I watch Bush press conferences, so you don’t have to

As he did last year, the president hosted a year-end press conference this morning; he even graciously gave White House reporters more than a few minutes beforehand.

It was a fairly light-hearted affair, but there were some relatively substantive exchanges. Here are the highlights from my notes.

* Retroactive immunity for telecoms: Before taking questions, Bush talked about what he’d like to see from Congress in the new year, and highlighted FISA: “The bill should include liability protection for companies that are facing multi-billion-dollar lawsuits, only because they are believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend or nation following the 9/11 attacks.” Bush may be confused — the telecoms started giving up information without warrants long before 9/11.

* CIA torture-tape controversy: It was the first question, and Bush clearly didn’t want to hear a second: “I am confident that the preliminary inquiry conducted by the AG and the IG of the CIA, coupled with the oversight provided by the Congress, will end up enabling us all to find out what exactly happened. And therefore, over the course of these inquiries and oversight hearings, I’m going to reserve judgment until I find out the full facts.” He would not elaborate, though if he wanted to, he could find out the “full facts” now — he’s the president.

* Presidential qualities: Bush, of course, wouldn’t talk about the 2008 election — he said didn’t want to be “the opiner-in-chief” — but one reporter asked about the kind of qualities he’d look for in a successor. The president emphasized he’d ask candidates, “[H]ow do you intend to get advice from people you surround yourself — who are you going to surround yourself, and what process will you have in place to ensure that you get the unvarnished opinion of advisors?” Given the impenetrable ideological bubble Bush has created, I found the response unintentionally hilarious.

* Iraq: A reporter noted that there’s been no political progress in Iraq, despite the fact that it was the point of the surge. He asked, “What benchmarks can the Iraqi government meet that would change this? What do you want them to do?” Bush immediately changed the question and dodged the point: “I don’t agree with your premise that there’s no politics taking place in Iraq. There is a functioning government….Your statement was, security didn’t provide room for a government to stand up and function. Well, it’s happening.” Actually, it’s not.

* Afghanistan: Asked about the performance of NATO countries in Afghanistan, Bush eventually said, “As you all know, I’ve said this many times from the podium, I do believe in the universality of freedom. I believe if people are given a chance to be free, they will do so. Now, I understand some don’t believe that. It’s kind of like we’re the only ones that can be free; it’s kind of the ultimate isolationism, isn’t it?” I wonder who those “some” people are, who believe “we’re the only ones that [sic] can be free? Bush is always at his best when he’s lashing a strawman.

* Global warming: Bush told reporters, “I told Vice President Gore that I take the issue seriously. And we’re developing a strategy that will deal with it, and an effective strategy.” I could almost hear the media chuckling in the background.

* International standing: Following up on Bill Clinton’s recent suggestion that he would travel abroad to promote American diplomacy, Mike Allen asked Bush if he would consider “a goodwill mission to restore the country’s good name abroad.” The president responded, “That’s what I do during my presidency. I go around spreading goodwill and talking about the importance of spreading freedom and peace.” Yes, because nothing’s done more to improve our standing around the world than Bush’s “spreading goodwill.”

* Lebanon: Commenting on Lebanese elections, Bush said, “Majority plus one ought to determine who the president is.” Given that he came in second in 2000, I wonder if he appreciated the irony.

* Taxes: Amazingly, Bush still believes in the Tax Fairy: “[W]e have been reducing the deficit. Pro-growth economic policies work. By cutting taxes, the economy grows, which yields more revenues for the treasury.” Poor guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

* Economic growth: Bush added, “[M]aybe somebody else thinks you can raise taxes and keep the economy growing; I don’t.” I often wonder if the president was conscious during the 1990s.

* War on Christmas: Don’t tell O’Reilly, but Bush used the word “holiday” five times during his press conference, including telling reporters, “Have a wonderful holiday season.” He only mentioned “Christmas” once, in passing. I’m looking forward to the Fox News boycott of the Bush White House.

Anyone else watch it? Did I miss anything noteworthy?

A couple of new Bushisms got me chuckling (you have to laugh to keep from crying). He tried several times without success to pronounce “omnibus” (like “nuclear”, those 3 syllable words sure can be tough). He also described the fuel standard in the energy bill in terms of “miles per hour” instead of “miles per gallon”.

