The Educator-in-Chief makes his case

January 15, 2007

As part of his new public-relations offensive, the president was on 60 Minutes last night, making his best possible case that he still knows what he’s talking about. The interview, to hear Bush tell it, was to give the nation a lesson. “[S]ometimes you’re the commander-in-chief, sometimes you’re the educator-in-chief, and a lot of times you’re both when it comes to war,” Bush said. “I’ve just gotta continue to take my message to the people and to explain to them this is a well-thought-out decision.”

Unfortunately, though, Bush is about as good a teacher as he is president. If the president’s speech on Wednesday night was a dud, his interview on 60 Minutes was at least as bad. This was probably the most noteworthy exchange:

PELLEY: The Democrat leadership says, “We wanna support the troops who are on the ground. We just wanna redline the extra 20,000.”

BUSH: Yeah. I will resist that. That would mean that they’re not willing to support a plan that I believe will work and solve the situation. Listen, we’ve got people criticizing this plan before it’s had a chance to work. And I, therefore, think they have an extra responsibility to show us a plan that will work. In other words, they’re saying, “We’re not even gonna fund this thing.” And they’re not gonna give it a chance.

PELLEY: There’s no Democrat plan.

BUSH: It doesn’t look like it to me. And maybe there will be one. Now, I’ve listened to a lot of good folks who are Democrats who have expressed their opinions…. It’s my responsibility to put forward the plan that I think will succeed. I believe if they start trying to cut off funds, they better explain to the American people and the soldiers why their plan will succeed.

PELLEY: Do you believe as commander-in-chief you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do?

BUSH: In this situation, I do, yeah. Now, I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I made my decision, and we’re going forward.

Bush made a joke several years ago about the democratic process. “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator,” Bush said.

I kept thinking about that joke, which was purportedly offered in jest, after hearing the president’s comments on 60 Minutes.

As Bush sees it, there are apparently no limits at all on his ability to wage a war. No matter how one interprets the Constitution, does this even make any sense? Under what circumstances would the Founding Fathers, who were distrustful of an excessively powerful chief executive, create a system whereby a president could wage a war without any checks or balances?

As Digby put it, “I have long said that the Republicans are undemocratic, but now they’re just coming right out and saying it: democracy is all well and good until the people and their representatives object to what the president is doing at which point the people and their representatives become a superfluous ‘committee.’ They have interpreted the words ‘commander in chief’ to mean that the constitution gives the president dictatorial powers during ‘wartime’ (which the president defines).”

And just as an aside, what was with CBS’s Scott Pelley using the right-wing “Democrat leadership” construction? Does he not know the difference between a noun and an adjective either?

Other highlights of the interview from my notes:

* Bush said, “I began to think, well, if failure is not an option and we’ve got to succeed, how best to do so? And that’s how I came up with the plan I did.” Last week, Bush said he didn’t come up with the plan at all.

* The president defended his decision to topple Saddam Hussein, arguing, “Well, our administration took care of a source of instability in Iraq.” Is that really the argument Bush wants to make right now? The problem with pre-2003 Iraq was “instability”? Isn’t the ongoing civil war in Iraq far less “stable” that Saddam’s dictatorial regime?

* Looking back at earlier mistakes in Iraq, Bush said, “The minute we found out they didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, I was the first to say so.” Actually, the president has this exactly backwards. The minute we found they didn’t have the weapons, Bush announced, “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.”

* Explaining why he was wrong but not dishonest about pre-invasion Iraq, Bush said, “Everybody was wrong on weapons of mass destruction…. I’d look at the people’s comments when the run-up to the war. They had looked at the same intelligence I had looked at.” This inane talking point has been thoroughly debunked so many times, it’s almost painful to hear Bush repeat it as if it were true. It’s not.

All in all, the educator-in-chief needs to brush up on his lesson plan. Bush has lost any skills of persuasion he may have had, his pitch is a joke, and no one’s buying what he’s selling.

Pelley needs to get some letters, I guess. What a hack, saying “There’s no Democrat plan.”

There are several plans, and using the Republican jerk catchphrase is inexcusable, unless he’s illiterate.

  • stumbley mcBruisey: I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I made my decision, and we’re going forward.

    an’ ah’m th’ deciderer an’ nobody’s gonna stop me, nyah.

  • I went to the first two DC marches before the war started. First protest events I had ever been to, in my over 50 years. It seems to me that maybe it’s time to go again. Molly Ivins is saying we need to “Hit the streets to protest Bush’s proposed surge. If you can, go to the peace march in Washington on Jan. 27. We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, “Stop it, now!””

    And the media that roundly ignored or belittled the hundreds of thousands in the streets last time seem ready to give the people their due. Even papers in the conservative Shenandoah Valley are giving respectful front page play to small local protests and to Jim Webb’s no bullshit pushing back in the Congress – he got the headline and Warner the mention.

    Since Bush said he can do what he wants on 60 Minutes maybe we should all go and say the hell you can. I’ll bet the crowds now will dwarf the enormous crowds last time. It is really not a useless gesture. Bush&Co won’t listen but I believe, this time, that it will amplify what the polls and the politicians and the media are saying – and give the politicians a bit more courage in cutting Bush off at the purse.

  • Interesting the way this is being framed. By saying that the Dems have to show a plan that will work, the president is attempting to imbue his own plan with a guarantee of success. Given that there is never any guarantee that a particular plan will work, and given that none of the plans put forward to date by the administration have been successful, it seems like they are requiring that others meet a standard that they themselves have been incapable of meeting. This is nothing new with the administration, but it contimues to amaze me that the media cannot see this for what it is.

    In the meantime, the administration blather serves to distract while troops are being shifted and others are being deployed, so that the administration can use the Dems’ pledge not to cut off funding for troops already in the field to make sure he has the funds. While closing the barn door after the horses have left is more than the Dems have done to this point, they need to think about skipping over that part and getting to the barn before the administration steals the horses.

  • wvng: …We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans…

    i hope Molly was being facetious or whatever cos that pots and pans shit, if taken literally* is sooo gonna be used against anyone who does it —- watch, it’ll be the next communique from rove/bu$hCo, disseminated all over the internets, radio and TV by the likes of hannity *puke* et al. it’ll all be about dirty hippies making fools of themselves (and the issue itself—the original reason—will be left in the dust as per usual).

    *i suffer from Asperger’s and take things literally.

  • Underlying all this is the absurd presumption that we are “at war” and that, therefore, the Shrub-Chimp is a “wartime president”, which leads to the further presumption that he is our Commander-in-Chief with what amount to dicatorial powers.

    War was never declared, and even if you further presume that what we’re doing is covered by the emergency War Powers Act, that authorization ran out years ago — under it the president must come back to Congress within 90, and then renew that ever two years, and none of that has happened.

    If we simply waive all Constitutional and Congressional authority questions and regard this as a de facto war, there are still questions. With whom are we enemies? Do we shoot Kurds, or Shiites, or Sunnis. Do we aid the Shiites as they shoot Sunnis? Which of the 32 factions within Shia do we fight for? What constitutes a “win”? Why is our public not asked to sacrifice? Why are we giving away trillions to the obscenely rich during “wartime”?

    Even if we waive such practical (and ethical and deadly) matters, by what authority does the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, during so-called wartime, blend over into being the Commander-in-Chief (Dictator?) of the civilian population? By what right does any military commander tear up Articles 1, 4, 5, and 6 of our Bill of Rights? Who told him that because predecessors used “signing statements” (to clarify intent vis-a-vis possible future litigation) that he had permission to simply ignore, or actually contravene, 800 laws which Congress passed and he lacked the courage to veto?

    This isn’t a any kind of “war” we have previously committed troops to. There might be some parallels in the early 20th century military incursions in Central America and the West Indies to protect American investments, but the connection is pretty weak. No, this is simply a personal Crusade by the Demented Deciderator to avenge his Daddy image and, more importantly, seize control of the oil for his buddies. It is based on a long series of bald-faced lies and withholding of documentary information. The only reason we are still pursuing it is because the Regal Moron simplty fires anyone who happens to find the couraqge to disagree with him.

