Because heads they win, tails they win. Because white is black and up is down. Because pre-empting is wrong and caution is wrong. Tiresome and transparent, yes.

We watched the speech and turned it off before the first question. I never listen to the press corps anymore. I know if anything stunning or momentous occurs during question-and-answer, the blogosphere will cover it.

I like W best when he gets that fire in his eyes and resolve in his voice, as he did when talking about the attacks (all the attacks, but 9/11 in particular). Unlike the seemingly entire Democrat party and the whole of the mainstream media, he genuinely transmits the outrage and determination that the rest of us still feel and yearn to see echoed in the face of our president. That's what I was looking for last night, that's what I'm always looking for, and I got it.

Kerry might or might not continue the efforts in Iraq, but whatever he does will be for political reasons. He is incapable of doing anything from a moral or gut-level perspective. I want a president capable of feeling the same outrage and resolve when this country is under attack that I believe most of us feel; not a mealy-mouthed indecisive politician who radiates nuance (an obscenity in my dictionary) and demonstrates no pro-American spirit whatsoever. I call Kerry "post-American," the anti-American version of "post-modern." He'd probably be flattered.

I wasn't even going to comment here, since the nation's reality distortion field is in full force after something like a Bush press conference.

But I just have to say to Peg, I'm sure that if Kerry is elected, you won't criticize his handling of Iraq or the War on Terror - because that would be wrong, unpatriotic, and aiding our enemies, right?

Adam, like so many people, appears to think that all criticism is alike, and that therefore if you question ANY form of criticism, you must question ALL criticism.

Which is why he asks such silly questions.

So if I were, to example, say, "Black people are all so stupid and ignorant," in Adam's world, I'd be okay if, in response to the outrage at my hatefulness, I merely responded, "I'm sorry, I didn't know it was wrong to question or criticize black people," Adam would be fine with that.

News flash for Adam: there is such a thing as hateful and divisive criticism, and that can damn well be unnecessarily divisive and even unpatriotic, most especially in a time of war.

Are you even willing to try to understand the difference?

You know what else is tiring, Dean? The way you consantly engage with these imaginary constructs, these hypocritical hateful liars blah blah blah as if there are no sensible, coherent, meaningful criticisms out there. I'd like to see you take on people like Kevin Drum every once in a while. You might find him more challenging than these useless strawmen you seem to enjoy attacking.

As for the press conference: opening statement was pretty good, coherent, short on detail and perhaps too much blandisment, but probably what was needed.

The Q&A: the press are assholes, but GW's performance is just painful, cringworthy stuff. In all seriousness, I do not take pleasure watching a political enemy corpsing on stage like that, its like being in highschool with some kid who learned his dissertation ok but hasn't a clue what it was all about. The man's an embarassment; he seems incapable of dodging a question with any grace. I mean, 'Name your biggest failure' is a dumb f******* question, but something like 'I let the historians worry about that, I'll just keep doing my best to do the right thing etc' would be a perfectly acceptable answer... I had to switch watching him trying to answer that...

Max, you have just leveled an inherently unanswerable charge, for I do mention specifics on a very regular basis.

In fact, that's not unanswerable at all. You've said something flat-out untrue.

I'm tired of being abused by you. You are no longer welcome here. If you'd like to apologize you have my email address. Otherwise, goodbye.

But by the way, for the record:

There are sensible, coherent, and rational criticisms of Bush administration policies.

The problem is that they are drowned out almost completely by hateful people who call people "liars" when there's no reasonable or decent basis for that assertion, and by people who quote material out of context, and by people who raise unreasonable and inherently unanswerable charges.

I give examples of this on a very regular basis. You haven't seen one? Ask for an example and I'll point you to one you've apparently missed.

That offer's good to anyone except, of course, Max M. Until I get an apology from Max, anyway.

I'm tired of people thinking they can use my comment section to abuse and mischaracterize me. If you haven't got more manners than that, go spout off about how evil I am somewhere else.

Dean, my point was, I hear a lot of people saying it's wrong to criticize the President in wartime. I just wonder if that applies to *any* President, whether you agree with him or not.

Haven't you yourself said some variation of, we're at war so people should keep their criticisms to themselves? That criticizing the war and the President waging it only helps our enemies? I know Mrs. du Toit has said that and more, including calling people who don't keep it to themselves (like me) traitors.

I guess I *don't* know the difference between hateful criticism and OK criticism - the lines are blurry and keep moving. Which things are fair game and which are off limits? I want to know the playing field in case Kerry gets elected. Because you want to be consistent, right? You want to give Kerry every possible support you can, if he's the President, right? That's what I'm getting at.

Dean, our posts crossed. But I honestly don't remember you giving an example of what we should be able to criticize the President on.

Adam: ...my point was, I hear a lot of people saying it's wrong to criticize the President in wartime.

I've never heard anyone say that. I've certainly never said it. So I would have to sympathize with you--anyone who would say that would be crazy.

I just wonder if that applies to *any* President, whether you agree with him or not.

See, I wouldn't know, since I don't know anyone who says that and I certainly don't believe it.

Haven't you yourself said some variation of, we're at war so people should keep their criticisms to themselves?

Nope. Never.

I know Mrs. du Toit has said that and more, including calling people who don't keep it to themselves (like me) traitors.

That would surprise me, since it doesn't sound like the Mrs. du Toit I know. Especially since she herself is often critical of the President and has been critical of our handling of the war before. Hmm. How odd.

I guess I *don't* know the difference between hateful criticism and OK criticism - the lines are blurry and keep moving.

Hmm. I see. So you don't know the difference between calling someone a liar who intentionally led troops into a fake war in order to make his cronies rich and saying "this war was a mistake?"

You don't know the difference between calling someone a liar and saying he's wrong?

You don't know the difference between reporting both bad news and good news, and NOTHING but bad news?

You don't know the difference between thoughtful criticism that starts with the assumption that the other side is decent and honorable, and that starts with the assumption that the other side is vile and venal?

Seems pretty obvious to me.

Just some MDT snippets first:

"I have no more patience for argument today--to be in the same blog with people who 'dissent' against this conflict. Fuck them all. Not today."

