The Three Stooges Meet DeSade
I have come to understand that I am not alone in finding it nigh-on impossible to watch any extended speaking session by the President. Or at least the sorts he obviously prefers, with most material seemingly scripted (aside from the endearing – or jarring, you decide – malapropisms and tonguetangles) and any apparent questions from the “audience” in the category of fat underhand lobs intended to raise his faltering batting average.
A big part of this, at least for me, is that the Bush-whacker seems to channel the darker side of Jim Carrey or Jerry Lewis, albeit with a malevolent, sneering, spiteful, and meanspirited quality rarely found in the work of those two entertainers. I enjoy the work of both of them, but it can’t be denied that some of it can be jarring, offputting, and downright disturbing. Throw in some nasty Nixon-like hints of psychopathology, leaven with a conspicuous tone of condescension, and let the reality that this is the “leader of the free world” we’re talking about sink in, and frankly I’d rather pick fleas off a rabid dog.
So I am especially appreciative of the efforts of those with stronger constitutions or stronger flight-suppressants than I have access to. I have seen a multitude of interesting and insightful reporting throughout the ether on the recent speeches and press conferences organized in an apparent attempt by Bush’s Fantasy Presidency Team to hold off reality for just a little longer. The degree of desperation behind this almost-unprecedented executive face-time is signaled by the inclusion of actual Q&A with reporters. I’ll be linking here to two exceptional examples of thoughtful commentary.
I’ll start with a closeup, focused on one brief bit that immediately grabbed my attention: George’s assertion that he’d not previously heard of the idea that some “prophetic Christians” find recent events in the MidEast and Iraq in particular evocative of an imminent apocalypse. Personally I’d give more credence to a claim that he’d never before heard that use of fertility-enhancing drugs can lead to multiple births. But while I was still trying to pull some fresh oxygen into my lungs I came across a piece by Ms. Huffington that says it better than I can. Her whole post is worth a read, but here are key excerpts:
Do you believe this, that the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the apocalypse? And if not, why not?"
The president was clearly taken aback. He reacted as if he'd just seen a burning bush -- or had just been asked a really hard math question.
First he hemmed. Then he hawed. Then he hemmed some more.
"Um... uh... I... The answer is, I haven't really thought of it that way," he finally spit out. "Here's how I think of it. The first I've heard of that, by the way. I guess I'm more of a practical fellow." He then abruptly Left Behind the question at hand and went off on a long, standard-issue answer about 9/11 and fighting terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here.
It was the least convincing performance since, well, since the why-I'm-optimistic-about-Iraq speech that preceded it.
[clip]
So why the president's over-the-top, "first I've heard of that" denial? If he really hasn't given any thought to the idea that the war on terror, which he has so frequently described as a battle between "good" and "evil," is in any way connected to the Biblical battle of Armageddon, wouldn't a simple "Hell no" have sufficed?
And yesterday’s press conference, featuring as it did the exotica of un-scripted questions from journalists not on the White House payroll, was too newsworthy to miss altogether. Fortunately Mr. Froomkin (among others) does a terrific job of covering the lights, both high and low. I’ve been a little more generous with the clips here (this is the wideangle shot), but do see the original post for much excellent detail I painfully excised as well as proper linkage to commentary from numerous sources:
At yesterday's press conference, President Bush joked around with reporters, angrily waggled his finger at them, and even called on the redoubtable Helen Thomas for the first time in three years -- but that doesn't mean he actually answered their questions.
Bush made the most news with two offhand, possibly even accidental admissions amid the familiar and increasingly ineffective talking points that took up most of the hour.
When asked if American forces will ever completely leave Iraq, Bush replied: "That, of course, is an objective, and that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq."
Asked if he still felt he had political capital, he said, almost as an aside: "I'd say I'm spending that capital on the war."
More typically unforthcoming was his non-answer to Washington Post reporter Jim VandeHei's excellent question: "A growing number of Americans are questioning the trustworthiness of you and this White House. Does that concern you?"
