Bush lets milbloggers inside The Bubble

The president who goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid dissent sure is selective about who gets inside The Bubble. Last October, Bush arranged a gathering of conservative luminaries — including Sean Hannity, Neil Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Michael Medved, and Mike Gallagher — for a mutual-admiration confab. In July, it was time for another meeting of the conservative minds, when Bush invited pundits like David Brooks, Rich Lowry, and Kate O’Beirne over for a chat. In August, Bush hosted another gathering, this time with Glenn Beck, Bill Bennett, Boortz, Scott Hennon, Ingraham, Lars Larson, Mark Levin, Medved, Janet Parshall, and Hugh Hewitt.

It seems to be a pretty familiar pattern: Bush obviously doesn’t care to engage those who might challenge him or expose him to ideas he finds distasteful, but he’s very fond of inviting groups of people who agree with his worldview. The latest example came late last week, when Bush chatted with milbloggers who support his Iraq policy.

Bush told the group that, to his knowledge, it was the first time a president had met with bloggers for a chat at the White House, one of the participants wrote. The blogs represented at the meeting are generally pro-Bush and pro-military, and the ensuing reports were highly sympathetic to the president.

“At this meeting President Bush came off as more comfortable with the message than I’ve seen him appear on TV or in speeches,” wrote [Ward Carroll of Military.com], a journalist and former Navy pilot. “No deer-in-the-headlights stuff here. Truly unwavering and passionate. Facts on the ground notwithstanding, he believes the United States can win the Iraq War. And to be honest, being around him made me believe it at that moment too.”

Matthew Burden, a former Army officer who blogs under the name Blackfive, raved about how Bush slapped his hand and called him “brutha.”

“The President was very intelligent, razor sharp, warm, focused, emotional (especially about his dad), and genuine,” Blackfive wrote. “Even more so than this cynical Chicago Boy expected. I was overwhelmed by the sincerity — it wasn’t staged.”

No, it was just the latest in a series of casual gatherings in which the president who avoids dissent at all costs chats with people who already agree with him.

There was apparently no transcript, but based on the bloggers’ posts, we can get a fair idea of what transpired.

For example, there was this “Victory Caucus” post.

Responding to one of the bloggers in Iraq he expressed envy that they could be there, and said he’d like to be there but “One, I’m too old to be out there, and two, they would notice me.”

Envy? Really? Because according to the White House, Bush need not be jealous of those who are on the ground in Iraq right now — the president is already serving on the “frontlines.”

Dan Froomkin added that Bush’s “battlefield envy” is also oddly out of place.

Maybe Bush was just making idle chit-chat. But this would not be the first time the president has appeared unaware of the hardships his war has caused hundreds of thousands of American troops — while expressing a misguided sense of bravado.

He certainly hasn’t ever put himself in harm’s way. The president who avoided serving in Vietnam as a young man has made only three visits to Iraq since declaring that major combat operations were over more than four years ago. All three of the visits were unannounced and featured extensive security.

Bush’s total time in country? Less than 15 hours.

Bush’s first trip was a two-and-a-half-hour visit to the Baghdad airport on Thanksgiving 2003, where he teared up at the sight of the soldiers and was famously photographed posing with a prop turkey.

In June 2006, Bush spent five hours visiting Iraqi political leaders in Baghdad, although he didn’t let the prime minister know he was coming.

During his most recent trip, two weeks ago, Bush was on the ground for seven hours, never leaving the confines of a military base known as Camp Cupcake, a heavily fortified American outpost for 10,000 troops with a 13-mile perimeter.

One other thing — several of the participants noted that the president literally started crying when describing the fact that his father fought the Japanese in World War II, but Japan is now a close U.S. ally. Bush reportedly said, “I’ve had meetings with the prime minister of the country he fought,” as a tear reportedly rolled down his face.

I don’t want to sound cold, but the president has told this story over 100 times over the last several years. Apparently, it still gets to him?

Either way, it apparently didn’t matter. The blogger participants ended up describing the president as “awe-inspiring,” “thought provoking,” having “nerves of steel,” and exuding “sincerity and passion.”

I think we can probably guess how these guys got an invitation inside The Bubble.

Was there an open fellatio session afterward?

  • The WaPo article states that the blogs are “generally pro-Bush and pro-military”. Does that mean there were blogs there that were not “generally pro-Bush and pro-military”? Or did they really mean that they were all “pro-Bush and pro-military” but didn’t say that in order to make it appear more inclusive.

  • From Froomkin’s article, quoting one of the invited bloggers:

    “Here are some of the highlights from my notes. (Remember it’s hard to write and maintain eye contact with the Commander-in-Chief): “* ‘This strategy is my strategy.'”

    Wasn’t Bush just publicly flogging the idea (including a nationally televised speech at that) that the strategy was General Petraeus’ strategy and not his (Bush’s)?

  • The type of bloggers who believe it when they ask the hooker was I good and she says the best ever. “I’ve met a lot of dames and you are really something special”. “Really!”

