I’m sure something will pop into my head here,” he said in his prime-time news conference. “I don’t want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I’m confident I have.” But “maybe I’m not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.”

He hemmed. He hawed. He allowed that “hindsight’s easy” and – armed with that rearview mirror – he would have liked to have had a Homeland Security Department and a Patriot Act before the terrorists struck. “We weren’t on a war footing,” he said, “and yet the enemy was at war with us.”

To be sure, Bush acknowledged the difficulties of recent weeks in Iraq, the horrible scenes of dead bodies on television and the sense that the war has dragged on for a long time.

And there was to be no apology for what the government did and did not do in the months before the terrorist attacks, when the air was thick with signs of trouble that his administration says were too vague to act on. (04/14/04 AP/Woodward)

The Scotsman, op-ed:

IT HAS not been a good ten days for supporters of the liberation of Iraq. Indeed, one can imagine the likes of Noam Chomsky, John Pilger and their parliamentary ilk (sadly not confined to the predictable Liberal Democrat and SNP benches) sitting back and fatuously proclaiming their self-righteous “vindication” that the war in Iraq was an exercise of hubristic folly.

This was, they maintain, a bad war and it is not a great stretch from thinking that to believing that the resistance – to use a term that dignifies the “resisters” more than they deserve – is justified. They may be using the wrong tactics, but their hearts are in the right place surely. …

Mr Kissinger was right to note that “Iraq is turning into the test case” for the future of US foreign policy. Success or failure will in large part determine who holds the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next year and, more importantly, will decide whether the US?s quasi-evangelical mission of pursuing and fostering reform across the Middle East continues.

As Condoleezza Rice testified before the 9/11 Commission last week, this is a generational struggle. “We?re not going to see success on our watch. We will see some small victories on our watch.” That was a chilling but accurate analysis. (04/13/04 Scotsman/Massie)

Christian Science Monitor:

In an unsure, complicated, and scary world, George W. Bush seems a rock of certainty. You can pose a lot of different questions to him on a variety of topics – education, the economy, terrorism – and he’ll have a solution for you, most often the simple, straightforward variety.

In the middle of a bumpy patch, this is President Bush’s electoral strength. There’s not a lot of good news for the president in the poll numbers right now. Some surveys have his opponent John Kerry ahead. People are doubting the course in Iraq and questioning his handling of the economy.

But the administration believes individual poll numbers mean little, particularly in April. And they can point to one solid finding in almost every survey: Mr. Bush is seen as a strong leader. He’s decisive and knows what he wants. …

Now, faced with revolts around Iraq, the administration says not to worry, because it’s just a small minority and most of the Iraqis like what the US is doing there. Maybe, but do they like the US plan for the future and are they willing to fight for it? Are they really ready for a democracy? Are they really ready for us to turn over power at the end of June? And to whom will we turn it over, exactly?

Somewhere at the White House there probably are clear, strong-leader, if/then answers to those questions. At some point, the administration may even share them. But when you hear them, listen carefully. Simple, definitive answers can be comforting – but in a complicated world, they often don’t compute.

If they don’t compute by November, voters will be looking to reboot the political system – and the president, strong leader and all, will likely find himself booted from office. (04/13/04 CSM/Chinni)

Associated Press, Jennifer Loven:

Neither Bush’s 17 minutes of opening remarks nor the 15 questions that followed strayed from those two topics, which the president has made central to his re-election but on which his support in polls has declined markedly. Nonetheless, the president expressed confidence he would win over voters this fall. …

Though nearly half the questions Bush fielded offered him the chance to admit a mistake or express regret for his administration’s actions in Iraq or on the 2001 attacks, he never did – except to apologize that he couldn’t come up with any example of a failing.

“I don’t want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I’m confident I have,” he said. “I just haven’t – you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I’m not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.”

“I don’t want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I’m confident I have,” he said. “I just haven’t – you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I’m not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.” …

On Sept. 11, Bush said he “oftentimes” asks himself what he could have done differently before the attacks. He said, for instance, that he wished that a Homeland Security Department he initially opposed had been created sooner, that the Patriot Act had been passed earlier, and that the country – and the world – were more ready for action against al-Qaida in Afghanistan.