"I sure would like it if we started arresting and prosecuting people for treason."

"Do you think I give a flying fuck if you are offended (or anyone else is offended) when we are at war and the actions of individual TRAITORS are putting our soldiers at risk? Or it might make it hard for you to get a full bridge table together at your next party?"

There's more - lots more - but you get the idea.

As for me, I believe this war was a mistake. And I believe there is ample evidence that intelligence was cherry-picked to support the case for war. And I believe we should have been focused on current threats instead of possible future ones, especially ones as weak as Saddam. And I believe that the administration shouldn't have said unequivocally that they "knew" where Saddam's weapons were. I believe that hyperbole about anti-war people being "traitors" helps no one. I believe if the President is running for re-election as a wartime leader, his actions or inactions before the war are a legitimate topic of inquiry, not a witch hunt. And I believe this President's inability to admit any wrongdoing, any mistake, ever, is a bad quality in a leader.

Is any of that hateful?

Dean, our posts crossed. But I honestly don't remember you giving an example of what we should be able to criticize the President on.

Well Adam, I'd say you can criticize him on anything you like. It's a free country, and the first amendment still applies.

But if you're going to engage in ad hominem attacks, cheap shots, out-of-context quotes and other distortions, jump on every setback as proof of failure and incompetence while ignoring all positive news, against our leaders in a time of war, you can expect to be harshly criticized for it.

At least, I'll harshly criticize you for it, and without hesitation. Friend, foe, relative, stranger, Democrat, Republican, independent, I just don't care. You act like an asshole, I'm calling you on it, and I won't be nice about it.

You want examples of what I consider patriotic criticism? I'll be happy to give a few, if you want. And so long as I'm not asked to create the defintitive, all-encompassing list. But my first rule of thumb would be this:

Lose the words "lie" and "liar" from your vocabulary, along with all weasel words that imply it (such as "mislead" and "falsehood" and so on) unless you are confident that you could prove to a jury in a civil suit that the person you're accusing it of didn't make an honest mistake and intentionally, willfully deceived.

Because let me tell you something, Adam: if I called you a liar, how would you react? Would you say, "Well, I respect your right to criticize me?" Or would it, possibly, make you just a wee bit angry?

If you don't understand why calling someone a liar is inflammatory and devisive, though, then really we have nothing to discuss.

Another crossing of posts. Oh well.

Just couldn't resist to toss in this MDT gem, from these very pages:

"'Dissent' has a fixed time period. That time has passed. Now we have American troops fighting a war. It is time to support them by recognizing that you are an American first. Like or not, by your staying in the country, by not renouncing your citizenship, you are bound to support (or at least remain silent and not give aid and comfort to our enemies) even on issues of this magnitude, especially in wartime. It is time to shut up over the fact that the American people did not agree with your dissent. Your continuing to "dissent" over an issue that is over is sabotage, plain and simple."

Dissent has a fixed time period? I am bound to remain silent? Dissent is sabotage? Sorry, MDT, but you are *dead wrong.* This paragraph is one of the most un-American things I can imagine.

Adam, Max:

Clearly it wasn't a pleasant night for either of you...I can't say I cringed at any time during that press conference, Max...I've got a donut shaped pillow that I'll lend to you if your problem doesn't let up...

From 1-10 rating scale, I give Dubya a solid 8...having worked in media relations for as long as I have, you get to understand how presidential press conference are more about the reporters wanting attention than anything else...if they really wanted to serve the public they would have asked much better questions...they wasted so many opportunities last night...and David Gregory of NBC let it slip out after the PC that he was clearly upset that Bush "went over our heads" to the American people with his repetitive recitation of why the Iraq effort has to succeed...he showed discipline...they showed petulance and lazy thinking...if you want to know why Bush doesn't do these press conferences more often, you saw it last night...the press corps is unworthy of the time...and they're clearly having a hard time dealing with that.

I've never posted here before, but I enjoy and appreciate your blog.

I'm a liberal who supported, and still do, this war. So here's my criticism of last night. Interpret it however you want, but I assure you it's not meant as either pro or anti-Bush.

I didn't hear anything in the President's comments that I haven't already heard. I know we have to stay the course and that freedom and democracy is critical to our long-term strategy on reducing the risk of terrorism. My concern is; how do we get from where we are now to the ultimate goal? That's what I was hoping the President would address. Instead, he just keeps telling us the same thing over and over.

Maybe it's not the President's job to present a plan of action and I understand that he has to calm a jittery public, but I'm interested in knowing what the plan is for Iraq. I think the media let us down in their reporting before Iraq in terms of how we were going to accomplish our goals, and based on their questions last night, they continue to let us down.

Chris: Which questions? Like "How does your faith help you get through this difficult time?" BTW, "went over our heads" is newscaster-speak for "he didn't answer the questions."

Yes, I had a tough time last night. Because I was ashamed at how inarticulate and clueless the President seemed, especially when he had to stray from the talking points. Why didn't he answer, for example, the completely legitimate question of why he has to have Cheney by his side at the 9/11 hearings? It's not about saving time, since they would have to spend the same amount of time whether they were alone or together. So why is it? The administration used it as a condition for letting Condi testify. Again, this is an example, I think, of legitimate questions of conduct.

After last night I was reminded why Bush doesn't do this more often as well, Chris. I just had a different interpretation of why.

Nope, Adam.."went over our heads" is newscaster speak for "went over our heads"...I've worked with and assisted news reporters for 15 years, and you learn one thing if you hope to succeed with them...they see themselves as the filter for the public, and they are extremely territorial about that...it's not really any more complicated than that, Adam...I'm sorry...

And as for Bush being "inarticulate" and "clueless", well, we'll see about that...I have to tell you that every time he's been called "inarticulate" it's right before he does something to completely throttle those critics who are more "articulate" than him...the "inarticulate" thing is akin to swinging at efus pitch in baseball...it looks too easy, and then the next thing you know you're picking your butt up off the ground after having swung and missed...people who despise Bush just can't help but take a swing at it...Adam, you need to lay off that pitch...Karl Rove is throwing you that pitch and you need to lay off it...

