Belligerent Bush smears Colin Powell

During his unusually tense press conference yesterday, a very belligerent President Bush accused Colin Powell of equating the United States with extremists and engaging in "flawed logic" about how to handle detainees.  To answer your question, yes, this President has lost it.

When evaluating President Bush's tone this week, starting with his bitter face-to-face confrontation with Matt Lauer and ending yesterday with the tensely argumentative press conference, it's safe to say that the President is quite agitated as we inch closer towards the November vote.  Actually, agitated may not be the right word.  How about belligerent?  To summarize the press conference, Bush criticized Senator John McCain, Senator John Warner, Senator Lindsay Graham, Colin Powell, and a sizable quantity of the White House press corps.

But the most interesting remarks of the press conference came when President Bush was asked to respond to Colin Powell's recent statement that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral  basis of our fight against terrorism."  As the President usually does with anyone that disagrees with him, he took Powell's comment completely out of context.  Read this verbal exchange:

REPORTER: Mr. President, former Secretary of StateColin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of ourfight against terrorism.  If a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs ofStaff and former Secretary of State feels this way, don't you think thatAmericans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whetheryou're following a flawed strategy?

THE PRESIDENT: If there's any comparison between the compassion anddecency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists,it's flawed logic.  I simply can't accept that.  It's unacceptable tothink that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of theUnited States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who killinnocent women and children to achieve an objective, Terry.

Where did that come from?  Bush took what was a nuanced statement from Colin Powell about the need to work with our allies and somehow made it look like the former Secretary of State was equating America with terrorists.

But the anger on the part of the President didn't end there.  Read this heated exchange with NBC White House Correspondent David Gregory:

THE PRESIDENT: David,you can give a hypothetical about North Korea, or any other country, thepoint is that the program is not going to go forward if ourprofessionals do not have clarity in the law.  And the best way toprovide clarity in the law is to make sure the Detainee Treatment Act isthe crux of the law.  That's how we define Common Article III, and itsets a good standard for the countries that you just talked about.

Next man.

Q    No, but wait a second, I think this is an important point --

THE PRESIDENT: I know you think it's an important point.  (Laughter.)

Q    Sir, with respect, if other countries interpret the GenevaConventions as they see fit -- as they see fit -- you're saying thatyou'd be okay with that?

THE PRESIDENT: I am saying that I would hope that they would adopt thesame standards we adopt; and that by clarifying Article III, we make itstronger, we make it clearer, we make it definite.

And I will tell you again, David, you can ask every hypothetical youwant, but the American people have got to know the facts.  And thebottom line is simple: If Congress passes a law that does not clarifythe rules, if they do not do that, the program is not going forward.

Q    This will not endanger U.S. troops, in your --

THE PRESIDENT: Next man.

Q    This will not endanger U.S. troops --

THE PRESIDENT: David, next man, please.  Thank you.  It took you a longtime to unravel, and it took you a long time to ask your question.

(watch the video of that exchange)

Aside from Bush's belligerence, Gregory had a great point.  When you lower your standards, in this case pertaining to interrogation, you can't complain when other countries lower their standards as well.  As a result, our troops are being put in greater danger.  So it's encouraging to watch realist-minded Senators like John McCain, John Warner and Lindsey Graham stand up to the President and encourage him to reverse course.

I would also like to see Colin Powell defend himself from those harsh comments Bush made.  Talk about loyalty!

------------------------------------------------------

Other sites blogging about this issue: Little Green Footballs, Hotline, Media Matters, Truth Stream, Flopping Aces, Huffington Post, Peace and Freedom, Crooks and Liars, Stories in America, Can O Fun Politics, Left Word, TV Barn, ReBelle Nation, Truth Dig, AmericaBlog, The Rude Pundit, Cut to the Chase, Carpetbagger Report, The Bush Diaries, The Swamp, Cannon Fire.

Comments

[george lutz]

I have been trying to make sense of that first exchange you point out here which I saw yesterday. So stripped down to its core the question was basically this:

Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism - don't you think that Americans are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?

To which Bush basically responds:

If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic. It's unacceptable to think that there's any comparison between the behavior of the USA and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.

What the hell is he responding to? He totally ignored the question and instead decided to throw out a bunch of happy buzz words that his followers just eat up, quickly forgetting what was asked of him.

[Administrator: Todd]

You know George, more than anything I was just amazed that the traditional media didn't pick up on that as well. If I were Powell, I'd be pissed off about now. Love him or hate him, Powell is one of those individuals where everything with him revolves around loyalty. That is how he operates. Loyalty comes before everything. So for Bush to say what he said, I can only wonder what went through the mind of Mr. Powell?

Also, I really hesitate in my posts before labeling people. But the word "belligerent" really fits. This almost reminds me of the second debate between Bush and Kerry. Kerry kicked his ass on the first debate, and Karl Rove probably told Bush that if you aren't agressive in these next two debates, you will lose the election.

At this point, I bet Karl Rove told him the exact same thing. Bush has to be aggressive. If he doesn't, the Democrats will take back the House and maybe the Senate. If that happens, then all those hearings and investigations might render the Bush presidency the worst in US history. Think about the legacy of the Bush family, and what is on the line. We have sort of seen Bush like this before -- in 2004. But to screw over your friend Colin Powell by misinterpreting EVERYTHING he said??? That's pretty low!

[george lutz]

First, I dont think he MIS-interpreted what Powell said, I think he chose not to attempt to interpret it at all. But either way...

And regarding the recent belligerence of Bush, I have been thinking that too. Think back to the first of Bush's recent flurry of interviews which was with Brian Williams. In that interview Bush got absolutely humiliated because he chose to answer William's questions. I thought that was one of Bush's worst interviews ever. Since then, Bush has come out like a mad man with no patience for the questioner: Matt Lauer, Katie Couric, this press conference here, etc. He just chooses to be a pissed of jerk instead of trying to answer straight up. I suppose that is in fact his best strategery though since there are no acceptable answers for what he has done.

