Disassembling a Presidential Sentence

I couldn't believe the last sentence of this quote from today's "News" Conference when I heard it on NPR this afternoon, so I had to look it up in the transcript:

BUSH: I'm aware of the Amnesty International report, and it's absurd. It's an absurd allegation.
The United States is a country that promotes freedom around the world. When there's accusations made about certain actions by our people, they're fully investigated in a transparent way.
It's just an absurd allegation.
In terms of, you know, the detainees, we've had thousands of people detained. We've investigated every single complaint against the detainees.
It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of and the allegations by people that were held in detention, people who hate America, people that have been trained in some instances to disassemble, that means not tell the truth. [emphasis added]

No, it doesn't, George. It means "to take things apart". Dissemble, on the other hand, does have a meaning very close to "not tell the truth," only it's a little more subtle than that. Calling you a dissembler, for example, when discussing your intentions toward Iraq in the summer of 2002, would probably be closer to the truth than calling you a liar. Calling you a disassembler, on the other hand, would refer to your intentions toward Social Security and the United Nations and every other piece of FDR's legacy to this country.

But I can't help thinking that this easy emphasis on the presidential abuse of the English language, on his funny little "Bushisms", takes away from the heart of this ridiculous complaint about Amnesty International: "...they based some of their decisions on the word of and the allegations by people that were held in detention. . ." Does this mean that the torturers and other legal authorities are the only people Amnesty International should listen to? The victims should have no say? When Solzhenitsyn challeges Stalin and Khruschev, we should ignore him? There's the real Bushism in this sentence. Maybe we should start parsing, deconstructing, and disassembling, his language more carefully.

--True Blue Liberal

Why do we even need answers from the puppet in a president suit behind the podium when they ask him questions like this???

This is from the first transcript of today's Presidential "News" Conference at the New York Times site:

BUSH: Did you have your hand up?

QUESTION: I did, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
At the Naval Academy last week, you spoke of a midshipman named Edward Slavis, who graduated and has served in Iraq, and you quoted him as saying that the mission will be a success and, 20 or 30 years from now, historians will look back on it and consider it America's golden moment.

BUSH: Yes.

QUESTION: I'm wondering, sir, if you agree with that assessment, and if so, why?

You think it's possible that the puppet in the president suit and flag lapel pin behind the Rose Garden podium answered "No"? I didn't see who asked the question on TV, but I can only assume from the tone of the question that Jeff Gannon's replacement has finally been found.

Not surprisingly, a search of the transcript does not reveal any hits for the phrase "Downing Street Memo." More surprisingly, the Press Corpse does not seem to have asked him about major news stories like the Runaway Bride® or Michael Jackson© or Steroids in Baseball either.

-True Blue Liberal

Another of the essential documents leading up to the Iraq war, via the new French Prime Minister

I was glad to see the news this morning that President Chirac Appointed Dominique de Villepin as France's new Prime Minister (New York Times, 31 May 2005) (and not only because he speaks a French so clearly enunciated that even TBL can understand most of it).

TBL will never forget that Dominique de Villepin was the man who made this great speech at the UN on March 19, 2003, hours before the American invasion began:

Make no mistake about it: the choice is indeed between two visions of the world.
To those who choose to use force and think they can resolve the world’s complexity through swift and preventive action, we offer in contrast determined action over time. [. . .]
To those who hope to eliminate the dangers of proliferation through armed intervention in Iraq, I wish to say that we regret that they are depriving themselves of a key tool for other crises of the same type. The Iraq crisis allowed us craft an instrument, through the inspections regime, which is unprecedented and can serve as an example. Why, on this basis not envision establishing an innovative, permanent structure, a disarmament body under the United Nations?
To those who think that the scourge of terrorism will be eradicated through the case of Iraq, we say they run the risk of failing in their objectives. The outbreak of force in this area which is so unstable can only exacerbate the tensions and fractures on which the terrorists feed. ...

(please read the entire speech. It's very short.)

Now the newly released Downing Street Memo of July 23, 2002, of course, shows that the new French Prime Minister gave too much credence to American goals and motives in Iraq, not too little:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. [. . . ]
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections. [. . .]
It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force. [. . .]

Read this whole document too (it's not much longer than the excerpts above) and think about how we were lied to about the reasons for war, the most serious act any nation can undertake. Think about how the UN weapons inspectors, who were in Iraq and who were physically dismantling rockets at the time, were removed for fear, not of Saddam, but of US invasion. Should a President who undertook a war of choice so cavalierly, and lied repeatedly to do so, really be allowed to remain in office? If presidential impeachment could be considered (and undertaken) by the Congress for semen stains on a dress, shouldn't it also be considered for this stain on our national honor?

Just asking,
True Blue Liberal

(If you want to do more than just ask, visit After Downing Street Dot Org to register your support and get more information on what you can do to keep this story alive)

Who said "Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect"?

Why is it important (as the Big Brass Alliance and others are hoping to do) to put, and keep, the short Downing Street Memo in the forefront of our discussions about Bush, the origins of the War in Iraq, and American foreign policy in general?

Here's a great quote from a long article in the June 9, 2005 edition of the New York Review of Books, The Secret Way to War By Mark Danner:

Power, the argument runs, can shape truth: power, in the end, can determine reality, or at least the reality that most people accept—a critical point, for the administration has been singularly effective in its recognition that what is most politically important is not what readers of The New York Times believe but what most Americans are willing to believe. The last century's most innovative authority on power and truth, Joseph Goebbels, made the same point but rather more directly:

• There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the stronger, and this will always be "the man in the street." Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology.