What the American people saw were petty reporters asking questions but all the while preening for attention....they love to be pandered to, to be liked...that's why Clinton fared so well with them, even when he was going thru the Monica thing they gave him openings to walk thru...they liked him, a lot...he's one of them, he's a wonk, a cocktail party guy who would (and still does) put his arm around them at parties and joke and kid and make them feel special, anointed...Dubya doesn't do that, he doesn't trust them...NOT because they don't trust him, it's because they don't trust US...his method is to go over them, around them, and speak plainly to the American people...he's talking to a guy in Midland, is how I see it....he's talking to a woman in Alabama, in Vermont (well, maybe not Vermont)...he's talking to that family in Western Massachussets that thinks and votes a lot differently from their fellow citizens in Cambridge or Hyannisport...he's connecting with decision-makers, and the press hates him for it...THEY see themselves as the only pipeline to the decision-makers, but the public has lost confidence in their ability to do that service, so they find other ways to get information....I suspect you and Max are two of those people who've lost that trust, because you're smart enough to grasp the power of what Dean's doing, of what Glenn Reynolds is doing, Josh Marshall, etc...and the networks and the traditional media don't yet get it.

I didn't find the President particularly inarticulate or clueless, so I can't relate.

What I can say is that a thing to keep in mind is that press conferences generally are not delivered for people who are political junkies and who closely follow everything. They are generally for the general public, and as such most of the super specfic questions asked by the avid political junkies won't be answered. Such people generally already know what they think anyway.

I look for a press conference to affirm certain basic, important things, and that's all.

Bush is plain and simply spoken. This bugs some people, but it pleases others. Frankly, I'm one of those it pleases. I like this man's style. I always have. He seemed very timid and uncertain during the 2000 election and in his first few months in office, but I've been utterly comfortable with him since then. [shrug]

I guess I can sort of relate to the whole "he's embarassingly inarticulate" notion in a weird way. I never hated Clinton, but I always found his manner oily and glib and never trusted it. Yet other people found it clever and reassuring somehow, dazzling in some very impressive way. Bush I find reassuring for his plain-spokenness, his firmness, for the fact that he means what he says and says what he means. Yes, like all politicians, he dodges questions he doesn't like; Reagan did it by pretending not to understand or not to hear, Clinton did it with long circuitous answers that went nowhere but seemed clever, Bush repeats what he just said. Normal behavior really. That doesn't bug me either.

I liked the conference because he put the lie to those claiming that we were going to abandon Iraq or that there was some major strategy change, addressed a few big points, and was gone. All to the good so far as I can see.

But then, I don't like glib. I never have.

Chris:

I agree with you that often, the press doesn't ask the right questions. I agree with you that they are self-important, often. But I think in a presidential press conference, especially only the third public one in his presidency, the President's words are more important than the press' questions. Especially when he doesn't even make an attempt to answer those questions.

As for the President being inarticulate, I don't need Karl Rove to "pitch" that to me. It's right out there in the open for everyone to see. And to me, it's embarrassing and scary. But that's just me. (Hope that's not "political hate speech.")

So Dean, getting back to our earlier conversation, will you repudiate the "traitor" hyperbole of MDT that I've quoted here? And were any of my opinions stated in this thread hateful? I'd like to know where you stand on those questions.

Grace, I don't think you've been answered yet. I'll try:

1) Unfortunately, most people - 'scuze me, let me start over. Unfortunately, those people who get 99% of their news from newspaper headlines and broadcast media haven't heard anything like the President's talking points for months, and most of them have probably been taught to forget since then.

2) When you ask how we get from here to 'the ultimate goal', what do YOU mean by 'the ultimate goal'?

3) I think the current plan may be something along these lines (although I have no insider knowledge, and this is a huge simplification):

a) don't overplan, go for flexibility instead, because we overplanned for refugees and catastrophe in the pre-war that never happened,

b) give the military what it asks for to do the job,

c) get an interim government together to hand over sovereignty to, but keep the troops there, and probably some variation on the CPA as an Advisory Body.

4) I agree about the media.

5) Tangent thought - I think President Bush is trying to 'pause' at Iraq for now until the Election is over so as to avoid possibly handing his opponent a war that's just started, etc, instead saving that for either his own or his opponent's decision after the election. I could, of course, be falsely ascribing altruistic motives to him.

Well I came here to spend my 2 cents, and found us digressing along the ususal lines. Love it. Glad I spent my time last night actually analyzing the transcript of what POTUS said. But I won't bother reproducing it here. Check it out if you're interested. (I don't have any ads, yet, so this is merely an intellectual excersize). Peg C. and anyone who turned it off after the opening is not invited. It was a "press conference" which means the meat was after the opening, which could be gained from any stump speech or reading Bush/Cheney.04

I'll just point out that POTUS did not offer anything concrete, which I thought he would, and we, and just as importantly, the Iraqi people needed some answers after this last week of uproar. No specifics about troop strengths or whom was getting that sovereignty thing, or what restructuring might be done in the intel apparatus in addition to creating Homeland Security Dept.. I was left, once again, with the impression that he delegates but does not manage, signing off on other's plans but not engaging directly or coming up with the policy itself. I know, he paints with a broad brush, outlining the direction but not the path. I just wince at the style which comes across as out of touch.

Also, did anyone else catch how angry Dr. Rice seemed. I could only guess why, but some of her testimony last week didn't quite jibe with Bush's statements.

Dean, you must have missed that whole "Shut up, no you shut up." stuff MDT and I engaged in a while back. Ask Rose, she thought it was "Kewl." At least I was Kwel. :-) In fact please look at that stuff carefully, especially when you ban folks for unfair / unreasonable / mean spirited criticism, but folks who apparantly advocate the complete crushing of dissent of any kind are (for all appearances) met with approval by the managment.

And no, I'm not trying to defend Max, don't care to. Nor do I care to go back over all his posts, that's between you two. And Max did make it a personal attack against you, in a less than tactfuly way. Some folks, myself on occasion when my underwear is bunched in the wrong direction, do get the impression around here that (rightly so) you directly confront the host with peril. Max's banishment certainly got my attentioin. And I don't expect a response here, just sending you a thought hors d'orves.

