President Bush, "60 Minutes" and a grim future

[BobcatJH]

Having just watched President Bush's appearance on "60 Minutes", I have a few thoughts working their way through my head. Here's my initial reaction: This president doesn't seem to have a solid grip on the reality of the situation both in Iraq and at home. Sure, he can give pat answers, the same answers he always gives, but he again seemed to laugh at the wrong times (when talking about his escalation), smile at the wrong times and generally seem detached from the matters at hand.

Also, he seemed tonight to blatantly contradict himself. Listening to the interview - and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - it sounded like the president took credit for the plan he announced last Wednesday. But if you'll recall the speech itself, here's what he said: "Only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it." Later, he added, "Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work." What he said Wednesday seems as clear to me as what he said during the report. The only problem being, of course, that the statements stood in stark contrast. Whose plan was it? His? Or the Iraqis?

Also, it was nice to see CBS interviewer Scott Pelley completely buy into the White House's language when referring to the Democratic Party. When speaking about the possibility of Congress opposing the president's escalation, Pelley said, "The Democrat leadership says, 'We wanna support the troops who are on the ground. We just wanna redline the extra 20,000.'" Note the use of the word "Democrat" instead of "Democratic". What may have been a coincidence was quickly shown to be otherwise. In response to Pelley's question, Bush said, "Yeah. I know. I will resist that. Listen, we've got people criticizing this plan before it's had a chance to work. they're saying, 'We're not even gonna fund this thing.' And they're not gonna give it a chance." Following up, Pelley led the president into his next talking point by saying, "There's no Democrat plan." Somewhere, Edward R. Murrow shook his head in disgust.

While it would be easy to let Pelley's shoddy journalism get in the way of the greater point, it's important to note where the conversation soon went. Pelley very directly asked, "Do you believe as commander-in-chief you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do?" Bush was unequivocal: "In this situation, I do, yeah. Now, I fully understand they - could try to stop me from doing it. But - I made my decision, and we're going forward." In other words, nothing Congress does - even cutting off funding - would get in the way of this president pursuing a policy that has shown no promise of working. That sentiment, sadly, is something Vice President Cheney echoed earlier today on "FOX News Sunday". Here's Cheney's exchange with Chris Wallace:

WALLACE: ... though, is, if they (Congress) want to stop it, can they?

CHENEY: The president is the commander in chief. He's the one who has to make these tough decisions. He's the guy who's got to decide how to use the force and where to deploy the force.

And the Congress, obviously, has to support the effort through the power of the purse. So they've got a role to play, and we certainly recognize that.

But you also - you cannot run a war by committee, you know. The Constitution is very clear that the president is, in fact, under Article 2, the commander in chief.

WALLACE: So let me ask you a couple of specific questions. If Congress passes a resolution opposing increasing the troops in Iraq, will that stop you?

CHENEY: It would be a sense of the Congress' resolution, and we're interested in it and what Congress has to say about it. But it would not affect the president's ability to carry out his policy.

That, to me, is clear. This White House doesn't care what anyone thinks. You. Me. Congress. Anyone. And considering what Stephen Hadley had to say on the Sunday morning show circuit earlier today, the administration's plan is completely transparent: We're going through with the escalation. No matter what. On top of that, we're picking a fight with Iran. Not only picking a fight, but also starting one. Because, as Hadley said, if Iranians in Iraq "are doing things that are putting are people at risk, of course we have the authority to go after them and protect our people." Again, clear. So let's not fool ourselves about what this White House is trying to do. It appears the administration's posturing toward Iran is about to become something else altogether.

A detached president bent on ignoring both reality and the will of the people. A vice president sure of his boss's ability to circumvent the law. A top adviser willing to admit that this administration now has another nation in its cross-hairs. If anything, the "60 Minutes" report didn't break any new ground. It did, however, put this administration's plans into stark relief. Stark, indeed.

Other thoughts: Tonight's most laughable moment: Bush claiming to be flexible. Right, flexible enough to consider breaking the law to stay in Iraq by evading the decisions of Congress. Also, did you notice Bush claiming not to be a "revengeful" person when discussing the execution of Saddam Hussein? We're talking about the same man who once said, of Hussein, "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad," aren't we? Thought so.