Bush just wouldn't say. "I believe that my job is to go out and explain to people what's on my mind," he replied, launching himself on a rambling discourse on war followed by a straw-man attack on unnamed people who don't take al Qaeda seriously.
The best television, by far, came when Bush called on Helen Thomas, the 85-year-old dean of the White House press corps. Bush hadn't called on the former UPI reporter -- now a Hearst columnist and avowed Bush critic -- in three years.
Given the opportunity, Thomas asked the same question she has asked spokesman Scott McClellan countless times: Why did Bush really go to war in Iraq? She then interrupted, contradicted and harrumphed dismissively as Bush hit the familiar talking points he always does.
[clip]
[not on his watch!]
James Gerstenzang writes in the Los Angeles Times: "President Bush said Tuesday that U.S. troops would remain in Iraq beyond his presidency, a message that could complicate his effort to reassure an increasingly skittish public that the military deployment is not open-ended. . . .
"The president had not previously stated that the military role would continue beyond the end of his second term, on Jan. 20, 2009, a White House spokesman said."
William Douglas writes for Knight Ridder Newspapers: "Bush's statement flies in the face of U.S. public opinion. A Gallup Poll released Friday found that a clear majority of Americans, 60 percent, think the war isn't worth the costs, 19 percent called for immediately withdrawing U.S. troops, another 35 percent favored a pullout by March 2007 and only 39 percent said troops should remain in Iraq indefinitely."
[clip]
[what capital?]
Elisabeth Bumiller writes in the New York Times: "President Bush said Tuesday that the war in Iraq was eroding his political capital, his starkest admission yet about the costs of the conflict to his presidency, and suggested that American forces would remain in the country until at least 2009. . . .
"Mr. Bush in effect acknowledged that until he could convince increasingly skeptical Americans that the United States was winning the war, Iraq would overshadow everything he did."
Tom Raum writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush says he's spending his remaining 'political capital' on the war in Iraq. The trouble is, he may have little left."
[clip]
[the strawman gambit]
Frank James writes in Chicago Tribune's Washington blog: "The press conference once again showed the president's fondness for the old debater's trick of setting up straw men and knocking them down, the result being that you look like you've demolished your opponents' ridiculous argument."
In the long non-answer to VandeHei's question about his credibility, Bush spoke at some length about what he called the "totalitarian movement that is willing to spread its propaganda through death and destruction, to spread its philosophy."
BUSH: "Now, some in this country don't -- I can understand -- that don't view the enemy that way. I guess they kind of view it as an isolated group of people that occasionally kill. I just don't see it that way. . . . I take them really seriously, and I think everybody in government should take them seriously and respond accordingly."
James writes: "I've listened in Washington to many critics of the president's prosecution of the war on terror for several years now. Not once have I heard any of them minimize the threat represented by al Qaeda or its shadowy allies. . . .
"It's not an understanding of al Qaeda's aims that critics, including some Republicans, differ with the president on but the correct response. . . .
[clip]
[Helen Thomas]
Bush surprised everyone in the room when he called on Thomas, ostensibly to reward her for her well-received performance as Hillary Clinton at the recent Gridiron Club dinner. (Thomas played Clinton as Scarlett O'Hara and sang: "All I want is a plantation, Big White House paid by taxation. A Hil'ry coronation, Oh, wouldn't it be loverly.")
[clip]
"Q I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?
"THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect –
[clip]
[fact-checking]
Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Dick Polman writes in his blog: "Bush defenders complain all the time that the mainstream media 'bashes' the president too much. I would argue, however, that the media's role is to hold any president accountable for what he says, and when he says things that are contradicted by the record, it's our job to point it out.
"So let's compare Bush's Monday claim to the factual record."
For instance, Polman takes on Bush's insistence that he didn't want war. That "is contradicted by the factual record," Polman writes.
" Time magazine reported in March 2003 that one year before the war, Bush had poked his head into a White House room and told three senators, '(Expletive) Saddam, we're taking him out.' And on July 23, 2002, long before Bush went to the United Nations, his British allies met with him and subsequently wrote, in the now-famous Downing Street memos, that Bush 'had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided.' Neither the Time anecdote, nor the British memos, have been disputed by the White House."