Thanks Dave - I appreciate the response.

To me the ultimate goal in Iraq is to set up a moderate Islamic Republic in the Middle East. I think if we succeed it could be a crucial turning point in the war on terror.

I know it's complicated and maybe a press conference isn't the right venue for the President to discuss it.

I guess my frustration is that I feel like we're repeating the same mistake over and over, which is, as a country we never seem to have a national debate over critical issues until it's too late.

Like what you said about giving the military whatever it needs to do its job. I'm really worried about the role of the military after the June 30 transfer. What happens when there's another Fallujah? Our troops have every right to defend themselves, but what if the IGC doesn't want them to? Do they have to negotiate with the IGC and if they don't then what kind of legitimacy will the IGC have in the eyes of the Iraqi people?

These are the kinds of things I wish we could be talking about now. I know I'm being naive about this, especially in an election year, it's just that winning Iraq is so important to our overall success in the war on terror.

I hope, though I don't and can't know (whether I 'need to know' is debatable, with good arguments on both sides)... anyway, I hope that it's already been quietly agreed that we'll still have broad authorization to do whatever we think we need to in Iraq, militarily, after the TOS.

I hope, but more in a 'if I were God' way, that we actually have all but a few incidental details worked out with the New Sovereign Temporary Government and that it'll be brought forth fully formed, and we'll all be getting a pleasant surprise.

But I work with computers, so I'm not especially fond of surprises :P

As to the thoughts of having a national debate...

Some things just can't be debated, at least not publicly, so long as we have open (and irresponsible) media and enemies still in existance.

Other things can, but never will be because one side, or the other, or (in most cases, since there's usually more than two sides) ANother, or some combination of those, refuses to actually debate, because debate and considering the merits of the other side(s)' points might actually require thought and civility.

And then there's the things that can, and would be, except that either the public would have no patience for it, or the media would decide the public would have no patience for it and switch to the latest Michael Jackson coverage even though the public would rather hear the presumed debate.

Adam, of course you're not using "hate speech"...hope I didn't give the impression that I use that phrase, I think a lot of people use it when they get flustered and can't think of anything else to say...it's largely a refuge for the lazy-minded, along the lines of, say "vast right wing conspiracy"...Hillary didn't earn any Mensa points for that gem...

I respect your point of view that you feel embarrassed by Bush's communication abilities...I wish you didn't, but hey, people see things differently and that's what makes the world go around...I don't feel one bit embarrassed or ashamed of anything he says or how he says it...he's a human being...if anything, a reason so many folks feel disconnected from Washington is the homogenized, pre-scripted, sterile talk that comes out of our political leaders' mouths...

" I think in a presidential press conference, especially only the third public one in his presidency, the President's words are more important than the press' questions. Especially when he doesn't even make an attempt to answer those questions."

Adam, I agree with you about the President's words being more important than the press' questions, which is exactly why I think he scored an 8 last night...he had a message to get to the people, that this effort is a difficult struggle worth winning, and he needed to remind many of why we are where we are right now...he got that message out, he was disciplined in sticking to it, and he kept at it despite the un-serious questions being asked...

...and that notion about this being "only his third press conference?" that's a smokescreen put up by a media establishment that's not getting its way...they are determined that he pay attention to them and do things their way...they're not there for you or me, Adam...they think this is about THEM. Only narcissistic reporters would try to turn a serious forum for questioning the leader of the free world into an Oprah-esque "aren't you sorry?" confession-fest...Bush didn't let them do it, and we shouldn't let allow them to, either. No matter what your point of view, pro- or anti-, you deserve more serious people asking those questions...

Chris:

Thanks for your response. I would counter, though, that I do think the number of press conferences the President gives *is* important. It's not about being available to the press; it's about being available to the American people.

As for the "confession-fest," I think they were trying to get at the common criticism of this president: that he will never admit he or his administration has ever done anything wrong. And he continued with that last night. He has responded in the past to questions about the lack of WMDs in Iraq, for example, with "What's the difference?" People want a strong leader, but they also don't want one who thinks or acts like he's infallible.

Grace: I don't think you are being unreasonably naive. Indeed, I have the distinct impression that Bush wants us to be naive. He deliberately fosters the impression (rightly or wrongly) that he means what he says, and that's all we need to know. "Trust me, I know what I'm doing and have good people helping me do it."

Some of us of course run for cover when we hear the words: "I'm with the government, and I'm here to help."

This press conference was for the exclusive purpose to discuss and reasure the American people that we are on the right course in Iraq. Notice neither his preamble nor one question concerned domestic policy? POTUS chose the press conference milieu, so at least *he* thought it was the proper forum. And indeed, when a question was to be purposely ducked, he attempted a sort of Reaganesque tactic to speak directly to the American People instead of directly to the question.

I hate "misunderestimating" Bush, and therefore I won't speculate that he didn't get the thrust of the "gottcha" type questions. He knew exact;y what they implied, feigned ingorance, purged all appearances of arrogance from his delivery and replied, "Ah shucks, I can't really think of anything I did wrong. I'm sure there's something, but being on the spot and all, geez..."

Interestingly, he skirts personal responsibility for everything, even self-analysis or self-defense. Leaving it up to history and the voters to decide if he's competant, leaving it up to General Abizaid to decide troop strengths, (yes, I know, don't micromanage the military -- 1st rule, but Wolfowitz et al. lambasted any previous suggestion that more troops were needed -- another discussion for another time). POTUS also defers to Mr. Brahimi for a clue on to whom we turn sovereignty over. Most frightening, leaving perhaps the most important decisions to group-think. Director Mueller, along with the 9/11 and Silberman-Robb commissions, as well as Congress, gets the call on intel reform, which all seem to agree will protect us from terror better than any missile shield or (at least in the short term) military engagement.

