Fun with fact-checking

September 15, 2006

Following up on an earlier item, I watched the president’s press conference this morning and jotted down a quick note every time I heard him say something that I knew to be false. Needless to say, I went through more than a couple of sheets of paper.

* On the issue of military tribunals, Bush said, “We will work with members of both parties to get legislation that works out of the Congress.”

That’s not quite right. First, the White House isn’t interested in working with congressional Dems at all, and second, the proposals with bi-partisan support are staunchly opposed by the president.

* In describing his concerns about Common Article III of the Geneva Convention, Bush said, “Common Article III says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It’s very vague. What does that mean, ‘outrages upon human dignity’? That’s a statement that is wide open to interpretation.”

Somehow, American presidents seemed to function just fine with the same interpretation for the last 60 years. Besides, the judge advocate general of the Army recently said, “[W]e’ve been training to that standard and living to that standard since the beginning of our Army, and we continue to do so.” To hear Bush tell it, the standard doesn’t even exist. Apparently, only he and his sycophants agree.

* Asked how he measures progress in Iraq with all the death and destruction, the president said, “Well, one way you do it is you measure progress based upon the resilience of the Iraqi people.”

This was my personal favorite of the day. Apparently, we’re no longer looking at progress in the war by indicators that we can actually measure (casualties, oil production, terrorist attacks, etc.), but instead by the amorphous concept of “resilience.” Now all we need is a resilience-o-meter and we’ll have some valuable data to consider.

* In a question about bin Laden being a modern-day Hitler, a reporter asked why the president hasn’t sent special forces troops into Pakistan in order to capture or kill him. Bush responded, “Pakistan is a sovereign nation. In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we’ve got to be invited by the government of Pakistan.”

Here’s a crazy idea — since Bush and Musharraf are friends, why doesn’t the president ask him about it?

* On the same point, Bush added, “[T]here is a kind of an urban myth here in Washington about how this administration hasn’t stayed focused on Osama bin Laden. Forget it. It’s convenient throw-away lines when people say that.”

Actually, it’s not.

* As for actually bringing bin Laden to justice, Bush said, “[T]he best way to find somebody who is hiding is to enhance your intelligence and to spend the resources necessary to do that.”

And to demonstrate his willingness to enhance our bin Laden intelligence, the president disbanded the CIA unit devoted to catching bin Laden. Good call.

* Bush was asked about House Majority Leader John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) comment this week that he believes Dems are “more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people.” A reporter asked Bush if Boehner’s remarks were appropriate, and the president said, “I wouldn’t have exactly put it that way, but I do believe there’s a difference of attitude [between Republicans and Democrats].”

Classy move, Mr. President. Way to help “change the tone.”

Bush added, “I’m confident the Leader, you know, meant nothing personal.” He was simply accusing half the country of treason — but if we took that “personally,” we just misunderstood.

a reporter asked why the president hasn’t sent special forces troops into Afghanistan

Actually, Pakistan, but this was my first thought as well: Wasn’t Afghanistan a sovereign country when we invaded it? Not to mention Iraq and perhaps even Iran in the near future.

Now all we need is a resilience-o-meter. . .

And this is a great line, but unfortunately all the machines we have to measure the mental and physical resilience of the Iraqi people have already been installed at Abu Ghraib.

  • Sounds like the basis of a drinking game – have a drink each time the president lies.
    Stay with sips, folks. A gulp or shot with each lie will send you to blackout city each and every time.
    But it may just be a coping mechanism…..

  • BTW great fact-check, Carpetbagger. Keep watching these press conferences so we don’t have to 🙂

  • “Well, one way you do it is you measure progress based upon the resilience of the Iraqi people.”

    Well you see Mr. CB, resilience is a quality the President appreciates because it means they don’t break or bruise as easily when subjected to “questioning,” by “intelligence professionals.”

    A side question: Has any one tracked any correlation between public statements by the President about Iraq and violence in Iraq? He makes me want to throw a rock at someone and I don’t have to put up with heavily armed foreigners.

    “Common Article III says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It’s very vague. What does that mean, ‘outrages upon human dignity’? That’s a statement that is wide open to interpretation.”

    Not surprised he doesn’t understand the concept. He also misses the point that any “vagueness” is intentional. The people who wrote CA III understood there was no way to predict what new ways human kind would come invent in the future to torment their fellow humans. CA III covers everything from bamboo splinters under the finger nails to mind control rays.

