I just thought others might be listening to this and want to discuss it.
I swear I just heard (11:16am) that Bush said something unbelievable. He was asked about Russian-American relations and he said that Russia and America were cooperating on Iran and that they were working to convince Iran to “get rid of its nuclear weapons”.
Either I’m completely mistaken or else I swear I just heard him say this.
Anyone else listening/watching?
Update [2007-2-14 17:6:48 by soj]:
Ok well I realize most people have the same reaction as I do when hearing a Bush press conference (skin crawling) but since they’re so rare I thought I’d summarize what went on.
First of all, Bush was in an extremely jolly mood throughout the entire thing. He was cracking jokes that only he laughed at and occasionally chuckling under his breath for no visible reason. He did get one laugh out of the press corp but that’s it. You’d think he was there to talk about a bill to give discounted candy to children or something light hearted instead of a grinding war that’s killing thousands of people a month and destabilizing the entire planet.
The conference started the way they all do: Bush began speaking on a couple of topics and addressed the audience as if they were retarded. I’ve noticed Bush does that just about every time he speaks. He will state something simple and then repeat it a second time while emphasizing a synonym as if he thinks the audience couldn’t figure out what he meant.
Here’s an example:
Yesterday there was a suicide bomber. In other words, there’s an active strategy to undermine the Maliki government and its Baghdad security plan. And our generals understand that, they know that they’re all aimed at, frankly, causing people here in America to say it’s not worth it.
Oh is that why? I thought it was the doing of one group so that it could secure power at the expense of another. I’m curious why there are regular suicide bombings in Chechnya and Sri Lanka then since they don’t appear on our TV “screens”.
Then Bush goes on and on about how it’s 1988 and “all he is saying is give Petraeus a chance”. Yadda yadda, normal stuff.
I fully recognize we’re not going to be able to stop all suicide bombers. I know that.
There’s nothing quite like setting your goals high, eh? Even the guy leading the cheerleading bandwagon that the American military occupation is necessary for a “just cause” says there’s no way to stop all suicide bombing. Well if he doesn’t think so then what hope can an Iraqi citizen have? Absolutely none.
Again Bush refers to anyone who is not one of his bootlickers as “voices” rather than people:
I’ve listened to a lot of voices; people in my administration heard a lot of voices.
I noticed he did that the other day on C-SPAN as well. Apparently dissenting opinions don’t come from people, they come from disembodied “voices”. He acts like he is suffering from schizophrenia and doing his best to drown out the “noise” from all the “voices”.
Then more crappy circular logic on par with “we have to destroy the village to save it”:
What’s different about this conflict than some others is that if we fail there, the enemy will follow us here. I firmly believe that.
I’m sure he does “firmly believe” it but unfortunately no one has ever asked him to explain why he believes it. American troops have been putting enormous pressure on Colombian drug lords for more than two decades and none of them “followed” the troops home to the US. American troops are engaged right this minute in the Philippines and nobody is worried they’ll “follow” troops home to the U.S. After World War 2, not a single Japanese person ever “followed” American troops back home. Etc etc.
The only group that ever “followed” the US home was the same group that is still operating somewhere else (Pakistan and Afghanistan) and receives funding and support from Saudi Arabia.
Then after more rah-rah talk about how Americans need to die and throw billions of dollars down the drain in Iraq, he switched to North Korea. He unilaterally praised the new deal by which NK will shut down its nuke facilities. He sidestepped exactly why NK did it and referred only to the “commitments” the nations of China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and the US made.
Myself personally I’m glad to have North Korea shut down its nuclear weapons facilities at any price. But let’s be clear here – the five essentially bribed North Korea to do this. It might even be considered a step forward in international diplomacy if it wasn’t almost an exact repeat of what the Clinton administration accomplished 15 years ago which Bush (and his cronies) regularly attack and called an example of Clinton’s “appeasement” of the NK regime.
Ok then it was time for some questions.
Q Mr. President, on Russia. Is the Vladimir Putin who said the United States is undermining global security and provoking a new arms race the same Vladimir Putin whose soul you looked into and found to be trustworthy? Has he changed? Are U.S.-Russian relations deteriorating?
THE PRESIDENT: I think the person who I was referring to in 2001 is the same strong-willed person. He is a person with whom I have had agreements and disagreements throughout the course of my presidency and his. We’ve disagreed on the utility of NATO. I’ve tried to convince Vladimir that NATO is positive. It’s a positive influence, that democracies on your border are good things to have.