“There are some things I wish we’d have done, when I look back. I mean, hindsight’s easy,” he said.

But, he added, “The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden.” (04/14/04 AP/Loven)

04/14/04 Washington Times/Lakely/Sammon

Larry King Live, April 13, 2004

LARRY KING, HOST: President Bush making his case on Iraq and his pre-9-11 handling of terrorism. Only hours after Attorney General John Ashcroft capped a big day of testimony before the 9-11 commission. Now, with their first reaction to the president, 9-11 commission Chair Thomas Kean and Vice Chair Lee Hamilton. … Let’s start with our commission chairman and vice chairman. Chairman Kean, what did you make of the press conference, overall?

THOMAS KEAN, CHAIRMAN, 9/11 COMMISSION: Well, I thought the press conference was well done. It was — most of it was on Iraq. Very little of it was on our hearings. But I think the president made a good case for his point of view. A good case for why the troops should stay in Iraq. And a good case for, in his point of view, the war in Iraq. But our issue, 9/11, got very little attention.

KING: And Congressman Hamilton, were you surprised at that, that 9-11 was a very small part of this?

LEE HAMILTON, VICE CHAIRMAN, 9/11 COMMISSION: Well, the president commented on 9/11 several times, but the overwhelming issue at the moment before the American people is the war in Iraq. So the president’s news conference and his remarks at the beginning of his news conference clearly focused on where the American people were. You can’t have the kind of pictures we’ve seen on television about the violence there. You cannot have the kind of casualties we’ve suffered in recent days without the American people being heavily focused on Iraq. No surprise to me.

KING: Chairman Kean, you heard from the attorney general today. And there was conflicting testimony with the former FBI guy over who said what to when. When you head a commission, and it’s he said/she says, who do you believe?

KEAN: Well, eventually we have got to sort it out. You seek for any corroborating testimony, if somebody heard somebody say something to somebody else, I suppose you can put it together. But that’s not the most important things we’re talking about. I mean, the most important thing we were talking about really today was, are the intelligence agencies of the United States, the FBI and the CIA, do they work? I mean, we talked about a presidential daily briefing that came up from the CIA. Was that intelligence meaningful? Did the president get the right information? Or did the president get junk, in a sense?

That’s the kind of thing we’re talking about. It’s absolutely vital for this world we’re moving into that the FBI and the CIA work. That they’re really good agencies. They haven’t been. The question is whether they will be in the future.

KING: What’s the cure for that, Congressman Hamilton, for that imbalance?

HAMILTON: Well, we’re looking hard at that. And I don’t think either the chairman or myself want to try to make a judgment about that now.

I’m encouraged by the fact that the president has apparently an open mind with regard to the structure and the intelligence community. Condi Rice, when she testified the other day, emphasized that there were a lot of structural defects or structural reasons for not getting the kind of information around that Governor Kean referred to a moment ago.

So we’re looking at a variety of options. We had a lot of advice on it today. We’ll have some more tomorrow as to how best to organize the federal government so you get the kind of flow of information to the top that you need. And the problem here, of course, is that the U.S. government, at any moment in time, receives millions of bytes of data and you’ve got to bring all of that data together. You’ve got to collect it. You’ve got to analyze it. A lot of it is in foreign languages. And you’ve got to disseminate to it the right people at the right time. That’s a huge task.

…

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), KY, MAJORITY WHIP: Well, I think he laid out a good case, Larry, for doing what we’ve done since 9/11, which is to try to drain the swamp. I mean the president is being criticized by some for not acting soon enough prior to 9/11 and then for acting too soon in Iraq. …

GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D), NM, FMR. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: Well, I thought the president was strong. He was resolute. He obviously has a lot of convictions and he’s to be commended for that.

At the same time, Larry, I was concerned that he didn’t answer some of the basic questions. Number one, what are we going to do? Who are we handing over power to June 30? The Sunnis, the Shiites they’re fighting each other. Are our troops secure?

