This story apparently ran on Thursday, but I missed it. President Bush kind of sort of admitted to Barbara Walters that he's made some mistakes! Actual concession of error! Alert the media! (Oh, wait, he already did.)
So, yeah, that happened. The only surprising thing about this, really, is that it didn't happen sooner. For a while now, the media has slammed the President on his famed inability to admit wrongdoing, even in the most obvious and clear of circumstances. Like, you know, lying about needing to invade a country and then having your lie revealed to the entire world all at once while hundreds of thousands of people die needlessly. You knew Karl Rove worked this response out well in advance, and it does what it's supposed to do:
Days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush said he wanted to catch Osama bin Laden "dead or alive," a phrase that reinforced the U.S. president's international image as a cowboy.
Bush said his wife, Laura, disapproved and "chewed me out right after that."
"So I do have to be cautious about, you know, conveying thoughts in a way maybe that doesn't send wrong impressions about our country," he said.
Man, I fucking hate this guy. I mean, here he is, offering a mea culpa for actions that severly hurt the reputation of our nation abroad, and he still can't just apologize with sincerity. It's this aw shucks Texas bullshit he always does..."Oh, man, I try to git on up there and talk to them I-Rackis and I just get a little carried away, folks. Laura, boy, she sho done set me straight over that one, I ain't gonna go being a cowboy again...Nope nope nope."
Same crap in this quote:
"I remember when I talked about Osama bin Laden, I said we're going to get him dead or alive. I guess it's not the most diplomatic of language," Bush said.
I didn't watch this interview, because looking at the President makes me physically ill, but I can just see him doing his trademark half-smirk as he spoke these words. "I guess it ain't the most diplomatic of language, but you know, that's how we do it where I come from. Don't mess with Texas, Abdul, you know whut I mean?"
Anyway, for more snarky liberal blogging in response to this article, be sure to check out Fanatical Apathy here. They've got a take on it that's both more politically nuanced and witty than mine. Plus, they have a kickass blog name.
You hatred for Bush may be clouding your judgment. Do you really believe in that type of narrative? That he went into Iraq, knowing that the type of WMDs he talked up were not there, and knowing that the soldiers would be in there to find that out at about the same time that he's up for election?
ReplyDeleteAlso, he would not have known that the Democrats were going to run as utterly weak a candidate as Kerry at that time. So, he certainly would have no guarantee at all of being re-elected once what he supposedly knew he was lying about at the time was proven wrong. As one would have to know it would be, as the soldiers went in.
My hatred for Bush clouds nothing. My hatred for him is based on his decision-making, not the other way around. I didn't hate this guy, and then he became President and conveniently did all the wrong things.
ReplyDeleteYou're so totally wrong if you think that Bush had no idea what was going on in Iraq. His administration did not believe there were WMD there. They knew that was bullshit made up nonsense. Okay? We know this. The head of terrorism at the time has stated that Rumsfeld came to him and asked him to provide evidence that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, even though they were not.
I repeat, you were lied to, and the more you make excuses for the President, the more you implicate yourself in the atrocities currently underway in the Middle East. For someone who prides themselves on being a free thinker, you sure have bought into the government's case on this one pretty easily.
"For someone who prides themselves on being a free thinker, you sure have bought into the government's case on this one pretty easily."
ReplyDeleteI bought into the government's case back when the CIA director was saying the intelligence was a "slam dunk," etc. I admit that, although there is no record of it in anything that I've written online.
There were some WMDs and continuing programs, by the way. (Underground labs where human experiments were done, biological testing, etc.) There were not vast "stockpiles" or remote pilot type planes all ready to go. Or other things that were talked up. Or as you would say, lied about.
I look on it differently. CIA operatives are out there with their lives at risk, while people demand perfection in intelligence. Saddam had an interest in talking up his WMDs or pretending like he had more and so that's what he did. It's like Israel, they were not supposed to have nuclear weapons. They get them anyway and everyone knows that they have them. Technically, they're not supposed to. Even if they didn't have them, they have an interest in talking them up. Well, everyone knows they really do have them. The simple fact of the matter is that they are not Islamists, so they probably won't blow everyone up. And people know that.
Saddam didn't have that benefit.
As far as the intelligence, the CIA and pop-culture or the MTVeee generation, I suppose that the CIA was too busy making crack cocaine available in American cities....because they're a bunch of racists, or some such.
The pop-culture types are always amusing.