  • What does that mean, ‘outrages upon human dignity’?

    The man who is famously unafraid to use the word “evil” thinks “outrages upon human dignity” is a head-scratcher??

  • in a discussion of darfur, bush thought the notion of honoring national sovereignty was an excuse for inaction, although admittedly, consistency and george bush are not concepts that go together!

  • Asked how he measures progress in Iraq with all the death and destruction, the president said, “Well, one way you do it is you measure progress based upon the resilience of the Iraqi people.”

    You should probably also note that the president has repeatedly proclaimed his doctrine of not distinguishing between a state that supports and one that harbors terrorism. Wouldn’t that beleif of his permit looking for Bin Laden?

  • “Well, one way you do it is you measure progress based upon the resilience of the Iraqi people.”
    .
    It’s a shame there’s no way to capture in print the full assholiness of the annoying little snicker Chimpy emits right after he thinks he said something clever.
    .
    The world would be a better place if Jeb had been the elder brother; he would have smacked the smirk off Chimpy’s face until he learned to stifle it.
    .

  • “What does that mean, ‘outrages upon human dignity'”?

    Proof positive the president has no moral compass, contrary to all the b.s. believed by the “values” voters. That phrase is clear as a fu**ing bell to me.

  • There is something so nauseating about Bush being the “explainer” and the lecturer. Perhaps he read Nausea during his Existentialist explorations. I wonder if his heart rate goes up on a lie any more.

  • Bush is an outrage upon human dignity.

    However, I agree with Bush that it is a bit vague. Perhaps we could get it tightened up adding it to the list of charges against Bush and Cheney & sending them and the charges off to the Hague and letting the World Court sort it out.

  • “…you measure progress based upon the resilience of the Iraqi people.” – GWB

    Resilience is what you measure when you punch one of those big inflatable clowns that bowls over and than stands up again. People, on the other hand, get pis*ed when you repeatedly smack them around. So, a better measure of progress would be how pis*ed Iraqis are at Bush.

  • “Pakistan is a sovereign nation. In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we’ve got to be invited by the government of Pakistan.”

    Let’s substitute “Iraq” for “Pakistan” and see how that sentence works. I’d love to see him try and parse that difference, he’d probably rupture a disk trying to twist around that!

  • It’s terrific that he’s held the occasional press conference lately, but I’m frustrated by the disparate tendency of the questioning and by the fact that it’s nearly impossible to press Bush with a follow-up question, to dispute the intelligence of his answers. I’ve never been for impeachment because the obvious next step would be President Cheney, but there’s nothing to say you can’t impeach a president without the intention of conviction.

    What I want to see are public hearings in which Congress grills the president on his choices and exposes his flawed thinking for all the public to see. They grill him on corruption, on illegal wiretaps, on general incompetence, and they don’t let him off the hook. They render him politically impotent, render the entire Republican party politically impotent. That’s a fresh start for America in the eyes of the world.

    ITMFA.

  • His argument that “outrages upon human dignity” is vague reminds me of Supreme Court Justice Potter’s commentary about pornography – “I know it when I see it.” Echoing the comments above, what isn’t clear about waterboarding, electric leads to the nuts, death threats on family members, etc. (I’m sure that I am nowhere near creative enough to come up with some of the shit that they perpetrate) falling within that definition?

    By trying to make it more specific, you actually make it more vague. Sounds like an oxymoron, but by creating a list of conduct rather than one overarching concept, it makes it easier to say that the conduct chosen doesn’t fit within one of the newly-listed definitions, i.e., we didn’t water board him because he was being hung from his ankles and, even though it still strongly created the sensation of drowning, hey, it’s not waterboarding, so it’s legal.

    By keeping the definition vague, it makes people stay way the f–k on this side of the line, hence, as an earlier poster pointed out, “dereliction of duty,” “conduct unbecoming an officer,” etc., while arguably vague are easy enough to deal with because everyone “knows it when they see it.”

  • JimK: “I’ve never been for impeachment because the obvious next step would be President Cheney…”

    No, the obvious first step is… impeach Cheney. Then impeach Bush.

  • I managed to watch the press conference to the bitter end, feeling that I was watching a raving lunatic who couldn ‘t help repeating himself for at least the first twenty minutes.

