The Note

ByABC News
April 15, 2004, 9:04 AM

W A S H I N G T O N, April 14&#151;<br> -- TODAY SCHEDULE (all times ET)

FUTURES CALENDAR

NEWS SUMMARY

We know what the Washington press corps thinks of the President's performance last night.

We have no idea what the body language of the senior White House staff during the cut-aways meant.

We know what Bill Kristol thought of the President's performance last night (thanks to Ron Brownstein's West Coast deadlines).

We know that Rand Beers shares the White House reporters' lust to have a Bush apology over 9/11.

We have no idea what swing state voters thought of the speech/presser although we do have a look at swing state newspaper headlines below.

So, while we wait for the next round of polls (all of us except the President, that is), and for the Bush-Cheney just-cause joint appearance before the 9/11 panel, busy yourself by not overreacting to the Los Angeles Times story on Bush-Cheney scaling back its media buy or (yet) another Boston Globe look at John Kerry's Vietnam past.

President Bush meets with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and participates in a joint media availability at the White House.

Sen. Kerry holds several fundraising events in New York City and a political event with Sen. Clinton.

The 9/11 commission hears testimonies from CIA Director George Tenet and FBI Director Robert Mueller.

The FEC debates the fate of 527s.

ABC News Vote 2004: The President faces the nation:

Press coverage of the President's press conference last night focused on similar points across the board: the lack of acknowledgment of mistakes, errors, or responsibility by the president; his tone during the question and answer period compared to his prepared remarks (defiant/defensive versus calm and methodical), and the questions that he did not answer first and foremost why he and Cheney are appearing for questions before the 9/11 commission together.

The Washington Post's Mike Allen was able to sneak in a follow-up question to try to get an answer to that one, but the president just repeated that he was looking forward to meeting with the commission.

The New York Times' Stevenson and Jehl examine Bush's statement last evening night which "strongly reaffirmed his plan to transfer sovereignty in Iraq back to Iraqis on June 30," indicating that "the consequences of failing to follow through on his commitment to bring stability to that nation were unthinkable". LINK

The New York Times ' Sanger writes that Bush "acknowledged no error, no change of course, and he gave no ground to the critics, including his Democratic opponent for the presidency, Senator John Kerry, who argues that Mr. Bush's strategy has been flawed since the day he decided to invade Iraq without the blessing of the United Nations. But it was his tone that was most striking a solemn, determined call for toughness that the country has rarely seen since the day Mr. Bush announced the war against the Taliban in 2001, and against Saddam Hussein a year ago." LINK

For those reporters who can't seem to develop sources in this Administration who ever deviate from the (Republican) party line, Sanger has this passage of pure taunt: "It is not difficult to find aides to Mr. Bush who question whether the intelligence about unconventional destruction was flawed. It is easy to find members of the administration who question whether L. Paul Bremer III should have disbanded the army, or taken on Moktada al-Sadr . . . without a clear plan ."

The Los Angeles Times' Reynolds echoes , " he acknowledged no errors in his handling of the war in Iraq or failings related to the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon." She also Notes it was the longest evening news conference of his presidency. LINK

Ron Brownstein had news analysis duties for the Los Angeles Times and he places George W. Bush in "the danger zone."

"Long on goals and short on means, his performance left even some supporters [namely Bill Kristol] wondering whether he had found a formula to reassure the growing number of Americans expressing doubt in polls about his course," Brownstein writes. LINK

"Although acknowledging disappointments with developments in Iraq and grief over the losses of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush said that there was no reason to apologize for the government's performance before the attacks and that he could think of no mistake he had made since the attacks," write the Washington Post's Milbank and Allen in their overview. LINK

Dan Balz turns in the Washington Post's analysis and doesn't mince words in his first sentence: "An unapologetic President Bush stood before the nation last night."

Balz writes that the press conference was less about a change in direction or thinking from the President, but instead, the purpose was "to restate his determination to stay the course and to argue anew that the war in Iraq will make America more secure."

Balz also looks at the political implications: "Bush expects to benefit from his handling of the war on terrorism and from the war in Iraq, but that depends on his ability to show the kind of progress on the ground that he has spoken of repeatedly. Last night, he offered a picture of where he hopes Iraq will be eventually, but whether he can lead the way remains an open question." LINK

The President's remarks last night "represent his most ringing defense to date of his decision to invade Iraq nearly 13 months ago," write the Wall Street Journal's Cooper and Cummings. The duo also Note the president's connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda "In essence, Mr. Bush said that war in Iraq and war on terror are the same, and at one point referred to Iraq as 'a theater in the war on terror.'"

The Boston Globe 's Kornblut writes that while the name Kerry never came up in the press conference, "the questions were delivered against a charged political backdrop, many of them drawn directly from criticisms Kerry and other Democrats have leveled in the campaign."LINK

Leading with President Bush's assertion that he would send more troops to Iraq if necessary, AP's Hunt writes that the president rejected comparisons to Vietnam but picking up on the political theme, he Notes that Bush addressed "matters of war and peace" but "election-year politics shadowed the proceedings."LINK

USA Today 's Keen and Benedetto wrap: LINK

And Keen turns around and joins Memmott for analysis: LINK

The Washington Times' Lakely and Sammon focus on the June 30 handover in Iraq: LINK

While the Times' Curl turns his eye on his colleagues, Noting that the "gaggle of White House correspondents finally got to ask President Bush what they have quietly been asking in the cramped press quarters just off the Oval Office." LINK

The Chicago Tribune's Kemper Notes that "Bush's success Tuesday was a political imperative."LINK

Other write-ups of the press conference.

New York Post: LINK

New York Daily News: LINK

John Podhoretz sticks up for the president on the New York Post op-ed page: and gives Bush the win over the press corps: LINK

And on the New York Times ' editorial page, two questions remained unanswered from the president last night "how to move Iraq from its current chaos, and what he has learned from the 9/11 investigations."LINK

The DNC was quick(ish) with its response to last night's press conference, sending out its key points within an hour from President Bush's exit from the East Room. The main thrust from the DNC: Bush failed to take responsibility, respond to questions, and continued to repeat "outright lies and distortions" on Iraq.

ABC News Vote 2004: The President faces the nation: the view from the states:

Some headline from the battlegrounds and elsewhere, indicating that the President was somewhat able to frame the press conference to his benefit.