A three-minute speech, hold the compassion

December 2, 2005

The president held a quick, three-minute “discussion” in the Rose Garden this morning on “strong economic growth and job creation.” Indeed, Bush was all smiles when he shared the news that the economy added 215,000 in November, slightly ahead of expectations. (“Discussion” is in quotes because, despite the White House’s description, there were no questions were permitted.)

In a purely political sense, it was unfortunate timing for the president that right around the time he was praising the strength of the economy, Americans were learning that 10 Marines were killed, and 11 more injured, by a roadside bomb in Fallujah. As Judd at Think Progress noted, Bush knew about the tragic incident when he spoke to the country this morning, but chose not to mention it. In fact, Scott McClellan acknowledged during his briefing this afternoon that Bush was informed about the bombing well in advance of his remarks.

Q: Can I ask, when the President came to the Rose Garden this morning, about 10:45 a.m., at that hour did the White House already know about this attack on the Marines in Fallujah?

McClellan: Yes, we did. The President was informed about the loss of the Marines last night, and those that were injured, and then he was briefed again this morning.

I’m clearly not a fan of the president, but I don’t believe he’s a heartless person. I’m sure attacks like the one in Falluja sadden Bush just as they sadden all of us. But is it too much to ask that he at least acknowledge the incident? One sentence about how he regrets the loss of life and sends his prayers to the families? Something?

Judd suggested that Bush didn’t want “to take the focus off today’s message, the ‘good news’ about the economy.” That may sound rather cynical, but when Americans are hearing about the deadly attack, the president is speaking to the country anyway, and he decides not to even mention it, it’s hard to draw any other conclusion.

December 2, 2005 at 4:59 pm

I’m clearly not a fan of the president, but I don’t believe he’s a heartless person. I’m sure attacks like the one in Falluja sadden Bush just as they sadden all of us.

Really? How can we be so sure? Seems pretty craven to me.

Sociopaths are very good at hiding their feelings.

You give Bush way too much credit. He’s completely incapable of a genuine expression of sympathy or empathy. He can adopt the right facial expression for the camera, but those cold eyes of his show he never really means it.

Sorry CB, prm is right about you giving Bush way too much credit.
How could somebody that has more innocent blood on his hands than Osama bin Laden, not be heartless?

I think Judd is absolutely correct. To focus or even mention the deaths would allow the media to focus on the negative, when he was there in an attempt to spin a positive message about his administration. When you’re below 40% in the approval ratings, it’s all about spinning a positive message. There was nothing positive about the deaths of 10 Marines, no matter how the Bush propaganda machine might try to spin it to their advantage. So, their approach is to just ignore it. Just like they didn’t want photos taken of all the flag-draped coffins coming off the planes at Dover. Sad but true.

That said, MY thoughts are with the families and friends of those ten Marines killed near Fallujah. They died doing what they were asked to do as part of their job. For that, they should be commended. But the saddest fact is that they didn’t have to die. Mr. Bush can take responsibility for that. Sadly, he probably won’t.

I have to disagree with PRM, I think he gives Bush too little credit. CB worked with Clinton, he can back me up on this or disprove me if he likes, but something I remember hearing/reading that has the sound of truth to it is just that presidents, out of necessity, are going to always appear callous, because with the constant bombardment of expectation of emotional release, that they have to develop these incredibly thick shields to it all. Clinton famously said “we feel your pain”, and to a lot of people it looked completely faked. Bush can’t be any more sincere, so he doesn’t even bother to try.

And that’s not even considering any judgments to be laid on him for his own personal callousness.

I think a lot more needs to be taken in before summary judgements can be made, the least of which is what I said I believed about presidents above. Like how differently Bush and his radical conservatives feel about this war in comparison to people like us.

For example, in Bush’s touted “major” speeches about the contradictory wars in Iraq and on terrorism, he hasn’t revealed anything new. He has no strategy to win the wars, just a bunch of empty rhetoric that sounds pro-military that he calls his strategy. “Stay the course.” “Freedom is on the march.” “We don’t cut and run.” “We stay until the job is done.” What is the job, anyway? How do we do the job? I heard Donald Rumsfeld quoted on NPR a few days ago as denouncing the Democrats for having no strategy, and then repeating his “strategy” which reads more like what I just repeated than any sort of strategy.

I think, and this is just one piece of the puzzle, that the Bush administration (and maybe the part of the country they are speaking directly to) has lingering Vietnamitis, and a great hope that Iraq will be a cathartic release, that maybe this time they can beat the liberals (much less pigeonhole us into the role of the anti-war protesters of Vietnam’s day.) I don’t know, I could be off-base, but I would definitely like to explore this vague impression some more, flesh it out and see where it leads.

So, he refuses to “negotiate with [himself],” but he has no problem holding a “discussion” with himself?

I, too, have sometimes thought Bush borders
on the sociopathic, but that’s a pretty harsh
judgment. I don’t think we have enough
information to make the call. I’ve also wondered
if the percentage of sociopaths among those
who reach the top is far higher than in the
general population, which I understand is
about 3% for males and 1% for females.
The word “ruthless” comes to mind.

Whatever, it’s baffling that no mention was
made of that tragedy. Disturbing. And
vile. No excuse whatsoever.

