Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Bush's Press Conference Beatdown

I heard Bush's press conference on NPR yesterday. He really sounded like he was on the ropes and he only had weak lies to fight back with.

For the most part, Bush sounded like he was answering different questions then the ones the reporters asked. It was typical, but still disappointing.

Bush conflated lack of support for his war with lack of support for the troops. It is such a blatant misrepresentation of the debate that I don't understand why the press doesn't burst out into laughter when we does this. Which of these options shows support for the troops: continuing to send troops to die for a pack of lies, or bringing our troops home to their families? Democrats, liberals, and progressives support the troops, but that doesn't mean we have to support Bush or his war based on lies.

Bush kept telling us to give the surge escalation a chance to work. Meanwhile, things have gotten only gotten worse since the escalation began. How bad are things going to be when the escalation reaches its pinacle?

David Gregory asked a good question about Congress doing what the voters voted them into power to do, get out of Iraq. Bush claimed that the American people don't want to pull out of Iraq, and only some Americans are against the war. Could he be any more in denial? The polls have been showing for some time that the majority of Americans don't want Bush's surge escalation and they don't want the war occupation to continue. Bush is lying about this, ignorant of this, or both. In any case, it is just one more thing to add to the already astoundingly huge list of things that Bush is wrong about.

Bush said Congress should not tell generals how to conduct the war. Please! The only reasons we have the generals we have now is because Bush fired the ones who disagreed with him. How is firing generals until you get only generals who agree with you different from "telling" generals how to conduct the war? Bush's logic is also flawed in that our Constitution was set up so that the government is in charge of the military, not the other way around. And thrice Bush's logic is flawed in that Congress is not telling generals how to conduct the war, they are trying to end the war PERIOD. Ending the war does not tell the generals how to conduct it. If Congress ends the war, there is no war for the generals to conduct.

Bush brought up the tired and stupid talking point that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will attack us at home. There are so many things wrong with that talking point that it basically amounts to a lie. Terrorists have already tried to attack us at home, so Bush's argument that fighting them "over there" means that we don't have to fight them "over here" is inherently and ridiculously false. Additionally, American troops are being killed by insurgents in Iraq who just want us out. I don't agree with the insurgents' methods, but if we leave Iraq, we remove their reason for killing American troops. There is no reason that the insurgents would attack us at home. The terrorists will try to attack us whether we are "over there" or at home. If we end their ability to attack us "over there", we will save American lives, and we can protect ourselves better at home.

He also stated that terrorists already attacked us on 9/11 so that he could deviously conflate Iraq with 9/11. First of all, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush has admitted that, but he still lies via conflation by always using 9/11 to defend his decision to invade Iraq and stay in Iraq. Second, the terrorists were able to attack us successfully on 9/11 because of Bush's incompetence and inaction. The August 6, 2001 PDB proves this. Bush should have been "fighting the terrorists over here" all along to prevent 9/11. Bush failed to fight the terrorists "over here" in 2001 because he wasn't focused on that, and now, he still isn't focused on that. He is focused on Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no ability to attack us at home. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda on the other hand had both, and they are still running free.

Bush warns about what would happen if we left Iraq, but there is no reason to believe his warnings now when all his past warnings about Iraq proved to be lies. He warns that Iraq would fall into chaos. Iraq is already in chaos, but he is too deceitful to admit it or too stupid to realize it. He warns that Iraq would become a haven for terrorists. It already is, but it was not a haven for terrorists before we invaded. It was Bush who made Iraq a haven for terrorists through his incompetence. If he had let Iraqis rebuild Iraq instead of Halliburton, we would not have so many unemployed, disgruntled, and angry Iraqis to become insurgents and terrorists. Bush also warned that terrorists would follow us home, but, as I mentioned earlier in this post, the insurgents just want us out and the terrorists are already trying to attack us at home. Bush also warned that setting a date for withdrawal, we would embolden the terrorists. They are already emboldened. They attempt to attack us at home and abroad. If they are not emboldended now, then what are they? If anything our invasion of Iraq has emboldened and encouraged more people to become terrorists. Cheney claims that ending the war in Iraq would validate the terrorist stategy, but he has been wholly deceived. The terrorist strategy is to increase their numbers and power by igniting a war that would cause more people in the Middle East to sympathize with the terrorists and become terrorists themselves, and Cheney and Bush have done nothing put play into the terrorists' hands by giving them exactly what they want. The Bush administration are the ones who have been validating the terrorist strategy.

Honestly, how can Bush be so wrong about everything? How can he be so wrong about everything and still be president? I already think he should be impeached for actual crimes he has committed, but shouldn't we be able to impeach him for his uninterrupted WRONGNESS!

If Clinton had committed half the crimes and been wrong about half the things Bush has, I would have supported impeaching him. In fact, the Republicans impeached Clinton (who was acquitted) for way less than what Bush has done. Why aren't the same Republicans willing to impeach Bush? Why the hypocrisy? If anything, their unwillingness to impeach Bush is proof that the impeachment of Clinton was nothing more than an insidious, dishonest, politically-motivated partisan attack.

Bush has forgotten that he is not the "decider." The American people are the "decider." The Constitution starts off with "We the people" not "I Bush." The people are in charge of this government. We are in charge. We are the boss. Bush has chosen to ignore the people. Bush has chosen to ignore reality. It is long past time for "We the people" to exercise our control over our government and remove Bush from power.

No comments: