Putz-In-Chief

Here's an excerpt from the, uh, highly anticipated (cough, hack) interview with Mister Man tonight on 60 Minutes:

Mr. Pelley: The Democrat leadership says, “We wanna support the troops who are on the ground. We just wanna redline the extra 20,000.”

Mr. Bush: Yeah. I know. I will resist that. Listen, we’ve got people criticizing this plan before it’s had a chance to work. they’re saying, “We’re not even gonna fund this thing.” And they’re not gonna give it a chance.

Mr. Pelley: There’s no Democrat plan.

Mr. Bush: It doesn’t look like it to me. And, the interesting thing is, Scott, a lot of people are saying, “Well, we can’t afford to fail.” In other words, people understand the consequences of failure. And — but what’s deafening is those who say “we can’t afford to fail and — and here’s the plan that will cause us not to fail.” Frankly, that’s not their responsibility. It’s my responsibility to put forward the plan that I think will succeed. I believe if they start trying to cut off funds, they better explain to the American people and the soldiers why their plan will succeed.

There have been several plans, both bipartisan (anyone hear of a little thing called the Iraq Study Group?) and originating strictly from centrist and conservative Democrats such as Joe Biden and John Murtha. Whether or not they are good plans is something that should be debated on their merits, not dismissed out of hand or dropped down the memory hole.

Then again, since I'm sure Faux News never bothered to even mention these plans, and Bush doesn't read anything that isn't a George Washington biography he can spend six months coloring, he may not even know about these other plans. Either he's unforgivably lazy, or lying through every orifice in his empty skull (and elsewhere). Probably both.

But, you know, Pelley can go straight to hell for not even bothering to contest him on the simple factuality of this. Message to Democrats: if you plan on making a stand, you better stand tall and stand now. If that means defunding this clusterfuck, then do it and hang with the consequences. Otherwise you have a replay next year of what went on in '04, a bunch of cynical nonsense about being for something before you were against something. If nothing else, ferchrissake, at least be clear as to who is actually in a political corner here.

And clearly media tools such as Scott Pelley are always going to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. They're cowed by the office, they have no backbone, they are merely court stenographers. If you were unclear on that before, recognize it now.

Mr. Pelley: Do you believe as commander-in-chief you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do?

Mr. Bush: In this situation, I do, yeah. Now, I fully understand they­ could try to stop me from doing it. But ­I made my decision, and we’re going forward.

Mr. Pelley: Final question. How can you escalate the war when so many people in this country seem to be against it?

Mr. Bush: I’m gonna have to keep explaining. That’s why I’m doing this interview with you. Scott; sometimes you’re the commander-in-chief, sometimes you’re the educator-in-chief, and a lot of times you’re both when it comes to war. And, we are in an ideological struggle. And it’s a really classic ideological struggle. And — Iraq is part of it. And it’s very important for me to not only continue to explain why I believe we can be successful in Iraq but explain to people that what happens in the Middle East will affect the future of this country.

Translation: I'm the decider, and you people are simply too stupid to understand that you're supposed to agree with me.

Well, bring it, pal. Take this dog-and-pony show out on the road, with your cherry-picked crowds of mouth-breathers, your rehearsed interchanges with pre-selected rubes, and your pre-screened questions, or grotesque statements of unquestioning fealty from gutless humps who abdicate their citizenship just to openly fellate you. Take that around the country again, and see what happens, enabling media or no. It didn't work with the Social Security scam, and he's fifteen points lower than he was then.

I hope Biden was serious the other day about instigating a Constitutional crisis if necessary, because it looks like it's going to be necessary. Republicans were thrown out in a landslide just two months ago, Bush has been well below 45% for 1½ years (most of that below 35%), Iraq has polled unfavorably -- increasingly so -- for well over a year, and he's still doing exactly what he wants to do, and openly daring people to confront him on it.

Maybe impeachment should be considered as a serious option. It had been previously discarded because of the obvious result of a success. But elevating the grand vizier to the dauphin's throne (I refuse to ever use the P or VP words to describe either of these two) might put Big Time in a cage of sorts. He would not be Cheney unbound, contra conventional wisdom. All eyes would finally be on him, he would not be able to operate under his undisclosed rock, he would have seen the principle of accountability in action, and he would be forced to toe the line or face removal himself.

Bush has made his contempt for the will of the people, and their elected representatives, abundantly clear. It's down to Congress -- and ultimately to us -- to re-assert constitutional principles, that he is not a king or an emperor, and that he works for us, not the other way around. Enough of this "commander-in-chief/educator-in-chief" bullshit. The citizens of this country made their decision, they expect him to abide by it, and that is that.

And if puling little media shits refuse to get with the program, they may end up marginalizing themselves in the process. I'll check out the entire transcript as soon as it's available, but if it's more of this nonsense, 60 Minutes just handed over what remaining credibility it possessed.