Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Bush press conference: I guess they kind of view it as an isolated group of people that occasionally kill

Cheney today: “Some have suggested that the war is not winnable, a few seem almost eager to conclude that the whole struggle is already lost.” Prick.

Bush speaks. Always a bad move.

"[F]or every act of violence there is encouraging progress in Iraq that’s hard to capture on the evening news." So it’s a one-for-one deal?

He welcomes the Iraqi decision to bypass the constitution we wrote for them and create a council with more powers than those of the cabinet.

Asked again whether Iraq was in a civil war or just a crapfest, he says, "the way I look at the situation is that the Iraqis took a look and decided not to go to civil war." He makes it sound like Newark. "No question that the enemy has tried to spread sectarian violence." He makes it sound like margarine. "They use violence as a tool to do that." He makes it sound like a socket wrench. "The reports of bound Sunnis that were executed are horrific." He makes it sound like a Quentin Tarantino movie. Which may be about right. By the way, horrific is a word coined by the movie industry, I believe in the 1950s, to advertise horror flicks.

By the way, Brando helpfully provides some good news from Iraq.

Back to Bush: "[I]f the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon they could blackmail the world. If the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon they could proliferate." He makes it sound like a marital aid. "This is a country that’s walking away from international accords". Um, yeah, Iran is.

Helen Thomas asked, since all the reasons he gave for invading Iraq were untrue, "why did you really want to go to war?" Bush says he didn’t want to go to war. He makes it sound like he took a wrong turn on Elm Street.

A reporter asked about a well-planned attack on a prison in Miqdadiya (the reporter wrongly said Baghdad), in which 17+ police were killed and 30 prisoners released. Chimpy:
Thirdly, in spite of the bad news on television -- and there is bad news. You brought it up; you said, how do I react to a bombing that took place yesterday -- is precisely what the enemy understands is possible to do. I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t talk about it. I’m certainly not being -- please don’t take that as criticism. But it also is a realistic assessment of the enemies capability to affect the debate, and they know that. They’re capable of blowing up innocent life so it ends up on your TV show.
"Your tv show"? You mean, the news? Or is there a show on, say, UPN, called "Blowing Up Innocent Life"? Or, if I know UPN "Extreme Blowing Up Innocent Life." Later, he adds that the enemy’s use of IEDs "creates a sense of concern amongst our people."

"I fully understand the consequences of this war. I understand people’s lives are being lost." Have you noticed how many times lately he claims that he understands things, like after all this time, he just realized that people think he’s stupid?

"A democracy in Iraq is going to inspire reformers in a part of the world that is desperate for reformation." He makes it sound like the US military is tacking some Theses to a mosque door.

"Our foreign policy up to now was to kind of tolerate what appeared to be calm. And underneath the surface was this swelling sense of anxiety and resentment, out of which came this totalitarian movement that is willing to spread its propaganda through death and destruction, to spread its philosophy. Now, some in this country don’t -- I can understand -- don’t view the enemy that way. I guess they kind of view it as an isolated group of people that occasionally kill. I just don’t see it that way. I see them bound by a philosophy with plans and tactics to impose their will on other countries."

Fox reporter Carl Cameron: "What, sir, do you think the impact of the discussion of impeachment and censure does to you and this office, and to the nation during a time of war, and in the context of the election?" Bush: "I did notice that nobody from the Democrat Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program. ... They ought to take their message to the people and say, vote for me, I promise we’re not going to have a terrorist surveillance program. That’s what they ought to be doing. That’s part of what is an open and honest debate."

Back to Iraq:

Q Do you now have in mind a target date for forming the [Iraqi] unity
government and --

THE PRESIDENT: As soon as possible. Next question.

Oo, sensitive.

Q How much of a factor do you think that will be -- in turning around, or at least improving the situation in the public opinion?

THE PRESIDENT: Here in America?

Q Right.

THE PRESIDENT: That’s a trick question, because you want to get me to talk about polls when I don’t pay attention to polls.

Technically, the question was about public opinion, not polls. The next time he does that I don’t pay attention to polls thing, someone should ask what he does use to measure the will of the American people on any given subject, or if he just doesn’t give a shit.

Rhetoric creep alert: I believe Shrub first used the obnoxious term "Islamo-fascism" last October, but it was always in the "some people call it Islamo-fascism" form. Today he used it without the qualifier.

Here GeeDubya neatly and totally fairly sums it up for us: "The -- it’s an interesting debate, isn’t it, about whether or not this country of ours ought to work to spread liberty. It’s -- I find it fascinating that -- to listen to the voices from around the world as to whether or not it is a noble purpose to spread liberty around the world."

He adds that when the enemy was "given a chance to govern or to have their parasitical government represent their views... [t]here was no such thing as being able to express yourself in the public square. There was no such thing as press conferences like this." He makes it sound... kind of attractive.

1 comment: