I love being a columnist but it means I have to listen to Bush and his lap dummies repetitious verbal diarrhea again and again and again to come up with new ideas for things to write about.
You might think a therapist could handle hearing illogical statements without getting in a tizzy. The words coming out of the mouths of Bush and those privileged characters who Karl Rove allows before a camera spin a convection with as much substance as cotton candy drive me to distraction.
Unfortunately what comes out of the Bush machine is neither sweet nor pretty. Like cotton candy, thought, if you consume too much you’re going to get sick to the stomach.
Unless I keep up with the news online and watch lots of interview shows I won’t have anything to write about. So I end up being on the receiving end of the same unctuously unreal talking points again and again and, alas, again.
These can be classic examples of big lie oft told is most believed dictum, like "if we don’t fight them there they’ll follow us home" or small nasty character revealing lies like Bush, Dan Bartlett and Dana Perino all suggesting that the only reason the former platinum plated Bushie former Bush-Cheney campaign chief Matthew Dowd turned against Bush was because he was having an emotional reaction to his son going to war.
Dowd, as most of you know, told his story to the New York Times on Sunday "Ex-Aide Says Heâ€™s Lost Faith in Bush" (Read Article).
Both Bartlett and Perino said implied that Dowd’s disenchantment with Bush might be due to "personal" reasons and "emotions," noting his "personal journey".
Here’s part of a press conference with the acting press secretary, Dana Perino:
Q "Personal journey," which was used yesterday, as well, on television — it seems to be implying it’s really all about him, it has nothing to do with any legitimate disagreement with the White House.MS. PERINO: No, I think he has a legitimate disagreement, but I also know that he has had some personal hardship.Q Is that related? Is that relevant?MS. PERINO: I don’t know. I don’t know Matthew and –Q Then why do you bring it up?MS. PERINO: Well, I think that — he brought it up in the article, and I think that it’s relevant. And I think that it’s true that when you have a parent who is going to see his or her son or daughter heading off to war, in a war that is — where we are fighting a very determined enemy, in which the Congress is not fully backing the troops, it would be a concern. And I’m just not going to judge him. I’m going to allow him to have his views and wish him well.
So, perhaps anyone who defects from the Bush camp must have emotional problems. Mommy should wash out Dana’s pretty little mouth with soap.
Bush echoed this in his press conference on Tuesday when he said â€œthis is an emotional issue for Matthew, as it is for a lot of other people in our country… as I understand it, is obviously intensified because his son is deployable.â€ Three people, same damn egregious talking point.
Don’t tell me that this shabby, no, downright mean spirited "explanation" doesn’t have Karl Rove’s despicable fingerprints all over it. This is the talking point and no doubt the bullies at the While House hope that because Dowd is an unknown his public defection won’t have an impact on those who still support the president.
There was some "refreshing" news for someone being driven bonkers and often nauseated by the same old same old talking points in Bush’s news conference. Thanks to a brave reporter who asked Bush how, exactly did he see terrorists "following us home" we had a chance to hear a new version of Bush’s most shop worn talking point.
I think Rove must have finally told Bush that his depicting al Qaeda terrorists literally following departing troops to the United States had become the punch line of jokes on all the late night comedy shows. So he finally gave a less fanciful answer about not providing safe havens in Iraq for terrorists to train for missions.
I could argue about how likely it would be for al Qaeda to gain anything more than a public relations victory if we left Iraq defeated, finding that there were far better places to train and plan their next attacks again the west. But my point is that at least Bush didn’t blurt out his knee jerk talking point, and at least he didn’t say "cut and run".
He even corrected himself once in the press conference, first saying Democrat Party and immediately saying Democratic Party.
While many of the Bush talking points seem to have had their intended propaganda effects, none were creative: flip-flopper, stay the course, support the troops, progress, surge… and of course we have the new word "emotional".
Now we have this egregious attempt to use a talking point to paint critics whose children are actually in harms way as unbalanced. Could this be the point where Bush supporters finally say that they had enough of this vile crap?