Large And In Charge

Via Pandagon, we see once again exactly what sort of clown the values voters have laid on us. (As Steve Guttenberg once poetically put it, "Um....a juggling clown?").

Notice how deftly Himself dodges pointy Pravda questioning on meaningless topics like an exhausted and thinly spread military, as well as the (non-) cooperation of "friends" like Pakistan:

Pravda: There [are] signs of a manpower squeeze in the regular Army. The National Guard and Reserves have been pressed to their limit. Do you plan to ask Congress to authorize additional National Guard or regular Army units?

Himself: No, what we're going to do is we're going to make sure that the missions of the National Guard and the Reserve closely dovetail with active Army units, so that the pressure that you're speaking about is eased.

Pravda: Why do you think [Osama] bin Laden has not been caught?

Himself: Because he's hiding.

Pravda: Our allies have done all they can do to help catch him?

Himself: We're on the hunt.

Pravda: Do you think others are on the hunt, too? Are you happy, content with what other countries are doing in that hunt?

Himself: Yes.

Pravda: Anyone you're not happy with? (Laughter.)

Himself: Look, bin Laden is elusive, and he is in a remote part of the world. And we are -- I am -- I can't think of anybody in the world who is our ally who isn't willing to do what is necessary to try to find him. And so I am pleased about the hunt, and I am pleased that he's isolated. I will be more pleased when he's brought to justice, and I think he will be.

Oh, he is a stitch, isn't he? "Because he's hiding". No shit, Sherlock. How many American kids have died trying to smoke this motherfucker out of his hole, no thanks to Pakistan's pro-Osama army and intelligence agencies (not to mention citizenry)?

And Bush comes back with this fucking "talk to the hand" bullshit. It's like a very special Ricki Lake or something, where Bush smarts off with this "Because he's hiding" crap and the audience collectively moans, "Whooooo!". "Oh no you didn't", where the second "d" in "didn't" is more of a glottal than a proper linguadental phonetic. That sort of shit.

If you like his firm resolve and clear planning on the war(s), you'll love his sense of purposeful, studied fixity on the intended privatization of Social Security:

Pravda: Back on Social Security. How can you -- you talk about cutting the deficit in half over the next five years. How can you do that and have personal accounts, which are going to have some sort of transition costs -- we won't debate the number, but most people say it will be at least $100 billion. How can you do that, and do personal accounts?

Himself: Well, that's what we look forward to working with Congress on, to work with them in such a way that we can handle the concerns of those who say the transition costs may be too much. That's part of the negotiations. I look forward to Congress asking that question. That's not the threshold question. The threshold question is for some who say, we don't have a problem. And once we get people talking about how to fund it, how do you handle the transition costs? I think we're making progress when that happens. It hasn't happened yet, because we're still trying to -- I am making the case that people that have got to understand we have a problem that should be addressed now. But part of the discussions, Jim, that go on, will be how to deal with it -- that particular aspect, as well as a lot of aspects, on how to make the system sound and sound fitting.

You know, "I have no fucking clue; we're making this up as we go along" would be much shorter, Harvard.

Pravda: Will you talk to Senate Democrats about your privatization plan?

Himself: You mean, the personal savings accounts?

Pravda: Yes, exactly. Scott has been --

Himself: We don't want to be editorializing, at least in the questions.

Pravda: You used partial privatization yourself last year, sir.

Himself: Yes?

Pravda: Yes, three times in one sentence. We had to figure this out, because we're in an argument with the RNC [Republican National Committee] about how we should actually word this. [Post staff writer] Mike Allen, the industrious Mike Allen, found it.

Himself: Allen did what now?

Pravda: You used partial privatization.

Himself: I did, personally?

Pravda: Right.

Himself: When?

Pravda: To describe it.

Himself: When, when was it?

Pravda: Mike said it was right around the election.

Himself: Seriously?

Pravda: It was right around the election. We'll send it over.

Himself: I'm surprised. Maybe I did. It's amazing what happens when you're tired. Anyway, your question was? I'm sorry for interrupting.

Jesus H. Tap-dancing Christ. I'm not sure which is worse, that this moron is allowed to use this nonsense as some sort of excuse for not having his story straight, or Pravda not bothering to Barry Bonds this out of the goddamned park.

Look, it's very simple -- until 2002, "privatization" was the marketing term for this scam. Then the directive came down from on high (Cheney) that it was no longer the term; indeed, Bush and Cheney both studiously avoided the term, what with all its negative connotations of future lottery losers living on soup-kitchen scraps and dog food until death's sweet embrace fetches them from their sidewalk grate on some sub-freezing night.

Now "privatization" is back in vogue, the new black, along with loaded catch phrases like "personal savings account" and "ownership society". Bush had forgotten this, of course, and he thinks extemporaneously like old people fuck. So you get more of the usual babble and evasion. Read the whole transcript -- the question never did get answered. Really, none of them did, not even a little. It's all "we're working with Democrats on this", when these guys have yet to reach across the aisle without a pair of brass knuckles.

Is this guy fooling anybody? I understand conservatives' reservations about Kerry, and I understand the peculiar priorities of the Christofascists (well, I don't understand them, but I acknowledge the existence of these warped priorities, but I digress), but do even they think this guy is actually competent, that he isn't a fucking baboon? I read this joke of an interview transcript and keep thinking, "What am I missing here? What the hell is the appeal of a guy who has no clue, no answer, no plan, no nothing?"

And shame on Pravda for not even trying. In a way I can see it -- it would be not unlike picking on a retarded kid -- but this particular retarded kid has his finger on the button, and likes using it. One of these scribes has got to start stepping up and doing his damned job.