I missed it, but Josh Marshall says it was a train wreck. Did any of y’all catch it?
Update: From Amanda’s description, it was more like a Federico Fellini film than a train wreck.
The Mahablog
Politics. Society. Group Therapy.
I missed it, but Josh Marshall says it was a train wreck. Did any of y’all catch it?
Update: From Amanda’s description, it was more like a Federico Fellini film than a train wreck.
Since I have a lot of time on my hands right now, I felt it my duty to watch the news conference. There was really nothing new said. The reporters asked questions about N. Korea and the Foley scandal. Bush consistently brought the focus back on Iraq. He did use some big words though, two I had to look up just to make sure I knew what they meant. They were intransigence and truncated.
The money quote seems to be “I am, you know, amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they’re willing to — you know, that there’s a level of violence that they tolerate.” I am, you know, amazed that anyone bright enough to tie his shoes would say something that stupid.
I thought he wore slip-ons because he never learned to tie his shoes. He is indeed one very “stoopid” man.
Oh lordy, we still have to ‘tolerate’ this imbecile for another 2 years.
God, how I loathed seeing Reagan on TV. This squinting, muttering mumblebutt is 655,000 times worse!
Gaaak! He just tried to pronounce intransigence (“intrangigence”) on the NBC Nightly Newsbite. I wonder if his earpiece fuzzed out and he had to wing it on that very scary money quote?
Is anyone sure he ties his own shoes?
BTW, CNN has featured Bush’s response that the ‘methodology is pretty well discredited’. And got a rather sarcastic ‘Oh Really?’ from McCaferty. Dems need to pound on the fact that Bush discounts a study by MIT out of hand, but he he reserves the right to appoint dimwits without qualifications to FEMA.
The speech was abyssmal, even by Bush’s standards.
Here he’s talking about James Baker’s recent comments on changing course in Iraq:
Somebody [who??] said he said, “Well, you know, cut-and-run isn’t working.” [He never said that.] That’s not our policy.
Our policy is to help this country succeed, because I understand the stakes [as often happens with George, the two parts of this sentence have no logical connection]. And I’m going to repeat them one more time. As a matter of fact, I’m going to spend a lot of time repeating the stakes [“repeating the stakes”???] about what life is like [“the stakes about what life is like”??] in the Middle East.
(yadda, yadda) …
And my vow to the American people is [wait for it…] I understand the stakes [that’s not a “vow”], and I understand what it would mean for us to leave before the job is done [neither is that].
Or what about this:
And the stakes are high when it comes to making sure the young democracy of Lebanon is able to fend off the extremists and radicals that want to crater that democracy.
How do you “crater” a Democracy? He can’t have meant “create”, because it makes no sense either.
Or what about this:
It’s important for the president to say to the American people: Diplomacy was what is our first choice.
Was what is? Is or was? Hello-o-o!?
It is very important for us to solve these problems diplomatically. And I thank the leaders of — listen, when I call them on the phone, we’re strategizing.
“Strategizing”? That’s not a real word! Neither is “dialoguing”, which he uses later.
Then there’s this:
“That is the best strategy to solve the problem. I mean, I – you – one has a stronger hand when there’s more people playing your same cards.”
He’s talking about co-ordinated UN sanctions against North Korea. Or trying to. What he is trying to say is that the USA will have a stronger hand in negotiations if it has the support of other countries. But his card-playing metaphor is totally ridiculous. It’s nonsensical!
And here’s what he says about the poor bastards dying every day in Iraq:
I am, you know, amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they’re willing to — you know, that there’s a level of violence that they tolerate.
Is he talking about the insurgents who give their lives to liberate Iraq from US occupation? I don’t think so. Maybe he’s talking about the Fadhil brothers at the neocon’s favourite blog, Iraq The Model.
Then Bush says:
You know, nobody’s accused me of having a real sophisticated vocabulary; I understand that.
It’s not about being “sophisticated”, George. It’s about being logical and coherent. It’s about earning and deserving the respect of not just your own public in the USA, but the world at large. It’s about having real values, not just hollow phrases, and being able to articulate them in an inspiring way. It’s about leadership.
I didn’t see (nor would I be able to stomach) the full press conference, with the choice quotes reported above in the comments. I did catch brief excerpts of it on Katie Couric’s evening news, which was nowhere as damning as what the commenters revealed.
The one excerpt I recall was Bush responding about Iraq, along the lines of “Of course we’ll change course, if something isn’t working, we’ll do something different”.
Bush responded as though the questioner were the most stupid person in the world for posing it. Bush has this way of beginning a response with ridicule toward the questioner, even though it’s a perfectly valid question given the rigid way Bush has been leading. I’ve seen him perform this rhetorical trick quite quite a lot lately, and wish someone would finally call him on it – it’s clear Bush has spent his life cultivating this style of lying, intimidation and recovery.
Given that the Bush has been totally rigid on Iraq, it’s Bush who is ridiculous for pretending otherwise. The exchange reminded me of the Harvard Business School professor who came forward and told the story that in the classroom, young Bush was infamous for saying one thing, and then a minute later denying he ever said it. This style of ridiculing the questioner I would bet was on display back when the kid was pursuing his MBA.
I wonder if they tolerate the violence the same way I tolerate getting older….
I heard James Baker on the radio hawking his new book and laying the ground work for Bush’s attempt to avoid responsibility. It’s too late to spin the defeat in Iraq as anything other than Bush’s fuck-up.
And what would Iraq look like if the people did not tolerate this level of violence? How could we tell the difference? What would be the signs?
Bush: Like a rock, only dumber.