[Blue_In_AK]

1. I haven't seen it yet, but

maybe Pelley was pretending to be friendly so that ** would let his guard down and speak candidly, thus revealing just how delusional he really is. In other words, maybe the friendly tone was a trap.

[Olney Blue]

2. Nice summary of the cabal's propaganda tour today.

K and R.

[creeksneakers2]

3. I picked up another Bush lie

Bush claimed that he was the first to admit it when weapons of mass destruction weren't found. I remember about a year of excuses like the claim that as soon as Saddam was out of the way frightened people would be willing to come forward and we'd find the weapons. Bush even claimed those trailers were weapons labs for about a year. Too bad Pelley didn't call Bush on that one.

[PADemD]

4. Did you notice that he forgot to use his Texas accent during

part of the interview?

[Straight Shooter]

5. Good summary, BobcatJH.

bush is as detached from reality as a 16-year-old who still believes in Santa Claus.

Or for those familiar with the anti-war songs of Vietnam, Little Boots has our troops knee deep in the Big Muddy, but the big fool keeps saying press on.

[Miss Chybil]

6. NYT: U.S. and Iraqis Are Wrangling Over War Plans

There were no plans made by the Iraqis, or the US. The whole interview - and Bush's speech - seems to be based on ANOTHER lie.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2689058&mesg_id=2689058

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. Grip on reality?

I think we should Baker Act all the neo-cons and check them for psychological problems.

[Kerrytravelers]

8. Pelley had him there, like a deer in headlight, all bets should be off.

I would have asked the smirking murderer actual tough questions and call him on it when he lied.

Period.

There have been too many dead to play friendly and nice with a mass murderer.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Wish that Bush could be hooked up to a lie detector test when he

does these interviews. That would be interesting to say the least!

[ShortnFiery]

11. Lie Detector test does not register positive for Anti-Social personalities

Remember, when you have no conscious about others, you have no remorse. Therefore, the measurements that a lie detector test monitors, reflect stress: GSR (Galvanic Skin response), perspiration, etc. ... but they all are physiological manifestations of a person who feels NERVOUSNESS and GUILT upon lying.

The lie detector test is greatly flawed allowing sociopaths to pass with flying colors and those with strong morals to fail albeit innocent. What we flush out in the middle of the bell curve is not necessarily the best and the brightest. ;)

Nope, both Dear Leader and Darth Cheney would always pass a lie detector test regardless of the administrator: no guilt + no compassion = PASS. :(

[sendero]

53. Lie detector...

.. is a lie in itself. It should be called an "emotional response detector". Whether the emotional response or lack of one indicates a lie or lack of one is nothing more than a coin flip.

[Morgana LaFey]

10. You are familiar with

The Bush Dyslexicon, aren't you? I ask because of this --

Sure, he can give pat answers, the same answers he always gives, but he again seemed to laugh at the wrong times (when talking about his escalation), smile at the wrong times and generally seem detached from the matters at hand.

The author (I'm forgetting his name -- Miller??) made extensive early analyses of Bush's speech patterns, etc., and noted that he was wont to smile or smirk or even giggle anytime he was talking about cruelty, death, the like. Perhaps someone who has actually read it, or has a copy, could give some examples if you are NOT familiar with it. He's a professor somewhere in NY, I think.

[krispos42]

18. Lewis Black took note of that as well

In Red, White, and Screwed. Something to the effect that Bush was thinking of ice cream when he was talking.

[stevedeshazer]

12. Yes! Pelley's use of the meme, "There's no Democrat plan" jumped out big time

Bush is so dangerously out of touch. I've never seen anything like it.

I'm scared shitless.

[dad]

13. "no Democrat plan"

That jumped out at me as well. But then I got to thinking, well, is there one? I know individual Dems have disparate plans, but there is not a thing that we can look at as the "Democratic plan", is there?

[NoAmericanTaliban]

14. Softball questions and lies is what this interview was about

I did get a good laugh out of Bush claiming not to be stubborn but is in fact flexible. Yea right!

