"Don't Grumble--Give a Whistle"

Wimblehack winner Elizabeth Bumiller covers the Bush gang's response to chewing on life's gristle:

President Bush's opening statement at his news conference on Wednesday was striking for what it left out: any mention of the 31 Americans who died overnight in the crash of a Marine helicopter in Iraq, the largest number of American deaths in a single incident since the war began.

Mr. Bush instead focused on his long-term goal of "ending tyranny in our world," and then cast the Iraqi election coming Sunday as part of a march of freedom around the globe. He said that if he had told the reporters in the room a few years before that the Iraqi people would be voting, "you would look at me like some of you still look at me, with a kind of blank expression."

The president's words were part of an aggressive White House communications strategy this week and next to frame the risky Iraqi election - a critical test of his assertion that the country is on the path to stability - in the best possible light. The goal, a Bush adviser said, was not only to lower expectations but to avoid any definition of success.

When the president was asked to define what a "credible" turnout in Iraq would be, he quickly side-stepped, saying only, "The fact they're voting in itself is successful."...

Though the tone of the news conference was at times light and bantering, in response to a question later Mr. Bush did address the helicopter crash: "Obviously any time we lose life it is a sad moment," he said.

By Wednesday afternoon, in an interview with Al Arabiya, the satellite television network, he had incorporated his response to the crash into his larger message about freedom.

"Today a tragic helicopter accident is a reminder of the risks inherent in military operations," he said in the television interview, again in response to a question.

Mr. Bush's decision not to mention the helicopter crash in his opening statement, the Bush adviser said, was part of a longstanding White House practice to avoid having the president mention some American deaths in Iraq but not others.

"It's almost a policy," said the adviser, who asked not to be named because the president does not want aides talking about the inner workings of the White House, "because if you mention one, you have to mention them all."

The president took a similar approach in November 2003, when a Chinook helicopter was shot down in Iraq and 16 Americans died. Mr. Bush stayed at his ranch and let Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld do the talking, and officials said they did not want Mr. Bush to be consumed by headlines. "If a helicopter were hit an hour later, after he came out and spoke, should he come out again?" Dan Bartlett, a senior aide, said at the time...

On Iraq policy, Mr. Bush has sought this week to rise above the daily bad news - insurgents vowed this week to cut off the heads of Iraqis and their children if voters went to the polls - and to put a positive stamp on an election that could be disrupted by insurgent attacks on Sunday and set the tone for the next four years...

Mr. Bush made that point in the interview with Al Arabiya, which is considered more moderate toward the Bush administration than its chief competitor, Al Jazeera...

White House officials said that planning for the news conference began on Monday and that it was essentially Mr. Bush's idea. Although the president typically dislikes news conferences, White House officials also say he is closely involved in setting strategy in dealing with the news media and understands when it is in his interest to use his powerful podium to try to shape public perception of the news...

The message, a senior administration official said, is: "We're not going to wake up on Monday with the sparrows chirping in downtown Baghdad. This is not going to be perfect."

Gawd. Where do you begin? Thanks to C-Span, I was able to catch the replay last night, and it was even worse than I expected. Then this hairball of an article is regurgitated up by the Wimblehack champion. Ignoring the dead is explained away as "almost policy" (I guess ignoring the Iraqi dead is "genuine policy." I mean, geez--can you imagine? Most of the "collateral damage" from the war makes the Zapruder Film look like children's programming). Then you've got the reference to Al Arabiya with no mention that the station is widely perceived as a vehicle for US propaganda--which might be because the station was created and is funded by the US government. The emphasis on "the message," as opposed to, oh, I don't know, maybe a sincere, critical look at THE ACTUAL POLICY?!?

Hackmiller's piece is a celebration of president is little more than spokesperson, ignoring the responsibilities of the office.

Compare and contrast Hackmiller's empty calories with John Burns's sobering assessment that "Security is only an ideal:"

Starkly put, Baghdad is not under control, either by the Iraqi interim government or the American military.

Or, in yet another reality-based piece in the Times, James Glanz and Thom Shanker write:

More than two-thirds of all Iraqis live in districts that have experienced insurgent attacks in the past month, according to an analysis of new intelligence data...

Five provinces have suffered more than 150 attacks over the past 30 days, with highs of 467 in Salahaddin Province, a Sunni area north of Baghdad that encompasses the troubled cities of Samarra and Tikrit, and 798 in Baghdad. Three more provinces sustained 30 to 100 attacks in the period, the data indicate.

Even though the heaviest concentration of violence is in Sunni Arab areas, the mayhem extends throughout the country, from Basra in the south to the northernmost reaches of Nineveh Province, which includes the volatile city of Mosul. Even in the traditionally peaceful Kurdish north, there were three attacks in Erbil and three in Dahuk in the last 30 days, casting doubt on recent assertions by Iraqi and American officials that just four provinces are so violent as to pose serious challenges for the elections.

So much for the "only four violent provinces" spin.

Hackmiller's piece demonstrates all too clearly Team Bush's thought process regarding the ugly mess they've created in Iraq, namely, that it's just politics and nothing that can't be repaired with a bit of positive PR. Unfuckingbelievable. James Wolcott picked up on this, noting the total disconnect alpha chimp displayed:

The White House announces a press conference in the morning. After the announcement comes the news that 31 Americans died in a chopper crash in Iraq (6 others died today in seperate incidents). The president takes the podium fresh with the knowledge of that tragedy--and radiates a cheerful disposition bantering with the press about senior citizens and their faulty memories...

When Bush did address the soldiers' deaths, he said that we "weep and mourn" when Americans die, but as he was saying it his hand was flatly smacking downwards for emphasis, as if he were pounding the table during the business meeting, refusing to pay a lot for a muffler. The steady beat of his hand was at odds with the sentiments he was expressing--he didn't look or sound the least bit mournful or sombre. And why should he? Death doesn't seem to be a bringdown for him.

Of course it's not a bringdown for him--those who are dying exist only in the abstract for Bush, and I think the last four years have shown he has a somewhat limited capacity in that area. And the deaths continue--eleven more today, and counting.

Which for them means time to stick to the message. Nothing more.