1115.org

Today’s phrase: speaking for the American people. Today’s word: discuss.

(1)
A Newsweek poll reported ten days ago that 65% of Americans disapprove of “the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq”, while 57% support “the legislation passed this week by the U.S. Senate calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by March 2008″. (The House version of the bill is weaker, setting a deadline of Aug. 31, 2008.)

But here’s how the Bush administration manages to see it:

Q But he’s saying — he is saying, I think Senator Reid is saying, look, the President doesn’t — he’s not the sole determinant of the discussion about the way forward in Iraq. The President has the way he wants to proceed, but Harry Reid is saying that Congress is speaking for the American people when it comes to how to proceed in Iraq, not the President.

MS. PERINO: I don’t think the American people are saying that the generals should be handcuffed and that there should be micromanagement by Senator Harry Reid as a military advisor. He should be the Senator from Nevada and the leader of the Senate. The American people have wanted change in Iraq, and they got it. The President announced a new policy on January 10th that was quite different and divergent from where we were before. … I understand that they might not agree with the President’s policy, but there is a new one, and it’s been implemented according to General Petraeus and many others on the ground.

In the bubble that Dana Perino lives in, once upon a time we had an election (gosh, was it only four months ago?), and the American people demanded change. Lo and behold, President George Bloody Bush heard the will of the people. And with the innate dignity and honor he has always exhibited, he bowed his head to the will of the people, he gave them the change they deserved. And lo and behold, we are all satisfied now. President George Bloody Bush is still our dearly beloved leader, he still speaks for us, we still love him dearly. Especially do we still love his policies, and what we love most are his Iraq war policies. Right down to every last detail, right down to every temper tantrum over withdrawal deadlines, right down to his divine right to go on sacrificing American lives so that winding down the war can dumped on his successor, so that Bush and his devoted defenders can also try to dump the blame for the failure that is the Iraq war on the next President. (Unfortunately, we also love to tease the pollsters mercilessly, which has managed to confuse a lot of folks. Naturally, the only ones not confused are those who get regular reports from your friendly neighborhood NSA listeners-in.)

(2)
The president extends the hand of nobody-knows what to Democratic leaders:

President Bush said today he is inviting congressional leaders from both parties to the White House next week to discuss emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he gave no indication he intends to compromise with Democrats who want a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, and he described the Democratic leadership in Congress as “irresponsible.”
[...]
Bush warned today that Congress’s refusal to give him a “clean bill” without the timetables and the domestic spending will have “consequences.”

In fact, the president has made it clear he has no intention of negotiating or compromising. Congressional leaders can come see him, they can discuss all they want, and then they can go back and send him the clean bill he demands as his divine right. No, hang on a minute. They can’t even discuss all they want. They can only discuss the clean bill Bush demands as his divine right:

However, Bush has indicated that he will not budge from his position of signing only a supplemental appropriations bill with no strings attached.

“We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill, a bill that funds our troops without artificial timetables for withdrawal and without handcuffing our generals on the ground,” Bush said when talking about his invitation to congressional leaders for next week.

Handcuffing our generals on the ground? There’s an awful lot of that going around today. Must be their phrase of the day. (Incidentally, why are Bush’s generals always on the ground? Our “generals on the ground” as opposed to what? “Our generals who fly through the air with effortless ease”? Or “Our generals who I kicked out?” So that I could find myself one who when I went “My way, or the highway!” wouldn’t go off whistling down the highway.)

Speaking of handcuffing generals, Dana Perino has managed to be thoroughly surprised that Senator Reid is somewhat underwhelmed by President Bush’s offer of a “discussion”:

I’m not quite sure I can understand why he so out of hand rejects the president’s offer to meet. It was a knee-jerk reaction. It was quite unfortunate. The invitation stands. We would like for them to come down and talk with us.

I’m not sure who Perino thinks her audience is at these briefings. Maybe she thinks she’s playing to the boys and girls to whom Laura Bush read the comically stirring tale of “Duck for president” ove the weekend?

I also don’t know what President Bush’s stance on the war funding bill reminds you of. But the image that has lodged itself in my mind, and which refuses to go away even when I lay myself down to sleep at night, is that of a serial wife-beater rehearsing how he will stand over his bloody, battered wife, and go: “See what you made me do now? All your bloody fault. As usual.”

…in a speech on the Senate floor, Reid called on Bush to “move beyond the political theater” and negotiate a compromise with congressional Democrats.

Hardly likely from the man whose attitude seems to oscillate only between “Kiss my ring” and “Kiss my ass”.

Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are still gamely keeping up the pressure on Bush. They issued the following statement today, renewing their call for the President to work with Congress:

The American people want the President and the Congress to work together to bring a responsible end to the war in Iraq. Congressional Democrats are willing to meet with the President at any time, but we believe that any discussion of an issue as critical as Iraq must be accomplished by conducting serious negotiations without any preconditions. Our goal should be to produce an Iraq supplemental bill that both fully funds our troops and gives them a strategy for success.

With his threat to veto such a plan for change in Iraq, President Bush is ignoring the clear message of the American people: We must protect our troops, hold the Iraqi government accountable, rebuild our military, provide for our veterans and bring our troops home.

The President is demanding that we renew his blank check for a war without end. Despite the fact that the President persists in trying to score political points at the expense of our troops, congressional Democrats have repeatedly reached out in the spirit of cooperation. We renew our request to work with him to produce a bipartisan bill that provides our troops and our veterans with every penny they need, but in turn, demands accountability.

And the president is just standing there, in front of the mirror on the wall, going: “See what you made me do now? See what you made me do now? See what you made me do now? See what you made me do now?”

Here, by the way, is the quote referred to in the White House press briefing:

“We are an independent branch of this government, and by our Constitution we have equal say that he has,” Reid stated. “And he’s got to listen to us. Because we are speaking for the American people; he isn’t.”

The president had strong words for Democrats, who want to attach withdrawal timetables to the funding bill. Bush, who has vowed to veto any such attempt, said the move only results in delaying funding for the troops.

“We are at war,” Bush said at an address in Fairfax, Va. “It is irresponsible for the Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds they need to succeed.”

Are you possibly wondering why he had to stick “the Democratic leadership” in there, why he couldn’t just say “It is irresponsible for Congress to delay for months on end”? I think it’s because it wasn’t irresponsible last year when the Republican leadership delayed for 119 days. It is irresponsible for the Democratic leadership to delay this year though, even if we’re still just around the 64-day mark.

It’s all relative, you see. I understand Einstein had some kind of theory about that.