Said we were all wrong about WMD's. No you were wrong. The UN, France, Germany, & Russia were all skeptical. He then blamed the intelligence agencies. Lied about saying that as soon as there were no WMD the administration let us know about it. They were trying to cover it up as long as they could. They tortured countless folks to find them. It was David Kay in a leaked memo that spilled the beans.

Interesting shot inside the helicopter with
Rove sitting there.

The one thing I got out of the interview was a rise in my blood pressure.

[lyonn]

16. Speaking of the helicopter ride, can you believe he spent most

of that ride pointing out historical features of D.C. to the Reporters! Unbelievable

Then bush made some remarks about the books he has been reading. Hard to imagine that he is Now Reading about history and the Algerian war with France. Nice to know our reporters are tough and know how to ask the questions America wants to know. (sarcasm). We are in really deep doo doo. Congress has to do more than take a worthless vote, hell, we all know that bush is wrong. They need to immediately have hearings concerning why bush believes his war plans will work, ask bush directly how his plan is to work (he will say it's top secret), what is the estimated casualties, how, having our troops intermingled into the Iraqi army and police where they will become fish in a barrel, will be a smart military move and in anyway cause peace among the citizens of that country that is in the midst of a civil war.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

31. I thought that was the high point of the interview - * showing

a veteran reporter the Washington Monument as if the reporter had never seen it from the air before. Good proof of his being divorced from reality

[BearSquirrel2]

44. Hans Blix ...

Funny they did not say that Hans Blix or Scott Ridder had to say about it. The truth is that there WAS an intelligence failure, but it was not at the CIA. The intelligence failure was in the Vice-President's office as they ran intereference and suppressed all counter-arguments to the plan of action they preferred for their own nefarious purposes!!!!

[joe green]

51. People like Pelley are enablers

They take a liar like Bush and bestow credibility on him. Bush just feeds off that, has to make him think he's invincible. He can say the damnedest things. It's a vicious circle that just keeps going.

[Ninja Jordan]

15. So Pelley said "democrat" why?

Because he is a RW asshat, or some other reason?

[PinkyisBlue]

20. I don't get this "democrat" vs. "democratic" thing. What does it matter

if someone says one or the other?

[The Wizard]

26. Tailgunner Joe

McCarthy started using the term Democrat party to marginalize his political adversaries. Democrat is a noun as is leadership. Nouns do not modify other nouns, adjectives do. Democratic would be the correct adjective in this case. Either Pelley is a right wing shill, or prior White House approval was required, hence the softball questions.
The use of Democrat as an adjective was obsolete until revived by Gingrich and Luntz in their Republican language guide.
The next time you hear someone use the word democrat as an adjective the red flag should go up letting you know you're talking to a republican asshole. There I go being redundant.

[yojon]

37. "Democratic" evokes warm fuzzies

they dont want to do that! Could be that "democRAT" evokes rodents, although that may be a stretch.

[watrwefitinfor]

27. Maybe because he was reading the prepared questions

that * brought with him?

Wat

[joe green]

52. They can call me anything

so long as they keep losing elections.

[truth2power]

17. Bush is batshit crazy. Ted Bundy in the WH. It's actually that bad.

Somebody, please, do something!

edit> change batship to batshit. Time for bed.

[fuzzyball]

19. Thank you for the nice summary since I missed watching it.

[MikeNY]

21. 60 Minutes Propaganda

This thing was so well choreographed that it was sickening and boring at the same time. It was like watching a Nazi propaganda film. The interviewer must have kissed some serious ass to get this interview and it was clearly well planned out by the White House. So Bush would be seen as the "compassionate conservative" meeting with the war dead families etc... Iraq is the biggest mistake any Presiddent has made since this country was founded. And this President has damaged the balance of powers more than any other president in US history. Even Lincoln did not go as far as Bush (and Lincoln had the civil war as a reason!). Forget Vietnam - the reprecussions of what this President has done are going to hit us in the ass for years to come.

