Bushapalooza - 4/13 Press Conference
Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:34 am
At this point, I officially am unable to believe that anybody has any confidence in this babbling idiot. Last night was a peformance of incredible ineptitude -- a high school extemp competition would have laughed him out of the room. The comedy of tragic failure began with his choice of tie, which pulsed and glowed on TV screens everywhere like a holographic message from alien overlords. It got worse from there, as the *first sentence* of his prepared homily on Iraq was a grammatical train wreck. "This has been tough weeks in that country." Oh, dear Jeebus.
I'm going to try to break this down, because I think it's important. The media is pretending this man gave a "confident, forceful" performance last night, when anybody with functional eyes, ears and brain knows that's not so. The transcript is a start, but it doesn't do it justice. Toward the end, there was raw panic in Bush's sweat-soaked face.
OK, let's give this a shot.
The opening statement is just more of the ever-changing war justification material we're well familiar with. Since there were no WMDs, and there was no connection with 9/11, our mission now is to turn Iraq into a peaceful democracy. What distinguishes Iraq from other countries in the world that are not peaceful democracies (like, oh, say, Saudi Arabia) that are not currently being shot up by the US military was not explained.
Instead, we got a defense of a situation without a real sense of why we're in that situation. A time traveler watching the remarks would be forgiven for thinking that the Iraqis had asked us to invade. The whole subject of this being an unprovoked attack went untouched. Bush was like a guy who just shot you in the leg saying, "What the hell's your problem? Come here and let me look at that wound. How'd you get that? Why are you looking at me that way?"
(On a lighter note, the Freudian slip of the night had to be his reference to "Secretary of State Rumsfeld.")
The prepared remarks then took a disquieting turn into a long denunciation of the "fanatical, political ideology" of radical Islam. What was truly frightening was the utter lack of understanding that many of his remarks could equally apply to his *own* ideology which has resulted in waging war on Iraq:
Let's see. Takes hostages? Sounds like Gitmo. Bombs in Baghdad. Yep, that's us. Kills innocent people and children? By the hundreds in the last week in Fallujah alone. Blows up buildings? Yeah, we're good at that.
Seek tyranny in the Middle East? Well, we definitely want them to do things our way. Oppress and persecute women? Some of Bush's fundamentalist allies are definitely interested in that. And replace "women" with "gays" and Bush definitely is into the whole oppress-and-persecute thing. Seek to intimidate into panic and retreat? "Shock and awe," anyone? Set free nations against each other? Sounds like our diplomacy in the runup to invasion last year, when other countries didn't share our ideological certainties. Seek weapons of mass destruction? We don't need to seek, we've got 'em coming out our ears.
While no one can or should argue that radical Islam is a good thing, honesty demands we look at the theology-fueled ideology of our own leaders, and the violence it has wrought. Consider this (from the same part of the prepared speech as the above):
What's missing? Oh, yeah, the Oklahoma City bombing, which goes completely unmentioned whenever this administration talks about terror. Admitting that white American Christians are just as capable of senseless violence as Arab Muslims is not part of the Bush rhetorical strategy.
With that, let's wrap up this post and move on to the Q-and-A, where things get *really* bizarre.
Ryan
I'm going to try to break this down, because I think it's important. The media is pretending this man gave a "confident, forceful" performance last night, when anybody with functional eyes, ears and brain knows that's not so. The transcript is a start, but it doesn't do it justice. Toward the end, there was raw panic in Bush's sweat-soaked face.
OK, let's give this a shot.
The opening statement is just more of the ever-changing war justification material we're well familiar with. Since there were no WMDs, and there was no connection with 9/11, our mission now is to turn Iraq into a peaceful democracy. What distinguishes Iraq from other countries in the world that are not peaceful democracies (like, oh, say, Saudi Arabia) that are not currently being shot up by the US military was not explained.
Instead, we got a defense of a situation without a real sense of why we're in that situation. A time traveler watching the remarks would be forgiven for thinking that the Iraqis had asked us to invade. The whole subject of this being an unprovoked attack went untouched. Bush was like a guy who just shot you in the leg saying, "What the hell's your problem? Come here and let me look at that wound. How'd you get that? Why are you looking at me that way?"
(On a lighter note, the Freudian slip of the night had to be his reference to "Secretary of State Rumsfeld.")
The prepared remarks then took a disquieting turn into a long denunciation of the "fanatical, political ideology" of radical Islam. What was truly frightening was the utter lack of understanding that many of his remarks could equally apply to his *own* ideology which has resulted in waging war on Iraq:
...who takes hostages, or plants a roadside bomb near Baghdad is serving the same ideology of murder that kills innocent people... murders children... blows up a nightclub...
None of these acts is the work of a religion; all are the work of a fanatical, political ideology. The servants of this ideology seek tyranny in the Middle East and beyond. They seek to oppress and persecute women. They seek to intimidate... into panic and retreat, and to set free nations against each other. And they seek weapons of mass destruction, to blackmail and murder on a massive scale.
Let's see. Takes hostages? Sounds like Gitmo. Bombs in Baghdad. Yep, that's us. Kills innocent people and children? By the hundreds in the last week in Fallujah alone. Blows up buildings? Yeah, we're good at that.
Seek tyranny in the Middle East? Well, we definitely want them to do things our way. Oppress and persecute women? Some of Bush's fundamentalist allies are definitely interested in that. And replace "women" with "gays" and Bush definitely is into the whole oppress-and-persecute thing. Seek to intimidate into panic and retreat? "Shock and awe," anyone? Set free nations against each other? Sounds like our diplomacy in the runup to invasion last year, when other countries didn't share our ideological certainties. Seek weapons of mass destruction? We don't need to seek, we've got 'em coming out our ears.
While no one can or should argue that radical Islam is a good thing, honesty demands we look at the theology-fueled ideology of our own leaders, and the violence it has wrought. Consider this (from the same part of the prepared speech as the above):
We've seen the same ideology of murder in the killing of 241 Marines in Beirut, the first attack on the World Trade Center, in the destruction of two embassies in Africa, in the attack on the USS Cole, and in the merciless horror inflicted upon thousands of innocent men and women and children on September the 11th, 2001.
What's missing? Oh, yeah, the Oklahoma City bombing, which goes completely unmentioned whenever this administration talks about terror. Admitting that white American Christians are just as capable of senseless violence as Arab Muslims is not part of the Bush rhetorical strategy.
With that, let's wrap up this post and move on to the Q-and-A, where things get *really* bizarre.
Ryan