Skip to main content

My Octogenarian Sweetheart

From yesterdays Bush press conference we get this piece of magnificence:

QUESTION (Helen Thomas): I’d like to ask you, Mr. President — your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime.

Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is: Why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, your Cabinet officers, former Cabinet officers, intelligence people and so forth — but what’s your real reason? You have said it wasn’t oil, the quest for oil. It hasn’t been Israel or anything else. What was it?

Of course the president skirted the truth like a mine field. It's a shame he's such a pathetic public speaker. Actually it's kinda funny watching him try to tie 9/11, al qaeda, saddam, and afghanistan together without repeating any of the old discredited lies, which he of course he never said. As a result we get things from him like this:

Part of that meant to make sure that we didn’t allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy, and that’s why I went into Iraq.

(CROSSTALK)

BUSH: Hold on for a second. Excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for Al Qaida.

BUSH: That’s where Al Qaida trained and that’s where…

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BUSH: Helen, excuse me.

That’s where — Afghanistan provided safe haven for Al Qaida.
See? pathetic. (See for yourself.)

Helen Thomas is one of my favorite members of the White House press corp. She's 85, ridiculously sharp, and has a remakably low threshold for bullshit. I'm surprised Bush even called on her. He obviously doesn't watch her daily dance with his press secretary. After the press conference she made an appearance on the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and continued to show why you're never to old to be America's sweetheart.

THOMAS: It doesn't- it doesn't parse. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it certainly had -- was secular, it was not tied to al Qaeda.

I think he wanted to go into Iraq because he had all the neo- conservatives advising at the top of their agenda for Project for a New American Century. First Iraq, then Iran -- then Syria, then Iran, and so forth.

BLITZER: So you believe even before 9/11, he was about -- he wanted to take out Saddam Hussein?

THOMAS: Oh, I think this is very clear. You couldn't sit in that press room day after day. Every time -- every time it was mentioned by Ari Fleischer or Scott, they would say in one breath, 9/11, Saddam Hussein, 9/11, Saddam Hussein.

--------------------

BLITZER: Tell our viewers what you are up to nowadays. How you feel and what your goals are right now?

THOMAS: My goals are to seek the truth wherever it leads me. And I do think that's the goal of journalists. And I think we fell down on the job.

BLITZER: The news media in general? That we weren't -- what?

THOMAS: Come back. All is forgiven.

BLITZER: You are going to forgive us? You are part of the news media too.

THOMAS: Right.

BLITZER: We sat in those briefings for a long time together.

THOMAS: You ask very tough questions.

BLITZER: I'm trying to did the best I can, like you.

THOMAS: You asked President Clinton why he wouldn't resign.

BLITZER: I asked him some tough questions. But that's another time and this is another story.

One starts to wonder if perhaps all of the coverage should be by octogenarians, people a little less afraid of the consequences, people who might say, "what the fuck you gonna do to me? fire me? kill me? ah, get outta my face." Failing at building the octogenarian press corp, perhaps the press could just have octogenarians write their questions. I'm still waiting to hear a reporter ask Mike Wallace's question

What in the world prepared you to be the commander in chief of the largest superpower in the world? In your background, Mr. President, you apparently were incurious. You didn't want to travel. You knew very little about the military. . . . The governor of Texas doesn't have the kind of power that some governors have. . . . Why do you think they nominated you? . . . Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that the country is so [expletive] up?


What I get from all of this is that if ever I have something to hide I will never let a senior citizen question me in public.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

'Anti-racism', All Trap, No Honey: A Discourse About Discourse

One of the things that prevents me from writing more often is the sense that I'm just writing the same thing repeatedly from a slightly different angle. In a nutshell, all I'm saying is that moral idealism substituted for material goals will not lead to justice, but is an argument against materialism. I'm a dumb person's low rent Adolph Reed Jr. translator. I'm a "class reductionist" who understands that when the discourse is reduced to just class there's nothing as important as food, water and shelter that's left out. I often find myself contending with people who insist that there is, unable to name anything. They don't understand that they're making an argument against economic redistribution, or they don't care. There are no concrete manifestations of systemic racism or any oppression that are not dealt with through economic redistribution. When people say that economic redistribution won't end racism, what they mean is that ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Due Process Industrial Complex: "Are We the Constitutional Crisis?"

Democrats, seemingly resigned to political irrelevance, have shifted from principled opposition to obstructionism. They are seeking to stall or block the Trump administration's fulfillment of voter will.  In the face of popular demand for mass deportation of illegal aliens they have positioned themselves as self-appointed experts on due process. Their demands for due process might hold greater totemic power if not undermined by apparent hypocrisy, having supported limited due process for January 6 defendants. The demand for due process is desperate political opportunism driven by faulty political calculus. This explains why a US senator and congressional representatives traveled to El Salvador over a single deported alien. They are demanding that illegal aliens receive more vetting for deportation than they received on entering the country under Biden. In 2016, 38% of Americans supported deporting all undocumented immigrants. Today that number is 56% . There is nothing quite like i...
Post a Comment
Read more

Drowning in Denial, Grasping at Straws-- Democrat's Desperate Bid For Male Voters

The phrase "grasping at straws," from Sir Thomas More's proverb, "A drowning man will clutch at straw," captures a desperate, futile attempt to avoid an inevitable end. It evokes a person falling off a cliff, frantically grabbing for anything to halt their doom. In cinema, this creates tension as the hero snatches a sturdy shrub at the last second. In politics, it signals a refusal to face reality. The Democrats' new $20 million Speaking With American Men (SAM) initiative to attract male voters is a textbook example. This effort is less substantial than straw, likely pushing men further away. It delays confronting the obvious: the party's positions alienate men, offer little to women beyond abortion, and oppose the interests of native-born Americans-- also know as voters. A late May New York Times article by Shane Goldmacher highlights the Democrat's struggle to recover from Trump's re-election. He notes, "Democratic donors and strategists ...
Post a Comment
Read more