Fact-checking the man for whom facts have no meaning

I realize there’s very little utility in fact-checking the president’s press conferences. Bush has only a passing familiarity with the truth, and rarely has his facts straight, so Q&As with reporters, such as the one held this morning on the White House south lawn, are inevitably exercises in frustration.

And yet, I’m a glutton for punishment. A few observations from my notes….

* In a relatively brief press conference, Bush mentioned the September 11 attacks five times. I guess he’s getting desperate.

* Early on, Bush said, “In a time of war, it’s irresponsible for the Democrat leadership — Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds.” My standards are so low, I was genuinely impressed he corrected himself and used the grammatically correct “Democratic leadership.” Way to go, Mr. President.

* In response to a question about Speaker Pelosi’s trip to Syria, Bush said, “We have made it clear to high-ranking officials, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, that going to Syria sends mixed signals — signals in the region and, of course, mixed signals to President Assad.” Then why is it the White House only tries to score cheap points off Pelosi’s trip? Funny how Republican trips to Syria draw no public rebuke at all.

* Bush insisted that failure in Iraq would lead those who “can’t stand America [to] find new ways to recruit.” He neglected to mention that the ongoing war is already providing them with new ways to recruit.

* The president noted, “Members of Congress are entitled to their views and should express them.” How gracious of him. He left out the part about how they’re supposed to forgo their views if they conflict with his opinions.

* Bush was outraged by the notion that lawmakers are “substituting” their judgment for that of “commanders on the ground.” But here’s the rub: Bush already substituted his judgment for commanders’ judgment. As Josh Marshall put it, “Remember, they didn’t think the surge was a good idea. So what happened? He fired them. That’s why Gen. Petraeus is there. The president looked around until he could find a general willing to agree with him. And when he did he put him in charge.”

* At one point, Bush said, “[T]he solution to Iraq, an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, is more than a military mission — precisely the reason why I sent more troops into Baghdad.” He’s using the military because the solution involves more than the military? This doesn’t make any sense.

* With a degree of indignation, the president said, “It has now been 57 days since I requested that Congress pass emergency funds for our troops.” Sounds like a long time, right? Except, as Faiz noted, last year’s supplemental took twice as long, when it was a Republican Congress. He wasn’t whining about it then.

* The president only received one question about the prosecutor purge scandal, when a reporter noted that U.S. Attorneys were evaluated on the basis of loyalty. The reporter asked, “What role should loyalty to you play in the evaluation of those charged with administering justice and enforcing the law?” Bush wouldn’t answer the question, instead saying three times that he had the right to remove them.

I’m glad the president hosts these occasional press conferences — they’re fascinating to watch — but I’m often left wondering why he even bothers. He doesn’t answer questions, he doesn’t tell the truth, and he generally comes across as clueless.

Better luck next time, Mr. President.

I don’t disagree with a thing you’ve said, CB, and yet I think there is a danger that we look at a post like this with satisfaction and make fun of W without facing the reality (which we all claim to deal in):

he won.

Current CNN.com headline: “Bush: Clock Ticking on Money for Troops”
Current MSNBC.com: “Bush Challenges Congress on Iraq Bill”
Current WaPo: “Bush Faults Democrats on War Funding Agenda”
and of course, Faux: “Bush: Dems Spending Time Undercutting our Troops”

The masses wont read the stories. The masses didn’t watch the presser. The masses wont see your detailed smackdown.

The masses will see the headlines Bush made, and if those headlines are your only data, you get the message quite clearly (albeit quite inaccurately) that Congress is refusing to timely fund our troops in the field.

I said last week that Dems can win this round, but only if they were out in front of the PR, in a concerted and effective way, and managed to get through the gatekeepers. So far, they have not done so, and I’m betting polls late this week show Bush gaining support and Congress slipping.

I give this round to Bush on points. He still knows how to use his bully pulpit better than we know how to use ours.

