1115.org

President George W. Bush made this striking statement at his press conference yesterday:

I don’t know if you noticed yesterday, but it was a very interesting moment in Iraqi constitutional history, when part of the — a member of the presidency council utilized his constitutional right to veto one of the three pieces of legislation recently passed. I understand the use of the veto, intend to continue to use it, but I thought it was a healthy sign that people are thinking through the legislation that’s passed, and they’re worrying about making sure that laws are constitutional.

It has attracted some attention because of what piece of legislation it was that the member of the presidency council utilized his constitutional right to veto. Simply put, it was a piece of legislation that the Bush administration had ardently prayed for. On bended knees. Night after night. For weeks and months. It was a vaunted part of Bush’s famous 18 benchmarks for the Iraqi government, most of which have still remained unmet. So to have another one actually met was a huge shot in the arm for the Bush administration. It was hailed as a significant achievement, the proverbial milestone. The legislation being passed, I mean.

Iraq’s three-man presidency council Wednesday announced that it’s vetoed legislation that U.S. officials two weeks ago hailed as significant political progress.
[…]
The rejected bill, which sets out the political structure for Iraq’s provincial governments and establishes a basis for elections in October, was only the second of 18 U.S.-set political benchmarks that the war-tore (sic) nation needs to reach.

Parliament considered it in a bundle with two other bills, a general amnesty and a budget, and approved it on Feb. 12 in what was welcomed in Washington as an example of good government, compromise and progress toward national unity.
[…]
A spokesman … said the Oct. 1 elections aren’t compromised.

However, (Joost Hiltermann, an Iraq expert at the International Crisis Group in Amman, Jordan) expressed doubt that the elections would take place as scheduled in October. “It’s all up for grabs,” he said. “Everything is set back.”

And now here’s George W. Bush, the original innocent, prattling on about how it is a very interesting moment in Iraqi constitutional history for this key piece of legislation to be vetoed. As a friend of mine likes to say — in a tone that doubtless does dangerous things to the hearts of her male admirers every single time — “Interesting choice of words!”

What on earth was George up to? Why on earth would George allude to this veto approvingly? Why would he invite us to applaud and celebrate this veto? Three possibilities come to mind. One, he’s started doing drugs again. Two, he never stopped doing drugs. Three, at those presidential briefings we keep hearing about, the ones at which people who are on his side try to tell him things they think he needs to know, his mind tends to wander—he hears half of what they tell him, he understands half of what he hears, and he remembers half of what he understood (giving us the one-eighth president). In this case, he simply didn’t know what piece of legislation it was, had no idea it was a significant part of his own grand design.

You may not think much of my three explanations. And that’s fine with me. Maybe you can come up with an explanation that’s consistent with George knowing what piece of legislation it was, and still saying what he said?

But once I get over the sheer absurdity of George choosing to bring this veto up himself, and embracing it with that ludicrous approval, and I go back and read George’s words again, I am struck by entirely new areas of incomprehensibility.

Can anyone at all explain what these words are doing in that statement: “I understand the use of the veto, intend to continue to use it, but…”? What on earth does George’s understanding of the veto as a political weapon, and/or his intention to go on using it, have to do with the point he was making about Iraq? Did poor dear Georgie suddenly forget in mid-stream what he was trying to say? Did he think for a little while there that he was just supposed to be bragging about his prowess with the veto? (Does that constitute supporting evidence for hypotheses one or two above?)

And regardless of what Bush thought for a minute when he took leave of his senses, what’s with the “but”? I understand the use of the veto, intend to continue to use it, but I thought it was a healthy sign…? Doesn’t that have to be an “and” no matter how stoned or smashed you are? Or even if only one-eighth of your mind actually works?