[disndat]

42. Scott Pelley

will probably be going to Faux News next after his contract ends this year. The "60 Minutes" spot after the Big Football game must have drawn a huge audience. Perfect setting, with helicopter whirling overhead, softball questions, a propaganda, p.r. job to soften his image, after the taping of his plans to escalate the Iraqi war. All that was missing was Barney.

[OneBlueSky]

22. Bush and Cheney have become the definition of "hubris" . . .

they are convinced that they know better than the 535 Members of Congress and Senators elected locally and statewide to represent the interests of the American people . . . not to mention the military and diplomatic experts who agree that their approach is the wrong one . . .

that's Hubris, with a capital "H" . . .

[adigal]

23. Scary how the propaganda continues

The Democratic senators should be out there this morning saying only Congress can declare war, and if this president escalates without their permission, or even considers attacking Iran, they will have him up on Impeachment proceedings so fast his head will spin.

He is a nut. He is messianic. He has been given too much power by those who are finally recognizing the dangerous pass they have given this sick, sick man. They need to revoke any laws they have passed giving him more power and rein him in.

And start talking about McCain and Holy Joe as dangerous enablers of a crazy and dangerous man. Just like we got the meme out there that Bush lied about WMDs, we need to make it common knowlege that Bush is a dangerous lunatic.

[Vinca]

24. As I watched the interview, I wondered why a journalist in that situation

wouldn't ask some real "red meat" questions. For example, "Mr. President, don't you feel as if you have blood on your hands?" or "Mr. President, have you seen the photos of dead Iraqi children?" or "Mr. President, would you be willing to send Jenna and Barbara?" But Pelley was content to schmooze instead of interrogate. Why? He gave himself away with the party signal: "Democrat."

[zanne]

25. I'm sure Jr. knew the questions beforehand...

And I'm sure he "approved" Pelle to conduct the interview. He can't handle a real press conference; I don't think he'd just walk into an interview on 60 minutes without having planned everything beforehand.

[Dirty Hippie]

28. Not to mention I'm sure the White House

was seriously involved in the editing.

[brg5001]

32. Now I need to check out the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Anyone who draws Fundie flame is a potential friend of mine! ha ha

[Red Zelda]

29. Because in the country

journalism is DEAD.

[brg5001]

30. Cokie Roberts on NPR also said: "The Democrats have no plan"

The so-called "liberal media" (sarcasm) is at it again. First, CBS refers to there being "no 'Democrat' plan". This morning on NPR, news "analyst" Cokie Roberts stated the Republican talking point that "The Democrats have no plan of their own." She stated this as if it were an incontrovertible fact. She didn't describe this as a Republican talking point and then offer a response.

Even a shoddy reporter or "analyst" would at least quote the different spins on a controversial matter. A good reporter would follow spin with facts, which is what Bill Moyers has stated is sorely lacking in the media coverage of this presidency.

CBS and now NPR are presenting Repukelican spin as if it were news, which is what we expect from the likes of Faux News.

[stubtoe]

34. Cokie considers herself a leading Opinion Shaper for the Right.

She's been reading from that script since before Newt.

"Journalists" like this are, IMHO, traitorous scum.

[BearSquirrel2]

45. Cokie's method ...

Cokie's method is to stick her finger up her own cunt to see which way the wind is blowing. Cokie Roberts is a Beltway Society columnist masquerading as a pundit.

[gratefultobelib]

36. Good analysis on Cokie's "report" or whatever it was. You're right,

she stated it (The Democrats have no plan, PLEASE!) like it was a done deal, period. Interestingly, I knew before she ever said it, that she was going to be negative. Say it enough times, people will believe it. Tiresome.

[disndat]

39. Cokie Roberts

should be kicked out of National Public Radio long ago. She has always been blatantly right wing. Just because she is a daughter of the late and highly respected, Senator Hale Boggs, doesn't make her a neutral observer, without an agenda.

[yojon]

38. Damn! Now i want to defund NPR!

Who woulda thunkit?

[LibDemAlways]

33. Pelley is just one in a long line of whores who

serve their corporate masters by propping up the worst excuse for a "President" in the nation's history.

I read the transcript this morning and chimp was all over the talking point that the Iraqis are to blame for this mess because they're not "grateful" for all we've done for them. Imagine a reporter grounded in reality kicking chimp ass over that one.

I'd like to think "freedom of the press" means that we live in a nation where Olbermann would get the next interview. But the cold reality is there's a greater likelihood that Santa Claus will personally deliver my Christmas presents this year.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

35. Disturbing

I watched the interview (because I'm an idiot) and was appalled at the lack of any serious questioning/analysis of the President's policies and Bush's own detached and distorted view of his policies and the impact that they've had on our country, as well as on Iraq. I certainly didn't expect much different from him but I'm feeling more worried than ever for the future of our country. I had held out some hope that the midterm elections might temper the ruling cabal at least a little bit but obviously not. Bush, Cheney, et. al have made it crystal clear that they intend to completely ignore the American people, Congress, or anybody that stands in the way of what THEY want to do and what THEY think is in the best interests of the country (read:themselves & their cronies). While our leaders shouldn't necessarily live and die by "the polls," their utter contempt for the concerns of the vast majority of the American people (whom they are supposed to be working for, in theory) about our continued involvement in Iraq is beyond disgusting. Bush, Cheney, et. al sound and act more and more like dictators then duly elected leaders of a free and DEMOCRATIC country. Some of the more disturbing "highlights" of the interview for me included Bush's laughable claim that he is "flexible" (when ALL evidence points to the contrary) and more disturbingly, his bold assertion that the Iraqis owe us gratitude for what we did to/for them. If the Democrats in Congress don't act boldly and decisively to challenge Bush, Cheney, et. al over their Iraq policy and especially if they don't actively try to prevent them from launching a pre-emptive military strike against Iran, Syria, etc. then I fear that our form of representative government will be as dead as The Republic.

[angrychair]

40. True state of affairs

Sadly, the very reason people like Bush and Cheney don't care what Congress or anyone else thinks is because they know that when it comes down to brass tacks, we really don't care what they do.
At the risk of sounding bitter and depressed about the current state of affairs, the American people could really care less how many people die somewhere else. Within reason, they could care less how many American soldiers die in some other country for (fill in the blank) reason. As long as they can go to work and on their way home swing into Burger King and get Triple Stacks (with cheese)for the whole family and go home and watch "American Idol" or "24" (as ironic as that is)and sit on their butts for the rest of the night while the whole of Rome could be burning around them and it would not matter.

You can try to argue that the 2006 elections and polls over the last year or so say that people do care and I would counter that the results that have come from these very things highlight how much they do not care and people like Bush and Cheney et. all know it. Why? Because elections make people feel empowered. Because polls make people feel empowered. Blogs make people feel empowered. "Hell ya, I showed him, I voted for the Democratic candidate!" or "I really gave it to them when that CNN/AP poll person asked me how I felt about Bush" but within hours our little social activist is back to following every minute of the American Idol try-outs and a month later when a news story comes on about Iraq he will off-handily remark about how he is surprised that "thing" in Iraq is still going on and "someone" should do something about it and then go back to wonder if "babs" or "john" will make it to the finals.
What do I mean? Bush et. all love these vehicles because it lets a person get it "off their chest" so they blow off their steam and move on and get sucked back into their normal day-to-day life.
You say "the Democrats are in control of Congress now" and I say that politics is a business and the Democrats want to put one of their own in the WH and therefore they are only going to rock the boat so much (I'll take "non-binding resolution" for $500 Alex).

Again, I hate to sound bitter, I do think that the American people do care about how their government is being run and that the American people have forced change in the direction of our government (aka Vietnam) but change takes massive effort and many years to effect that change (Vietnam). The big difference between now and then is us, the American people. We care as long as we can care from a distance. We care as long as it doesn't effect the ability of little tommy getting an iPod for Christmas. We are now so embedded in our "creature comforts" that our desire for change only extends to the front door of our very nice homes. Your average person will expend more effort on the phone with some helpdesk person because they can't get any one of their 500 channels to come in clearly than they will on thinking about the fact that more civilians have died since we invaded Iraq than Saddam was accused of killing since the '80s. That we have spent nearly $500 Billion dollars in Iraq ($500,000,000,000 spelled out) since 2003 and have little more than a hung, two-bit dictator to show for it. That our Secretary of State sat at the table of the UN Security Council before cameras being broadcast all over the world and gave specific numbers, pictures, recordings and bone-chilling statements of impending nuclear clouds and deaths by the millions and none of it was true. Not one word. Not one ounce of anything. To this day the American people sit in silence.