  • * With a degree of indignation, the president said, “It has now been 57 days since I requested that Congress pass emergency funds for our troops.” Sounds like a long time, right? Except, as Faiz noted, last year’s supplemental took twice as long, when it was a Republican Congress. He was whining about it then.

    Should that last sentence include a “not”?

    /pedant

    Anyway, Zeitgeist is, unfortunately, right — since most people are too busy to read into a story further, and since most of the media won’t highlight key facts as presented by CB, then most people won’t know the truth.

    Which makes it less of a “Bully Pulpit” and more of a “Bullshit Pulpit” …

  • Bush seems to be able to lie without fear of being called on his lies, and that is the sad and the grievous fault of the MSM. I listened to part of the press conference on the way to work, and I already know that Bush’s lies will be repeated again and again until the truth vanishes. I wish I knew what could be done to stop the BS. I listened for him to answer a single question and he answered nothing, and for the life of me, I can’t figure out how he gets away with it. He has only a 30% approval rating, so why does he keep getting a pass? They wouldn’t be giving Bill Clinton a pass, and they certainly won’t be giving a pass to Hillary Clinton.

  • Zeitgeist makes an interesting point, although no one will even remember the headlines by 2008. But if the Dems can take credit for extracting us from the quagmire, that certainly will play well during the next election cycle. I don’t mean to dismiss tactics or spin, but I think the big picture is what really matters here.

  • RE:#4 The problem is David, I am not sure the Dems can extract us if the President will not allow extraction to happen. He is working hard to obstruct every attempt to change course, so I fear that we will see many more deaths and disabilities before we get out of there. Because of the scope of the deception, this war is to me the greatest national tragedy in my lifetime, and I see very little hope for a speedy or even an orderly retreat form this disaster. I surely hope I am wrong and the congress can find a way out of there.

  • “…I’m often left wondering why he even bothers” — CB

    These aren’t info sessions, he’s “catapulting the propaganda.” He’s got the presidential podium and he knows that TV and radio will relay his words to the masses — for the most part, uncritically. Besides, Rove tells him to.

  • I don’t know when I last laughed so hard as listening to that press conference (intermittently, of course). The guy really should try out for the part of whichever Stooge (Curley?) got routinely banged on the head with the cast iron fry pan.

  • Bush is showing up more and more often, peddling his snake-oil to the media. It’ll only be a matter of time now before they start realizing that it’s the same song-and-dance—“Wah!—those mean ol’ Democrats won’t do what I tell them—wah!” Even now, there’s been a subtle change in the media’s rhetoric. Note that, unlike previous reports where the media simply ran with headlines like “Dems gamble troops over funding,” it’s now “Bush: Dems gamble troops over funding.”

    They’re starting to make the Grand Chimp-Ah carry his own water—and that, in and of itself, shows a change toward the better….

  • Congress has passed the legislation to fully fund our men and women in harm’s way. The President should sign it when it makes it to his desk. The American people have spoken, and we want our military personnel out of Iraq post haste. Military force alone cannot sustain a political solution for the mess Mr. Bush has created. We need to call Mr. Bush on his demogogery. Call Bull Shit on his whim and caprice, and write him to get him to sign the legislation, and stop hogwashing our sentiment. -Kevo

  • …I was genuinely impressed he corrected himself and used the grammatically correct “Democratic leadership.”

    Yeah. Wouldn’t want to snub them, as long as he’s already calling them “irresponsible.”

    Sometimes I feel sorry for the guy. You can almost hear the coaches barking inside his head: “Ic! Remember the ic! They jumped all over you last time! Ic! Ic!”

  • I’m currently reading FIASCO, and I’ve become especially annoyed by Bush’s endless claims that he listens to the generals, doesn’t micromanage their work, and gives them whatever they say they need.