Adam, the number of primetime press conferences Bush gives doesn't matter a damn, it's trivial...the comparisons to prior presidents number of PCs that some people offer up is also a fallacy...Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush 1 didn't have three 24 hour newschannels and the internet at the time, so that made these press conferences more practical back then. Clinton was president during the internet but the news power and the blogosphere didn't really mature until late into his presidency...there are so many mediums now to get information coming out of the White House...watch the cable news outlets and you'll catch a Bush speech at least once a week or so, and he gives press briefings during the course of a week before cabinet meetings or meetings with foreign leaders...the medium is not important...the message is important...

Also, this administration has made a pretty clear strategic decision that this White House press corps is clearly not up to the task of reporting completely and fairly what the administration is doing...they've proven it too many times...so Bush/Rove and Co. are going to continue to go over the press and straight to the citizenry...it may not work, like I said...but surveys continue to show a growing disatisfaction by the people with how the media's doing its job, and what motives drive the media...it's incumbent upon the media - not Bush, not you, not me - to change that impression...they've got to get better.

Dean and Chris here seem to be the only ones living in the same reality I experience. Furthermore, I have watched decades of presidential press conferences and don't need to see last night's to know what asininities were asked. As Dean does, I prefer plainspokenness in my presidents. Clinton, whom I voted for twice, was too glib by half; I'll never trust another glib miscreant like he turned out to be. Glibness all too often leads to mendacity; it's just an effortless slide. W comes across at all times as forthright, honest, sincere. That's what I am looking for; that, and the fire in the belly. Those of you obsessed with hating W: what would you latch onto if he were one of the most articulate presidents we've ever had? I must say you all come off as unbelievably bigoted and intolerant.

Adam, your thought processes, I'm sorry, are incoherent. Coherent criticisms of a president's policies are always valid, even in a time of war. Most of the criticisms I read and hear are of a personal nature. Those are not valid or pertinent but reflect on the one doing the criticizing. Furthermore, to spend paragraph after paragraph dwelling on the delivery of ideas rather than the ideas themselves reveals a mind startlingly small and limited in scope. The majority of criticisms of W that are of a policy nature are intellectually dishonest because they are inherently contradictory. THAT was my point. I thought I made it explicitly. If you want to argue against war because you believe all war is wrong, I have no problem with that. I even wasted several decades spouting that. If you want to argue against war because it is being conducted by Republicans but it's either OK or not worth criticism when conducted by Democrats, that is not OK. This is the type of inherently incoherent criticism of W and his administration that should be slammed to the ground, and I hope we on the right keep slamming it. There are numerous other examples but (since I'm supposed to be working) I'll leave it at that. Suffice it to say that, in my heart of hearts, I believe America-hating Bush critics are traitors and unpatriots of the worst sort, BECAUSE of what drives them.

Adam,

I forgot to add, if Kerry becomes president, I'll criticize constantly, because he doesn't have the courage of his convictions and he's already demonstrated he doesn't even have convictions. I can't respect anyone like that. That said, I'll go out of my way never to see or hear him, and I'm not kidding. (We already mute him in our house.) That said, I'd prefer him over my (it galls me to the point of nausea to admit this) senator. That said, I believe W won't win in a landslide, but will win and it won't be close.

We shall see. (Or not, if the terrorists get us first.)

Adam, here's some examples of unjust critcism.

Can you now, perhaps, understand why Mrs. du Toit considers many anti-Bushites traitors?

Go back, and reflect on the sign held by a smirking chimp that reads "Long Live Fallujah."

I don't have much use for people like that either.

Peg:

Were my policy criticisms outlined above of a personal nature? I think that's the domain of people like Kim "John Fuckface Kerry" du Toit, not me.

Are my policy criticisms inherently contradictory? Again, I think that's what I hear around here - "Bush didn't intend to invade Iraq from Day 1. But even if he did, it was a good policy."

Am I arguing that I don't like this war because Bush is fighting it, and not Clinton, for example? Well in this case that's an impossible question, because it *is* Bush fighting it. But I think I've been pretty clear, in this thread and elsewhere, why I don't support this war. And it has nothing to do with the fact that the president is a Republican.

As for the President's incoherence, yes, I think it's vitally important that The Leader of the Free World is able to think on his feet, and be clear and articulate about his ideas. We would expect as much from a city councilman; we shouldn't give the President a pass. Most people take clear expression of ideas to be a sign of intelligence - talk to an HR director sometime. And this view of mine makes me "incredibly bigoted and intolerant"? Yeah.

Finally, am I one of those "America-hating Bush critics" who are traitors? Sounds like you're the one who's obsessed.

Dean: What do you think of Peg's hyperbole? Do you support her "traitor" charge? Based on what you've told me, I think you need to be as critical of wild overstatements on the right as you believe you are on the left. To paraphrase you, "If you don't understand why calling someone a traitor is inflammatory and devisive, though, then really we have nothing to discuss."

Oh, I'd stop if I were you Adam, I went back and reread through tis entrie list to figure out what hyperbole you were referring to, and lo and behold, Peg C. said that I believe America-hating Bush critics are traitors and unpatriots of the worst sort. You don't appear to be an America-hater, you just have numerous, self-contradictory reasons why you hate Bush. You're not treasonous, just bigoted. Why is it that Bush's statements seem pretty clear to me, but they seem incoherent to you? Because you've prejudged him and filter eveything he says through a veil of hate and venom.
The critics who hate America, and are using the resentment levelled at our President to push their own unsavory, destructive agenda, ARE traitors. Look back through Citizen Smash's recent material to find good examples of this, including one group of "war-protesters" whose stated goal is for the "red flag to fly over the White House."

John Irving:

What's contradictory about my reasoning again? Enlighten me.

Thanks, John. You said it better than I could and before I could get to it.

Adam, I wasn't targeting all my "hyperbole" at you and everything's not about you, OK? There are anti-American Bush-haters who without question are traitors and Useful Idiots to our enemies. I don't know your writing enough to make such an accusation, but you did with your first comment here deliberately misunderstand me and basically set up a straw man. Dean asked a specific question about the lefty media's complaints about the June 30th deadline and how they are trying to set W up for a lose-lose situation no matter what we do. My answer indicated that truth and consistency are strangers to the Left and the Dems these days; all that matters is that they stand against W. That even if he should switch, they would then switch also, so as to stay always on the opposite side. How you can insinuate that I implied all criticism of W's handling of the WOT and war in Iraq is unpatriotic, aiding our enemies, etc., is beyond me. Whether I believe it or not, I did not state that and please don't put words in my mouth.

Months ago you accused me of calling Iraq "the evil that would destroy us," when I did no such thing. You deliberately misquoted me, just as you have again today. Is this your usual M.O.? How many times do you think you can deliberately misinterpret someone before they start to get certain ideas about you? And can you blame me?

Holy cow, Dean, did you see Fox News' viewership of the press conf. was triple that of CNN, according to Drudge? That can't have ever happened before. (We're a CNN-free household, of course. Fox News only for us proud VRWC members!)

Peg:

You said my thought processes were incoherent, backing up that charge with nothing, and then in the same paragraph wrote in detail about traitorous Bush haters, without explaining who those people are. Then I asked you if I was one of those people. How is that putting words in your mouth?

Countering all the unsubstantiated charges around here gets tiring.

Peg C:

W comes across at all times as forthright, honest, sincere. That's what I am looking for; that, and the fire in the belly.

You're confusing moral certainty with morality.

And you have some revelation as to Bush's morality, Ara, some gift bestowed by saintly living?
Judging him by his stated beliefs, he certainly acts consistently, which is as far as anyone can really tell about a person.

Dean said: "You don't know the difference between thoughtful criticism that starts with the assumption that the other side is decent and honorable, and that starts with the assumption that the other side is vile and venal?"

This seems like a low, easy to meet standard, but it must be harder than we think, because it is so seldom done. Reading through the comments on this site it looks like both the pro and anti-war sides are having a real hard time with this. It is wrong to use invalid arguments to characterize the Administration (and therefore us pro-war types)as liars and murderers. It is wrong to use invalid arguments to characterize the Democrats (and therefore you anti-war types) as liars and traitors.

Let me be clear. I'm sure folks have lied during our long debate. Folks on both sides. I'm not sure who, of course, because lying involves intent to deceive, and I'm not sure what people's intentions are. 'Cherry-picking the intelligence', for example, might be lying, or it might be the actions of a prosecutor determined to get his man.

As someone who sat on the fence for a long time, I assure you that there were some real bad predictions given by the anti side. I don't hear any anti-war folks jumping up and down to proclaim that they were lied to about the numbers of casualties and lied to about the impending humanitarian crisis and lied to about Iraq's oil fields going up in flames, for example. There's a reason not to call those lies. Bad predictions aren't lies. They're just incorrect.

There were also some real bad predictions by the pro-war side. Iraqi's are glad we're there, but they aren't 'welcoming us like liberators'. There were no existing caches of WMD's. We may have underestimated the skill with which Hezballah (sp?) manipulates the media. (I admit I did not even consider it.) There's a reason not to call those lies, either. Bad predictions aren't lies. They're just incorrect.

Let me also be clear about this. Some of the A.N.S.W.E.R. style protesters are traitors, perhaps not in the legal sense, but certainly they aid and abet the enemy. People who carry signs which read, "We Support Our Troops When They Shoot Their Officers" are traitors and deserve to be called such.

Dean, your complaints about Democrats as spiteful partisans because they start "with the assumption that the other side is vile and venal" would itself appear to start "with the assumption that the other side is vile and venal". Perhaps you don't mean that, but it sure comes across that way.

I see no shortage of pro-war types eager to slander their opponents, and they often comment thus here. I call this 'friendly fire' arguing. The ally George Bush must have in this war isn't the UN or NATO or Saudi Arabia. It is the American people. Does indiscriminately calling anti-war folks traitors convince more Americans to support the war? I think not. Does slandering my parents, my friends, my blog buddies (like shep, Mark Adams and Adam), and my heroes (like Jerry Pournelle) who were against the war increase American support for it? These 'traitor' bombs you keep lobbing are not precision guided weapons, folks.

I'm not sure your slam against Democrats is all that well aimed either Dean. Anyone familiar with the term 'idiotarian'? Do you know how many times I read some fellow right winger claiming all Democrats are liars? There's plenty of guilt to go around.

I'll give you an example that's been brought up before. Kim du Toit, who I would dearly love to have dinner with, has encyclopedic knowledge, nearly unerring political sense, fantastic knowledge of guns, and no control over his temper, at least in print. (In person, I'm told he's actually quite the gentlemen. Which is good considering how well he is and always will be armed.) A 'Red Curtain Of Blood' (his phrase) passes before his eyes and he writes things like this in order to keep his head from exploding:

"Well, after reading this, I really don't have a leg to stand on, considering that on occasion I myself have called for Democrats to be hanged en masse from utility poles, so that laughing children may use their rotting corpses as piñatas.

From deep within his Freedom Bunker somewhere in Maryland, Schultzie notes this, and later suggests that we sacrifice 20 random Democrats to Gaia, a suggestion that I heartily endorse -- as long as that's a daily number."

At least Kim understands that his comments are exactly like those which call for Rumsfeld to be shot. And I think you can tell they are (hyperbolic) tongue in cheek. But I doubt his comments help either the Republican party or the American people. But then again, maybe he's preaching to the remnant.

The worst case, however, as almost any Democrat would tell you, is that his comments are also exactly like those which call for soldiers to shoot their officers. After all, protesters are also fond of the (hyperbolic) tongue in cheek. I'm sure at least some of them think it's a wonderful joke. And they are certainly preaching to the (Communist) remnant. If I think these folks are traitors, what should I call Kim?

Are you going to skip voting Republican because of Kim's comments, and those like them, Dean?

Yours,
Wince

John Irving:

And you have some revelation as to Bush's morality, Ara, some gift bestowed by saintly living?

Judging him by his stated beliefs, he certainly acts consistently, which is as far as anyone can really tell about a person.

Well, no it's not.