    With these bloggers the only that changed in their opinion of Bush was that…he let them kiss his ring. Good, good lapdogs. Das Fuhrer is the most noble and patriotic German that has ever existed…Sieg Hiel seig heil.

    It’s a big deal to get to meet the president and have a chat with him no matter how vile and dishonest he might be.

  • An aside:

    In June 2006, Bush spent five hours visiting Iraqi political leaders in Baghdad, although he didn’t let the prime minister know he was coming.

    This says everything we need to know about Bush’s respect for Iraq’s “sovreignity”. Would he do that to Great Britain? France? Australia? Would they LET him do it?

  • The lady blogger who got to “tinkle” in the White House? I guess that’s what you earn when you wh*re-blog for a corrupt regime.

    Hope it was worth it, Ms Greyhawk. People are dying and getting maimed in part because of your work.

  • “[I]t was very cool. The President of the United States slapped my hand and called me “brutha”. Top that.”

    Um, how about the time I had appendicitis? Or how about the time I had testicular torsion? That was pretty cool.

    j/k

  • phoebes

    LOL! The most memorable thing about her visit was getting to pee in the White House? Maybe she was right…

    Congrats, Georgie-Porgie. Peeing in your bathroom was the highlight of somebody’s visit!

  • I’m sure all those War Wimps pushed Bush to start a draft, so that WWIII can be properly fought, right?

    (crickets)

  • “Facts on the ground notwithstanding, he believes the United States can win the Iraq War.”

    Bwahahahahaha!

    It’s amazing what a person can believe to be true when one maliciously disregards the facts.

    And for Bush to brag how he’d love to be over in Iraq putting the hurt to the evildoers … except for being so old and recognizable … is belied by the fact that he isn’t even brave enough to hold court with anyone but raving wingnut dittoheads. Even if George were younger, he’d still not be man enough to go.

  • Now wait a second! She got to tinkle in the White House? Was it in a men’s room or a women’s room? Did she make hand signals or not? Was she arrested or not? Did she plead guilty or not?

    Whoops, wrong story. Sorry!

    Crankily yours,
    The New York Crank

  • This absolutely killed me (via ThinkProgress)”

    When it was all over, the bloggers seemed wowed. “All in all, it was an amazing day for Military.com and one I’ll never forget,” Carroll wrote. “In fact, I’d rank the event a close second to the time I sat in with Cheap Trick. It was that good.

    I’m still trying to figure out if comparing Bush to a glorified bar band is a compliment.

    I know if it were coming from me it’d be an insult, but I have functional ear drums and a frontal lobe that’s still intact, so …

  • […] several of the participants noted that the president literally started crying […]

    My own father also “had his eyes in a wet spot” (to use a Polish phrase) almost every time he had one too many. No matter what the subject of the conversation, you could be certain that he’d either get belligerent or teary-eyed. That’s how some drunks *are*, and one should discount such behaviour as meaningless. All that “emotion” is coming out of a bottle.

  • From the WaPo article:
    It should be noted that Bill Roggio and Bill Ardolino, two bloggers who joined by teleconference from Iraq, are conspicuous for the substantive reports they delivered of the meeting, and seem to be the only attendees who weren’t carried away by the atmospherics of the event.

    Actually, none of the bloggers were carried away by the atmospherics – they simply noted said atmospherics as part of a full report. But those who would feed the ignorati simply chose not to cut and paste anything beyond that from the meeting. If any of you were to examine the actual questions those bloggers had for President Bush, you’d notice a theme…

    Hope it was worth it, Ms Greyhawk. People are dying and getting maimed in part because of your work

    That would be a comment by someone called phoebes1.

    I’m pretty damn proud of the Mrs Greyhawk, the lady who’s very quietly done more work than anyone in history to bring the voices of deployed troops to the people they serve She reads hundreds of milblogs every morning to report the good and the bad. (And very quietly done a lot for the wounded troops, too.)

    And in regards to the Iraq vet comments on WaPo:
    I can’t remember exactly what I asked the President because I was choking up having just mentioned my good friend SSG Stevon Booker who died in front of me in Iraq.
    The WaPo readers got a good chuckle out of that quote. But if you are far, far, removed from the reality of the war on terror – say, if you’re a “columnist” or “blogger” or “commenter” interested only in the political gain you can get from a war (for instance, you use “conservative blogger” as interchangeable with “milblogger” in your report of a White House visit by an Iraq vet, the wife of a guy currently serving in Iraq, a citizen of Baghdad, four other veterans and one American civilian) you’re not going to notice that these are people who are in the war. If you do notice that inconvenient truth, you’ll recognize it as a distraction from your witty ad-hominems and avoid it like the plague. (Though the phoebes1’s might not appreciate learning they’d been tricked into insulting spouses of deployed troops just so you could get your jollies.) Think it through a little farther and you might even come to realize that maybe, just maybe, a message was being sent regarding exactly where military people think someone could be doing a better job. But since “have them read a few of the hundreds of milblogs that have been written from front-line troops in the war on terror” is one possible answer, you damn sure don’t want that message to get out.

    It would scare you shitless.

  • Comments are closed.