    This has been a lie since the start of the war, when we went in with far fewer troops than many military experts/personnel claimed were necessary; there are myriad examples of commanders on the ground requesting additional troops/support and being refused; and I just finished reading about the Fallujah debacle, which was a particularly rank example of Marines being jerked around by CPA/Washington civilian leadership.

    The Marines had intended a far more measured and civilian-friendly assumption of command in Fallujah, to win back support after a heavy-handed Army-run occupation–and then those contractors blundered into town and got themselves killed. With the homefront in an uproar (and the wingnut-o-sphere baying for Kos’s head–good times!), the Marines, despite their protests, were suddenly ordered to go in with gun barrels blazing. THEN the civilian leadership got cold feet and ordered the Marines to pull back without achieving any of their objectives–and handed control of the city over to a rogue’s brigade they created and armed, led by officers of Saddam’s army. Which eventually joined/dissolved into the insurgency.

    Bush is as dishonest and hypocritical about his role as commander in chief as he is about everything else. Democrats and the media need to call him on it.

  • but I’m often left wondering why he even bothers.

    The pResident suffers from AWD: Attention Whore Disorder.

    What I wouldn’t give to see the entire rabble walk out the first time he dodged a question. Or even have some sort of Rocky Horror Picture Show type responses to certain phrases. “September 11th” = Loud lip farts, “Iraq” = Throw flowers and candy and so on.

  • I’m reading all the posts, and sort of agree with Zeitgeist that Bush “should” have won the headline battle. Except for the fact that the American people have largely decided that they really dislike and mistrust Bush. I’m not so sure a headline saying Bush says this or that has the desired effect anymore. The likely response from a majority of Americans will hopefully be – “he’s a liar, why should I listen to anything he says.” Even better would be – “he lies about everything, so the opposite of anything he says is true.”

    Except of course for the base – from Think Progress: “Grover Norquist:“The base isn’t interested in Iraq. The base is for Bush. If Bush said tomorrow, we’re leaving in two months, there would be no revolt.” ”

    But that in no way gives the msm a pass for their stenography and failure to ask the right questions or frame the story in an honest way. They are a big big problem.

  • For Dubya and his speech writers “truth” and “fact” are only archaic words in the dictionary or are things to be manipulated like statisitcs.

    As for truth and facts themselves, well when you live on the otherside of the looking glass what is truth and what is a fact?

  • Bush insisted that failure in Iraq would lead those who “can’t stand America [to] find new ways to recruit.” He neglected to mention that the ongoing war is already providing them with new ways to recruit.

    This is Bush’s legacy, which will live for decades. He’s got to be Al Qaeda’s all-time best recruiter ever.

    And BC, thanks for being a glutton for punishment! 🙂

  • Bush’s baffled fury is indeed a delight to watch. Ever see the small-town football team movie, “Varsity Blues”? Bush reminds me of Jon Voight as the coach, when he tries on the same old inspiring speech near the end – the speech that always worked before – and winds up with a “who’s with me?”, exiting the dressing room and plainly expecting the team to be dragged along as they have always been before. Nobody follows.

    The same thing is happening here: Bush doesn’t seem to realize his cloak of invisibility isn’t working any more, leaving a stupid hick – who should no more be president that Michael Jackson’s chimp – exposed for all to see. A smarter man would know that Business As Usual isn’t going to work, but Bush has been getting an adoring tongue bath from the press for so long that he simply can’t correct his swing. It’ll be yet awhile before the general public is fully on to him and support completely dries up, but that’s where things are plainly headed.

  • No one cares about the day to day operations, they want the troops out and Bush’s credibility is approaching zero.

    The longer this fight goes on, the more the truth comes out. Bush can say this or that and the media can jump on it, but it never lasts. Stay strong Congress, fight this one out because the truth will slowly seep out and the longer the fight goes the more the President will sound out of touch.

  • I was extremely disappointed with the media’s questions – all seemed like softballs, there was no follow-up when Bush failed to answer them, little effort to hold him to actual facts; given his weak position, I could see no reason to cater to him such that his remarks were given validity.

