Bush vs Couric
CBS News’ Katie Couric had an odd, six-minute interview with the president during his quick visit to Iraq on Monday, which CBS aired last night. There were a couple of noteworthy exchanges, but this one stood out.
Couric: The surge was designed to help the Iraqi government to move forward. Do you believe there really is tangible evidence worthy of 30,000 additional American troops?
President Bush: Oh absolutely. First of all there’s security…you cannot move forward without security. I mean if people are sitting around saying “I’m worried about my life”, it’s difficult to get political reconciliation. Security yields political reconciliation. This example [Anbar province] is the classic case of bottom-up reconciliation.
I don’t think so. Maybe the president is confused about what’s happened in Anbar province, or perhaps he just doesn’t know what “reconciliation” means, but the Awakening, while encouraging, is not an example of anyone reconciling with anyone else.
This continues to be a point of confusion for war supporters, so perhaps we should just take a moment to spell things out. A year ago, AQI wore out its welcome in Anbar — that tends to happen with al Qaeda, wherever they go — and Sunni tribes and militias decided to start driving them out. The U.S. decided to let them, and offered support to some of the same Sunnis who’ve been killing Americans for a few years.
“Reconciliation,” in Iraq, refers to resolving Shi’a and Sunni differences. When Sunni insurgents attack Sunni AQI, that’s good news, but to describe it as “reconciliation” is kind of bizarre.
For that matter, Couric’s question focused on “tangible evidence” of political progress as a result of the surge. In response, Bush pointed to Anbar, where the progress predates, and is unrelated to, the surge.
I wasn’t thrilled with Couric’s questions, but to her credit, at least she had the wherewithal to follow up with Bush on this point.
Couric: But this is a Sunni area, and you don’t have the sectarian problems that you do in other places in Iraq.
President Bush: Well you do have people who’s psyche was terribly scarred by Saddam Hussein…. Listen, it’s going to take time. And the question is, whether or not the United States of America understands the consequences of failure in Iraq. And I certainly hope they do and I will continue to make the case that failure in Iraq…in other words, if we leave Iraq before the job is done, the enemy will follow us home and that’s important for people to understand.
It was almost amusing to watch. Bush said Anbar is proof of surge-driven reconciliation. Couric suggests that doesn’t really make any sense. Bush says it doesn’t matter if it makes sense because Iraq’s civil war will follow us home.
Nearly five years after starting this conflict, the poor ol’ president still can’t offer coherent explanations for his own beliefs. In fact, Bush went on to tell Couric that critics of his policy don’t care about what happens in Iraq.
“I would hope that Congress would pay attention to what General Petraeus has to say. He is a…unless they really don’t care about failure. If people don’t care whether we fail or not it’s going to be a tough sell. If there are people in Congress like I think there are who are deeply concerned about the security of the United States, I think they will listen very carefully to what General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have to say.”
It was Bush at his most dickish.
So, Couric, and experienced and powerful journalist, naturally realized she’s been sold a bill of goods, right? Wrong.
One week before Gen. David Petraeus is expected to give his report on U.S. progress in Iraq, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric says she has already seen dramatic improvements in the country.
“We hear so much about things going bad, but real progress has been made there in terms of security and stability,” Couric said Tuesday. “I mean, obviously, infrastructure problems abound, but Sunnis and U.S. forces are working together. They banded together because they had a common enemy: al Qaeda.”
This clip was widely distributed this morning by the Republican National Committee.
As Prof. DeLong likes to ask, “Why oh why can’t we have a better press corps?”
Post Script: By the way, in a six-minute interview, Bush used the phrase “in other words” four times, each time for no apparent reason. It’s become his favorite verbal tic, and it’s exceedingly annoying. As Jon Stewart recently explained, “Here’s the thing, Mr. President. People who use the phrase, ‘in other words,’ think we don’t understand what they’re saying. We understand what you’re saying. The look on our face isn’t confusion. It’s disbelief. In other words, we understand, we just don’t f**king get it.”
Bush is a pisspoor cheerleader.
The Presidency is actually Bush’s dream job. He never has to make sense or know anything and yet people listen and pretend to understand. He’s like an unprepared student giving an oral book review of a book he didn’t even read the Cliff’s Notes about.
I wonder if the SLM thinks that accepting the DC “common knowledge” is a way to keep from letting opinion affect their status as objective journalists?
“President Bush: Well you do have people who’s psyche was terribly scarred by Saddam Hussein….”
Um, wasn’t Saddam a….Sunni? WAsn’t it the Shia who were really scarred by the Hussein regime? And why doesn’t Hatie Houric know this? Or am I mistaken?