Will Saletan said it best:

To Bush, credibility means that you keep saying today what you said yesterday, and that you do today what you promised yesterday. "A free Iraq will confirm to a watching world that America's word, once given, can be relied upon," he argued Tuesday night.

When the situation is clear and requires pure courage, this steadfastness is Bush's most useful trait.

But when the situation is unclear, Bush's notion of credibility turns out to be dangerously unhinged. The only words and deeds that have to match are his. No correspondence to reality is required. Bush can say today what he said yesterday, and do today what he promised yesterday, even if nothing he believes about the rest of the world is true.

Wince,

Thanks for your courteous letter. Actually, I don't care if anyone does say bad things about me "behind my back" -- given the nature of the Internet, that's almost unavoidable.

You've rightly surmised that most of my ire is hyperbolic -- although the anger is real, the sentiments are just a release for me.

I think there is a real difference, however, between writing "Democrats should be guillotined en masse so that laughing children can play football with their severed heads", and "We Support The Troops Who Shoot Their Officers".

The first is obvious hyperbole (the "laughing children" is a dead giveaway), the second is a deliberate attempt to subvert the morale of our soldiers in a combat zone. If the second is said often enough, and the soldiers begin to believe it ("Why are we here, if nobody at home supports what we're doing?"), that is clear subversion of our military purpose. The Left learned its effectiveness in Vietnam, but thanks to the Internet, the soldiers can learn that not only are those ANSWER people statistical outliers, they're loathed (and only barely tolerated) by most Americans.

The Left (and Democrats in general) could use so many different ways to discredit Bush, to raise questions about the efficacy of the Iraq occupation, and to make political hay over Bush's many blunders. Hell, I can see them, and I'm a conservative (and no, I'm not going to itemize them for you, either).

But as long as the Loony Left are given a sympathetic hearing, and pass after pass on ugly rhetoric like "Bush = Hitler", the Democrats will be tarred with the same brush -- just as Republicans like me are tarred by association with morons like Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh.

Where will it end? I dunno. Frankly, I don't care. More people in this country are conservative than are liberal, so the loonier the Left becomes, the more I like it.

If the Democrats had put up a candidate like Zell Miller, or even that twerp John Edwards, Bush would be in serious trouble -- and given the fact that we're at war, a conservative Democrat would have spelled doom for Bush, because you have no idea how many conservatives actively LOATHE the man.

But if it's a choice between Bush and ex-Protest Warrior Fuckface (and all the loony Leftist causes he's kowtowed to), conservatives are going to hold their noses, and pull the plug on the Democrats.

At least, I hope they do.

Dean, you are an intellectual coward. Max M. said nothing even to compare with the egregious crap that right-wingers, and you, spew at posters here and regularly at Democrats. Many of them are “flat-out untrue”. Besides, he was exactly right. I thought that playing the patriot card to silence Bush critics was as un-liberal and low as you could go but, congratulations, you’ve sunk even lower still. To anyone who gives a happy, goodbye.

Kim:

You hang onto that "Bush = Hitler" thing like Linus does to his blanket. How about responding to some real issues?

Dean:

Still hoping to hear from you about the questions I asked. I know you don't owe me anything, but I'd honestly like to know where you stand.

Not bad, Dean--you got a two'fer.

So which is worse, calling POTUS a liar, even if you truly believe he is, or dropping the "traitor" bomb when blasting someone who is criticizing POTUS, but quibbling that you were just passing venom at people who really deserve the lable, not the blogger you were responding too? Last I checked, fraud and perjury carried a much less severe penalty than treason. Moreover, a "misrepresentation" which involves discerning intent may be debatable, and this is generally a charge directed at a public figure. The "traitor bomb" is pure ad hominum, and has a chilling effect on open debate, whether that was the intent of the bomber or not.

Peg C. seems not only uninterested in listening to what the president had to say, she is likewise uninterested in tolerating anything which contradicts her vison of reality. This jumped off my screen:

Furthermore, to spend paragraph after paragraph dwelling on the delivery of ideas rather than the ideas themselves reveals a mind startlingly small and limited in scope.

OK, I get it, criticize policy, not process. But the very next sentence is:

The majority of criticisms of W that are of a policy nature are intellectually dishonest because they are inherently contradictory. THAT was my point. I thought I made it explicitly.

Uhhm, no. Unless that explicit point is that you can't criticize process, and any citicism of policy is unacceptable too. Riiight!

Look, I didn't hear anyone say Bush hit a home run, or even a decent base hit in the press conference. The tired griping about the press corps, who were certainly hand picked and had their questions anticipated if not vetted in advance (no proof here, just spoutin' off) does not account for the fact that all POTUS did last night was return to his worn-out memes that Iraq is a necessary part of the greater WoT, things changed after 9/11, war president, and if I say it I mean it. We got it, we heard it, we believe it or we don't.

The conference, which was Bush's idea and enough of a rare occurance as to belie its import, did nothing to my eye to change a single opinion, right, left or on the fence, precisely because he said nothing new. No new policy and no new way of articulating that policy. It's as if we are children to be lulled by a bedtime story, maybe something with a pet goat in it. I've read the transcript again and I see every question challenging his memes being arrogantly deflected, any question directed at his perceived arrogance ignored, and questions regarding policy decisions (yes, there were a scant few) were deferred to his subordinants. Goodness, I was soooo inspired by his leadership as it was displayed last night. Here is a man who does genuinely inspire confidence when he says, "follow me!" Just so long as you don't ask, or care to ask, where to, how, for how long, or which way?

Don't do it Shep!, Rub Dean's nose in it instead. Aw hell with it. Maybe I'm wasting my digital breath too. Maybe I should let them be happy with an echo chamber which, in the "liberal tradition" tolerates all who remain loyal to Blogs4Bush.

But preaching to the choir was never my style. These poor misguided conservative, deep in their black hearts, would love to believe in love like we do, they just are afraid of sounding as loony as we so often sound. As long as we keep it up, these Rush-ites will continue to entrench themselves. Even reading this paragraph, they can feel their heart hardening, their fingers itching to respond with hate and venom to which they are so naturally predisposed.