  • Thank God you watched, Steve, because I just could not deal with it. It’s bad enough that I can “hear” Bush speak whenever I read what he said – that’s one voice in my head I could do without.

    As an aside, I think Bush looks just awful. Form the few – thankfully brief – clips I saw, it looked like his jaw was hula-hooping a little – anyone else pick up on that?

  • I’m waiting for one or more of his defenders to leave a comment suggesting he’s not stupid, and reminding everyone that he attended Harvard.

  • For 2008, be prepared for a spin-cycle that will never cease! By the time of the full-fledged presidential campaigns take off, plan on hearing the following from our wonderful Republican brethern:

    Congress forced us into Iraq! (Rovean talking point already)

    Congressional Democrats couldn’t pass SCHIP for our children – those baby killers!

    Congressional oversight has gotten in the way of bona fide investigations.

    Bill Clinton caused our current economic down-turn for some sort of reason even if it is merely we hate Bill and will blame him for everything.

    Torture is not unconstitutional if it can’t be defined, but merely a foreign policy “tool” in the arsenal necessary to kill the people who want to kill us first – whatever confused mental imagry this spin produces will surely appeal to the more fearful among us.

    So on and so on. Maybe we should take a bit of time to vet out the more obtusive spin that we will no doubt be subject to for the next year by this WH crowd. If you have a plausible spin this administration will shamelessly resort to instead of showing their strength to weather any level of accountability, please provide it so we can put it into the light. -Kevo

  • Bush: “I don’t agree with your premise that there’s no politics taking place in Iraq.

    What a fricking retard. No wonder so many Republicans think the GOP needs to lose another election cycle.

  • Bush’s bashing of Syria is hitting the wires around the world…

    “Bush ‘loses patience’ with Syria” – BBC News
    “Bush has harsh words for President Assad of Syria” – International Herald Tribune
    “Bush: No patience for Syria’s Assad” – AFP

    Unbelievable. The guy has the gall to bash Assad, insult the Lebanese ability to form their own government and then talk about going to the Middle East pushing for peace… never ceases to amaze me.

  • “That’s what I do during my presidency. I go around spreading goodwill and talking about the importance of spreading freedom and peace.”

    Yep, call him The Spreader.

    Like what farmers use, to throw manure on their fields.

  • Bush should thank Syria for the 1.2 million refugees they accepted from Iraq after he bombed the place to smithereens.

    50,000 refugees are fleeing every month – who is helping out?

    “Sweden has led the way in taking about 9,000. But Britain has been refusing almost all applications for asylum.

    Last year, the United States took in a few hundred Iraqis. Pushed by criticism it was doing little to deal with a crisis largely of its making, the United States has now announced it will take 7,000 more.”

    Well whoop-dee-doo.

  • I really and truly try to listen to it’s speeches ( know the enemy ) but after 5 minutes I become nauseated and have to tune out .

  • The only thing missing in Bush press conferences is the singing of ” Qumbya”. Notice Bush selects who is to plant the questions.

  • The shocker was right out of the gate, I was in disbelief that someone asked about the “ambiguity” in the president’s statement about knowledge of the “terror tapes”. Bush stated flatly that he did not see the ambiguity, then promptly repeated verbatim that obviously rehearsed slippery weasel of a line, “My first recollection of whether the tapes existed or were destroyed…”.

    But of course, this was MSM, and press conference, so after the quote, there was about five seconds of page rattling and whispers, then on to the next question.

    Clearly, there is some important facet of this torture business hiding behind this Larry Craig-like statement. It even has the same flow as “I wish to announce, that it is my intent, to resign my office…” Hopefully reporters will continue to pull the string and get him to repeat until someone finally asks, “Can you say simply that you did not know about the tapes before the briefing?” Because I still translate this repeated statement to mean, “I never gave the tapes a second thought after they were destroyed until Hayden briefed me.”

  • Hey, wait a minute now—the insolent simian might be on to something here. Suppose we do agree to grant the telcos immunity—but only for activities that are explicitly “post-9/11.” They could still be sued off the planet for pre-9/11 activities, but the Bu$hylvanians and their impish underlings wouldn’t have the talking point any more.

