Trouble on the Line

I couldn't post yesterday's entry, Bush. Some kind of problem with the Blogger. I'm still trying to get it sorted out. Meantime, though, in hopes that I'll soon be able to post again, here's a word for the day.

I was watching your encounter with the press yesterday with an eye to your strategy. Interesting. Not that I haven't observed it before, not that others haven't. But it seemed particularly virulent yesterday. The first part is to shame or belittle the questioner: calling on a press corps man (unknown to me) whose name was Roger, it was "Roger, Roger"; and to the new reporter on the block, "Hmmm. Not a bad question for a substitute guy." And was Jon Stewart right about the man you made an effort to ridicule because he was wearing sunglasses--that your victim had a congenital eye disorder?

Next, it's the tone of withering condescension with which you answer questions, as though the questioner were an idiot, incapable of discerning the unquestionable quality of your knowledge and veracity.

Oh, and then the patent disconnect between your words and the evidence about the America we know. We live, you reiterated for the thousandth time, "in a transparent society." Oh really? How about a little transparency on the outing of Valerie Plame. For instance. And then, "People will be held to account, according to our laws." This in response to a question about Abu Ghraib, a disgrace in which only the very lowliest were "held to account," and those truly responsbile, the ones who tacitly encouraged such behavior, were rewarded with accolades and promotion.

Enough. Enough for today. I don't even know that this will ever get posted. Keep your fingers crossed, Bush. We'll see.