
“And I’ve kept yelling since I first commenced it, I’m against it!”
Says “I fully understand that the intelligence was wrong, and I’m just as disappointed as everybody else is.” Disappointed? Is that the word for it? And I think that Cindy Sheehan and many other survivors of dead soldiers, to say nothing of most of the 25 million Iraqis, might be a tad more “disappointed” than Bush is.
He did his usual thing about how his father fought the Japs and now he & Koizumi are bestest buds, although he added a surprising condemnation of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, at least I think that’s what this is:the war -- and by the way, it ended with an old doctrine of warfare, which is, destroy as many innocent people as you can to get the guilty to surrender. That’s changed, by the way, with the precision nature of our military, and the way we’re structured, and the way our troops think, is we now target the guilty and spare the innocent.I’ve commented before on Bush knowing only one adjective, interesting. Between the speech & the q&a, he used the word 18 times. For a man whose lack of intellectual curiosity is renowned, nay, legendary, he sure finds a lot of things interesting.
Which is more than I can say for this speech, although one audience member gave him a dressing down:Q: I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself inside yourself.I may have made up the response, although it would sure have been interesting if he had said that, huh?
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, sure, that’ll happen.
Yet each man mass murders the thing he loves,Secretary of War Rumsfeld told a North Dakota radio interviewer that the American people don’t understand the nature of the enemy: “the tendency is for people to think of terrorism as an act of violence that is designed to kill people when in fact the purpose of terrorism is not to kill people. The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize.” Let me write that down. But “We have to win the test of wills if we want to stay free people.” In other words, we’re free, but we’re only free to take one single course of action.
By each let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a weapon of mass destruction.
The reality in war is this. You fashion a war plan and then you proceed with it. And as the old saying goes, no war plan survives first contact with the enemy. Why? Because the enemy’s got a brain; the enemy watches what you do and then adjusts to that, so you have to constantly adjust and change your tactics, your techniques, and your procedures. If someone says well, that’s a tactical mistake then I guess it’s a lack of understanding, at least my understanding, of what warfare is about.Did you see what he did there? He literally defined the word “mistake” out of existence, saying that there is no such thing in the “reality” of war.





we’re just tired of waiting for the final formation. People need to know who’ll be in power because they want to know who to pay bribes to... [and] which religious party to go to when the Interior Ministry goons take away a relative.Of course the problems involved in forming a “unity” government go way beyond just Jaafari, but Americans as always are looking for the quick fix. At least they don’t seem to be looking for another strong man to impose on Iraq.




It’s easier for a non-transparent society to try to negotiate with countries in which there’s a free press and a free political opposition and a place where people can express their opinions, because it sometimes causes people to play their cards publicly. In negotiating with non-transparent societies, it’s important to keep your counsel.But in a transparent way, no doubt.

Q I’m Iraqi-American.The suave homme du monde speaks:
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Q Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: No, that’s a great question. Thanks. It’s [immigration] obviously topic du jour. (Laughter.) Pretty fancy, huh? Topic du jour? (Laughter.) I don’t want to ruin the image. (Laughter.)Least plausible statement: “I weep about the suffering of the Palestinians.”
No briefing is complete without Rumsfeld admitting to having not read something he really should have read, in this case the report saying that Russia had passed intel to Saddam about American troop movements. But he doesn’t consider it that big a deal to get it right before publicly accusing another country of what is essentially an act of war: there are lots of captured documents, he says, they’re in Arabic, some of it will be rumor – hey, Pace interjects at this point, we don’t even know if the translation is accurate. Is Russia owed an explanation? Rummy: “I’m sure if anyone is owed anything, they will get it.” And what about the possibility that someone at CENTCOM gave that intel to the Russians, is that being looked into? “If it should be, it will.”
On the Mustafa Mosque Massacre: was the raid on a Shiite militia meant to announce a new policy? “that was not an announcement. It was an operation that they conducted.” Sometimes a 




Saddam Hussein, and we have said this many times, as far as we know, did not order September 11, may not have even known of September 11. But that's a very narrow definition of what caused September 11. If you think that what caused September 11 was that the people who flew airplanes in caused September 11 then, no, Iraq has no relationship. But if you think that this was a broader problem of an ideology of hatred, of terrorism becoming an acceptable means in places where there was a freedom deficit and there was no possibility for legitimate political discourse, then you realize that you have to have a different kind of Middle East. And a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein at the middle of it is unthinkable.Quod erat demonstrandum.














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."



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.
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.




To explain his seemingly unwarranted optimism, “I’m going to tell you the story of a northern Iraqi city called Tal Afar”. It isn’t as riveting as My Pet Goat....
Q: Do you believe... that the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the apocalypse? And if not, why not?He seems to be having some age issues. Two quotes: “The people of [Tal Afar] still have many challenges to overcome, including old-age [sic] resentments”. “We need to apply the same rigor of No Child Left Behind, particularly in middle age [sic] for math and science”.
THE PRESIDENT: The answer is -- I haven’t really thought of it that way. (Laughter.) Here’s how I think of it. The first I’ve heard of that, by the way. I guess I’m more of a practical fellow.