    Some jerk from Newsweek, on Air America this morning, tried to excuse our actions in Iraq by noting that soldiers take an oath to obey their commanders. That may well be (though I seem to remember President Eisenhower making it somewhat more complicated than that), but journalists take no such oath. Neither do Congress people or Judges. Theirs is not to blindly obey but to think, criticize, decide, even impeach. They are all failing us.

  • Listen, we’ve got people criticizing this plan before it’s had a chance to work.

    Got that, Mr. & Mrs. America? You’re not allowed to say something won’t work until it’s tried. It either works or it doesn’t. And if it doesn’t work (and people get killed because of it), you’re not allowed ot say “I told you so,” because you shouldn’t have been telling me so before we tried it!

  • PELLEY: There’s no Democrat plan.

    BUSH: It doesn’t look like it to me.

    Well, there was the Murtha plan, among others.

    But what they’ve done is redefine what the plan has to be. There’s no plan for bringing order to Baghdad, is one of the goalposts I heard over the weekend. Obviously, Murtha’s redeployment or even a radical partition plan wouldn’t accomplish that.

    There was also the ISG recommendations, but I guess that doesn’t count as a plan, or as a “Democrat plan.”

  • You forgot to mention the change in rhetoric after Bush attended a 2 hour meeting with the families of KIA’s. Two hours of “reality” must really cause some discomfort.

    What about the 365 days W has spent at Camp David during his presidencey? 17% of his time is at a camp in the woods! Is this included as vacation time or is this over and above the vacation he already takes?

    I had to flip back and forth during the interview. I really cannot stand to watch him for more than about 30 seconds at a time.

  • ***…if failure is not an option and we’ve got to succeed…***
    ———–“the Deciderist”

    Failure is not an option; it is a fact. This simianic policy of “throwing more meat into the meatgrinder” (and 21,500 troops is a lot of meat) is identical to the domestic policy of throwing more red meat to Das Base. It’s the ploy of feeding the crocodile to stave off the moment in which it finally consumes you. Every soldier placed in harm’s way is nothing to Das Boosh but another reason to continue down a failed path, hoping against all hope to resusitate a failed legacy.

    As for CBS—they’ve chosen to forsake reality, adopting instead the policy of “running with the popular crowd.” They can deal with the consequences of their actions when reality rears up like a dragon—and incinerates their broadcasting licensure. There is, after all, no law that forces the Government to license “the right to deceive….”

  • re: rimone “it’ll all be about dirty hippies making fools of themselves (and the issue itself—the original reason—will be left in the dust as per usual).”

    Yeah, that’s a concern. I, and many others, winced at the off topic ANSWER&Friends diatribes at the pre-war rallies. They were unhelpful in the extreme and unfocused on the issue that drew most of the people there. Over at Sullivan’s blog there has been a bit of a discussion on the protest rally crowds that really misses the point – MOST of the people at these are not radicals in any way. They are citizens who are deeply concerned about the direction of our country who are looking for some way, any way, to make a difference. I expected to be surrounded by “the crazies” at the first anti-war rally in DC (actually no one expected many people to actually show up) and was impressed by how extremely ordinary most of the people were. I was also stunned by the power of having soooo many people in one space trying to prevent a bad thing from happening.

    The MSM conventional wisdom during the pre-war rallies was that these were just a bunch of Atrios’ “dirty f&*%$ng hippies” that should be dismissed. I really think that this time the media narrative will be – “wow, look at the huge crowds of ordinary Americans that came out against this policy. Bush is really going against the wishes of the American people.”

    So come on out and be a part of it. I live in West Virginia and have a long drive to town. We get on the Metro in the outskirts of DC, and the power of seeing the rally crowd build and build as the train travels into the city, then build and build in Metro Station, and build on the walk to downtown is simply amazing and empowering. And maybe this time will help shape the national narrative.

  • The President spoke on Wednesday about adding 20,000 additional troops, but according to this, we just finished reducing troop strength by 20,000 — from 152,000 in November to 132,000 in January. So what gives? Are we “surging” back to the same troop strength we just recently had?