Failure is continuing the U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq to perpetuate a totalitarian police state. Failure is continuing to extort 75% of that once-sovereign nation state’s oil resources to enrich anational foreign oil companies. Failure is bankrupting our country to the tune of $400M a-day. Failure is the destruction of the U.S. Armed Forces and the global reputation of America. Failure is diverting resources to Dick&Bush’s Big Adventure and not preventing another mass-terrorism attack on American soil.
Indeed, Mr. Acting President, I do not want failure.
Any half-wit can be a boss , we need real leaders .
Katie Couric is a tool. She’s almost as unqualified for her position as Bush is for his. Just read this rediculous blog post of hers from her first day in Iraq. Could she tow the line any harder? Could she be more of an idiot?
Where have you gone, Walter Cronkite? A nation turns its dumbed-down eyes to you. Boo hoo hoo.
“It was Bush at his most dickish.”
…And that takes some doing on W’s part.
Hatie Houric probably saw all those young boys in uniform, and a combination of that with the heat of Iraq likely just got her all hot and bothered and she just couldn’t think straight.
Nah. She IS just a freakin idiot.
“I personally believe, that in South Africa and the Iraq, some people don’t have maps, and that is why our troops keep getting blown to bits.”
Wow, Couric actually asked a follow-up question which required some level of knowledge? I’m honestly impressed. I really had expected her to just accept the first answer he gave and am amazed that she could tell what a crappy answer it was.
Equally amazing is that Bush can continue to give answers which he is unable to uphold after even one obvious follow-up question, yet anyone takes him seriously. I mean, if you can’t even handle one follow-up question without changing your answer, you’re an idiot. But I guess we already knew that about him.
I notice that Shrub is now using the buzzword du jour of “Bottom Up.” See CB’s post on Iraq strategy 5.0 earlier today.
I wonder if a “bottom up” reconciliation was what Craig was after in Minneapolis?
(Sorry, I just couldn’t help myself)
petorado – (Re #6)
“It was Bush at his most dickish.”
…And that takes some doing on W’s part
I disagree. He’s a gifted natural at being a colossal dick. I’d say her gets most of it from his mother.
The press just doesn’t bring it out enough.
Yeah. I would say Bush could be considered a Dickish Savant.
That, “in other words” is almost as irritating as Wolf Blitzer’s love affair with “if you will”. I don’t know what my will has to do with his story that I know nothing about until he tells me.
Does anyone else think the way Bush tends to sprint off someplace else, verbally speaking, in the middle of a sentence indicates some deeper problem? I mean, he does it all the time – he’ll be partway through an answer, and it’s as if some program clicks over in his head and says “insert talking point here”, and away he goes. He can go from a discussion of immigration to how al Qaeda is going to follow Americans home from Iraq if success is not achieved.
Any sign of mental instability in a world leader should be disturbing. Any…umm..further signs of mental instability in Bush should be viewed with alarm.
It’s encouraging to see a stupid tool like Couric ask a few reasonable questions.
But she is a tool, and of course the Deciderer was never asked the real question:
“Mr President, have you started drinking again?”
or
“Given the vast numbers of people who think you’re full of crap, why should anyone believe that stupid statement?”
Or maybe:
“Since you think this war is so important that American lives must be sacrificed, why haven’t you asked either of your own children to sign up for military service?”
or maybe:
“Would you be willing to sit down with a group of soldiers who haven’t been screened and answer their questions?”
Denial is the defense that disables. Will someone tell our not-so-illustrious leader, Mr. Bush, that his grand scheme of things – bringing the springwell of democracy to the people of the Middle East – has been met with utter failure in Iraq. Mr. Bush still talks about failure in Iraq not being acceptable, when we continually bear witness to the failure of Iraq as he speaks. Has it dawned upon our Executive policy-makers by now that there was a very good reason Saddam employed a ruthless tyranny over his warring Iraqi people for so long? What fools! And now they want us to sit back and witness the brilliance of their “surge?” Again, what fools are those who inhabit the WH at this moment! -Kevo
Bush: “I mean if people are sitting around saying ‘I’m worried about my life’, it’s difficult to get political reconciliation.”
3,750 American military aren’t sitting around worrying about their lives. They’re already dead.
I notice that Shrub is now using the buzzword du jour of “Bottom Up.” — Eeyore, @10
Probably reminds him of the better — drinking — days and its “bottoms up!” Or is that a strictly Brit phrase when raising a glass?
“And the question is, whether or not the United States of America understands the consequences of failure in Iraq. ”
“Hell, I do. Look how much I fucked up in the oil business.”
“…in other words, if we leave Iraq before the job is done, the enemy will follow us home and that’s important for people to understand.”
Now, would that be the Sunni insurgents (not the ones in Anbar who were bought off) who are attacking US troops, or would that be the Shia militiamen who are allied with the Maliki government, and who are also attacking US troops?