The ‘pundit in chief’ takes his message to Fox News

Most of the news coverage following the president’s lengthy appearance on “Fox News Sunday” yesterday dealt with Bush’s defense of John McCain’s conservative ideology. (The president said McCain is “absolutely” conservative, adding, “Look, he’s very strong on national defense. He’s tough fiscally. He believes that tax cuts ought to be permanent. He’s pro-life.”)

But for me, the most striking exchange came towards the end, when Fox News’ Chris Wallace brought up torture. Bush emphasized that his interrogation methods were legal because his lawyers told him so, and added the kind of shameless demagoguery we’ve come to expect from the president on the subject: “[F]or those who criticize what we did in the past, I ask them which attack would they rather have not permitted — stopped.”

After the clumsy remark, Wallace asked a jaw-dropper:

WALLACE: I want to follow up on that. Whether it’s interrogation of terror prisoners or the intercepting of surveillance among Al Qaida members, are you ever puzzled by all the concern in this country about protecting the rights of people who want to kill us?

BUSH: Oh, that’s an interesting way to put it. I wouldn’t necessarily define some of the critics of my policy that way. I would say that they want to be very careful that we don’t overstep our bounds from protecting the civil liberties of Americans, and I understand that a lot.

I do think that some of the programs we put in place, like listening to people calling into America — that some of the claims about what we’re doing have been exaggerated.

Got that? Wallace was so over the top with his ridiculous question, which sought to smear those concerned with American civil liberties, that even Bush wasn’t comfortable agreeing with the Fox News personality’s point.

As Glenn Greenwald put it, “If the subject of a political interview finds the questions from the ‘journalist’ too favorably slanted to embrace (basically: “I think you’re being unfairly harsh to my political opponents”), isn’t that a fairly compelling sign that there is something profoundly corrupt with the journalist?”

Actually, yes, it does.

There were no shortage of gems in the interview, and I may get a couple of additional posts out of it, but there was one other quick exchange I wanted to add. Wallace noted that Democratic presidential candidates have been using the president as a “pinata.” Bush responded:

“You know, my attitude is so long as they’re talking about me, we have a better chance of winning, because our candidate will — what’s going to matter is not the past but the future when it comes to campaigns.

“And if the Democrat [sic] Party feels like they can win an election by focusing on me, I think they’ll be making a huge tactical mistake, but I hope they do that, then, because our candidate will be able to talk about the future and what this person intends to do for the country.”

Bush really seems to underestimate just how unpopular he is, doesn’t he?

Of course Dems are going to argue that a vote for McCain is a vote for four more years of Bush-Cheney. Indeed, McCain is apparently poised to make the job even easier for Dems.

Who does the journalist want to mainstream? So they play Coulter to make the President appear sane and reasonable in comparison.

  • This part was pretty important, too:

    WASHINGTON (AFP) – President George W. Bush acknowledged the United States would seek a military presence in Iraq for “years” but pledged in an interview aired Sunday that he would not establish permanent bases.

    Bush brushed aside concerns expressed by critics that a Status of Forces Agreement Washington is discussing with the Baghdad goverment would commit future US presidents to a long-term deployment in Iraq.

    “We won’t have permanent bases,” Bush told Fox News television in the interview conducted at his retreat at Camp David, Maryland.

    But he added, “I do believe it is in our interests and the interests of the Iraqi people that we do enter into an agreement on how we are going to conduct ourselves over the next years.”

    While the Americans press plans to trim their forces in Iraq from the current 160,000 troops, they are negotiating a pact with Baghdad to maintain their presence beyond the end of 2008, when their UN mandate expires.

    Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other US officials say they have no interest in establishing permanent bases, but congressional critics are insisting any accord be submitted to the legislature.

    Bush, who also has 26,000 troops in Afghanistan and is planning to send 3,200 more, was non-committal on whether he would pass any Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq past the Senate.

    “Well, you know, we work with the Senate and the House (of Representatives) on that,” he told Fox. “We didn’t bring a treaty to the Senate for Afghanistan.”

    He’s obviously laying the ground for McCanine’s “100 years.”