[caligirl]

41. Only your second post and you nailed it for me with this first paragraph

"Sadly, the very reason people like Bush and Cheney don't care what Congress or anyone else thinks is because they know that when it comes down to brass tacks, we really don't care what they do.
At the risk of sounding bitter and depressed about the current state of affairs, the American people could really care less how many people die somewhere else. Within reason, they could care less how many American soldiers die in some other country for (fill in the blank) reason. As long as they can go to work and on their way home swing into Burger King and get Triple Stacks (with cheese)for the whole family and go home and watch "American Idol" or "24" (as ironic as that is)and sit on their butts for the rest of the night while the whole of Rome could be burning around them and it would not matter."

[BearSquirrel2]

43. Give the Kerry plan a chance to succeed ...

Aren't we all enjoying the irony of this. Two years ago, Bush was criticizing the Kerry plan during election that called for a raising troop levels to secure the nation before we could withdraw. Remember, this was at a time when success from such a plan had a much greater chance to succeed as the resistance was not nearly as entrenched.

Now, President Bush is asking everyone to give "his" plan a chance. All this is the Kerry plan 30,000 short and two years too late!!!

[fuzzyball]

47. Great point BS, I had forgotten that Kerry had pushed for that

line of strategy 2 years ago. I must admit, at that time
I thought it was a bad idea. Goes to show you the vision
Kerry has and the good analytical mind he posseses.

[PegDAC]

46. Please read

the complete transcript on www.cbs.com. A whole other perspective...

[frogcycle]

48. my synopsis

I was asked by someone who has not seen it to give a summary. Here it is:



regarding 60 minutes, Olbermann did a good synopsis tonight. Too bad you were blogging.


Anyway, to summarize:
he said that he has decided and anyone who disagrees with him can stick it where the sun don't shine

then he said "I am a very flexible guy"

he said some other stuff too - he babbled something about how all the families of the KIA's gush all over him and tell him how proud they are to have contributed their son/husband/father/daughter/wife/mother to the cause, and regret that they have only one such to give for their fuerher

I think he may have mentioned that laura has kicked him out of the bedroom; he and Barney moved down the hall, and so now he has not just figuratively but literally screwed the pooch

[sparerib]

49. Why do we let him get away with it???

Bush makes such outrageous statements--it seems that too many people just let them pass without challenging him on them. For example, how often has he said that we need to fight the terrorists in the Middle East so we won't have to fight them here? What kind of sense does that make? It seems to me that the probability that terrorists will attack us here is directly proportional to two things: 1. the intensity of hatred toward us and desire for revenge, and 2. the number of people who feel hatred toward us and desire revenge. Under Bush's reign, these numbers have multiplied exponentially. The fact that we haven't been attacked since 9/11 is hardly due to Bush's taking the battle overseas, in my opinion. We haven't been attacked yet because they aren't good and ready yet.

[joe green]

50. Cheney is correct you know

All the Democrats are going to do is pass a sense of the senate/house resolution. It will not restrict W in any way. There's only one way to stop the war -- don't fund it. Not just the escalation, but the whole thing. W and Cheney are counting on the fact the Democrats don't have the courage to do that, and the more I watch this play out day by day, the more I think they're correct in that assumption. I don't see any real willpower there among Democrats or even a consensus on stopping the war. The basic problem the Democrats have is they have indicated they agree with the idea that cutting off funding = not supporting the troops. That came out loud and clear on day one, in Nancy's acceptance speech to the House. Of course the opposite is true, that cutting off funding = supporting the troops. But the Democrats sad to say seem unwilling to make that argument. It really bugs me that that is the case. And that Bush/Cheney have them on the run. It's sickening to watch. No balls anywhere.