[clip]
A big part of this, at least for me, is that the Bush-whacker seems to channel the darker side of Jim Carrey or Jerry Lewis, albeit with a malevolent, sneering, spiteful, and meanspirited quality rarely found in the work of those two entertainers. I enjoy the work of both of them, but it can’t be denied that some of it can be jarring, offputting, and downright disturbing. Throw in some nasty Nixon-like hints of psychopathology, leaven with a conspicuous tone of condescension, and let the reality that this is the “leader of the free world” we’re talking about sink in, and frankly I’d rather pick fleas off a rabid dog.
So I am especially appreciative of the efforts of those with stronger constitutions or stronger flight-suppressants than I have access to. I have seen a multitude of interesting and insightful reporting throughout the ether on the recent speeches and press conferences organized in an apparent attempt by Bush’s Fantasy Presidency Team to hold off reality for just a little longer. The degree of desperation behind this almost-unprecedented executive face-time is signaled by the inclusion of actual Q&A with reporters. I’ll be linking here to two exceptional examples of thoughtful commentary.
I’ll start with a closeup, focused on one brief bit that immediately grabbed my attention: George’s assertion that he’d not previously heard of the idea that some “prophetic Christians” find recent events in the MidEast and Iraq in particular evocative of an imminent apocalypse. Personally I’d give more credence to a claim that he’d never before heard that use of fertility-enhancing drugs can lead to multiple births. But while I was still trying to pull some fresh oxygen into my lungs I came across a piece by Ms. Huffington that says it better than I can. Her whole post is worth a read, but here are key excerpts:
Do you believe this, that the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the apocalypse? And if not, why not?"
The president was clearly taken aback. He reacted as if he'd just seen a burning bush -- or had just been asked a really hard math question.
First he hemmed. Then he hawed. Then he hemmed some more.
"Um... uh... I... The answer is, I haven't really thought of it that way," he finally spit out. "Here's how I think of it. The first I've heard of that, by the way. I guess I'm more of a practical fellow." He then abruptly Left Behind the question at hand and went off on a long, standard-issue answer about 9/11 and fighting terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here.
It was the least convincing performance since, well, since the why-I'm-optimistic-about-Iraq speech that preceded it.
[clip]
So why the president's over-the-top, "first I've heard of that" denial? If he really hasn't given any thought to the idea that the war on terror, which he has so frequently described as a battle between "good" and "evil," is in any way connected to the Biblical battle of Armageddon, wouldn't a simple "Hell no" have sufficed?
And yesterday’s press conference, featuring as it did the exotica of un-scripted questions from journalists not on the White House payroll, was too newsworthy to miss altogether. Fortunately Mr. Froomkin (among others) does a terrific job of covering the lights, both high and low. I’ve been a little more generous with the clips here (this is the wideangle shot), but do see the original post for much excellent detail I painfully excised as well as proper linkage to commentary from numerous sources:
At yesterday's press conference, President Bush joked around with reporters, angrily waggled his finger at them, and even called on the redoubtable Helen Thomas for the first time in three years -- but that doesn't mean he actually answered their questions.
Bush made the most news with two offhand, possibly even accidental admissions amid the familiar and increasingly ineffective talking points that took up most of the hour.
When asked if American forces will ever completely leave Iraq, Bush replied: "That, of course, is an objective, and that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq."
Asked if he still felt he had political capital, he said, almost as an aside: "I'd say I'm spending that capital on the war."
More typically unforthcoming was his non-answer to Washington Post reporter Jim VandeHei's excellent question: "A growing number of Americans are questioning the trustworthiness of you and this White House. Does that concern you?"
Bush just wouldn't say. "I believe that my job is to go out and explain to people what's on my mind," he replied, launching himself on a rambling discourse on war followed by a straw-man attack on unnamed people who don't take al Qaeda seriously.
