I've become accustomed to Bush lying about just about anything in sight, with no concern of how obvious the lie is. But when that lie goes unchallenged in the presence of someone who should hold some measure of journalistic integrity, or that is to say, has a job going on camera to ask questions and listen to the answers, something is missing. That something is not aggression, or confrontation, or intimidation, but rather the simple dignity of the pretense of the wholeness of one's person.
In the interview aired Monday on ABC, Bush weaseled out of a question posed by Charles Gibson about what he might have done had the intelligence on Iraq been, "right". Bush once again reached back and pulled out that tired and discredited old lie that had Saddam let the IAEA inspectors in, things could have gone differently, followed quickly by a distracting speculation on reality based on a wishful speculation of fantasy.
GIBSON: If the intelligence had been right, would there have been an Iraq war?
BUSH: Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld. In other words, if he had had weapons of mass destruction, would there have been a war? Absolutely.
Correct follow-up from a self-respecting journalist: "And had that been the question I asked, I would absolutely be an idiot. He DIDN'T have the weapons, we knew that from the inspectors who WERE there, and you must mean, would there STILL have been a war, because THERE WAS A WAR!"
And here's a tiny news flash for sorry Charlie, most of the intelligence on Iraq WAS right.
But instead, Gibson bit on the distraction, while whiffing on the obvious lie. I'm not sure exactly when the lights in Charlie's cognition blinked out, but grasping at the possibility that Bush might actually have told the truth during his brief mental time-out, Gibson hit the ground of consciousness running. "I know, I'll just correct the non-sequitur. No one will notice anything else wrong here." (Or, as it was described by ABC news, "When pressed by Gibson, Bush declined to speculate". And you thought Bush was capable of evasive cover-ups.)
GIBSON: No, if you had known he didn't.
BUSH: Oh, I see what you're saying. You know, that's an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can't do. It's hard for me to speculate.
CHARLIE'S THOUGHT BUBBLE: O.k., that's settled. Nice catch, Charles. How about a question befitting of Bush's stature.
GIBSON: Greatest accomplishment? The one thing you're proudest of?
If Gibson actually heard him, there can be no possibility that he did not know Bush was lying. Even if Gibson could flub the in-depth research required to ask Barack Obama why he doesn't wear a flag pin, ascertaining, along with the rest of the literate world, that the IAEA inspectors actually WERE in Iraq prior to Bush's invasion, and in fact had to be invited OUT of Iraq so they wouldn't be killed by the invasion and make it even more difficult for Bush to get away with denying they had been there, could not have been a comparatively difficult task. That leaves little else but willfully feigned ignorance, or a brief mental blackout.
As for feigned ignorance, maybe it was prompted by fear that Bush would retaliate as Sarah Palin did and bludgeon him with the endless repetition of his informal name form, "Charlie", that caused him to sacrifice his integrity for just a few moments of safety from the possibility of reliving that haunting memory.
Or maybe he's just tired of it all. Too tired to find a useful purpose anymore for that wholeness of person that he used to feel. There's safety in those dark and quiet moments of escape from reality, like when hiding under the covers from the monsters. If that's the case, maybe someone, possibly a good friend or colleague, should compassionately tell sorry Charlie that he needs to leave behind the tasks which he can no longer perform adequately, and have a nice, long rest.
Sorry, Charlie, you have to just let it go.