Saturday, October 09, 2004
Can You Believe This Guy?
Last night's second debate between John Kerry and George Bush likely changed few minds. Certainly not ours. More on that later.
But first: we heard some extraordinary things last night from George Bush. More extraordinary than usual, even.
Asked whether he had adequately prepared to manage post-war Iraq, Mr. Bush said:
We cannot remember a sitting president telling the American people and the world--on national television--that his military commanders were to blame for the difficulties of an ongoing mission*.
But it didn't end there. Asked to name three mistakes he's made and what he did to correct them, George Bush said:
It's hard to be president when the help keeps letting you down.
It's bad enough that Mr. Bush is unable to realistically look at his own decisions and performance. It's worse that it's so easy for him to publicly blame others. But it's positively frightening to understand that the "appointees" Mr. Bush was referring to were not, in fact, the ones that most Americans would think of when the question of "mistakes" arises. Not at all.
He does not mean Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who personally insisted on taking America to war with what we now know was a force insufficient to truly secure the country in preparation for post-war management.
He does not mean Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor who ignored all warnings of the attacks of 9/11--then denied that she'd been warned, mischaracterized the information she'd seen, and tried to avoid testifying about it under oath.
He does not mean Attorney General John Ashcroft, who has relentlessly striven to increase the power and reach that the Justice Department has over loyal American citizens, while failing--disastrously in some cases--to catch even one real terrorist.
No, sadly, it's clear that the appointees that Mr. Bush regrets, the ones he feels let him down, are the ones who disagreed with him. The ones who told him, and the American people, the truth.
Because truth and reality aren't the standard Mr. Bush cares about; loyalty to him and unquestioning commitment to the message are. Get off message and you're a mistake.
But never fear--he'll spare your "feelings on national TV". Unless you're a general, of course--then he'll blame you, by name, for the situation in Iraq.
Look: asked to account for clear errors, the president of the United States twice blamed others. He laid responsibility for the situation in Iraq at the feet of his generals, and said that in four years the only mistake he's made is appointing some bad people.
Frankly, we didn't think anything George Bush could say would surprise us at this point, but he proved us wrong. He proved last night that he is, in fact, the most irresponsible man to hold his office in our lifetime.
Back to the notion of changing minds, or more specifically, the "undecideds". We admit we have trouble with this. The differences in these two men and their policies could not be more distinct. How on God's green earth could anyone be undecided?
Adam Nagourney and Robin Toner of the New York Times report:
What do they need to do? Come to your house and do your laundry? Marry your daughter?
Good grief, people, get a glove and get in the game. Look into what these two men stand for; go to their websites, read their policies and decide which one comes closest to your own views. It's not that hard--they're REALLY, REALLY DIFFERENT.
We can't help thinking these undecideds are the people in restaurants who pore over the menu, can't decide what to have for dinner, keep everyone else at the table waiting, ask the waiter to recite the specials again and again--then when their choice finally arrives, say they wished they'd got the fish.
Why are these people the focus of the election? We wouldn't even go on a second date with one of them.
[* This is not the first time Bush has publicly criticized his own military, by the way. Back on May 2 of this year 201k noted that Mr. Bush chose to air his "disgust" at the actions of soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison to the media. This was before it was revealed that the "legal opinion" authorizing torture had come from his administration.]
But first: we heard some extraordinary things last night from George Bush. More extraordinary than usual, even.
Asked whether he had adequately prepared to manage post-war Iraq, Mr. Bush said:
"I remember sitting in the White House looking at those generals, saying, 'Do you have what you need in this war? Do you have what it takes?' " Mr. Bush said. "I remember going down to the basement of the White House the day we committed our troops, as a last resort, looking at Tommy Franks and the generals on the ground, asking them, 'Do we have the right plan with the right troop level?' " Mr. Bush said. "And they looked me in the eye and said, 'Yes, sir, Mr. President.' "The president of the United States last night blamed the current Iraq debacle on his generals.
We cannot remember a sitting president telling the American people and the world--on national television--that his military commanders were to blame for the difficulties of an ongoing mission*.
But it didn't end there. Asked to name three mistakes he's made and what he did to correct them, George Bush said:
"Now you ask what mistakes. I've made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them. I don't want to hurt their feelings on national TV."In other words, the only mistake he can think of is that some of the people he appointed were no good.
It's hard to be president when the help keeps letting you down.
It's bad enough that Mr. Bush is unable to realistically look at his own decisions and performance. It's worse that it's so easy for him to publicly blame others. But it's positively frightening to understand that the "appointees" Mr. Bush was referring to were not, in fact, the ones that most Americans would think of when the question of "mistakes" arises. Not at all.
He does not mean Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who personally insisted on taking America to war with what we now know was a force insufficient to truly secure the country in preparation for post-war management.
He does not mean Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor who ignored all warnings of the attacks of 9/11--then denied that she'd been warned, mischaracterized the information she'd seen, and tried to avoid testifying about it under oath.
He does not mean Attorney General John Ashcroft, who has relentlessly striven to increase the power and reach that the Justice Department has over loyal American citizens, while failing--disastrously in some cases--to catch even one real terrorist.
No, sadly, it's clear that the appointees that Mr. Bush regrets, the ones he feels let him down, are the ones who disagreed with him. The ones who told him, and the American people, the truth.
Because truth and reality aren't the standard Mr. Bush cares about; loyalty to him and unquestioning commitment to the message are. Get off message and you're a mistake.
But never fear--he'll spare your "feelings on national TV". Unless you're a general, of course--then he'll blame you, by name, for the situation in Iraq.
Look: asked to account for clear errors, the president of the United States twice blamed others. He laid responsibility for the situation in Iraq at the feet of his generals, and said that in four years the only mistake he's made is appointing some bad people.
Frankly, we didn't think anything George Bush could say would surprise us at this point, but he proved us wrong. He proved last night that he is, in fact, the most irresponsible man to hold his office in our lifetime.
Back to the notion of changing minds, or more specifically, the "undecideds". We admit we have trouble with this. The differences in these two men and their policies could not be more distinct. How on God's green earth could anyone be undecided?
Adam Nagourney and Robin Toner of the New York Times report:
Three voters in the audience said after the debate that they were unmoved by the candidates' answers and that they remained undecided.Look, we don't want to be unkind, but if the two major party candidates actually standing in front of you answering your questions for 90 minutes isn't enough for you to make up your mind how you're going to vote, then maybe you should try THINKING ABOUT IT A LITTLE HARDER.
"I'm no more near a decision now than I was this time yesterday," said Linda Grabel, a 63-year-old legal secretary...
What do they need to do? Come to your house and do your laundry? Marry your daughter?
Good grief, people, get a glove and get in the game. Look into what these two men stand for; go to their websites, read their policies and decide which one comes closest to your own views. It's not that hard--they're REALLY, REALLY DIFFERENT.
We can't help thinking these undecideds are the people in restaurants who pore over the menu, can't decide what to have for dinner, keep everyone else at the table waiting, ask the waiter to recite the specials again and again--then when their choice finally arrives, say they wished they'd got the fish.
Why are these people the focus of the election? We wouldn't even go on a second date with one of them.
[* This is not the first time Bush has publicly criticized his own military, by the way. Back on May 2 of this year 201k noted that Mr. Bush chose to air his "disgust" at the actions of soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison to the media. This was before it was revealed that the "legal opinion" authorizing torture had come from his administration.]
