‘I think I owe an explanation to the American people’

Watching today’s White House press conference was a rather frustrating experience. It offered us a classic Bush sampler — featuring dissembling, dishonesty, straw-men arguments, poor grammar, inane talking points, and awkward attempts at friendly banter. It was, in other words, exactly what we’ve come to expect from the president we all know and, well, acknowledge.

Some early reports indicate that the event was an hour long. It wasn’t — Bush started at 12:30, but before he would take any questions, he proceeded to deliver a 16-minute speech about how great his new plan for Iraq is (despite all evidence to the contrary). Explaining later why he read the remarks, the president said, “I think I owe an explanation to the American people.”

He does? That’s great! Many of us have been waiting for years for the president to offer the nation an explanation, and as of this morning, the president believes we deserve one.

Unfortunately, as Dan Froomkin noted, Bush managed to go the entire event without actually getting to the “explanation” that he owes us.

Bush didn’t have much new to say today, other than endorsing yesterday’s already largely debunked announcement in Baghdad of a “new plan” that sounds very much like the old plan.

And after an hour of familiar sound bites, the public would be forgiven for feeling it still hasn’t gotten that explanation he promised.

Looking back over the transcript, it’s hard to see a single instance in which Bush answered a question.

This, for example, seemed like a good question: “You’ve said that you’re expecting [the Maliki government] to make tough decisions. Can you tell the American people how you plan to measure his success in reaching those benchmarks, and what happens if he doesn’t hit those benchmarks?” Bush wouldn’t answer it.

Here was another: “Does the United States want to maintain permanent bases in Iraq? And I would follow that by asking, are you willing to renounce a claim on permanent bases in Iraq?” Still, nothing but vague talking points and meandering rhetoric.

And another: “Given that the war in Iraq is not going as well as you want, and given that you’re not satisfied as you just told us today, why hasn’t anybody been held accountable? Should somebody be held accountable?” Bush mentioned how capable Donald Rumsfeld is and moved on.

Some press conferences are dominated by softball questions that seem to almost intentionally miss the point. Today, the press corps had solid, pertinent questions — nice job, especially since the White House only gave reporters an hour’s notice before the event — but the president was either unwilling or incapable of answering them.

Worse, the answers frequently veered into the bizarre. Towards the end, a reporter asked, “Is the coming election a referendum on Iraq? Should it be?” Bush hedged a bit before saying, “I understand here in Washington, some people say we’re not at war.” Really? Who would that be?

Honestly, I’m convinced that the president is getting less coherent and less articulate as time goes on. Watching today’s press conference reminded me of the old joke about seeing a turtle on top of a fence post: you know the turtle didn’t get there by himself, you know he doesn’t belong there, he can’t get anything done while he’s up there, and you just want to help get the poor thing down.

I think the pretzel starved his already damaged brain of oxygen so now he is a true half-wit. When I was watching him this AM it was hard to follow his logic, in fact, he seemed intoxicated. I know Jesus saved him from that part of his life, so I guess it is the pretzel. I can’t believe we have to put up with this guy for the next two years. I am afraid for the country. Maybe he has had a stroke or something; he just doesn’t seem to be all there.

  • Bush probably thinks he’s slick in deflecting these questions.

    Hopefully he’s hurting his rep more than helping it with these unpaid campaign ads.

  • He talked while I ate lunch. I usually don’t take my lunch back to my desk, so I sat there. I managed to keep the food down, if not my temper.

  • THE PRESIDENT: “First of all, this is a different kind of war than a war against the fascists in World War II. We were facing a nation state — two nation states — three nation states in World War II.”

    Wow! You can count. Yes, Mr. President, there were in fact three major Axis Powers in World War II. But you realize you have insulted the other ones; Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Finland not to mention the Vichy and a bunch of other puppet states. How could you be so undiplomatic?

    Boy, am I glad I missed him saying that. I could have choked to death, even if I wasn’t eating a Pretzel 😉

  • Given that the war in Iraq is not going as well as you want, and given that you’re not satisfied as you just told us today, why hasn’t anybody been held accountable? Should somebody be held accountable?

