Cowardly Bush Hides Behind Laura's Skirts: Gibson Fails to Ask the Key Questions

In his 'exit' interview with Charlie Gibson, George W. Bush appeared with Laura in a 'family setting' sitting together on a couch. Although Charlie did press Bush on the Iraq War--would he have fought it knowing there were no WMDs?--the presence of Laura did much to disarm Gibson.

It is, after all, unseemly to show up a man in the presence of his wife. Especially when they are sitting next to one another on a couch in "their" living room. Especially by pressing him on an evasive or untruthful answer. Although Charlie made sure Bush knew what question he was asking, he let Bush's answers stand without challenge. Bush's biggest disappointment--failure of intelligence. Not his own failures on 9/11, Katrina, the Financial Meltdown. The failure of others.

Gibson just let that stand. In Laura's presence he did not ask the key questions to challenge him.

The Iraq War was an intelligence failure? We know from the Downing Street memo that the facts were being marshaled around the decision. But, we need not take the word of Britain's intelligence chief (who wrote the memo).

It is confirmed by analyzing George Tenet's famous "slam dunk" comment. Bush, uncharacteristically analytical, tells Tenet that the case he presented Bush is not very strong. Tenet says he said that it was a "slam dunk" to make it stronger.

If Bush were truly trying to determine whether the US should invade Iraq, as opposed to getting the evidence he needed to justify an invasion that had already been pre-determined, he would have asked his intelligence chief a simple question: if it is such a "slam dunk", why did you not present that right now, upfront, the first time.

The answer is obvious: the "slam dunk" evidence was questionable. Tenet had, as a good intelligence chief should, presented only that information he could verify. And, as Bush himself realized, that verifiable evidence was weak.

So, Tenet did what bad intelligence chiefs do--he gave Bush the evidence he wanted to hear, verifiable or not, and with no disclaimers about its reliability.

But, that is not even the key question. Even if one assumes that good intelligence could have missed something, why did Bush truncate the on-the-ground inspections? Why did he not, as the inspectors pleaded, give them more time to complete their assignment?

This answer, too, is obvious: the inspectors were finding nothing at places where Cheney and others were absolutely certain the weapons were. If the inspectors worked for months, and could find nothing, even at places the US "knew" they were, then the "slam dunk" information would become a blocked shot.

Specifically, the questionable information Tenet had not presented in the first submission would have been found to have been wrong.

That, alone, may not have precluded war. Bush would have claimed that Saddam Hussein was not cooperating, and shuttling the weapons around ahead of the inspectors' visits. He would also have bashed the United Nations as soft, implying the inspectors were biased against finding evidence to support an invasion.

But, since Bush has fingered the failure of intelligence in Iraq as his biggest disappointment, what reason could he advance today for refusing to allow the inspectors to finish their job? How credible is that nuclear warheads could be moved quickly without a trace? Bush's mushroom cloud argument would have vanished.

If Bush were not exiting by hiding behind Laura's skirts, moreover, Charlie might have asked him why Katrina, or the financial disaster, or his failure even to call a meeting when he was warned about a terrorist attack, did not equal the Iraq intelligence failure as a disappointment. He might have asked him what Dick Cheney was doing spending all his time at the CIA. He might have asked him why he dissed General Shinseki's sober analysis of the needs for the occupation.

In fact he might have asked Bush if he were backing away from his consistent assertion that he would have invaded even if he had known there were no weapons. That was Bush's main case against John Kerry in 2004, that he was "flip-flopping" on his support for the war because he (Kerry) now knew there were no weapons.

Charlie may also asked him about things such as White House involvement in Justice Department decisions, why there were over 400 allowable contact people, whereas under prior Presidents there were just 4, and why Dick Cheney was even on the contact list; or, perhaps why he did not follow through on his campaign pledge to list carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

But, he didn't. Laura's skirts effectively shielded George W. from the truth about himself.

The good news is that on January 20th he will stop abusing our patience.

Comments

[grf67]

Bush and Cheney are both cowards and have been for the past 40 years. Each has been hiding behind some woman during most of that time.

[SailFree]

Seven years without an attack on the U.S. mainland has created a growing public complacency. And the anti-antiterror lobby has exploited that complacency to assail and constrain critical Bush Administration intelligence programs, making it harder to intercept terrorists before they strike. As a consequence innocent Americans may be killed.

That's the reality exposed in an extraordinary exchange of letters between NYC Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey. The city and the Justice Department are feuding over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, the 1978 domestic wiretapping law that was amended this year and requires a warrant to listen in on suspected foreign terrorists. Mr. Kelly says that Justice's FISA policies are "unduly constraining" his high-priority "international terrorism investigations in the greater New York area."
--Article in today's WSJ-online

[elderly]

I believe that I would sacrifice 5 years of my life to see Edward R. Murrow interview bush live on television, with or without the presence of his wife.

[kareemachan]

Heck yes!!!