    It’s time to marginalize this man as much as possible, so that people are no longer looking to him in any real way for guidance or leadership on solving the problems that confront us. He’s been consistently wrong on pretty much everything – and in my book, people with that kind of track record should be ignored as much as possible.

  • The base isn’t interested in Iraq. The base is for Bush. If Bush said tomorrow, we’re leaving in two months, there would be no revolt.” ‘

    It’s more morally wicked than that.
    The war will go on so long as it is PROFITABLE to the base.

    In other words:
    As long as the cost of the war ONLY threatens social programs (like national health care and a wholesome lunch for poor kids) it will continue UNABATED.

    This means exactly this– There are only two ways this war will end:

    1) Corporate America no longer sees a profit in it.
    2) The American people rise up and step on the throat of the Bush-Cheney-Corporate snake.

    That’s it.
    Only two possibilities.

    And really only one: The American people MUST trod on the reptile.

  • Hey guys, smell the coffee—

    Bush said: “…it’s irresponsible for the Democrat leadership — Democratic leadership in Congress to delay.”

    Bush’s self-correcting himself was an obviously scripted line to agitate the Democrats and then appear respectable in his disagreement to “many” (brain dead). It’s just more so-called “clever” thuggery.

  • I heard some clips from the presser on my drive home from work. My first thought was that NPR loaded the wrong tape. It sounded like talking points from 3 or 4 years ago. 9/11…blablabla…Dems don’t support the troops…blablabla….commanders on the ground…blablabla.

    Not only is Bush in an alternate reality, he’s in one from 3 or 4 years ago.

  • Bush grimaced visibly when a reporter mentioned Matthew Dowd. Either it’s still a sore subject or he got a real bad paper cut at that moment.

  • As Josh Marshall put it :
    Remember, they didn’t think the surge was a good idea. So what happened? He fired them. That’s why Gen. Petraeus is there. The president looked around until he could find a general willing to agree with him. And when he did he put him in charge.”

    That’d make Josh Marshall ignorant.
    You really think it’s hard to find a general who doesn’t want more troops in a clearly understaffed theatre?

    Petraeus is there because he is the best hope for implementing a successful counterinsurgency campaign. If he had been put in charge instead of Casey in June 2004 you would have seen a very different Iraq today.

  • Kilo –

    To a large degree it is wholly irrelevant which General was in charge in Iraq in June 2004. Presumably they all follow orders from the Secretary of Defense and their Commander in Chief. The reality is that Rumsfeld and Powell had already had serious run ins on policy and philosophy, and so Rumsfeld (and his ego-run-amuk) was out to prove that he knew better than Powell on just about anything. So Rummy blithely trashed the Powell Doctrine and invaded without overwhelming force, trying to prove “lean and mean” would suffice, and without the Powell Doctrine’s required exit strategy (unless you count the Cheney/Wolfowitz “flowers and chocolates” parade as the exit strategy). Petraeus would not have made a significant difference in the relatively close aftermath of that error (and the other errors of the first year of the occupation), and because of the consequences of Rumsfeld’s folly – and the politicized, incompetent CPA as described in Iperial Life in the Emerald City – Petraeus also won’t/can’t make any real difference now. The damage is done.

  • I completely agree with ZeitGeist in post # 1. Anybody having doubts about it should read the article on SALON by Alex Koppelmann about the Fox New Network and how they use Democrats.

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/04/03/fox_news_democrats/

    Bush talks to his followers, and his followers watch Fox News and according to some Nielsen statistics it is apparently the most watched news show. 88% of Fox News’ viewers voted for Bush in 2004. And we all know how Fox treats Democrats and how fair and balanced they present Senator Reed’s comments in comparison to President Bush’s tirade.

    I also agree with post #11 Why is nobody countering Bush’s claims about listening to his commanders in the field???

  • Comments are closed.