Newsnight with Aaron Brown 04/13/40

JONAH GOLDBERG, “THE NATIONAL REVIEW”: It may be too soon to tell. I think what he definitely did do is what he needed to do, which is go on the offensive. I think, in many ways, they’re waiting for a lull in Iraq. They’re waiting for some good news in Iraq. They’re waiting for the opportunity just to get a word in edgewise and go on the offensive rather than sort of hunkering down. And I think his opening statement was successful on that front. I think most of the Q&A was successful on that front. And it just — it was such a busy news day, it will be interesting to see whether the tide really does turn.

JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: Well, I guess, you know, after, what, five tries from reporters’ different phrasings, they tried to get him to say whether he had done anything wrong, whether he had anything to apologize for, it is very clear this president feels he does not have anything to apologize for. We did hear him, as John King reported, say that he is sure he made mistakes, but at this point he doesn’t know what they are.

Aaron, I really do believe that what John just said is critical for President Bush. He is hanging the entire war in Iraq on persuading the American people that this is going to make the United States safer from terrorism. And in the last CNN/”Time” poll that came out just a few days ago, the percentage of people who believe that Iraq — the war has made this country safer is down to 40 percent. That’s a 10 percent drop over the last year.

I’m not one to dwell on polls, but this is something that has got to be of concern to the White House. And I don’t think — we heard the president say it over and over again tonight. The question is, is it getting through?

…

ZAKARIA: A lot of bridges have burned. I think if you go back a year when the war was over, France and Germany come forward and say we want to help, just put it under U.N. auspices, NATO comes forward and says that, what we never realized was that — and I desire to say this — that we would have a legitimacy problem in Iraq.

We are the United States of America. We come with all the baggage that that means in the sense that we are very powerful. We are seen as propping up Arab dictators. WE are seen as being very pro-Israel.

Right or wrong, I am saying we had an image problem. And we didn’t work hard enough to say, how do we get the legitimacy to be able to stay and do all the good things that the President wants to do. Now it will still help. June 30 comes; we need two forms of legitimacy. International is not the only one. The more important one is Domestic.

BROWN: Domestic in Iraq?

ZAKARIA: Domestic with Iraq. Actually I would say three things actually. You need domestic in Iraq. The Iraqi people, the Iraqi real political leaders, not exiles from London. International and the U.N. And you need domestic legitimacy at home in the states.

One of the things the President hasn’t done enough is to reach out to the other party. And try to make this a bipartisan endeavor. I think that if you look the President talks about being a war president. Franklin Roosevelt appointed as his Secretary of War, a Republican. As his two assistant Secretaries of War, Republicans.

Harry Truman presents the Marshall plan, and appoints a Republican, Paul Hoffman (ph), to run it. I think if you want to get the other party invested in the success of your enterprise, we need to do that kind of bipartisanship.

…

HOSNI MUBARAK, PRESIDENT, EGYPT: It’s not a problem to create for us, but I would like to point out something. Any unilateral withdrawal I think is much far better to me (UNINTELLIGIBLE) with the Palestinians, so as not to have much more problems.

Secondly, the withdrawal should be connected with the road map. Third point, that any withdrawal should be as a step forward to draw from other places. This is a very important point.

And you know our position from the beginning, that withdrawal should be according to 1967 borders.

BROWN: Is there a concern that an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza will create a security vacuum that will be filled by the most radical elements of Palestinian society?

MUBARAK: Well, I’m trying to tell you, before the withdrawal, this should be discussed with the Palestinians, so that the Palestinians could prepare themselves for their police to put a plan how to secure their area, how to prevent any more escalation. Otherwise, the situation will be much more complicated.

BROWN: The Israelis, as you know, have concerns about the smuggling of arms, coming in into Gaza. On your side of the border, are you prepared to do more in an effort to provide the Israelis with some assurance.

MUBARAK: Look, my friend, let us be very frank. We are doing the maximum effort, we’ll never let that happen. But it could happen on any border in the world. We cannot secure border 100 percent. But border — the smuggling could come from other places. Not only from the Egyptian borders. We have forces there to maintain any kind of smuggling, but this could happen anywhere. From the sea, from the other side. It is not a problem.