Alert the presses. George admits he's made a few mistakes. From tonight's joint press conference with Tony Blair:
Q Mr. President, you spoke about missteps and mistakes in Iraq. Could I ask both of you which missteps and mistakes of your own you most regret?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Sounds like kind of a familiar refrain here -- saying "bring it on," kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people. I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner -- you know, "wanted dead or alive," that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted, and so I learned from that. And I think the biggest mistake that's happened so far, at least from our country's involvement in Iraq is Abu Ghraib. We've been paying for that for a long period of time. And it's -- unlike Iraq, however, under Saddam, the people who committed those acts were brought to justice. They've been given a fair trial and tried and convicted.
Unfortunately, George's expression of regret comes several years too late. With his approval ratings stuck in a Nixonian ditch, his words seem wholly propelled by political expediency. It's evident in the surface quality of his contrition. He says he's sorry for having said "bring it on" yet fails to mention that what made those words so egregiously irresponsible was that he helped to foment the insurgency and put our troops in further harm. He says he's sorry for having said "wanted dead or alive" yet doesn't mention that Osama is still on the loose and nowhere closer to capture than when George first uttered his Wild West declaration. He says the biggest mistake on his watch was the torture at Abu Ghraib, but adds, "unlike Iraq, however, under Saddam, the people who committed those acts were brought to justice." Yet the directive to allow torture was given from the top down. Bush. Cheney. Rumsfeld. Rice. The high command in the military. Gonzales, who helped architect Orwellian legal loopholes to circumvent Geneva Conventions. Only the grunts have been held accountable thus far. Moreover, there is no evidence that such torture, including renderings to other countries, has ceased.
So how does our "liberal" mainstream media respond? Listening to Hardball host Chris Matthews and Nora O'Donnell, you'd think our newly annointed Regretter-in-Chief just delivered the equivalent of the Gettysburg Address. Literally. After gushing about Bush's unprecedented openness and willingness to take responsibility for his mistakes, poor Keith Obermann - probably the only consistently responsible mainstream TV journalist working today - was brought into the conversation (his show follows Hardball). After playing the clip of Bush, Matthews addresses Obermann, saying, "A little bit of Lincoln there, I think, uh, Keith."
Lincoln. Bush. You absolutely have to see this to believe it.
Bizzaroland
Crooks and Liars
Comparing Lincoln to a man who is clearly the worst president ever and who has presided over one of the modern world's greatest man made disasters is beyond belief. Matthews is the epitome of a blowhard--an overrated bloviator who blows...HE SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKS!!!
When watching Tweety and Nora, I can't help but think that the top bulbs at GE sent a directive to the news hacks telling them to grab at ANYTHING...ANYTHING they can that could help prop poor George up.
As you mentioned, only the grunts were held accountable for Abu Ghraib and today's NY Times front page piece includes a variation of one of the MediaBloodhound's "favorite" hack journalism phrases: "...critics have said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/26/world/middleeast/26prexy.html?hp&ex=1148702400&en=c8040d678db0e5a7&ei=5094&partner=homepage
2nd to last paragraph:
But Mr. Bush emphasized that American soldiers had been punished for the abuses. "Unlike Iraq, however, under Saddam, the people who committed those acts were brought to justice," he said. Mr. Bush's critics have noted that the prosecutions have focused on low-level soldiers and have not held senior officers accountable.
As if there was any question about the fact that no high ranking American evildoers have been punished for Abu Ghraib or Gitmo for that matter. Why does the Times need "Mr. Bush's critics" to point out what they, the paper of record know to be true? Why doesn't every mention of the prison abuse scandal in the media always include the documented fact that there is a paper trail showing that the orders to torture go all the way to Rumsfeld, Gonzales and the Chief Chimp himself? I guess in reality I already know the answers: because the mainstream media's top priority is to be a protector of power.
Posted by: scuttle | May 26, 2006 at 12:21 PM