I thought of this quotation when I first read the Downing Street memorandum; but I had first looked it up several months earlier, on December 14, 2004, after I had seen the images of the newly reelected President George W. Bush awarding the Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor the United States can bestow, to George Tenet, [. . .] L. Paul Bremer, [ . . . ] and General (ret.) Tommy Franks [. . . ] One might debate their ultimate responsibility for these grave errors, but it is difficult to argue that these officials merited the highest recognition the country could offer.

Please read the whole article if you have the time. You'll find it worthwhile. In addition to its great long discussion of the memo's contents, it also includes the full (short) text of the memo.

-True Blue Liberal

Big Brass Alliance

Look for news next week on the

But in the meantime just click on the Big Brass Balls.

True Blue Liberal is proud to be a member.

My First Tagging!

Thanks to Paul the Spud, I've finally been tagged, from what I can see a real rite of passage in the blogosphere, so thanks (I think).

Here goes:

Three names you go by (that won't give away your identity): Moom, Dad, Schanz.

Three screen names you've had: TBL, Negations, and a hundred variations of my "real" name.

Three physical things you like about yourself: My height, my voice, my hands.

Three physical things you don't like about yourself: The spare tire, various moles, & breakable wrists.

Three parts of your heritage: Welsh, German, Scots.

Three things you are wearing right now: Pants, Shirt, Shoes.

Three favorite bands / musical artists: Radiohead, Miles Davis, Bob Dylan.

Three favorite songs: "Comin' Back to Me" (Jefferson Airplane), "Galaxy of Emptiness" (Beth Orton), & "Sister Morphine" (Rolling Stones). But ask me again in 5 minutes and at least two (probably three) of them will have changed.

Three things you want in a relationship: Trust, mutual interests, openness.

Three physical things about the preferred sex that appeals to you: It's a gestalt thing, so everything you need to know is in the "Three celeb crushes" below.

Three of your favorite hobbies: Reading, playing guitar, and this new blogging thing.

Three things you want to do really badly right now: Finish this list, think of three people to send it to, & catch the train home for the long weekend.

Three things that scare you: Religious fanaticism, Large vehicles being driven by people with small brains, & Nationalism.

Three of your everyday essentials: Coffee, Words, & Music.

Three careers you have considered / are considering: Writer, Musician, or One of those guys who does nothing but seems to have enough money to do anything.

Three places you want to go on vacation: France, Egypt, & Morocco.

Three kids' names you like: Uma, Grace, & Alice.

Three things you want to do before you die: See the return of the Sixties, See the complete renunciation and ridicule of the Reagan/Bush/Bush legacy, & See my son become a happy adult.

Three ways you are stereotypically a boy: I laugh uncontrollably at The Three Stooges and South Park, I have very selective hearing, & I forget ... well, I forgot something.

Three ways you are stereotypically a girl: I know the story of every character on EastEnders, I think ESPN should be banned (or at least an optional pay station), & I think men are generally idiots.

Three celeb crushes: Grace Slick, Beth Orton, & Audrey Hepburn

Three people to play next: Pax Romano, Francesca, & The Urban Fox.

A Memorial Day Question

Would we mind church involvement in American politics if ...

W. sez, "... you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

"President Participates in Social Security Conversation in New York", from whitehouse.gov (not .org):

"Now, a personal savings account would be a part of a Social Security retirement system. It would be a part of what you would have to retire when you reach retirement age. As you -- as I mentioned to you earlier, we're going to redesign the current system. If you've retired, you don't have anything to worry about -- third time I've said that. (Laughter.) I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)"

Please note that the "(Applause)" tag comes directly from the transcript on the White House website. I'll take credit for adding the bold italics.

Thanks to Shakespeare's Sister for pointing out this instance our President's uncharacteristic honesty.

Hey Kids!! Remember to Pray for the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy John Walters this Memorial Day

Why didn't they have such fun tools for Christian and Republican indoctrination when I was a kid: Presidential Prayer Kids. I might have turned out a little more balanced, a little less liberal and confused. But if "The Presidential Prayer Team is not affiliated with, nor does it receive funding from, any political party or office of the government," then how and why can it use the Presidential name and seal and photos (and official faith-based party line in every article)?

(thanks to Pascal Riché at A l'heure américaine for pointing this out. The French blogs have a way of finding the strangest corners of our culture. )

We at TBL Don't Care if a Radiation-Enhanced Green Hulk Hits 500 Home Runs a Season, and the United States Senate Shouldn't Either!

Here's yet one more sideshow to distract us. The Senate doesn't have time to discuss abuses in Guantanamo, or to fully debate the merits of unqualified ideologically-motivated federal judges, but it sticks its nose into this entertainment industry issue?
"McCain Offers Measure for Testing in Pro Sports"
- New York Times:

"WASHINGTON, May 24 - Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, unveiled the much-anticipated proposal for a Clean Sports Act on Tuesday, the culmination of a series of hearings full of discontent with steroid testing in professional sports. The legislation aims to require standardized testing procedures and stiffer punishments for athletes who test positive for banned substances."

What's next, testing stars of Desperate Housewives for breast implants that give them an unfair advantage over non-enhanced has-beens and starlets? Testing male porn stars for traces of Viagra and Cialis? Investigating telephone voting irregularities on American Idol? Testing Bill Maher for traces of marijuana before he can relax enough to broadcast Real Time? Testing the Simpson sisters and Britney for evidence of lipsynching? Professional wrestlers for "taking a dive"? Lead singers in hair bands for pants stuffing? Despite the clean-cut mythology, baseball and football are not any different from these other entertainment media. It's not the Senate's job. It's not the President's job (though it was when he was a figurehead in the Texas Rangers organization). It's not a priority for our tax dollars. It's another distraction.

Liberals are often falsely accused of wanting a nanny state. Not this liberal. When it comes to performance enhancing (or performance decreasing) drugs, the state is encouraged to mind its own business.