Bush's latest babble

I've decided to go through Bush's latest Press Conference and point out why I think he's delusional.

Q Iraq's Interim Prime Minister said Sunday that violence is killing an average of 50 to 60 people a day, and that, "if this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is." Do you agree with Mr. Allawi that Iraq has fallen into civil war?

THE PRESIDENT: I do not. There are other voices coming out of Iraq, by the way, other than Mr. Allawi -- who I know, by the way, and like, he's a good fellow. President Talabani has spoken. General Casey, the other day, was quite eloquent on the subject. Zal Khalilzad, who I talk to quite frequently. Listen, we all recognize that there is violence, that there's sectarian violence. But the way I look at the situation is that the Iraqis took a look and decided not to go to civil war.

I love the notion that Iraqis "took a look" at civil war and then said, "No." Much the same way as you or I might look at carpet and decide it wouldn't suit your bedroom.

Q Thank you. You describe Iran as a threat, yet, you're close to opening talks with them about Iraq. What would be the objective in these talks if they are not negotiations? And is there a risk of getting drawn into the nuclear issue?

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for asking that question. It is very important for the Iranians to understand that any relationship between Iraq and Iran will be negotiated between those two countries. Iraq is a sovereign government. They have a foreign policy.

Jesus. Has anyone told him yet that Iraq doesn't have a government? That they have been unable to form one? This is an example of why I say this guy is simply delusional.

Then later...

Q Secretary Rumsfeld has said that if civil war should break out in Iraq, he's hopeful that Iraqi forces can handle it. If they can't, sir, are you willing to sacrifice American lives to keep Iraqis from killing one another?

THE PRESIDENT: I think the first step is to make sure a civil war doesn't break out. And that's why we're working with the leaders there in Baghdad to form a unity government.

Ah, so in the same Press Conference we go from stating that the Iraqis have a sovereign government, to suddenly remembering that they are actually still trying to form one. He's a master on detail, isn't he?

Q Mr. President, I'd like to ask you for your reaction on the latest insurgent attack in Baghdad: 17 police officers killed and a bunch of insurgents freed. I spent a fair amount of time in front of that hotel in Cleveland yesterday, talking to people about the war and saying you were there to talk optimistically. And one woman who said she voted for you, said, "You know what, he's losing me. We've been there too long; he's losing me." What do you say to her?

THE PRESIDENT: I say that I'm talking realistically to people. We have a plan for victory and it's important we achieve that plan. Democracy -- first of all, this is a global war on terror and Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Mr. Zarqawi and al Qaeda, the very same people that attacked the United States, have made it clear that they want to drive us out of Iraq so they can plan, plot, and attack America again. That's what they have said; that's their objective. I think it is very important to have a President who is realistic and listens to what the enemy says.

Secondly, I am confident -- I believe, I'm optimistic we'll succeed. If not, I'd pull our troops out. If I didn't believe we had a plan for victory I wouldn't leave our people in harm's way. And that's important for the woman to understand.

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. And, therefore, it affects the woman in Cleveland you were talking to. And I can understand how Americans are worried about whether or not we can win.

Finally, he peddles the bizarre notion that reporting what is actually going on in Iraq (the bad news) is in some way "helping the enemy!" If you don't stay Bill O'Reilly-like-strictly-on-message then you are, in some way, aiding al Qaeda. Bin Laden wants the type of "bad news" that Bush abhors, leaving the obvious implication that it would be better for everyone if we joined Bush in his "the war is going great" cocoon and stopped asking for facts.

Q Good morning, sir. Mindful of the frustrations that many Americans are expressing to you, do you believe you need to make any adjustments in how you run the White House? Many of your senior staffers have been with you from the beginning. There are some in Washington who say -- Some say they are tired and even tone-deaf, even within your party who say that maybe you need some changes. Would you benefit from any changes to your staff?

THE PRESIDENT: I've got a staff of people that have, first of all, placed their country above their self-interests.

When one looks at the links between Cheney and Haliburton, when one considers the sheer amount of no contest contracts that have been handed out to that company in Iraq, one has to wonder if Bush is on the same planet as the rest of us and marvel at the fact that he can make such statements without the room collapsing into paroxysms of laughter.

Q You've said during your presidency that you don't pay that much attention to the polls, but --

THE PRESIDENT: Correct.

This is an example of refusing to acknowledge reality. Facts are inconvenient things. Troublesome, pesky, little trifles.

Q -- there is a handful that have come back, and they all say the exact same thing: A growing number of Americans are questioning the trustworthiness of you and this White House. Does that concern you?

THE PRESIDENT: I believe that my job is to go out and explain to people what's on my mind. That's why I'm having this press conference, see. I'm telling you what's on my mind. And what's on my mind is winning the war on terror. And I understand war creates concerns, Jim. Nobody likes war. It creates a sense of -- of uncertainty in the country.

Hmmm. It creates a lot more than "a sense of uncertainty" in the country that's being attacked. It creates terror. But we shouldn't expect Bush to trouble himself with such trifling distinctions.

Q Just after the 2004 election, you seemed to -- you claimed a really enviable balance of political capital and a strong mandate. Would you make that claim today? Do you still have that?

THE PRESIDENT: I'd say I'm spending that capital on the war.

He's spending more than political capital on the war, he's running up a fiscal bill that is so huge it'll be paid for by his grandchildren.

Q Thank you, sir. On the subject of the terrorist surveillance program --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q -- not to change the tone from all this emphasis on bipartisanship, but there have been now three sponsors to a measure to censure you for the implementation of that program. The primary sponsor, Russ Feingold, has suggested that impeachment is not out of the question. And on Sunday, the number two Democrat in the Senate refused to rule that out pending an investigation. 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?

THE PRESIDENT: I think during these difficult times -- and they are difficult when we're at war -- the American people expect there to be a honest and open debate without needless partisanship. And that's how I view it. I did notice that nobody from the Democrat Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program. You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to stand up and say the tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used.

I've discussed this in a previous post. He's being disingenuous and dishonest here. No Democrat is calling for the US to stop listening to terrorists. They are merely asking that he does so legally. And I love how every time Bush decries "partisanship" he's actually indulging in it in a disgusting and dishonest way.

Q Will there come a day -- and I'm not asking you when, not asking for a timetable -- will there come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: That, of course, is an objective, and that will be decided by future Presidents and future governments of Iraq.

I love how a future where there will be no American troops in Iraq is seen as "an objective". Something that one hopes to carry out, but we might not succeed.

And he finishes the Press Conference with reassuring words, letting us know that he's still got his eye on the big picture.

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, thank you for your time. I've got lunch with the President of Liberia right now.

Bless you, Georgie. You've got your finger on the pulse of world politics. Maybe you can fit in the leader of Micronesia before tea!