  • Speaking of “balancing” the civil liberties of Americans as we fight the GWOT, I thought this (from Think Progress) was a stunning remark (emphasis is mine):

    In a speech to Missouri Republicans yesterday, former attorney general John Ashcroft defended President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program and his record on civil liberties, declaring that Bush is “among the most respectful of all leaders ever” when it comes to “respecting the civil liberties and rights of individuals.” Bush “respects liberty so profoundly that he has protected it and has safeguarded civil liberties more than any other president in wartime that I know of,” Ashcroft said. Ashcroft’s comments come on the heels of Bush’s decision to allow the civil liberties oversight board to go vacant.

    I don’t know what they are smoking or drinking, but it is some powerful stuff. I mean, when the president is so respectful of civil liberites, why do we even need an oversight board?

  • Wow. So if I’m taking Crissy’s context correctly, an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, the People, and their Rights is an oath to protect the terrorists.

    What I wouldn’t give for a lawyer who could argue the legality of dropping an anvil on Chris Wallace and squishing him like a bug….

  • Bush: “And if the Democrat [sic] Party…”

    Poor idiotic, can’t even speak proper English. We need to say this every time a repub fails to turn this noun into an adjective. Of course, Bush rarely speaks proper English.

    Speaking of idiots ::cough, cough Chris Wallace:: what must poor Mike Wallace think of his offspring?

  • Great YouTube, Hannah.

    And, Steve, Bush misunderestimates pretty much everything. He lives in his own little fantasy world where no one says no to him. And when they do, he does his I’LL HOLD MY BREATH UNTIL…act. I wish the grown ups would take over. The real ones…the dems are doing nothing for us either.

    This is all so flipping depressing.

    It’s like watching a train wreck and not being able to do anything about it.

    It’s like no one cares.

  • TR – spot on. I can understand Hill’s desire to want to debate Barack anytime, anywhere, but Fox personalities are just fluffers for the Bush White House. No respect should be shown to an agency so fawning for an illegitimate president as to even embarrass Bush himself.

  • I wish everyone would just admit the obvious and quit calling these people journalists. They are propogandists and an arm of the RNC. And no Democrat should ever do anything but acknowledge that FACT! Including Hilary.

  • That video is sooooo funny, as the “Yes We Can” one was so inspiring. I swear, if the DNC doesn’t start using them as their official TV ads, they’re out of their minds.

  • “Wallace was so over the top with his ridiculous question, which sought to smear those concerned with American civil liberties, that even Bush wasn’t comfortable agreeing with the Fox News personality’s point.”

    Such a stupid question serves two points: 1. It makes Bush appear sane and reasonable (to those who don’t know him) while 2. “Getting it out there” that Bush’s opponents are evil. It’s a win-win for Bush, and I’m guessing a question he was prepared for in advance, not one that he was shocked by and hastily backed away from.

  • Perhaps it’s time to quit wondering what Republicans are smoking or drinking, whether they’re clinically nuts or whether they really believe what they’re saying and conclude that it’s all propaganda to mask the undoing of a representative democracy with the people’s consent.

  • Poor Chris, someday the beast is going to turn around on him and he’ll wonder where all his rights went to.

  • The President’s Oath of Office:

    Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution gives the President’s Oath of Office:

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    Well, George, how have you been doing on that pretecting and preserving and defending for the last seven years?

  • Chris Wallace is a big putz and a complete embarrassment to his father. I hope he just does this because they have lewd photos of him and his pineapple fetish (don’t ask). In fact, I suspect that’s how they gathered up the entire Fox News gang; by inviting journalists to a pervert convention and hiring the ones who showed up (after the convention came to full completion, of course). Brit Humes, I’m looking at you.

    As for Bush, the worst part about his final comment isn’t just that he misunderestimates his own unpopularity, but that he has no clue about politics. No, if everyone is linking McCain to Bush and complaining, that doesn’t allow McCain to look towards the future. Nor does anyone seriously think he will. McCain will be defending the whole shitheap the Bushies created over the last seven years and no one’s going to want to hear it. Even the wingnuts are sick of Bush, but are just too stubborn to admit it. After all his sacrifice, poor McCain is the lamb being sacrificed to appease the political gods.

  • Comments are closed.