    This question exposes the ruse behind the opening statement. He took away the argument that he has never acknowledged all the things that have gone wrong. But he is not willing to take any responsibility beyond the sound bite. He wants the political bump from owning up — just before an election, isn’t that suspicious, as he might say — but as usual there is no substance behind the headline.

    Everything has gone differently from the way they claimed it would, but they are not to blame and should be trusted to continue to lead unobstructed. Only Diebold can make this a winning argument.

  • Why do you suppose he answered the question about holding someone accountable with a comment about Rummy? When I read the question it seems taht the suggestion of accountability is broadly directed at the people in charge not just a Rummy. Hmmm, could there be a doubt about Rummy rattling around in the big dummy’s head?

  • We were facing a nation state — two nation states — three nation states in World War II.

    Am I the only one who hears this in the voice of The Count on Sesame Street?

    This is yet another one of those basic citizenship tests for the Sheeple. Dumbya comes out today and says nothing of substance, but gets headlines for (a) acknowledging Iraq isn’t going so hot and (b) saying he’ll look at new strategies (citing the upcoming Baker report, even though just last week the WH preemptively stated they are not open to most of the ideas that have been trial-balooned by Baker so far).

    It shouldn’t help. It should actually make things worse for he and his right-wingnut friends. But the cynical pessimist in me suspects he and the R’s get a bounce from this. For no good reason; in fact, precisely because Sheeple don’t reason.

    Someone tell me I’m being too pessimistic. Please.

  • If Flush Limpbag wants to complain about people going off their meds for political gain he should start with George “Disconnected Drivel” Bush. Some one needs to force that man to take his Ritalin. I can’t imagine how frustrating it is trying to question to this SFBs: “Well, you see. Listen. Let me tell you. Two giraffes walk into a bar. Bark bark, bark! More pretzels please! Terrorism. Moooo!”

    Wait a minute, let me say — the ultimate accountability, Peter, rests with me. That’s the ultimate — you’re asking about accountability, that’s — rests right here. It’s what the 2004 campaign was about.

    Well all righty then. Let’s check our supplies: Tar? Check. Feathers. Check. Rail? Check.

  • “Worse, the answers frequently veered into the bizarre. Towards the end, a reporter asked, “Is the coming election a referendum on Iraq? Should it be?” Bush hedged a bit before saying, “I understand here in Washington, some people say we’re not at war.” Really? Who would that be?”

    Well, I’ve been curious lately about Tony SnowBlower’s recent characterization of our present situation as “peace and prosperity.” He has invoked our “enjoyment”of “peace and prosperity” as a reason that Republicans should be rewarded with continuing control of Congress by the voters. I’ve heard him say this more than once, but I’ve never heard anyone challenge the “peace” part (some attempts to push back on the “prosperity”). The only conclusion I can reach is that these guys lie as naturally as they breathe. They rely on the inattention of the American public and the unwillingness of the MSM to call them what they show themselves to be over and over again: Liars.

    My dog always knows when the Chimp in Chief is on the teevee. Could it be the tension communicated by my body going totally rigid and the balling of fists and clenching of teeth?

    Finally, the press corps should know by now that they are never going to get much notice of an opportunity to publicly question W. If they do not have a prioritized list of questions for him that they update as the first thing they do upon rolling out of bed in the morning and regularly throughout the day, they are hopeless.

  • Watching today’s press conference reminded me of the old joke about seeing a turtle on top of a fence post: you know the turtle didn’t get there by himself, you know he doesn’t belong there, he can’t get anything done while he’s up there, and you just want to help get the poor thing down.

    Oh man, I love that. And it just keeps on working on more levels. Like a turtle on a fencepost, he can’t really jump off. And even if he could, he wouldn’t, because he’s too dumb to realize that the fall won’t be as bad as being stuck up there all day. And you can’t do anything with the damn fence while an animal is balanced precariously on top, so the cows just keep getting out.

    But then you start to wonder why you can’t help the poor thing down. And even though only a third of all passersby think it got up there by itself and it’s perfectly happy up there, everyone who is actually tall enough to reach the turtle is either part of that third or is inexplicably afraid to disagree with them. And the metaphor kinda breaks down here.

  • Zeitgeist,
    I’m probably to old to hear the Count’s voice (do not have kids). It puts me in mind of Monty Python and the Spanish Inquisition.