  • JKap wrote: “Shorter CB: trained chimpanzee speaks.”

    We’re lucky he didn’t feel the urge to throw his fecal matter at the press corps. On the other hand, the press corps probably deserves it at this point.

  • I’m waiting for one or more of his defenders to leave a comment suggesting he’s not stupid, and reminding everyone that he attended Harvard.

    The value of a Harvard degree has dropped dramatically over the past eight years. I wonder if Harvard will rescind the degree bestowed on the Faux President.

  • So many points, so little time.

    Iraq: A reporter noted that there’s been no political progress in Iraq…

    That’s not the case. The political progress is taking place not in Baghdad, but in provinces like Anbar and Diyala, where Sunni and Shia alike — finally realizing that AQI is killing them — are banding together and ratting out AQI cells to the Americans. That’s a major reason why the surge is working. Obviously some reporters are (willfully?) ignorant of such developments.

    Change is working its way up from the outlying areas to the central government… rather like the way it works (or is supposed to work) in America.

  • Form the few – thankfully brief – clips I saw, it looked like his jaw was hula-hooping a little — Anne @3

    I guess he was practicing for the role of the Camel in the WH Christmas play (no press allowed). Dick Deadye will be one of the Magi — the one with myrrh. It’s an herb which is used for covering up the smell of rotting corpses (you burn it)

    Mark @4 and Ronin @15

    The lingering bad smell must be what’s prompted Harvard to cut its fees recently…

  • You need a scorecard to discriminate between an SNL skit and a Bush “press” conference. The writers of both are interchangeable. I long ago shut off the radio or TV when Bush’s voice or face appeared. The man is so delusional he actually thinks someone pays any attention to what he says – other than the stenographic, and ass-kissing WH press corps..

  • Bush may be confused is lying his ass off— the telecoms started giving up information without warrants long before 9/11.

    There, CB, I fixed that for you. No charge.

  • Well, it looked fixed in the preview, but the strikethrough in “may be confused” didn’t take in the posting. But you get the idea.

  • My favorite bushish was “spreading goodwill”. – PW @ 1

    and to RacerX @ 6 ‘fricking retard” doesnt even begin to approach this clusterf$$$

  • On the Kyoto Protocol: he said that for any initiative to be effective, all parties had to be involved – and what did he do? He refused to sign on and now says it’s because China didn’t. So he believes that America has no need to behave responsibly until China does? Was that his excuse the first time, too?

  • BQ sez: He [Bush] refused to sign on [to Kyoto]…

    Um, no. Wrong. Kyoto was done in the 1990s — during the Clinton administration. Bill Clinton didn’t even bother to send the treaty to the Senate. The reason is that in July 1997, the Senate unanimously passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution which started out thus:

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that —

    (1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter…

    The myth that Bush ‘refused to sign the Kyoto treaty’ is another big lie brought to you by the usual suspects. But you don’t have to believe me — you can look it up yourself.

    BQ sez further: So he believes that America has no need to behave responsibly until China does?

    He believes there’s no point in crippling America’s economy while other countries are free to despoil the planet as they please — and he’s right. But that’s not to say we aren’t taking steps. I suggest you google the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate:

    The partnership, launched in mid-2005, is an agreement among six countries — Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the United States — to develop and share greenhouse-gasreduction technology to combat climate change. According to the AP6 Web site, the six partner countries “represent about half of the world’s economy, population and energy use, and they produce about 65% of the world’s coal, 48% of the world’s steel, 37% of world’s aluminum, and 61% of the world’s cement.” The countries also account for half the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions.

  • That’s not the case. The political progress is taking place not in Baghdad, but in provinces like Anbar and Diyala, where Sunni and Shia alike — finally realizing that AQI is killing them — are banding together and ratting out AQI cells to the Americans. That’s a major reason why the surge is working. Obviously some reporters are (willfully?) ignorant of such developments.

    The “surge” (yeah, sure it took 4 months to get all the troops in country, but that’s not even a tick of the clock in cosmic time) is working because:

    1) Baghdad, after 4 years, is almost completely balkanized.

    2) Sadr has kept the Mahdi Army on a short leash.

    3) The US is paying off Sunnis who a year ago were insurgents killing American troops. Yeah, they’ve turned against AQI, but maybe it has to do with Iraqis not wanting foreigners in their country trying to run things. It’s still debatable if these Sunnis will ever be loyal to the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad.

    Here’s the best, no-bullshit assessment of the current situation in Iraq that I’ve read in the past few months:

    The “Surge” Is Precursor to What?

    http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4159&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=37&from_page=index.cfm

    “He believes there’s no point in crippling America’s economy while other countries are free to despoil the planet as they please — and he’s right.”

    How exactly will it “cripple our economy”? What about the impact of climate change on the economy?

    “google the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate”

    I did, and it sounds like it’s more “gee, we might get around to doing something, maybe” than any real attempt by the country’s signing to commit to any real substantial changes.

  • Strange reading that Paul in NJ. It almost sounds as if he’s speaking to us from 2002. Things are getting better…just like they were then. If we throw in more troops and maybe another half trillion dollars, I bet in five years, things might be getting better, again.

  • Capt Kirk sez: Strange reading that Paul in NJ. It almost sounds as if he’s speaking to us from 2002.

    Funny you should say that – you lot sound as though you bunch have been asleep for the last month or so. Here are some news items you obviously missed:

    Oct. 31: U.S. deaths in Iraq lowest since March 2006

    Nov. 2: Al Qaida has been crippled. The Shiites, Kurds and Marsh Arabs no longer face genocide. What’s more, the country has stayed unified. The majority now rules. … There is no civil war. The Kurds have not broken away. Iran has not turned Iraq into its puppet. And the country’s institutions are getting stronger. The Iraqi army is now at full strength, at least in numbers.

    Nov. 8: American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood of Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the “surge” to depart as planned.

    Nov. 16: News from Iraq gets better by the day, but the media have done their best to downplay the turnaround and congressional Democrats have basically pulled the covers over their heads and pretended it doesn’t exist.

    You don’t have to believe me; even John Murtha admitted the surge is working. (How many antiwar Democrats have returned from Iraq saying the same thing? I’ve lost count.)

    You need to read something other than left-wing blogs. I recommend journalists like Michael Yon — people who are actually embedded with the troops in the field, not sitting in a Green Zone hotel relying on unreliable ‘stringers.’

  • 2Manchu sez: Yeah, they’ve turned against AQI, but maybe it has to do with Iraqis not wanting foreigners in their country trying to run things.

    Well, isn’t that exactly what I said? AQI is killing Iraqis, and the Iraqis are damned sick of it. As for Mahdi, he’s hiding out in Iran; it’s questionable whether his men will support an absentee leader. If they don’t, well, being a terrorist is dangerous to their health.

    2Manchu sez: How exactly will it “cripple our economy”?

    What do you think would happen if the US tried to reduce CO2 emissions by half, or even a quarter? Are you prepared to give up electricity on demand, or your cars? Shut down industy? Would you support nuclear power as an alternative to burning coal and oil? I suggest you do some research outside of your normal channels.

    2Manchu sez: [The AP6] sounds like it’s more “gee, we might get around to doing something, maybe” than any real attempt by the country’s signing to commit to any real substantial changes.

    You didn’t read carefully enough. Given that Kyoto’s mandate – which doesn’t apply to China, the world’s biggest CO2 source — is an utter failure, it’s better to try something (in this case, market incentives) that has a chance of working. I thought even the left realized that one-size-fits-all mandates simply don’t work.

    By the way, the only country to make any progress in reducing its CO2 emissions is… the US.

  • Wow, that Paul in NJ is some talking point regurgitating cheerleader! I hear all that news, still no exit strategy. The news may actually be getting better from Iraq. Better is a relative term, you know. After almost five years with the Republicans and their many faux news outlets pulling their covers over their heads and pulling out microscopes to see signs of progress in the stains on the sheets, it’s really amusing to be accused of ignoring reality.

