Fascinating choice of words by Bush in his press conference yesterday in South Korea, as reported by the Financial Times:
Bush and Cheney hit back at criticism over Iraq
President George W.Bush, in an angry exchange at a news conference in South Korea, said he backed Mr Cheney's remarks. Looking visibly terse, and jabbing his finger at the podium several times, he denied he was accusing his opponents of being unpatriotic.
"They looked at the same intelligence I did, and they voted - many of them voted to support the decision I made. It's irresponsible to use politics....What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using their positions and playing politics. That's exactly what is taking place in America," he said. "This is serious business making - winning this war."
So the war in Iraq is "serious business" - and more importantly, it is "making" the war, not "winning" the war, that matters. This lapse (in anger) reveals so many things about Bush.
I know that "business" is also a word for "activity", but you have to wonder why it is used here. Is it maybe the CEO presidency finding democracy inconvenient and wishing for clear top-down line of authority over the conduct of war? It just comes out as petulant and whining. We must do it because I say so; I'm the president and I don't have to justify myself. The complaint about others "playing politics" fits with that. How dare they oppose me? It's not as it should be.
The "making war" expression is an even more transparent glimpse in his thoughts. The importance is to be at war - for him to be the war president, for Rove to sell him as such to the public, and for Cheney and his pals to go on with the serious business or running the war - and the longer it is "made", the longer business profits. I would be tempted to say that Bush himself cares more about the "!War President" image than the rest, but hey, he is surrounded by the rest of the gang, so the language of business must catch...
The rest of the article is worth quoting, as well, as it confirms the fact that "Bush lost the war in Iraq" is becoming common wisdom.
The White House has launched its fiercest attack to date on Democratic critics of the Iraq war, accusing them of promoting "cynical and pernicious falsehoods," amid fears they are gaining "critical mass" in changing the perception of the war.
In a speech to the Frontiers of Freedom Institute gala in Washington, Dick Cheney, Vice President, said the charge from Democrats that the administration "purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."
Armando already flagged the chutzpah of Cheney saying this, but what follows is more interesting, in terms of how the whole thing is being perceived (and the FT, as a non American business paper, is a good place to provide a pretty objective view on this):
The decision by the White House to defend itself so strongly underlines growing concern that unless they can vigorously defend the rationale for war, it could undermine their efforts to stay in Iraq to win the peace.
(...)
Dan Bartlett, counselor to the President, told reporters in Gyenongju that the White House fight-back would be "sustained," to prevent the charges about the misguided way the administration led the country to war becoming "conventional wisdom."
(...)
There are signs too that the attacks are becoming increasingly personal. Mr Cheney in his speech noted, "I'm sorry we couldn't be joined by Senators Harry Reid, John Kerry, and Jay Rockefeller. They were unable to attend due to a prior lack of commitment."
They are on the defensive and they are lashing out. why? Because the Dems are on the offensive. Simple, isn't it?
Even the kool aid expression "winning the peace" suggests that it is not won at this point - yet another item of common wisdom to consolidate.
Now's not the time to stop the offensive. Use these outrageous quotes against Bush and Cheney. Keep them on the defensive. They will fight back nastily, but, really, has there been a time when they weren't nasty? It's much better to see them bitter and defensive about their acts than about topics of their choice.
A note to sensitive souls: when I criticise Bush, I am not implying that America is bad and France better. Yes, Chirac is a total failure, and the French are guilty of having elected him - twice. Sorry.