Dakota

A Prickly Press Conference

View larger image

view more aesthetic less prophetic image

I know we're all quite sick of hearing about Mark Foley. Turns out that the poor guy was not just a victim of the Catholic patriarchy, but Karl Rove got him too. We don't call Mr. R. Turd Blossom for nothing.

So let's watch a a movie instead. Here's W. praising Iraqi tolerance at his press conference.

And a response to the movie from Will Bunch

Honestly, I'm amazed too -- by the arrogance of that statement. Frankly, there's something to parse in every word, but let's start with the president's most "amazing" notion, that people in Iraq are "tolerating" a situation where you can be shot dead at a traffic light -- like Knight Ridder journalist Yaser Salihee was -- or just going to the local market, a situation where anywhere from 50,000 (the very lowball estimate) to 600,000 (new high-end estimate) have been killed, not just by violence but by often unspeakable violence -- shot in the head or decapitated, hands bound, with severed penises or other mutilation, often just dumped in the river like so much raw sewage.

Who is "tolerating" that? Bush is -- from the comfort of his treadmill in the White House gym -- and Cheney and Rumsfeld, maybe. But do you honestly think that any mother trying to raise a family on the streets of Baghdad tolerates it? And the evidence is overwhelming that they don't tolerate it one bit. Why do you think that a whopping 71 percent of Iraqis want America to leave in the next year?

What's "amazing here" is the level of cluelessness -- and deception -- packed into one sentence. Iraqis do want to choose their own leaders, like most people, but the White House is trying to cast what has really happened there -- an unprovoked invasion by the world's most powerful military, followed by a three-year carnival of killing -- as some type of "popular uprising," a "society that so wants to be free." The overwhelming evidence is that they're merely a society that so wants to be left alone -- by us.

But it's amazing what people can tolerate, when it's 11,000 miles away and it's happening to somebody else.

"Tolerate". That's another great example of the neoconservative word redefinition practices that Tom Englehardt writes about in the Asia Times::

Never has a US administration rolled up its sleeves and redefined terms more systematically or unnervingly with less attention to reality.

When a dynasty fell in ancient China, it was believed that part of the explanation for its demise lay in the increasing gap between words and reality. The emperor of whatever new dynasty had taken power would then perform a ceremony called "the rectification of names" to bring language and what it was meant to describe back into sync. We Americans need to lose the emperor part of the equation, but adopt such a ceremony. Never have our realities and our words for them been quite so out of whack.

Back to Bush's news conference. It was more lively than usual according to Dan Froomkin

Bush had just wrapped up an answer in which he described the difference between Republicans and Democrats, noting among other things that "I don't believe we can wait to respond after attack has occurred," when he called on Don Gonyea of National Public Radio.

Traditionally, White House correspondents let that kind of rhetoric slide. But Gonyea, instead, asked about it.

Q: "Following up on that answer, one of the things Democrats complain about is the way you portray their position --

"THE PRESIDENT: Oh, really?

"Q -- in wanting to fight the war on terror. They would say you portray it as either they support exactly what you want to do, or they want to do nothing. We hear it in some of your speeches. Is it fair to portray it to the American people that way?"

Bush gave no ground.

"THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it's fair to use the words of the people in Congress or their votes. The vote was on the Hamdan legislation: Do you want to continue a program that enabled us to interrogate folks, or not? And all I was doing was reciting the votes. I would cite my opponent in the 2004 campaign when he said there needs to be a date certain from which to withdraw from Iraq. I characterize that as cut and run because I believe it is cut and run. In other words, I've been using either their votes or their words to characterize their positions."

I gave Gonyea some props for asking the question in my Live Online yesterday, which led reader Devon Moore to e-mail me that he felt Gonyea's question was too easy for Bush to sidestep.

Writes Moore: "I would have loved to hear Mr. Bush answer a question more along the lines of: 'Mr. President, I think the American people will be as outraged as you are that some of our elected representatives believe that we should wait until we are attacked to respond, and most certainly will want to vote out any one who believes that. Can you identify by name some of the people who have claimed this so they can be held accountable? Are any of them up for election this year?'"

Nonetheless, Bush kept his rollicking sense of humor, and teased the press about their fashion sense Haven't you noticed, W. always dresses perfectly for each and every occasion. The guy's gotta get something right.

Photo note: When I left my ladies group this morning, I spotted a six foot cactus in the window of the shop over which we meet. Of course I shot it immediately anticipating numerous publishing possiblities. Then, as I experimented with other angles, I realized that I could shoot the pricker, harshly illuminated, in front of a patriotic bunting, under a warmer more expansive light. All this came to me through a dirty, glarey window, but, in the metaphorophotography business, you take the visions that you are given.

Posted by Dakota at October 12, 2006 03:46 PM