(My apologies to jamesarthur that his earlier confusion went on deaf ears.)
Yesterday, in the new-and-improved-press-briefing-disinformation room, the President of the United States of America expanded democracy beyond what even the most visionary of political thinkers have ever imagined. Enemies of this great nation have now been incorporated into our political processes, into our great and wondrous system of government for the people, by the people, etc. Terrorists--those bad guys who brought it on, and bombed us on 9/11, y'know, the same, exact bad guys we're fighting in Iraq--are now a part of our representative democracy. They are constituents to which our commander-in-chief-executive-officer is listening, voices that will help shape the future of our country for years to come. Or at least until September.
//Rewrite history and amend the dictionary after the jump.//
Responding to the following question:
Q How hard is it for you to conduct the war without popular support? Do you, personally -- do you ever have trouble balancing between doing what you think is the right thing and following the will of the majority of the public, which is really the essence of democracy?
President Bush had this to say
Yes, it is. And, first of all, I can fully understand why people are tired of the war. The question they have is, can we win it? And of course I'm concerned about whether or not the American people are in this fight. I believe, however, that when they really think about the consequences if we were to precipitously withdraw, they begin to say to themselves, maybe we ought to win this, maybe we ought to have a stable Iraq.
Their question, it seems like to me, is, can we succeed? And that's a very important, legitimate question for anybody to ask. I think many people understand we must succeed, and I think a lot of people understand we've got to wait for the generals to make these military decisions. I suspect -- I know this, Ed, that if our troops thought that I was taking a poll to decide how to conduct this war, they would be very concerned about the mission. In other words, if our troops said, well, here we are in combat, and we've got a Commander-in-Chief who is running a focus group -- in other words, politics is more important to him than our safety and/or our strategy -- that would dispirit our troops.
And there's a lot of constituencies in this fight -- clearly the American people, who are paying for this, is the major constituency. And I repeat to you, Ed, I understand that there -- this violence has affected them. And a lot of people don't think we can win. There's a lot of people in Congress who don't think we can win, as well, and therefore their attitude is, get out.
My concern with that strategy, something that Mike Hayden also discussed, is that just getting out may sound simple, and it may affect polls, but it would have long-term, serious security consequences for the United States. And so, Ed, sometimes you just have to make the decisions based upon what you think is right. My most important job is to help secure this country, and therefore, the decisions in Iraq are all aimed at helping do that job. And that's what I firmly believe.
A second constituency is the military. And I repeat to you, I'm pretty confident our military do not want their Commander-in-Chief making political decisions about their future.
A third constituency that matters to me a lot is military families. These are good folks who are making huge sacrifices, and they support their loved ones. And I don't think they want their Commander-in-Chief making decisions based upon popularity.
Another constituency group that is important for me to talk to is the Iraqis. Obviously, I want the Iraqi government to understand that we expect there to be reconciliation top down; that we want to see laws passed. I think they've got that message. They know full well that the American government and the American people expect to see tangible evidence of working together; that's what the benchmarks are aimed to do.
But they also need to know that I am making decisions based upon our security interests, of course, but also helping them succeed, and that a poll is not going to determine the course of action by the United States. What will determine the course of actions is, will the decisions that we have made help secure our country for the long run?
And, finally, another constituency is the enemy, who are wondering whether or not America has got the resolve and the determination to stay after them. And so that's what I think about, Ed.
Here, the 43rd President of the United States single-handedly enacted a Presidential doctrine that makes all the other doctrines--Monroe, Wilson, Truman, etc.--pale in comparison. This vision of democracy creates a special dispensation for the military and yet another for military families, distinguishing them from the rest of the American people. It remains to be seen whether their votes will count differently than these other, non-specified-American votes come election time.
As extraordinary as this is, the President, in his visionary zeal, went even further, saying, "Another constituency group that is important for me to talk to is the Iraqis." In this statement, the President single-handedly annexed Iraq, incorporating its people into our own body politic, and, presumably, making it the 51st state of the union (sorry Puerto Rico).
We all might think that this was enough history-making for one day, but no. The Prez was not through. He then went on to say this, a comment that made me have 8 aneurysms (one for every year in office), and one that I can't even muster the snark and satire for:
And, finally, another constituency is the enemy, who are wondering whether or not America has got the resolve and the determination to stay after them. And so that's what I think about, Ed.
I wonder if Ed thought about that. I wonder if Ed had braindamage thinking about that. The enemy is now a constituent of the President of the United States. A group that this democratically elected leader is now beholden to. Fantastic. I can't wait to see that photoshopped into the Constitution. Unless. Wait. Could it be that the President, a guy who has lived and shat in the White House for nearly 7 years, a guy whose Dad was President for 4 years and VP for another 8, that this man does not know the meaning of the word "constituency"? Impossible. I'm sure that is in the dictionary.
Goodnight. And God bless, oh the hell with it.