Bush Shit

It's not the use of the word "shit" that is noteworthy but, rather, the way the word is an unfortunate description of the what passes for "the Killer B's" understanding of the situation in the Middle East.

As Billmon puts it:

I mean, how much more out of touch with reality could the killer Bs possibly be? Their own wishful thinking about the consequences of their own pathetic follies appears to have left them with some wholly fantastical ideas about what motivates their enemies in the region. Either that, or they've completely bought the sugar coated lies being spoon fed them by their subordinates. My guess is that it's probably a bit of both -- creating a perfect, impenetrable feedback loop of flattery, deception and wish fulfillment.

Juan Cole sees it this way:

It is a little window into the superficial, one-sided mind of the man, who has for six years been way out of his depth.

I come away from it shaken and trembling.

Josh Marshall posts a comment from Reader WD:

People ask why the U.S. is in the midst of this crisis. This recording provides a simplistic but understandable answer. While none of the major media will directly offer this intepretation, I think it's clear that they feel that this brief clip captures a president who does not look emotionally or intellectually capable of leading in this crisis.

In a world where our media is incapable of directly stating that view, clips like this exist as a proxy for honest analysis. It's news because of it stands for what the media feels it cannot say.

Digby gets the final word:

Meanwhile, the titular president of the United States says something so stupid, even for him, that it's crystal clear that the administration cannot effectively stop these people. From Ezra:

A live mic at the G8 Summit caught Tony Blair and George Bush talking privately about the conflict in Lebanon. Given the relative opacity of Bush's thoughts on the situation, the frank discussion offered a fair amount of insight and a couple nuggets of news, including that he was going to send Condi to the region (or possibly the UN -- but she's going somewhere to deal with this), that he blamed neither Israel nor Lebanon for the violence, and that "the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over."

That's a big deal: Bush believes it within the Syrian government's power to calm the conflict. Theoretically, that should have major implications for American diplomacy and, possibly, policy.

(Ezra says "theoretically" because the focus of the event has been on the fact that Bush said "shit.") But think about this. Bush is at a meeting of the world's most powerful leaders and he says, off the cuff, something that betrays such a misunderstanding of the situation that it's clear he hasn't even been properly briefed. Condi, too, has been incoherent. So who's really running the show?

I think we all know his name is Dick Cheney, original signatory of the PNAC and the man who stated baldly that he came into office with ideas about executive power and America's place as a sole superpower that he's been percolating since the late 70's. Cheney has been playing a long game, much longer than anyone else in the administration. Like a shark, he is single minded, focused and relentless. By his standards, and the standards of his multi-national corporate and neocon theorist patrons, he has been tremendously successful so far. They do not see the dangers staring them in the face, or if they do they truly believe the risk (and the blood and money) are worth it. They have no doubts.

It's tempting to write them off as a bunch of kooks, but it is their kooky vision that is right now playing out in the mid-east. It's not that they are necessarily directing it, to be sure. But they are always prepared to take advantage of circumstances that advance it. And like all historical leaders of aMarch of Folly they believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that everything will turn out ok in the end.