  • re no. 11: thank you, wvng. i for one, have come to a decision — having had pre-9/11 plans to leave the States and work in the EU and now living in England, i had one of those moments of clarity right after new year’s. i was watching ‘The Usual Suspects’ and saw a brief shot of the Towers. for the first time in over five years, i didn’t break down and cry like crazy (nb: before that, i always wept, not only at the needless lives lost but mostly cause bu$hCo used that shit to /his/ advantage as well as to further PNAC et al).

    now, having lost my demoralising depression over what they did to US, i am planning to head back to the States (if y’all care to, see my post big decision. as well, please listen to Chrissie Hynde’s Revolution (in one of my more recent posts) which explains much better than i ever could about how i feel.

    AFAIC, now’s the time i MUST take a stand, the one i should’ve taken way back when the SC gifted that asswipe w/his preznit’cy but i was too chickenshit and demoralised back then. not anymore; i’ve had it w/them and i’m no longer filled w/tears, just a cold hard fury.

    i figure i’ll be back at latest, by Springtime. my friends here think i’m crazy but i’ve had it w/the PTB and i feel the time is right for me to do /something/, anything.

  • Bush also had the unbelievable audacity to say the Iraqi citizens are not grateful enough to America. When I heard him say this I almost had a fit of apoplexy.

    The Bush administration and its allies and interloping corporate carpetbaggers have single-handedly made Iraq an unlivable nation.

    More innocent Iraqis have died as a direct result of the actions of the Bush administration, and the consequences thereof, than at any time in Iraq’s recent history, and that includes when Hussein was at the height of his power.

    Iraq’s experiments with democracy, while notable in their apparent success, have led to nothing resembling a stable nation as a result. The constitutional rule of law appears to be absent. The same sort of tribal/religious politics that have always existed there have not abated and, instead, are worse today.

    The Bush administration thought that the oil of Iraq could be secured for the West using a combination of military force backed up by malleable political forces. They are wrong. And now he’s criticizing us because we “won’t give the plan a chance to succeed.”

    How many goddamn chances does this ASSHOLE need??!

  • Can the president explain how the outcome of his success (prolonged failure) is going to be any less catastrophic than the outcome of a planned, phased withdrawal? The insurgents and militias will wait us out regardless of our course of action. They have the space to scatter plus the time. Seeking stability in Iraq is a mirage, never quenching the thirst, but reinforcing delusions.

  • While I wish public protests would have an impact, the bubble is simply too thick for it to make any changes with the administration. But to borrow a parliamentary tactic from across the pond, how about if Congress were to put forth a vote of confidence on Bush as Commander in Chief? A no confidence vote by Congress would certainly tell the generals that the rest of Washington feels W and Cheney are a bunch of loons and that soldiers are being further pressed into a fool’s errand.

  • The President spoke on Wednesday about adding 20,000 additional troops, but according to this, we just finished reducing troop strength by 20,000 — from 152,000 in November to 132,000 in January. So what gives? Are we “surging” back to the same troop strength we just recently had?
    –Will

    Yep.

    Not only that, some of the numbers are just extending tours, or “resetting the clock” on the Guard and Reserve — basically, the period of time between deployments for these groups has been reset, as if their first tour(s) never happened, allowing them to go back into active service earlier.

    It makes me sick, to be honest. I work with these folks every day, and they’re about ready to snap (both literally and metaphorically).

  • To understand just how Bush said that, go read yesterday’s really wonderful post by Glenn Greenwald at Unclaimed Territory about the administration’s main strategy being the ongoing promotion of the “unitary executive.”

    We are headed for the constitutional trainwreck to end all constitutional trainwrecks as Bush holds this position and the rest of the government begins to resist him.

    TC

  • BTW, there seems to be a running theme to the president’s beliefs about his right to be dictatorial. Before the telecast on Wednesday Tony Snow said about Congress potentially blocking an escalation, “The President has the ability to exercise his own authority if he thinks Congress has voted the wrong way.”

  • A President Bush is the Founding Fathers’ worst nightmare. They enacted our laws after surviving a “911” which put all their lives at risk and which they barely won. All so that America would never be ruled by tyrants again.

    Could you imagine what a Ben Franklin would call W if he were around today?

  • ***Could you imagine what a Ben Franklin would call W if he were around today?***
    ————–Glen

    How about “a good reason to discover electricity, so someone could invent the electric chair?”

    • Comments are closed.