Meet the Pres. --- A textbook example of political damage control.
By Toby Vest
"The words “no doubt” precluded every statement made about WMD in Iraq. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, CIA head George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and several others made claims (which included those two words) there were stockpiles of weapons waiting to be deployed. Rumsfeld even said he knew where they were.
"
You got to hand it to the president, his sit-down interview
on Meet the Press Sunday was a textbook example of political damage control,
which proves the difficult time Democrats will have beating him in Election
2004. The interview was well scheduled, coming at a time when several credibility
issues were starting to take hold of his presidency. Let’s examine the
two most significant topics he and host Tim Russert covered:
Pre-Iraq War intelligence claims made by the president and his administration.
Prior to answering questions about WMD and Saddam Hussein’s
capability to use them Bush kept asking Russert and the audience to think
of it in context. “Please remember,” he said, “I was making these decisions,
in the context of war, with war on my mind and I was using the best intelligence
available at the time.” This continual use of context to warp the
perception of what unfolded in the White House and the Pentagon in the
days leading up to the War in Iraq was a clever ruse but I don’t think
the President was very believable.
This use of context allowed George W. Bush to separate
himself from the administration by implying that he was simply using the
information everyone presented him and he was forced to make decisions
based on that information. The duplicity of this is that it allows him
to absorb credit for his decisions, provided you agree with him, but also
avoid it if needed, which will come in handy during the election. But what
voters should remember is that the president is our leader (and he is always
talking about what a great leader he is or that America needs a president
who is not afraid to lead), well if you are our leader Mr. President then
doesn’t the responsibility of having good intelligence ultimately fall
on your shoulders?
The words “no doubt” precluded every statement made
about WMD in Iraq. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, CIA head George
Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and several others made claims (which
included those two words) there were stockpiles of weapons waiting to be
deployed. Rumsfeld even said he knew where they were.
The questions are: If we could be so wrong about
Iraq, how wrong are we about other intelligence? What’s the real truth?
What else is this administration hiding from America? Are we really safe
in an America run by this administration?
I say no, no matter if every other country’s intelligence
was the same as ours, it is no excuse. America should have all the facts
and weigh their merit, regardless of ultimatums we levee to dictators around
the globe. We should never send troops to war or invade another country
based on questionable intelligence. That kind of disregard is unpatriotic
and disloyal to the men and women in the armed services. I’m sure that
the more than 3,500 U.S. soldiers who have been killed or wounded in Iraq
would agree, even if the board of directors at Haliburton does
not.
The gradually “improving” economy.
This is the newest line for the Bush Administration.
They are aware the economy will be a big issue in 2004, so they have already
begun laying the groundwork for their plans to divert America from the
fact that George W. Bush is the most fiscally irresponsible President in
the history of this country. The validity of this assertion is proven in
the fact that even his fellow Republicans and conservative media pundits,
such as, Rush Limbaugh and Joe Scarborough are calling the president’s
money management skills into question.
Let’s look at the facts. When Bush II came into office
our government was operating on a $281 billion budget surplus and now three
years later, the U.S. has a $531 billion deficit with a national debt of
over $7 trillion. Over the same period unemployed rose from 3.4 percent
to over 8 percent in late 2003. The rate is now down to about 5.6 percent
but information recently presented by Senator Ted Kennedy shows jobs created
in the last few months pay an average of about $9,000 less annually to
workers than the jobs these workers had before. So jobs are being created
but not quality, high-paying ones.
Another fact being touted by the Bush administration
is the 112,000 jobs created last month in our improving economy. What they
don’t tell us is at the same time 117,000 layoffs went into effect, a difference
of 5,000 jobs. This lack of adherence to the truth is the central theme
of this administration because, to them, the truth is only absolute in
the version they present, other facts are simply left out for our own good.
During the interview, none of the President’s wandering,
rhetorical, economic assertions about discretionary spending and fiscal
responsibility in our improving economy amount to anything when the GOA
releases a report saying that if things continue on the pace they are now,
in order to balance the federal budget by 2040, government spending must
be cut by half or federal taxes doubled.
Scary, huh? Well, remember that when you are being
assaulted by the idea that an improving stock market and rising corporate
profits equal an improving economy. Cutting taxes for corporations and
the upper rungs of the American economic ladder is not a coherent policy
when you’re increasing government spending, cutting social programs and
increasing defense budgets, and it certainly doesn’t equal security.
What this administration’s economic policy does is
widen the gap between wealthy Americans and poor Americans.
I imagine the President accomplished what he’d hoped
by going on Meet the Press. The interview definitely didn’t win him any
new fans but his followers surely bought the charade and are again feeling
warm and fuzzy about the possibilities of the president’s next term. To
conclude the interview, Russert asked President Bush how American voters
should choose their next leader and this was his first response: “…by who
could better use American power to influence global change…” He followed
it with some other stuff but I couldn’t concentrate after this one. Go
back and read that sentence again and think of the implications of that
statement when coming from the mouth of this President. I can envision
the orgasmic screams of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft as they watched
the president utter those words, seeing them slumped on the floor in an
orgiastic fever as they ponder the sheer possibilities inherent in a blank
check second term. Another term means they can really let the dogs loose,
no holds barred. Re-election is not an option so the culpability factor
is decreased and I shudder to think what that could mean for America and
the rest of the world.
|