    Face it Paul, you’re screaming the wrong cheers and they’re not catchy, let’s hear your real spirit. Gimme a T for Torture! Hurray for secret laws that violate international law! Waterboard FOR PEACE!!! This cakewalk is getting good. MISTAKES WERE MADE! Destroy the evidence! Waterboarding IS FUN!!! gimme a B, gimme a T, gimme a K, whatta ya got? BUSH!

    Cheer for your legacy of preemptive war. Cheer for your unitary executive theory. Cheer for your secret laws and signing statements. let’s hear it!

  • “Well, isn’t that exactly what I said? AQI is killing Iraqis, and the Iraqis are damned sick of it. As for Mahdi, he’s hiding out in Iran; it’s questionable whether his men will support an absentee leader. If they don’t, well, being a terrorist is dangerous to their health. ”

    My pont was that the Sunnis probably don’t wany ANY foreigners, either AQI or the US. Read the link to see what their ulterior motive to taking money from the US.

    And there hasn’t been any reports of Sadr being in Iran for months. And I would take the fact that the Shia militias have been pretty quiet as evidence that they are still following Sadr.

    “What do you think would happen if the US tried to reduce CO2 emissions by half, or even a quarter? Are you prepared to give up electricity on demand, or your cars? Shut down industy? Would you support nuclear power as an alternative to burning coal and oil? I suggest you do some research outside of your normal channels.”

    So improving carbon emission standards will somehow bring about the Dark Ages? I never knew….

    Yeah, look at the horrible effect that the evirnomental acts passed duringn the 1960s and 1970s had.

    And you can’t tell me that the country that was willing to spend money on the Manhattan Project, the race to the moon, and the Panama Canal, not to mention defeat facism, cannot put the same amount of effort and treasure into finding a way to make sure my kids will have a world to live in when they grow up.

    “You didn’t read carefully enough. Given that Kyoto’s mandate – which doesn’t apply to China, the world’s biggest CO2 source — is an utter failure, it’s better to try something (in this case, market incentives) that has a chance of working. I thought even the left realized that one-size-fits-all mandates simply don’t work.”

    How is Kyoto a failure? And who says it’s a one-size-fits-all mandate? And I couldn’t find anything in the WaPo article you linked that claimed the US was the only country to reduce emissions.

  • the best part, by far, was when he started kicking those gutless pussy congressional democrats for, effectively, being stupid enough to cowardly knuckle under to an alcohol-damaged failure with 23 percent approval ratings.

    the dems deserv it …. although there’s not a chance in hell any of them will take offense, or snap out of their brainless, gutless and delusional torpor.

    as much as i hate bush and the gop, i really want the dems to get wiped right off the map again in 2008. maybe …. just maybe it will wake them up.

    yeah .. sure it will.

  • Capt Kirk sez: Gimme a T for Torture! Hurray for secret laws that violate international law! Waterboard FOR PEACE!!! This cakewalk is getting good. MISTAKES WERE MADE! Destroy the evidence! Waterboarding IS FUN!!! gimme a B, gimme a T, gimme a K, whatta ya got? BUSH!

    Oh… okay… easy, now…. e-e-e-asy…. (backs away slowly)

    (This is what passes for reasoned argument on the left?)

  • What argument? That’s a list of Bush Admin recent and not so recent accomplishments. So I’m not so good penning cheerleader slogans. Let’s hear your reasoned arguments about the legacy of preemptive war and then the excuses of faulty intelligence. Perhaps you would explain the honor of overthrowing a dictator accused of torture? And then explain that, well, he tortured more than we did.

  • 2Manchu sez: So improving carbon emission standards will somehow bring about the Dark Ages? I never knew….

    Come on, can we discuss this straightforwardly? The facts are these:

    Energy is the key. Nothing happens without expenditure of energy. There’s lots of rhetoric about “clean energy” but that’s all it is; there are only two substantial alternate sources of energy which don’t involve burning things. The others are all fantasies.

    You got nuclear and you got hydro. That’s it. [Well-reasoned discussion of alternatives deleted for space; I urge you to read it.)

    So if we want to keep increasing the amount of power we’ll generate, we’ll have to burn coal or oil. It’s as simple as that. And if we can’t do so, then our economy will stop growing.

