The ‘real’ George Bush?

So after his “surprise” press conference with the MSM people Wednesday morning, the Prez had a second gathering, with reps of the avowedly rightwing media, in the afternoon.
Dan Froomkin of washingtonpost.com wrote about that one, too.
Froomking writes that tellingly, while meeting with people closer to being his partisan soul-mates, “Bush made it clear to this group of supporters that ‘stay the course’ remains his strategy.
So much for the President’s recent avowals– stridently backed up by spokesman Tony Snow(job)– that his mantra was no longer “stay the course”, and indeed it had been ages since that had ever been his mantra… As I noted here last week: “The President ‘at war’ (with himself.) Not a reassuring sight.”
Here’s the longer excerpt from Froomkin:

    Even though the session was mostly on the record, Bush seemed looser than he usually does in interviews. The result was a slew of disjointed, sometimes not particularly intelligible, but sometimes deeply telling insights into his thinking about the war. It’s a heckuva read.
    For example, Bush said he owes his conviction that leaving equals losing to Gen. John P. Abizaid, the Central Command chief who oversees military operations in the Middle East.
    And regardless of his recent public attempts at semantic backtracking, Bush made it clear to this group of supporters that “stay the course” remains his strategy.
    Here’s Bush, in his opening remarks:
    “Abizaid, who I think is one of the really great thinkers, John Abizaid — I don’t know if you’ve ever had a chance to talk to him, he’s a smart guy — he came up with this construct: If we leave, they will follow us here. That’s really different from other wars we’ve been in. If we leave, okay, so they suffer in other parts of the world, used to be the old mantra. This one is different. This war is, if they leave, they’re coming after us. As a matter of fact, they’ll be more emboldened to come after us. They will be able to find more recruits to come after us.
    “Abizaid clearly sees this struggle — he sees the effects of victory in Iraq as having a major impact on other parts of the Middle East. He also sees the reciprocal of that, a defeat — just leaving — the only defeat is leaving, is letting things fall into chaos and letting al Qaeda have a safe haven.”
    As for “stay the course”? Said Bush: “This stuff about ‘stay the course’ — stay the course means, we’re going to win. Stay the course does not mean that we’re not going to constantly change.”

And in case you want to read the full Monty, here’s the transcript of this encounter.
It provides great and fairly terrifying insight into what might loosely be called the “mind” of the President… We see him “fearlessly” revealing himself as one of the annointed few who really understands what’s going on in the world while the ignorant “world” (or is it just the ignorant “MSM” portion of the world– hard to tell) remains oblivious…

    my answer to it is, I see the threat, and will use American power to protect ourselves, and at the same time, try to create the first victory in this ideological — the first victories — in the ideological war of the 21st century. So, much of the thinking and decision-making that I do now is based upon my belief that we’re in this grand ideological struggle. It is a struggle between moderate people, and a struggle between ideologues who are totalitarian and kill to achieve an objective without conscience. It’s interesting, here in America, I ran into a kid the other day who used to work here and he goes to a famous law school, and he said, the problem, Mr. President, is people don’t believe we’re at war. I not only believe we’re at war, I know we’re at war. My biggest issue that I think about all the time is the next attack on America, because I am fully aware that there are people out there that would like nothing more than to have another spectacular moment by killing the American people. And they’re coming. And we’ve got to do everything we can to stop them. That’s why I believe we ought to listen to their phone calls, obviously on a limited basis, one coming out of the country, and why I know we need to interrogate these people. That’s why we need the Patriot Act. That’s why we need to be on the offense all the time. Iraq is the central part of this global war right now. The extremists, radicals have made it clear that they want us to leave. You know, it’s an interesting world in which people are not willing to listen to the words of an enemy, but in this case, we’re able to listen to the enemy and find out what the enemy thinks and publish their thoughts. The Commander-in-Chief must listen carefully and take their words extremely seriously.
    …I know it looks grim right now, but it has looked grim before in this war on terror. It looked grim right after September the 11th. It looked grim when we were so-called bogged down in Afghanistan. [As opposed to today in Afghanistan, George? Have you read any news from there recently? ~HC] It looked grim in parts of the Iraq fight, and it looks grim right now, because murder is the tool of some, revenge is the tool of others. And in this different kind of war, the propaganda of the enemy is brutal and effective, and it upsets Americans because we value life.

Anyway, go read it. It may be the frankest sharing of his thoughts on many of these issues– including Palestine, Iran, Hizbullah, and many others– that you’ll ever read.

