Moronic Press Conference = Moronic Man?
Fred Kaplan,
writing for Slate, analyzes Bush's most recent press conference, and finds it moronic. On an email discussion list I'm a member of, there was a discussion on the use of language like moronic to describe President Bush. The discussion started because someone objected to using name calling when describing Bush. But what if the adjectives were used to describe Bush's policies? Is saying his policy in Iraq is incompetent the same as saying he is incompetent? In saying the decisions he made about how to respond to Israel's retaliation to Hezbollah were stupid the same as saying he is stupid? In coming to the conclusion that his approach in the Middle East is morally bankrupt and cynical the same as saying he is morally bankrupt and cynical?
Kaplan, it seems to me, makes a distinction. The piece is titled "What a Moronic Presidential Press Conference!" with the subtitle, "
It's clear Bush doesn't understand Iraq, or Lebanon, or Gaza, or …". Bush isn't being called moronic in this title, but the press conference and his answers to questions are being called moronic.
Bush and his team have always taken criticism of their positions as treasonous. Sure, Bush might say, as he did in this press conference, that "I would never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me. This has nothing to do with patriotism. It has everything to do with understanding the world in which we live." But that doesn't stop his Vice President from saying Ned Lamont's primary victory, which comes from democracy in action, would enourage "al qaida types."
To associate Lamont's victory with giving comfort to Al Qaida is the same thing as calling anyone who voted for Lamont unpatriotic. Not explicitly, but certainly implicitly. So Bush's statement that he doesn't question the patriotism of those who disagree is hogwash. His administration and his surrogates certainly do.
So is Bush lying when he says such things, or simply moronic that he can't see that what he says is false?