    In answering the last question about his“Third Awakening” comments at a meeting of conservative journalists earlier this week, Bush had this to say:

    “I also said that I had run for office the first time to change a culture . . . you know, the culture that said, if it feels good, do it, and, if you’ve got a problem, blame somebody else — to helping to work change a culture in which each of us are responsible for the decisions we make in life. In other words, ushering in a responsibility era. And I reminded people that responsibility means if you’re a father, love your child; if you’re corporate America, be honest with the taxpayers; if you’re a citizen of this country, love your neighbor.”

    Sets a wonderful example, doesn’t he? As Justin Frank, the author of “Bush on the Couch,”once said, the key to understanding the president is to realize he means exactly the opposite of what he says.

  • I think His Royal Petulance is cranky because it’s getting harder to convince the ‘young intelligence professionals’ who do the actual interrogating that they won’t end up on trial, either here or in the Hague.

    Unless H.R.P. can get Congress to produce a legal cover, they’ll have to resort to acting like honorable and civilized people, which will really make it hard to run the secret prisons and all the other stuff H.R.P. seems so fond of.

  • @21
    “In other words, ushering in a responsibility era.”

    When I try to read that sentence while at the same time remembering George W. Bush is the one who said it, I laugh so hard spit flies. And this is just down right stupid:
    “…if you’re a citizen of this country, love your neighbor.”

    I see. That’s how we tell the good Amuricuns from the lying, cheating, murdering sadists in our midst.

  • “It’s very vague. What does that mean, ‘outrages upon human dignity’?”

    Um… Simply explained… Imagine yourself in the other person’s place.

    For example:
    Suppose someone brings Your Pet Goat to your bedroom while you’re snoring with your mouth open, and lets the goat poop some pellets into your lying mouth. That person then yells “booo!”, so that you wake up and chomp on the pellets.

    Would you, or would you not, think your dignity as a human being has has been offended?

    Another example:
    Suppose, you were brought to the morning press conference naked, forced to move on all fours and with a leash around your neck… Then Helen Thomas starts asking you why Osama is still on the loose.

    Would you, or would you not think, that… etc

    Any parent ought to be able to craft *many* examples which are suitable for the age/mental development level of the child asking a question. Perhaps we need to make sure that all the journalists at those conferences are *parents*?

  • Also, the “soveriegn nation” of Pakistan is presently under a military dictatorship, and they possess nuclear weapons, and they may harbor Bin Laden. What else would Bush have to wait for to invade? Legalization of gay marriage?

  • The more I think about it, the more Bush’s line about needing clarity for what an outrage upon human dignity would be, the more it reminds me of the line that culls the big spenders from the rest of us: “If you have to ask, you can’t afford it.” The fact that Bush is asking for clarification means he’s already strayed into outrageous territory.

    What a goof this guy’s been lately. Bush has turned into the Kim Jong Il of America.

  • “outrages on human dignity”…Well Bush, I would say the tapes of Abu Ghraib that Seymour Hersh has said the ACLU has seen with boys being sodomized complete with unmentional screaming would qualify.

    “Resolute” what is it with this word? Its in almost every statement the Bushies make. During ’04, it was the presidents “resolve” we heard about daily. Now its the Iraqis “resillence”? These are people are resolute liars and incompetents. They’re resolute in being wrong. Resolute crackpots.

  • Any comments on Novak’s appearance on CSPAN yesterday am? I find him to be a smug bag of hot air (to put it nicely).

    Wish I could have asked him two things:
    If the CIA guy (one of his sources with whom he confirmed his info) told him to please not publish his article (in which he outed Valerie Plame Wilson), why did he do so? Is Novak so dumb he couldn’t read between the lines?

    If Richard Armitage was the one who told Novak about Plame Wilson, why has Scooter Libby been indicted for perjury, ie why would Libby have lied to Fitz? Not to protect Armitage, obviously.

    Novak continues to maintain that Plame Wilson wasn’t covert.

    CB, any comments?

  • To make my second question more clear… Richard Armitage may have mentioned Plame to Novak, but the fact that Libby lied to Fitz indicates that Libby was covering for someone in the administration – Cheney, etc. – who was guilty of leaking Plame’s ID.

    • Comments are closed.