First of all, how disrespectful is it to call him “Vladimir” when his name is either Mr. Putin or President Putin?
Secondly, whether or not Estonia is a member of NATO or not, it is still a democracy. Bush is either confused or deliberately misleading when he makes several mentions of membership in NATO equivalent to having a democratic form of government.
Third, I cannot even imagine what Bush or anyone else’s justification for NATO is anymore. NATO was a cold-war creation to make military alliances that would be a deterrent for another land war in Europe. That threat is completely gone.
Still talking about how Putin is still his major ally, Bush says this oddity which nobody calls him on:
There’s a lot we can work together on, and that’s what’s important for American people to understand. We know that we’ve got common goals that make sense for both our peoples. Two such goals are Iran, convincing the Iranians to get rid of its nuclear weapons.
Uh, has anyone in the entire world ever even stated that Iran has a nuclear weapon? Nope. But he just lays it out there bold and proud knowing that nobody will say a word.
Then Bush begins a tirade against the new enemy which is Iran’s “Quds Force”:
What we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that. And we also know that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. That’s a known. What we don’t know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds force to do what they did.
But here’s my point: Either they knew or didn’t know, and what matters is, is that they’re there. What’s worse, that the government knew or that the government didn’t know?
Not written in the transcript but at the end there after the word “know” he laughed to himself for a minute.
So according to Bush, the Iranians (who btw have nuclear weapons now, a surprise to the IAEA and the rest of the thinking world) have a team of supervillain evil doers named the “Quds Force” who are providing IEDs to someone, somewhere in Iraq. But even though this “Quds Force” is part of the Iranian government, Bush doesn’t know if they’re operating with Iranian governmental approval.
The entire thing boggles the mind, up to and including the “anonymous” briefing that couldn’t be recorded that’s supposed to be the “smoking gun” that a single professor (Juan Cole) can debunk from 5,000 miles away using basic statistics.
Just in case you think I’m belaboring another point, Bush ignores a second question in order to repeat this gobbledygook:
Q Thank you, sir. I’d like to follow on Iran. Critics say that you are using the same quality of intelligence about Iran that you used to make the case for war in Iraq, specifically about WMD that turned out to be wrong, and that you are doing that to make a case for war against Iran. Is that the case?
THE PRESIDENT: I can say with certainty that the Quds force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops. And I’d like to repeat, I do not know whether or not the Quds force was ordered from the top echelons of government. But my point is what’s worse — them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and it happening?
Hey here is what I know for a fact. There’s a force that’s part of the government that has killed tens of thousands of people in Iraq and it has been ordered to do so from the top echelon of its government: the American one.
The guy tries to ask Bush a second time about faulty intel and Bush just repeats over and over again the evildoing Quddites are loading up Iraq chock-a-block full of IEDs.
Then Bush throws Bolton under the bus:
Q Mr. President, on the North Korea deal, the former U.N. Ambassador, John Bolton, yesterday said, “It’s a bad, disappointing deal, and the best thing you can say about it is that it will probably fall apart.” This is from a man you repeatedly praised for his judgment and leadership at the United Nations. His main criticism is that the financial pressure led North Korea back to the table, and now it’s being released. How do you respond to that?
THE PRESIDENT: I strongly disagree — strongly disagree with his assessment…
…so the assessment made by some that this is not a good deal is just flat wrong.
Yowks. I don’t know what Bolton did but he’s obviously no longer the shining, mustachioed hero of Bush foreign policy anymore.
Then we get one more spate of foaming at the mouth about the Quddites:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. I want to follow up on Iran one more time. You saying today that you do not know if senior members of the Iranian government are, in fact, behind these explosives — that contradicts what U.S. officials said in Baghdad on Sunday. They said the highest levels of the Iranian government were behind this. It also — it seems to square with what General Pace has been saying, but contradicts with what your own press secretary said yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Can I — let me — I can’t say it more plainly: there are weapons in Iraq that are harming U.S. troops because of the Quds force. And as you know, I hope, that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. Whether Ahmadinejad ordered the Quds force to do this, I don’t think we know…
Q But given some of contradictions, Mr. President —
THE PRESIDENT: There’s no contradiction that the weapons are there and they were provided by the Quds force, Ed.
Q What assurances can you give the American people that the intelligence this time will be accurate?
THE PRESIDENT: Ed, we know they’re there, we know they’re provided by the Quds force. We know the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. I don’t think we know who picked up the phone and said to the Quds force, go do this, but we know it’s a vital part of the Iranian government.
