A couple of days ago, I posted the full transcript of the press conference between President Bush and Putin after their meeting. In that post, I highlighted in bold what I thought were remarks worth noting and looking into. One journalist, in particular, threw a weird question out there, asking:

To follow up on the issue of democratic institutions, President Bush recently stated that the press in Russia is not free. What is this lack of freedom all about?

Your aides probably mentioned to you that our media, both electronic and our printed media, have full coverage on the manifestations and protests in our country. Our regional and national media often criticize the government institution.

What about ???????? why don????????t you talk a lot about violation of rights of journalists in the United States, about the fact that some journalists have been fired or do you prefer to discuss this in private with your American colleague?

The question was obviously loaded, being an allusion to Dan Rather. President Bush handled it well, and alluded himself to the question being raised in his discussion with Putin. President Putin had this to say about the Russian press (this is the part I highlighted and remarked to):

When we discuss these issues, absolutely frankly, we ???????? and I, in particular ???????? do not think that this has to be pushed to the foreground; that new problems should be created from nothing. And I do not think that we should jeopardize the Russian-American relationship, because we????????re interested in the development of this relationship. ÄFrankly, it should not be Putin????????s decision whether new problems should arise from the press or not. The way he talks even just reeks of his statist attitude.Å

More details of the confrontation between President Bush and Putin during the actual meeting appeared in the press today. I saw it first at Drudge, who reported:

But when Bush talked about the Kremlin’s crackdown on the media and explained that democracies require a free press, the Russian leader gave a rebuttal that left the President nonplussed, TIME magazine will report on Monday.

If the press was so free in the U.S., Putin asked, then why had those reporters at CBS lost their jobs? Bush was openmouthed. “Putin thought we’d fired Dan Rather,” says a senior Administration official. “It was like something out of 1984.”

TIME’s John Dickerson: The Russians did not let the matter drop. Later, during the leaders’ joint press conference, one of the questioners Putin called on asked Bush about the very same firings, a coincidence the White House assumed had been orchestrated. The odd episode reinforced the Administration’s view that Putin’s impressions of America are often based on urban myths fed to him by ill-informed aides.

Richard Wolffe from Newsweek writes about the affair as well:

When Bush confronted his Russian counterpart about the freedom of the press in Russia, Putin shot back with an attack of his own: “We didn’t criticize you when you fired those reporters at CBS.”

It’s not clear how well Putin understands the controversy that led to the dismissal of four CBS journalists over the discredited report on Bush’s National Guard service. Yet it’s all too clear how Putin sees the relationship between Bush and the American media????????just like his own. Bush’s aides have long feared that former KGB officers in Putin’s inner circle are painting a twisted picture of U.S. policy. So Bush explained how he had no power to fire American journalists. It made little difference. When the two presidents emerged for their joint press conference, one Russian reporter repeated Putin’s language about journalists getting fired. Bush (already hot after an earlier question about his spying on U.S. citizens) asked the reporter if he felt free. “They obviously planted the question,” said one of Bush’s senior aides.

The words almost escape me. Almost. I don’t believe that it is just Putin’s KGB agents feeding him this stuff about the American government; I think it’s a world view that he believes about government in general just because it is the type that Russia has had for so many years.

UPDATE: Oxblog has thoughts on this:

No quesiton that Putin is an unrepentant liar and an emerging dictator. But I think the Post misunderstands what President Bush was trying to achieve. This was his first meeting with Putin after an inaugural address that committed the United States to an unmitigated policy of global democracy promotion. Thus, W. wasn’t going to demand an abject (and highly public)surrender from the Russian thug. Rather, he wanted to feel him out and make clear on a very personal level that he, Bush, cares a lot about democracy promotion. From where I stand, the crucial statement from Bush was this:

“I think the most important statement that you heard, and I heard, was the President’s Äi.e. Putin’sÅ statement, when he declared his absolute support for democracy in Russia, and they’re not turning back. To me, that is the most important statement of my private meeting, and it’s the most important statement of this public press conference. And I can tell you what it’s like dealing with the man over the last four years: When he tells you something, he means it.”

By itself, that last sentence is absurd. When Putin’s tells something to you and I, he is probably lying through his teeth. But Putin is smart enough to know that he can’t constantly lie to Bush and get away with it. He can lie to the Russian public and to the American public without consequences. But every gangster knows better than to f*** with the godfather.

Like Reagan, Bush has a very personal diplomatic style. Again like Reagan, Bush pretty much speaks his mind, both on the record and off. Thus, when Bush says that Putin made a serious commitment to democracy at a private meeting with the President of the United States of America, that is exactly what Bush means. He has put Putin on the record and expects him to live up to his word, the same way that Bush lives up to his.
And… added to the blogroll.