Accidental disclosure of Comical Bush Notes

[troublemaker]

This is wrong in so many ways... here's a pool photo from Bush's fake cabinet meeting press event yesterday.

Someone wrote to Atrios ( http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_06_13_atrios_archive.html#108752163595772810 ) pointing out that when blown up you can read, on the right-hand page, the list of reporters Bush plans to call on. That's interesting in its way, showing how "surprise free" these events are for Bush. Even the most seemingly spontaneous interactions with the press are as scripted as possible.

But the list of reporters is hardly the headline here. Look at the left-hand page. The first few lines written really BIG across the page say this:

SADDAM WAS A THREAT

SWORN ENEMY OF THE U.S.

DESTABILIZING FORCE IN VOLATILE PART OF WORLD

I understand that talking points are simple by design, but this is a bit much. Bush needs a cheat sheet to remember to say things like 'Saddam was a threat.' We're not talking about the tricky pronunciation of a foreign leaders name... this is a simplistic line of "argument by assertion" that Bush has been regurgitating hourly for almost three years now, and he still has to have it written in front of him.

It's worth noting that Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was written on a smaller piece of paper than Bush's 'Saddam was a threat' cheat sheet. But then again, Abe Lincoln couldn't peel a banana with his toes.

____________________

on edit: Changed headline "disturbing" to "comical"... "disturbing" was too sensationalistic.

Here's the list of reporters as decoded by DUer MERLIN:

Barbara Reichman (AP)
David Morgan (Reuters)
Roger Runningen (Bloomberg)
John Roberts (CBS News)
Bob Hillman (Dallas Morning News)
Ann Compton (ABC News)

More on this topic: (TacticalPeak's original thread from last night)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1809302#1810881

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. I dunno

I have written such basic notes to myself when I have called into radio shows.

Better someone picks them up later and thinks I am an idiot than I should forget to mention one of those points on the air.

[troublemaker]

3. But do you write down your first name and where you're calling from?

I understand the value of notes, but I would hope the man can remember his justification for an ongoing war. Until we find FDR talking points that start with "Pearl Harbor!"... well, you fill in the rest.

[MallRat]

5. There ain't no pictures on the radio!

And besides, you're just a caller... this is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES we're talking about. If he's so resolute about his feelings towards Saddam, Al-Qaeda, and the war in Iraq, why does he need to be reminded of even the most simplistic talking points?

-MR

[Hoping4Change]

7. You are being too kind.

The leader of the most powerful nation on earth who started a war should have the facts down pat at this state of the game.

[wicket]

2. I'm eagerly waiting for the debates

Bush will be filleted by Kerry.

[troublemaker]

14. Not me

Having watched Reagan "win" debates with Carter and Bush2 "win" debates with Gore I've about had it with debates.

[theboss]

4. Why is this disturbing?

I hold meetings about once a week and my notes always look something like that. Because, it's amazing the little things you forget when you are talking to people. I've even written down stage directions like, "Make eye contact when discussing X."

[troublemaker]

9. Listing the reporters doesn't trouble me at all

and I'm all for notes. Well-organized people use notes and it's a good thing.

But "SADDAM WAS A THREAT"? That's like George Steinbrenner carrying around notes like "THE YANKEES ARE IN THE AMERICAN LEAGUE."

[salin]

12. Maybe because the content

is so very basic - so repetitive - and in need of "key words" for things that he has been saying. So devoid of any complexity - which, frankly, is frightening given that policy formulation and execution always involves complex issues - and if he doesn't understand those issues... how in the heck can he be expected to question - require thorough analysis - including potential problems (again a mainstay of policy - that policy makers need both the strengths of the policy and the potential problems - so they KNOW what they are doing, the consequences and make sound decisions accordingly)...

It is disturbing - because it makes clear that Paul O'Niell was telling the truth. That bush has no clue - doesn't care to get a clue - and is numbly happy to stay that way as - in bush's own words in the 2000 elections... he says "policy bores me." The implication that even when very serious troubles face the country - he still can't be bothered to read papers given to him (as indicated in an indepth interview with Condi Rice several months ago where she proudly states her role of condencing key issues into simple bullet point items, as indicated by his happy assertion that he doesn't read or watch the news, as indicated by O'Niell and DiLullio that he discourages any "policy talk", and as indicated by Bush's conversation with Woodward that he (Woodward when describing some of the criticisms of bush policies) is one of those "fancy pants intellectuals".

In short - it is disturbing to know how correct we are in this assertion. The blind is really leading the blind - and he is advised by ideological folks who don't give him (at his choice? due to his abilities?) full information - and thus even in a staged "Cabinet meeting" - his comments (staged) are simplistic, lazy, and frankly irresponsible.

[TahitiNut]

20. Prezactly. (Imbeciles.)

:thumbsup: ASSertionHOLES!

[DenverDem]

6. And who were the two reporters called on in the "press conference"?

Reichman and Morgan.

[spanone]

8. When the predisent is retarded in his thinking as bush* is......

you better write it down for him.

[Cheswick2.0]

10. This is ridiculous

How do they not get called on this?

[Jack Rabbit]

11. Thanks, troublemaker. And thanks, Merlin

If those journalists are making agreements with someone in the White House to throw Bush softballs, then they should explain themselves.

[SmokingJacket]

13. Whose handwriting? And why is Barb called Deb? nt

[Octafish]

15. Smirk's dumber than I thought.

And that's some serious misunderestimating over the past 24 years.

Really like the diamond-shaped doodle that's inked over and over and over ...

[fob]

16. There's actually 3 or possibly 4 pages visible

The top 2 - the left one with "saddam was threat" and the right one with reporters names. That page appears to be covering 1 or 2 other pages. In the upper right of the covered page(s) is AL Q - some type of note regarding al queda.

Further down is day? but the preceding words are covered

there are other words visible, some underlined on the page partially covered by the reporters names page. One of the lines reads;

_________ __________ AL Q I can't make out the first 2 words,

[drb]

17. The last line on his sheet says, "Ties to terrorist orgs"

...and below that, it says, "Contacts with Al Queda over last decade"

This is sad. Really really sad.

[troublemaker]

18. I want to know the scratched out word above that line

[TahitiNut]

19. Mere ASSertions ... no evidence, no argument, no logic

These detestible, knuckle-dragging, slack-jawed, spittle-drooling criminals seem incapable of even the most primitive reasoning process. It's <grunt> "He's an enema!" <snort> "He's a evil-doer!" <drool> "I said so!" <leer> <smirk>

Hanging is too good for these corrupt bastards.

[troublemaker]

22. beheading counter-programming kick

[redqueen]

21. With all due respect to other people who need notes

to remember even the most simplistic and hyped-for-years-now talking points...

I reeeeeeeeeeeeeally miss the Big Dog right now.

:(