War Critics See New Resistance by Bush - New York Times
WASHINGTON, Dec. 25 — Immediately after the beating his party took in November, President Bush indicated that he had received the message that voters wanted change, and that he would serve some up fast. He ousted his defense secretary, announced a full-scale review of his war plan and contritely agreed with critics that progress in Iraq was not happening “well enough, fast enough.”
But in the last two weeks, the critics and even some allies say, they have seen a reversal. Mr. Bush has shrugged off suggestions by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that he enlist the help of Iran and Syria in the effort to stabilize Iraq. Countering suggestions that he begin thinking of bringing troops home, he has engaged in deliberations over whether to send more. And he has adjusted the voters’ message away from Iraq, saying on Wednesday, “I thought the election said they want to see more bipartisan cooperation.”
The amount of sheer, self-serving dishonesty in these two grafs is breath-taking in its shamelessness, though not, considering the sources, at all surprising.
In essence, the NYT is saying that the election indicated an overwhelming desire on the part of the voters for the president to cut-and-run from Iraq, and the president responded at the time with a promise that he would do exactly that - when neither the NYT nor anybody else can point to any polling that indicates such was the desire of the voters.
And then GWB chimes in with his own mind-whirling spin - that what the losses he inspired with his already far-too-”bipartisan” policies ( which left enough of his base, including folks like me, sitting at home, to guarantee disaster in the 2006 elections) - indicate are a voter desire for more of the same.
Do any of these people ever have any contact with the real world outside Manhattan or the Beltway?
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
No. Thats where the people are. They
can’t risk touching one. They might catch something.
No, of course not. In the second half of the 20th century, we created the American equivalent of a royalty class and an upper class just under them. At the top are politicians, with the president taking the place of the king. Senators, congressmen, and media execs and celebrities are the dukes, barons, and earls. All of them have staffs to insulate themselves from the common people.
They all consider themselves specially annointed to tell the rest of us what to do. They don’t need our opinions. We’re not part of the gentry (didn’t go to the right schools, work in grubby business instead of “public service”, etc.), so we have no right to opinions on public policy.
Now, as part of their noblesse oblige, they pretend to listen. They hold “town meetings”, in which they script questions and answers. They pretend to take elections seriously, though a majority of them couldn’t be beat at the ballot box by a candidate who combined the best attributes of George Washington and Superman. As an enlightened upper class, they’ve rigged the rules in their favor, leaving just enough looseness that a few elections at the margin do determine which members of the gentry get the best perks for a few years. But members of the current minority party are still gentry - they still keep their staffs and their safe districts and their ability to hand out favors.
The media execs, editors, and their celebrity “talent” are not even subject to the pretense of caring what we think. But they do start worrying a bit if we get uppity enough to actually challenge their upper class status, as we’ve seen with handwringing over bloggers and the response of AP to questions about their methods.