The Cheerleader

First, I've gotta post the photo, just because the dauphin looks, well, so small. I guess on a positive note he IS wearing attire that could be considered "businesslike," unlike Cheney donning snow blower togs at Auschwitz.

It almost looks like a photographic trick, where someone can look gigantic or miniscule, depending on where in the oddly shaped room they choose to stand, although I can't imagine Bush ever looking larger than life...

Anyway,
Wimblehack Elizabeth Bumiller (with two others) sat down with Dubya and produced the following bit of fluff. If you want, you can read a partial transcript here.

Apologies to whoever posted this recently--I can't remember the source--but it was something to the effect that Team Bush, when not engaging in either venal bullying or small minded viciousness, spews forth rhetoric that, when you read or hear it, oddly exhibits plenty of "kumbaya" as well. For example--

On the occupation of Iraq:

A fundamental question also that I think a lot of Iraqis understand - and I do, too - is how do we make sure the Iraqi citizens view U.S. troops as helpers, not as occupiers.

On "presidential power:"

I made a decision based upon presidential power. I think - no, I can't think of any examples where I said, 'Gosh, I wish I had more power.'

On the future prospects for Iraq--and Palestine:

I think two of the great ironies of history will be that there will be a Palestinian state and a democratic Iraq showing the way forward for people who desperately want to be free

On race issues:

[I'm working] to put out policies that I think are beneficial to all people, including African-Americans, and will continue to do so.

To be honest, none of those statements, on their face, is necessarily head-in-the-clouds (with the possible exception of "helpers, not occupiers"--what the hell is that supposed to mean? Like Romper Room, except with M-16's and .50 Calibers?). However, none of those statement MEAN ANYTHING without a firm understanding of history, recent events, etc., and without, at the very least, a genuine policy. Bush has yet to show that he has ANY understanding of either the broad picture or particulars--and, without that kind of understanding, he might as well be batting his eyes and babbling about "world peace":

He laughed when asked about his admission on Wednesday, during a news conference, that he had not read the article in the periodical Foreign Affairs written in 2000 by Condoleezza Rice, his new secretary of state, laying out his foreign policy.

"I don't know what you think the world is like, but a lot of people don't just sit around reading Foreign Affairs," he said, chuckling. "I know this is shocking to you."

Now, apparently neither Bumiller, Sanger, nor Stevenson asked the logical follow up--did he read either white papers or other material outlining the policy? If they did ask this question, the didn't record the response. But a president who doesn't understand his foreign policy beyond "we hate tyranny" (which is both naiive and a lie--see, for instance Egypt, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and, for that matter, China, aka, financier to the USA)--is dangerously incompetent.

Bush demonstrates this both in foreign and domestic policy--the former when he insists that the US neither tortures people nor do we send people to other countries to be tortured (tell that to Maher Arar), the latter when he says "destroying life in order to create life is not ethical" when asked about his stem cell policy. Has anyone explained in vitro fertilization to him? And since when has stem cell research been focused on "creating life"? I think the focus is on curing and healing.

I dunno--maybe the sort of tripe Bush tries to pass off as filet mignon really does sit well with the public (in spite of what I read about how most people either don't know or misinterpret his policies). But it's not exactly a winning formula if times get tough--and times will get tough.