[Alfred]

"Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?"

First, let us examine how this question is constructed. The first claim is that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of the war on terrorism." In support for this point, Colin Powell is cited. I'd like to know more specifics like what is meant by "the world," as if I can walk over to Mr and Mrs World's bungalow and chat over tea. Maybe part of the problem with the basis of a lot of American thinking is addressing "the world" or saying what "the world" thinks. The world is a big place, with many different cultures, peoples, and thoughts. Such remarks are fantastical illusions that contribute to a baseless mythology of "world opinion." It appears I am digressing though. Second, of what nature are the objections and questions concerning the "moral basis?" Is "world opinion" embracing new definitions of "murder" and "terrorism?" Are their worries about the way in which we go about the war on terror? If so, what are the specific alternatives, perfect hindsight notwithsanding. What is the exact "flawed strategy" to which the inquirer refers? These are important questions, and no doubt these are unresolved, but playing around with abstract yet useful fictions like "world opinion" beclouds the very real and very important issues. One such issue is the way in which we treat prisoners of war and terror suspects.

The President's response was oblique, and maybe even not much of a response, but I think we all know at this point exactly how good of an improptu speaker President Bush is (not good at all). Now, in response to the "well a bunch of important folk think some other people might be doubting our moral basis" question, Bush replies that treating terrorists and America as moral equivalents is false. I would have to agree. It must be emphasised that this does not translate into a "do whatever you want and still be right" pass for America, merely that the nature of both sides and the goals of each must be taken into account when passing judgment upon either's actions. Starting both sides on the same moral level is simply ridiculous. It reminds me of the outrage over the Qana incident in Lebanon. Yes, it was a tragedy, one to be mourned. Innocent people died. Yet there appeared to be so much more outrage over a mistaken (key word) attack on civilians (considering the location of the enemy, not an impossible mistake), than the purposeful targetting of Israeli civilian's by Hezbollah. One side accidentally hit civilians because of errors and the fact that the other side was among civillians deliberately. The other purposefully and relentlessly targeted Israeli civilians with weapons that only really would do damage to civilians and non-military targets. The difference is clear, and, in my opinion, the comparison sheds light on the issue at hand. Yet, does this address the former Secretary of State's concerns? It is difficult for me to say, because of the ambiguities I mentioned above. I would need to know why "the world" is beginning to doubt. So, given the question, the indirect response may be warranted, but it is not my intention to wholly excuse the somewhat poor oratorical skill of the President.

The next question is key as well. Though I am not wont to impeach upon the reputation of Senator McCain on issues of POW treatment, it appears some shady logic is being used and some strange assumptions are being made. First, that other nations will both cite our interpretation of the Geneva articles, and undercut them. It is undeniable that the words of the Geneva document are not very clear in legal terms. As it stands, the line is unclear and that is a problem. If I take the popular description of the bill that Bush describes as correct (I have not read through it, yet), then it makes clear what the articles mean in action. How is this a bad precedent? And how much of a precedent is it really? It is not often that both sides of a war can agree upon standards of treatment, and any such measures are good and make unacceptable needless violations of life. Yet, in the case at hand it appears that those who we are fighting simply do not care about how we treat them. The United States do not decapitate their prisons. We do not force prisoners to convert. When there are abuses of prisoners, we strive to punish those involved (Abu Ghraib). No such thought is taken by the multifarious forces we face. Also, there is a strange logic of trying to predict the actions of North Korea and Iran (which are more traditional opponents, which may make the point more applicable). First, I do not support some actions taken against "terror suspects," specifically how they are not allowed to see the evidence against them. Such actions trouble me, and may hurt our cause more than help. Yet it is a debatable issue, one unresolved. Yet I really fail to see how the reporter's question pans out. It makes the assumption that places like North Korea will follow our lead as far as treatment of prisoner's goes. It makes the assumption that regular uniformed prisoners are of the same ilk as plainclothed combatants who do not follow orders of a nation-state proper, and do not distinguish between combatans and non-combatants.

It should be clear at this juncture that the leaders of places like Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran oppose American leadership prima facie. They ignore their domestic abuses and jump on any mistakes in American policiy. President Amhadinejad spoke of an "open discussion" when he challenged Bush to a debate, while repressing dissidents in his own country (and recently his administration have rolled back even more of the accomplishments of the liberal majority of the country). Such attacks are cheap political manoeuvres at their core, and are hollow attempts to consolidate power by capitalizing upon populism, nationalism, and knee-jerk anti-americanism. What this all goes back to is ascribing the same moral ground to both entities, disregarding their goals and values. The line between what is acceptable in war and what is not is unclear, and even if one has specific objections to the clarifications of the current bill, it is surely better to set down firm rules.

So the question works on the dual premises that North Korea and Iran will accept our interpretation (something the President said is fine), and that they will also cite our very act of interpreting as a greenlight for their own analytical antics. Which one is it? And what is the alternative? How are we supposed to act upon law if it is not interpreted at all? Is the reporter calling for some sort of multilateral conference that would clarify the language? In light of these questions and obfuscations, talk of "endangering our troops" is neither here nor there.

On the topic of the President's tone, yes it is belligerent, and such aggression to me does not seem valuable. It appears he has not mastered the art keeping a strong and serious demeanor. Rather, he vacillates between jocular antics and mean-spirited aggression. Also, I don't really see how it is a "smear" of Colin Powell. Since when is saying someone's evaluation of events is flawed and wrong an insult to the person themself? It never has been in civil society. Did he ever attack Mr Powell as a person, or comment on his character? To both parts, the answer is no.