The best television, by far, came when Bush called on Helen Thomas, the 85-year-old dean of the White House press corps. Bush hadn't called on the former UPI reporter -- now a Hearst columnist and avowed Bush critic -- in three years.
Given the opportunity, Thomas asked the same question she has asked spokesman Scott McClellan countless times: Why did Bush really go to war in Iraq? She then interrupted, contradicted and harrumphed dismissively as Bush hit the familiar talking points he always does.
[clip]
[not on his watch!]
James Gerstenzang writes in the Los Angeles Times: "President Bush said Tuesday that U.S. troops would remain in Iraq beyond his presidency, a message that could complicate his effort to reassure an increasingly skittish public that the military deployment is not open-ended. . . .
"The president had not previously stated that the military role would continue beyond the end of his second term, on Jan. 20, 2009, a White House spokesman said."
William Douglas writes for Knight Ridder Newspapers: "Bush's statement flies in the face of U.S. public opinion. A Gallup Poll released Friday found that a clear majority of Americans, 60 percent, think the war isn't worth the costs, 19 percent called for immediately withdrawing U.S. troops, another 35 percent favored a pullout by March 2007 and only 39 percent said troops should remain in Iraq indefinitely."
[clip]
[what capital?]
Elisabeth Bumiller writes in the New York Times: "President Bush said Tuesday that the war in Iraq was eroding his political capital, his starkest admission yet about the costs of the conflict to his presidency, and suggested that American forces would remain in the country until at least 2009. . . .
"Mr. Bush in effect acknowledged that until he could convince increasingly skeptical Americans that the United States was winning the war, Iraq would overshadow everything he did."
Tom Raum writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush says he's spending his remaining 'political capital' on the war in Iraq. The trouble is, he may have little left."
[clip]
[the strawman gambit]
Frank James writes in Chicago Tribune's Washington blog: "The press conference once again showed the president's fondness for the old debater's trick of setting up straw men and knocking them down, the result being that you look like you've demolished your opponents' ridiculous argument."
In the long non-answer to VandeHei's question about his credibility, Bush spoke at some length about what he called the "totalitarian movement that is willing to spread its propaganda through death and destruction, to spread its philosophy."
BUSH: "Now, some in this country don't -- I can understand -- that don't view the enemy that way. I guess they kind of view it as an isolated group of people that occasionally kill. I just don't see it that way. . . . I take them really seriously, and I think everybody in government should take them seriously and respond accordingly."
James writes: "I've listened in Washington to many critics of the president's prosecution of the war on terror for several years now. Not once have I heard any of them minimize the threat represented by al Qaeda or its shadowy allies. . . .
"It's not an understanding of al Qaeda's aims that critics, including some Republicans, differ with the president on but the correct response. . . .
[clip]
[Helen Thomas]
Bush surprised everyone in the room when he called on Thomas, ostensibly to reward her for her well-received performance as Hillary Clinton at the recent Gridiron Club dinner. (Thomas played Clinton as Scarlett O'Hara and sang: "All I want is a plantation, Big White House paid by taxation. A Hil'ry coronation, Oh, wouldn't it be loverly.")
[clip]
"Q I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?
"THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect –
[clip]
[fact-checking]
Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Dick Polman writes in his blog: "Bush defenders complain all the time that the mainstream media 'bashes' the president too much. I would argue, however, that the media's role is to hold any president accountable for what he says, and when he says things that are contradicted by the record, it's our job to point it out.
"So let's compare Bush's Monday claim to the factual record."
For instance, Polman takes on Bush's insistence that he didn't want war. That "is contradicted by the factual record," Polman writes.
" Time magazine reported in March 2003 that one year before the war, Bush had poked his head into a White House room and told three senators, '(Expletive) Saddam, we're taking him out.' And on July 23, 2002, long before Bush went to the United Nations, his British allies met with him and subsequently wrote, in the now-famous Downing Street memos, that Bush 'had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided.' Neither the Time anecdote, nor the British memos, have been disputed by the White House."
[clip]
posted by Sir Gumbo at 2:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home