    Yes, conservation. Yes, yes, yes; more rhetoric. But there are limits to that, and we’ve already wrung a lot of those savings out. Conservation isn’t an infinitely deep well. Eventually you reach a point where restricted energy production puts the screws on everything else, and the kind of economic growth we’ve enjoyed ceases. Conservation reaches a point of diminishing returns. Thereafter, if the population grows and energy production doesn’t, then everyone has to live on less. Not just less energy, less of everything, because everything else depends on energy consumption.

    (I urge you to peruse the blog above; he’s an engineer and has the numbers to back up his arguments.)

    The upshot: You can’t have a thriving economy unless you generate power, and reducing the power we generate — which is what Kyoto would require — inevitably means freezing, if not reducing, the size of our economy. If we want to keep increasing the amount of power we’ll generate, we’ll have to burn coal or oil. It’s as simple as that: if we can’t generate more power, then our economy will stop growing. Unless we build more nuke plants.

    2Manchu sez: Yeah, look at the horrible effect that the evirnomental acts passed duringn the 1960s and 1970s had.

    We were starting from essentially ‘zero’ then. We have long since plucked all of the low-hanging fruit, and are now facing increasingly hard choices. Surely you know that, or California wouldn’t be bothering with lawn mower engines and deciding whether to ban fireplaces.

  • 2Manchu said: And I couldn’t find anything in the WaPo article you linked that claimed the US was the only country to reduce emissions.

    Sorry; you’re right. Here is the article I had in mind:

    But compared with Kyoto, Mr. Bush’s vision has been sublime. The basic Kyoto philosophy is this: Set ever lower mandatory targets, ratcheting down energy use, and by extension economic growth. […]

    President Bush’s approach is opposite: Allow economies to grow, along the way inspiring new technologies and new forms of energy that lower C02 emissions. Implicit is that C02-control technologies should focus on energy sources we use today, including fossil fuels. In Bush-world, the government is there to incentivize industry, coordinate with it, and set broad goals.

    Take your pick. Under the vaunted Kyoto, from 2000 to 2004, Europe managed to increase its emissions by 2.3 percentage points over 1995 to 2000. Only two countries are on track to meet targets. There’s rampant cheating, and endless stories of how select players are self-enriching off the government “market” in C02 credits. Meanwhile, in the U.S., under the president’s oh-so-unserious plan, U.S. emissions from 2000 to 2004 were eight percentage points lower than in the prior period.

  • “Come on, can we discuss this straightforwardly?”

    Well, I was responding to your comment:
    “What do you think would happen if the US tried to reduce CO2 emissions by half, or even a quarter? Are you prepared to give up electricity on demand, or your cars? Shut down industy?”

    Kind of a bit over the top, don’t you think? Well, compared to the blog you linked, maybe not so much:

    “It’s all posturing. It’s as simple as that. Anti-growth activists in the US, and political leaders of other nations who were being shown up by the robust American economy tried to con the US into destroying itself. The Senate of the US refused to commit economic suicide just in order to be liked.”

    So it’s all an evil plot to destroy the United States, by countries jealous of us? Isn’t it just a tad hard to have a “straightforward” discussion with this kind of talk on the table?

    “We were starting from essentially ‘zero’ then. We have long since plucked all of the low-hanging fruit, and are now facing increasingly hard choices.”

    Aren’t we starting from “zero” now? And we are facing hard choices, which is why you need a Manhattan Project-type program to ensure our nation can find better sources of energy that produce less. Like I said, we are America, we can do this.

    And nuclear power isn’t one of them:
    http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/kyotonuc.htm

    Good alternatives?

    http://windpower.utah.edu/pdfs/myths_vs_facts.pdf

    http://www.seia.org/mythsandfacts.php

    I don’t expect to see solar or wind-powerd cars, but I do believe that these sources could help cut down on the amount of pollution caused by energy production.

    I realize that you have considerable concern about the health of our nation’s economy, and that is commendable. I also am concerned about our economy, but I’l also concerned about our planet’s health, seeing how my children and grandchildren are going to have to deal with whatever climatic changes occur in the next few decades.

  • Comments are closed.