5 thoughts on “The ‘real’ George Bush?”

  1. “If we leave, they will follow us here. That’s really different from other wars we’ve been in. If we leave, okay, so they suffer in other parts of the world, used to be the old mantra. This one is different. This war is, if they leave, they’re coming after us. As a matter of fact, they’ll be more emboldened to come after us. They will be able to find more recruits to come after us.”
    As usual the truth is almost exactly the opposite of whatever the current DC Liar-in-Chief is saying. In fact this is exactly how the last mess, and the one before, etc ad nauseam, was justified. Remember the “Domino Theory”? Every intervention is sold on the basis that “we either fight them now, or we have to fight them later when they’re more dangerous”. It’s the standard paranoid interventionist lie.

  2. Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” contains some of my favorite cinema biblical rip-off moments. At the end of the movie, strung up on a cross awaiting his crucifixion in a case of mistaken identity, the anti-hero breaks out singing a rollicking version of “Always look on the bright side of life.” Talk about denial!
    Which thoughts lead me to consider what happens …
    “When Scapegoats Look on the Bright Side of Life”
    We’ll try to keep you posted if we can
    Whenever we decide to bomb your towns
    You people have to understand our plan
    To photograph some smiles and not your frowns
    Our voters do not want to know your woes
    They do not care about your falling-downs
    We’ve frightened them with tales of gruesome foes
    Who’ll sail in rubber rafts to storm our shores
    If we dare “cut and run” — which only shows
    How easily our sloganeering bores
    The trained and dulled so that our line they toe
    Allowing us to treat you as our whores
    Though, “sovereign,” you’d surely want to know
    Why we, your occupiers, will not go
    But this we cannot say just yet or soon
    If ever, as no doubt you might suspect
    Perhaps after we’ve gone back to the Moon
    Or on to Mars, some old rocks to inspect
    For if we told you what we had in mind
    Our schemes to grab your oil you might reject
    And since we’ve killed so many of your kind
    You might kill more of ours, you ingrate swine!
    How dare you try to place us in a bind
    Refusing to endorse our latest line
    Of propaganda coined to make you look
    The fall guy in a moral not too fine;
    A scapegoat story from an ancient book
    That puts you on, and gets us off, the hook
    Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller,” Copyright 2006

  3. Bush is no dummy. He just translates Neoconese to “playn tawk.”
    Bush is down in the polls because the war is going badly and his “base” is upset about scandals and fiscal excesses. However, his world view and style of articulation are very close to the average person’s. That’s why he “won” debates against the supposedly clever Gore and Kerry.
    Bush’s musings are an awful lot like the average reader letters published in US papers. His void of attention to Afghanistan is also very much in tune with the viewing public (or the network news editors), which is much more concerned with the Madonna adoption.
    Bush can’t affect some events, but Karl and he certainly know that stoking fear helps win GOP votes. The “we have nothing to fear but fear itself” is not fashionable. From a purely political standpoint, is primary weakness is that not even his “base” is afraid enough to support a war tax or a draft. Fortunately, talk is cheap.
    Johnson and Nixon were supposed to be very smart men, but both also loathed being tagged with defeat. Bush’s synapses appear loaded with similar phobias.
    Bush is not alone. Pundit Eliot Cohen’s doom and gloomgloom views are almost identical, right down to the “if we leave they will follow us here.” Peter Bergen also warned of Iraq becoming an Al-Qaeda haven in a NYT op-ed this week.
    All of us work by meta-notions that guide how we select, filter, or interpret “facts.” Quakers, for instance, have an uncanny predisposition to expect peaceable behavior, even when facing a stampede or riot.

  4. Helena
    This from Today’s Guardian probably illustrates the thinking of various high offices.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1933777,00.html
    We started walking through a few of the decisions that need to be made very soon in an interesting series of exchanges a couple of weeks ago.
    Personally I am glad I am not guarding the bridge ay Nasaryia and wondering how far it is to Kuwait
    Perhaps rereading those exchanges might be useful now.

  5. “How does the president think history will judge him for going to war in Iraq?
    “After the second interview with him on Dec. 11, we got up and walked over to one of the doors. There are all of these doors in the Oval Office that lead outside. And he had his hands in his pocket, and I just asked, ‘Well, how is history likely to judge your Iraq war,’” says Woodward.
    “And he said, ‘History,’ and then he took his hands out of his pocket and kind of shrugged and extended his hands as if this is a way off. And then he said, ‘History, we don’t know. We’ll all be dead.’””
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml

Comments are closed.