  • “Zeitgeist,
    I’m probably to old to hear the Count’s voice (do not have kids). It puts me in mind of Monty Python and the Spanish Inquisition.” – TuiMel

    LOL

    That is so on target.

  • Well according to CNN it was supposed to be “substantial.” Guess we shouldn’t be surprised that it wasn’t – Bush has likely never had a “substantial” thought in his head so it is unlikely that he would have something “substantial” to say.

  • In Bush’s defense, his answers TODAY were way better than this: (from his CNBC interview y’day)

    BUSH: I tend not to email or — not only tend not to email, I don’t email, because of the different record requests that can happen to a president. I don’t want to receive emails because, you know, there’s no telling what somebody’s email may — it would show up as, you know, a part of some kind of a story, and I wouldn’t be able to say, `Well, I didn’t read the email.’ `But I sent it to your address, how can you say you didn’t?’ So, in other words, I’m very cautious about emailing.

    Different record requests? Wait till we get started with the subpoenas, you dimbulb! We’ll go after your papers & pencils…

  • Is it churlish to point out that the president gets trotted out roughly every five days to point out again everything he’s been saying for the last three years? How is this anything remotely like leadership? And just who the hell do they think he’s talking to at this point?

  • “First of all, this is a different kind of war than a war against the fascists in World War II.”
    Then why do you call the current foe “Islamic Fascists”? How does WWII fascism differ from modern fascism?

  • The era of Sesame Street I grew up with would do it more like this: A chef would walk through a door at the top of some stairs with a cake in each hand and one balanced on his head, each labelled “Enemy Nation-State.”

    We would then count off, in raising tones, “One Enemy Nation-State, Two Enemy Nation-States, Three Enemy Nation-States!” At which point the the chef would stumble and fall down the stairs and wind up with cake all over him.

    Re-label the cakes “Bushie Fuck-Ups” and it is a perfect analogy — except you’d need a lot more cakes.

  • Who in the White House besides Bush seriously thinks it’s a good idea for him to do these frequent press conferences on Iraq? To anyone paying attention, the man grows a little more addled-brained each and every time he speaks to the press.

    I wonder if we’re not seeing Bush’s narcissicism on full display here. He’s already thinks God has appointed him president and peace maker of the Middle East. Maybe he’s now come to the conclusion that he — and only he — can save the Republican Party. And in his mind, the best way to do it is for him to personally “explain” to the American people why it isn’t so bad. He’s probably halfway correct. God knows no one in his administration can explain away Bush’s massive fuckup.

  • I’d give his speech four bales of straw. But CB is wrong, Bush did answer the question about how he will enforce his benchmarks:

    Q: What happens when that patience runs out?

    BUSH: “Why don’t we work to see that it doesn’t work out – run out? That’s the whole objective. That’s what positive people do.”

    and again…

    Q: what happens if a full-fledged civil war breaks out?

    BUSH: “Our job is to prevent the full – full-scale civil war from happening in the first place. “

    and again…

    “we’ll succeed in Iraq because the Iraqis want to succeed in Iraq”

    and again…

    “Americans can have confidence that we will prevail because thousands of smart, dedicated military and civilian personnel are risking their lives and are working around the clock to ensure our success.”

    It’s the Jimminy Cricket school of disaster management. All you need to do is wish hard enough, and you will succeed. That’s what positive people do!

    CB pointed out one strawman, but there’s a truckload of them, starting with; exactly which Democrat is pushing to repeal the child tax credit?

    More strawmen…
    “Defeat will only come if the United States becomes isolationist and refuses to… protect ourselves”

    “We must not fall prey to the sophisticated propaganda by the enemy, who is trying to undermine our confidence and make us believe that our presence in Iraq is the cause of all its problems.”

    “we must not look at every success of the enemy as a mistake on our part, cause for an investigation or a reason to call for our troops to come home.”

    Can someone from our LAME-ASS press please ask the moron just ONCE who his strawmen are supposed to be?

  • Wait a minute, let me say — the ultimate accountability, Peter, rests with me. That’s the ultimate — you’re asking about accountability, that’s — rests right here. It’s what the 2004 campaign was about.

    This quote said it all for me. Not only does he think that accountability was a ‘moment’ that happened back in 2004, he thinks it rests squarely on the shoulders of the people.

    Newsflash, Mr. President: accountability doesn’t happen in a moment, it applies to continuously, and though I hold everyone responsible for your election accountable for the disaster you have thrust upon us, the election in no way absolves you of guilt.

    He was right about one thing, though. The ultimate accounting lies with him. It’s about time he started answering for it.

  • CB pointed out one strawman, but there’s a truckload of them, starting with; exactly which Democrat is pushing to repeal the child tax credit? -Racerx

    No joke, Racerx.

    Take the child tax credit; if it is not made permanent, in other words, if it expires, and you got a family of four sitting around the breakfast table, the taxpayers can be sure that their taxes will go up by $2,000 — $500 for that child, $500 for the one right there, $500 for this one, and $500 for that one. That is a tax increase.

    No, that’s bad math. A family of four would save $2000: $500 for each child? Last I checked a “family of four” would only have two children, maybe three; I’m sure in Bush’s neocon world “a family of four” only means a daddy, a mommy, and two runts which means $1000. So he either lied, or is stupid. Or both.

  • I loved this part when I was listening this morning:

    “We overestimated the capability of the civil service in Iraq to continue to provide essential services to the Iraqi people. We did not expect the Iraqi army, including the Republican Guard, to melt away in the way that it did in the phase of advancing coalition forces.”

    Uhh, aren’t we the ones that fired all the civil servants? How in the world did that get overestimated? Let’s see, they all get fired and now he’s surprised that services were not provided?

    And what the hell is he talking about with the R/G? They knew they were about to get wiped out, so they bailed. So if they’d been captured en masse, they would have been what? Treated differently than the people without guns?

  • Towards the end, a reporter asked, “Is the coming election a referendum on Iraq? Should it be?” Bush hedged a bit before saying, “I understand here in Washington, some people say we’re not at war.” Really? Who would that be? — CB

    I suspect I actually understand what’s happening here (scary; I need to slow down with the alcohol ). It’s a conflation/synthesis of several ideas.

    1) The key word he heard was: IRAQ
    2) For months, Dems have been saying that invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with the WAR on Terra.
    3) To him, the “war or terra”, however ill-defined, is the only war which counts; Iraq is but a comma and Afghanistan has long ago passed from his consciousness.
    Ergo: Dems are saying there’s no war going on (and he knows better)

    I think a similiar conflation happened in the mental switch from the “accountability” cue to the “Rumsfeld” answer. A lot of people (mostly Dems, again) *have* been putting those two together, and he’s simply responding to the “hanging in he air” question, not the one which has been asked.

    I can’t bring myself to watch those press conferences or any other appearances of his (interviews on TV, for example), but I have been reading snippets of the questions and responses and am now wondering whether he even “hears” the entire questions.

    When I first came here, I often felt overpowered by the constant barrage of English, a lot of which didn’t really “apply” to me. So, to make life easier on myself, I learnt to block out a lot of the “noise” and snapped to attention only at certain relevant cues. Something similiar might be happening here; even though English is his native language, paying constant attention might be too much for him. So he too processes only fragments of it.

  • libra, I think you are on the right track. Bush is not processing the entire question, he is merely responding reflexively with talking points when he hears a keyword that finds a match on his mental list. It happens to normal people too occasionally when they are fatigued or distracted, but Bush seems like he’s in this mode permanently.

  • Friends, neighbors, countrymen. This is a perfect bookend to the first review of GWB’s performance:

    http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/02/23/press_conference/index.html

    …The truth is, this guy seems to be coasting. …

    [then when referring to GWB’s first Press Conference after re-instituting the ‘Mexico City’ gag rule on international health aid, the piece continues.]

    …Thursday’s press conference did nothing to erase the impression of a man who can’t be bothered to actually read up on the laws he’s signing….

  • re: Shrub as turtle boy –

    If you knew the turtle was up there thinking “God put me here so I could look down on the other turtles, heh heh heh.” You’d get out the baseball bat. Or gather up last year’s supply of really powerful fireworks. You know, the ones that set off car alarms three blocks away…
    Heh, heh, heh.

  • Comments are closed.