On the economic news, it is exasperating that
the media and press will not qualify all
job creation figures with the statement that
the labor force grows by about 150,000 each
month, and that job creation should be
judged, not from base zero, but from that
number. In this context, the Bush presidency
has peformed poorly since the end of the
recession (I’m not saying that presidents
have a great deal of influence on the
business cycle, but if Bush is going to
crow, then it’s only proper to throw the
real numbers back at him).

Why don’t they do this?

Bush’s War won’t be lost or a lost cause to them until they feel the media has turned against the war. That is why they have the US media is such a tight grip and the UK media judging from how quickly Blair wielded the Official Secrets Act about his conversation with the Shrub wanting to bomb Al Jazeera. It’s a lesson Cheney and Rummy the dummy learned in the Vietnam War.

I’m clearly not a fan of the president, but I don’t believe he’s a heartless person.

Well, he is.

It is simple, Bush is struggling to survive the falling polls and is desperate.. He is too cowardly to take any questions to which he has not been advised of in advance. He could care less if 10,000 Marines were killed today, he only cares about his power and the Bush money interests in the Persian Gulf. He has failed at every undertaking since he left college, why should it be any different now? He is a loser leading us down the road to destruction.
The lovely “new job” report does not mention the fact that 90%+ are ;low level with no benefits.

I’m clearly not a fan of the president, but I don’t believe he’s a heartless person.

He’s heartless. This isn’t the first time Americans have died & he’s been in front of cameras minutes later, trademark smirk on face. A year or so ago one or two choppers full of soldiers went down. More than a dozen dead. He was in front of cameras less than half an hour later. Remember now?

What’s the mystery? This guy has signed a hundred or more death warrants. (Think about that sometime.) He publicly mocked a woman about to be executed. He made jokes about Katrina. This isn’t protective armour. The guy likes death. He enjoys death. Death makes him happy. That smirk is a poorly suppressed laugh.

I’m clearly not a fan of the president, but I don’t believe he’s a heartless person.

I do.

Flat affect.

Either he’s had it all doped away, or it was never there in the first place.

The man is a heartless pig…….he’s very adept at smirking when people die and when sending people to die. For that matter, I think he rather enjoys both.

The really sad part of this is that so many of these military folks rally around him because espouses patriotism. They are voting against their own best interest’s, just like the poor in the South and Midwest.

……a very sad state of affairs in my view.

After morning hypnosis, Bush is no longer capable of expressing genuine emotion or truth, and reports indicate he also needs help wiping himself.

Seriously, I never thought he was this heartless – after ignoring the deaths of soldiers (I could understand the excuse “I didn’t hear, I was too busy going over my lines in my head”) it is now almost impossible to preface any further “unpatriotic” sentiments toward the president with the epithet: “with all due respect,”

As a matter of fact, I don’t believe Alan Greenspan qualified his veritable, “yo, I don’t think so” retort to Bush’s cheery valuation of the economy.

Do I think Bush is heartless? No. But I do believe that he belongs to a particular type of mindset that transcends liberal and conservative to put human suffering behind their particular ideology. I don’t care for that kind of person whatever ideology they represent.

The non-RepubCo universe seems permanantly befuddled that there is no willingness on the part of the Shrub/right to show some humanity or humility. The instructions from the beginning have been to keep eyes straight ahead. Don’t flinch. Don’t lick lips. Don’t fidget. And for damn sure, don’t give a f**k about anything that doesn’t resemble success for RepubCo.

Money and power are at stake. Period. This isn’t a game. Shruby wasn’t put in the Oval Office to screw around and “feel” things. He was put there to present an acceptable face to the country while the guts were carved out of American government and replaced with rotten hamburger and styrofoam peanuts. False patriotism and fear mongering provide the immunosuppressent drugs that fight off the infection of scepticism until they can lock in power.

I don’t give Shruby credit for one brain cells worth of contribution to the mechanics behind it all but he sure as hell deserves to have the whole putrid mess laid on his doorstep. He’s a shallow facsimile of a caring person. No there there. A willing, hypocritical and unquestioning shill for BushCo, RepubCo, WarCo and fundieworld. Nothing more. Nada.

Sorry to be so dark about it but I don’t believe that good people are running our country. They are promoting harsh, selfish and irresponsible policies and they really need to be thwarted.

well said, burro.

But is it too much to ask that he at least acknowledge the incident?

I hate to put this in such cold terms, but when I added those ten deaths to my chart of military deaths in Iraq I was shocked to see that it didn’t even add a pixel to the graph. It’s a shame when a human death, let alone alone ten of them, don’t seem to matter.

um, CB didn’t work with Clinton. not sure where people are getting that from. yes, he interned at the WH, but that doesn’t mean he worked with/for him (far from it even).

and to DRoell’s list (see #12), dont forget to add the Gridiron fiasco of joking about where those WMDs were, while looking under the cushions of the WH couch, even as sons and daughters were being blown to bits in a futile search for those non-existent bases for war. I think the case is pretty strong for “heartless.”

Of course he isn’t going to acknowlege it. It would leave him open to questions which he is ill equippped to answer without looking like and insensitive clod.

Comments are closed.