What matters is, is that we’re responding. The idea that somehow we’re manufacturing the idea that the Iranians are providing IEDs is preposterous, Ed.
Well “Ed” never said the first word about the Bush administration manufacturing the idea. Only Bush brought it up. As far as I’m concerned, that statement is proof that it is one big false trumped-up claim.
Then Bush gets asked if there’s a civil war in Iraq which of course he doesn’t. But then he downgrades his own assessment of what “the job” is that needs doing in Iraq once again:
THE PRESIDENT: You know, victory in Iraq is not going to be like victory in World War II. It’s one of the challenges I have to explain to the American people what Iraq will look like in a situation that will enable us to say we have accomplished our mission.
First, the — Iraq will be a society in which there is relative peace. I say “relative peace” because if it’s like zero car bombings, it never will happen that way.
I live in a nation which has one car bombing per 15 years. Why isn’t that the goal in Iraq? Germany doesn’t have any car bombings. Neither does Japan. Why can’t Iraq have the same peace as World War 2? And why is the cheerleader in chief not even cheerful? Gosh that’s depressing me. If you can’t get the guy who manufactured and caused this lunatic war to be supporting it then who will do it? And if he’s not gung ho then why do our brothers and sisters have to keep dying?
Then Bush gets asked about Libby:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, we’ve now learned through sworn testimony that at least three members of your administration, other than Scooter Libby, leaked Valerie Plame’s identity to the media. None of these three is known to be under investigation. Without commenting on the Libby trial, then, can you tell us whether you authorized any of these three to do that, or were they authorized without your permission?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks, Pete. I’m not going to talk about any of it.
He refuses to touch the subject and the reporter persists. Since Bush keeps saying he won’t discuss it he makes an odd joke:
THE PRESIDENT: Not going to talk about it, Peter. (Laughter.) Would you like to think of another question? Being the kind man that I am, I will recycle you. (Laughter.)John.
Q Thank you —
THE PRESIDENT: You like that one? “Recycling” him. (Laughter.)
Well first he was the Decider and now he’s the Recycler because he’s such a “kind” man. What a jolly image.
Then we get back to the painful reality of the worst president ever:
Q A lot of our allies in Europe do a lot of business with Iran, so I wonder what your thoughts are about how you further tighten the financial pressure on Iran, in particular, if it also means economic pain for a lot of our allies?
THE PRESIDENT: It’s an interesting question. One of the problems — not specifically on this issue, just in general — let’s put it this way, money trumps peace
Yes it does, especially when Halliburton and other American companies do business in Iran and evade sanctions simply by creating shell companies or using foreign divisions. Secondly, I believe it was Bush’s own defense secretary who played a vital role in selling weapons to Iran in violation of sanctions.
Then Bush starts cracking himself up by referring to himself as the “pundit-in-chief”. He laughs at his own joke but nobody else does so he repeats it about three times.
Then Bush lays down his new definition of who is a traitor in America:
Q I’d like to follow on Sheryl’s question about undermining the troops. Do you have to support the war to support the war here? I mean, if you’re one of those Americans that thinks you’ve made a terrible mistake, that it’s destined to end badly, what do you do? If they speak out, are they by definition undermining the troops?
THE PRESIDENT: No, she actually asked “the enemy,” not “the troops.” But I’ll be glad to answer your question. No, I don’t think so at all. I think you can be against my decision and support the troops, absolutely. But the proof will be whether or not you provide them the money necessary to do the mission.
In other words, you can criticize Bush as much as you want and you’re not a traitor to the troops unless you stop funding illegal wars and then you are.
Then some guy from a website I’m not familiar with (www.politico.com) gets to ask a question and Bush seems stunned to see the guy ask a question so he makes fun of him a bit.
Then lots of standard Bush rambling in support of his own policies and one more mention of the “voices”:
Finally, No Child Left Behind needs to be reauthorized. I fully understand that if you read your newspaper articles — which I do sometimes — and listen carefully, you’ll hear voices in both parties saying they don’t like No Child Left Behind –it’s too much testing, or, we don’t want to be held to account, or whatever they say.
Damn voices get out of my head!
Then it wraps up with one more sneaky mention of the “smoking gun that will come in the form of a mushroom cloud” vis-a-vis Iran:
It’s an important issue whether or not Iran ends up with nuclear weapons. It’s one of these issues that people are going to look back and say, you know, how come they couldn’t see the impending danger? What happened to them?
And that’s all you “missed”.
Pax