It is only now, now that they have completely consolidated power, that they can act indignant when their tactics are used against them. They will respond the only way they know, with bitter words and rash actions. And as they do, we win, because exposed in their hubris and arrogance they repel the independents who would otherwise follow their lead. The mismanagement, destruction, and callous disregard for any critical opposition either at home or abroad, or even within their own ranks as they devour the kiss and tellers, will doom their ilk for a decade if not a generation.

Bwaaahhhhahahaha!

To anyone that cares Dean and Max have made peace.

Max is not banned.

Adam,

I wasn't talking to you. Please don't presume to hector me; it won't work. [ignore]

Sheez, Mark Adams, your 11:00PM post is well, poetic, one might even say "lyrical" or one might say "over-the-top" sloppy sentiment. It occurred to me that you might consider opening a counceling service for "misguided conservatives" crying out for help. Hubris and arrogance it seems is in the eye of the beholder.

Mud pies, anyone?

I personally don't find the President inspiring in his tone of voice nor his manner of speach. I don't find him articulate or good with words. He isn't creative like Abraham Lincoln or passionate like John Kennedy.

I do respect his ability to rally people around him and his decisive 'take action' way of governing. I support his decision to end the tyranny of Sadaam Hussein in Iraq. My son told me stories that were told to him by the people of Kuwait that would make your blood curdle. He saw pictures of women and children being thrown off the Kuwaiti towers by Sadaam's soldiers. He saw the results of the Tigres and Euphrates rivers that were dried up because the water was cut off from the people that lived there. He saw mass graves. He saw people who lived ten to a 8 X 10 mud hut while there were palaces with gold toliet tissue holders.

Being human, I acknowledge that all public leaders will and do make mistakes, thus a question such as asked by the press without a point of reference is muckracking and childish.

In addition, most of the American public, in my experience, are not prepared to do the work necessary to question their belief systems, put in the time to read, improve their intellectual abilities, gather news from more than one source, and do little more than repeat what their local news stations spout as the truth--much less logically and intelligently question someone else's argument without the emotion, passion, and prejudice of their own belief system.

I think this is why for centuries the press, government, and other systems have been able to print, broadcast, and control the general public through information.

When the public is ready to do the work needed to create peace and change in themselves, the change in government and society will automatically follow. How people vote will change, how people act will change, the choices made will change--just the simple question of people voting or not voting will change. And, in response to some of the above posts, having a discussion about beliefs will not be laced with personal insults. How sad...

Ignorance and closed mindedness might be the two greatest forms of violence that exists in our world today.

Been doing my taxes while the kitchen's on fire.
Sheesh.
Public admonishment and private forgiveness.
Interesting behavior on this 'liberal tradition' blog.

Bush just isn't a very good public speaker. That's ok. Most people aren't. Hiz honor da mayor Daley /old man Daley/ used to do it all the time. Fiddling, stumbling around, etc. Being 'swifty' with your words doesn't make your ideas better.
So what did he/Bush/ say after all?

So, in the spirit of saying something nice in order to say something not nice:
I like the way he gained confidence in his posture when he talked about bringing freedom to Iraq and his resolve to see it through.
I was NOT liking the way he retorted that he doesn't plan on losing the election, e.g.,

"Q Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, you've made it very clear tonight that you're committed to continuing the mission in Iraq. Yet, as Terry pointed out, increasing numbers of Americans have qualms about it. And this is an election year. Will it have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't plan on losing my job. I plan on telling the American people that I've got a plan to win the war on terror."

I especially 'liked' his body language immediately after the word -job. He abruptly turned to his right, perhaps as a show of defiance? and then settled into the first hint of sadness that I've seen or heard in his voice speaking [honestly, it seemed] about the death of our soldiers.
Maybe that little display of hubris was tempered by what followed? Regardless, the immediate response was inappropriate to me. I'd rather that this president focus on what needs to be done while this country is at war instead of his reelection. I don't care if the question was asked. There's a far more elegant way to handle yourself that will speak magnitudes to your character when you turn the question and the questioner on her head. Actions speak louder than words. Even 'regular' high school and community college folks can be elegant.

Oh yeah. He never answered the question.
I met a guy, a business corporate kind of guy, in the heady days of 1990 in Eastern Europe. He spoke of a business plan and making tracks in the sand. Oh, I'm sorry. That WAS the plan. Motivating the sorry souls of Eastern Europe by making tracks in the sand. He spoke well. Said nothing.

So what's the plan?

Max I don't know what you did that was so wrong. Mark Adams, Adam, Shep... I'm with you. I don't know the details about some things the way you folks do, but I find the way that one makes their argument interesting. I'm interested in what people say/ or write and how they say it. Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, fascist, marxist, christian, jew, muslim, hindu, anti, pro. Let's hear your argument and how well you make it.

Constructive criticism isn't about saying something positive to go along with saying something negative. It's more about how seeing the negative aspect is a chance to make an argument/statement better. It's a problem I've seen often. Your clothes are nice but your hair is awful is as simple as I can get to a misguided definition of constructive criticism. Having nice clothes doesn't make the hair less awful so why bother talking about the clothes unless one is just looking to give a...

I came here because so many blogs are full of knee-jerk attacks, choir preaching and other such nonsense. It seemed a little different. In the last few weeks however, this place too seems to be descending into the fire.
I actually haven't read any 'lefties' here that refer to the Bush=Hitler mantras, yet those who might approach the political subject from a perspective that is critical seem to get lumped in with the looney left.

Is this really a blog to write about what other blogs are saying?
I've always found the comments more engaging than the 'articles/essays/journalistic treatises/whatever', that introduce a subject matter.

You, Dean, must find this fascinating yourself, given that on occasion your entry is short folowed by the instruction -discuss.
Folks take the challenge, make themselves heard by who knows who, carry on a semblence of discourse and then recede. Sometimes it looks like a game of tag, gotcha, take that you nitwit, but sometimes there is a good debate.

You CAN be the puppeteer. Throw out the topic, see what happens and absorb it all, but if you want to jump in to defend your stance, then follow it through and be fair, fair, fair.

Today, the kitchen is on fire.
Sadness.