[TommyMcCarthy]

The unfortunate truth is that Charlie Gibson would have softballed Bush no matter Where Laura was.

The apalling violation of the public trust on the part of administration officals has been facilitated at every turn by a corresponding abdication of responsibility on the part of large numbers of reporters and the media outlets they serve.

Multiple examples place Gibson clearly in this category IMO
tm

[Jaman]

Oh, how wrong! Charlie Gibson will not stop abusing our patience this January. Nor will any of the other mega-corporate talking heads. The more someone is paid to read the news, the less news they communicate. And what about that new hairdo on Kattie?? How cool is that!?!?

[Ihhp]

Gibson wants to keep his Job and that is why he did not ask any tough questions.

By the way - WHERE IS CHENEY THESE DAYS?

[conniec]

Cheney is probably in his favorite "undisclosed location" - you know, where he spent most of the past 8 years - still giving Bush orders, though...

As far as Charlie's questioning, maybe he felt sorry for this pathetic little man. After all, Charlie must have known that the majority of Americans would know Bush was lying anyway, no matter WHAT he said... Why add follow-up questions to the dismal spectacle.­..

Laura, I know a good divorce lawyer...y­our hubby's a first-class loser!

[kareemachan]

You can't be an effective news reporter if you feel sorry for people who are responsible for so much. You gotta go for the jugular.

[pointyheadprodigy]

Bush was the "Decider", Bush holds responsibility ALONE for the decisions that he made. The others carry responsibility for their own decisions. There are plenty of criminal charges for everyone to get something!

IMPEACH, INDICT, PROSECUTE

[Oldtimer]

I think the point is Bush got off easy with his wife sitting there during the interview but I don't
think Bush was "hiding". Bush really does not care. And Cheney - forget about it. He doesn't care
either so he doesn't even bother to do interviews.

[Chopin]

It's not the first time in world history that a tyrant or tyrannical regime are held to account after they have relinguished power of their office. Some good precedents and examples of nations dealing with a sordid traumatic past were the truth and reconciliation commission in South Africa after Apatheid, and the extradition of the aged ex-junta president Pinochet from Spain back to Chile.

I trust that the long suffering American people on the whole are far less interested in any snivelling self-serving incoherent answers from this shrub of a man about ANYTHING! It is a wonder that he does not blame God for his own miserable failures in everything he touched. After all, when asked whom he consulted for advice and counsel regarding the handling of Iraq before launching the invasion, -- whether he sought the counsel of his father and the seasoned former national security advisor Scrowcroft, he did incredibly assert on national TV that he consulted a "higher father", God in person. With a personal direct line to God, it's understandable now in retrospect how he justified war of aggression, atrocities, other people's suffering and sacrifice, and the wholesale trashing of the American Constitution. It's God-inspired! And if things didn't work out in practice, well, it's God and God's direct counsel to him that is at fault.

Why do any more softball postmortem interviews with this miserable shrub? Be done with it and quickly consign it to the dustbin of history.

[wship111]

Gibson you are a whimp. Bush and his wife played you to the nth degree.

[noamjunior]

Gibson has proved himself a right-wing toolbox- this is further confirmation

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

Seriously, what did you expect? He's never going to tell the truth, because it would land him in jail so what's the point of pressing him on his BS anyway?

[firstcrasscitizen]

For being such a "War Hawk", "W" sure does come across as a cowardly person. especially when someone has him in a corner.

[Chillinout]

Bush is a classic bully; all bluster but when he gets called on it, he backs down and hides behind mommy's skirts.

[Chopin]

A classic bully is spot on. Most adults are familiar with the schoolyard bully in their lives. How he ever got to be president is the most vexing and important question for all Americans to ask and truly understand. ... Because the next decade or two and a few hundred million lives hang in the balance depending on a true understanding of GWB, the man, and his assault on America. ... and the truth will set you free.

To begin with, the following book and references would provide the information, the context, and point in the right direction:

http://www.amazon.com/Bush-Couch-Inside-Mind-President/dp/0060736704
http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=bush+on+a+couch&src=IE-SearchBox

[citizenxyz]

Bush is a man of very low moral caliber- he does not view the world from other's perspectives and that is what made him so dangerous- he only knows the world from the perspective of what is good for those that he perceives are like him. Nevertheless, we (our country) elected him TWICE and that makes us participants in his deeds.

[SailFree]

On the other hand, he has the advantage of seeing the world from the correct perspective. Adopting the cowardly, wrong-headed perspective of much of the rest of the world would be dangerous for America.

One suspects that Obama, once having the actual RESPONSIBILITY rather than merely being able to campaign and politic, will adopt the same world view as Bush's. We better hope...

[iyamchazz]

The only WMD was GWB.

[Chopin]

"iyamchazz": "The only WMD was GWB." --- Brilliant insight !!!

[SailFree]

Ah--then what killed the Kurds and Iranians? Chemical Ali was just sentenced to death for using WMD. Are you saying they were imaginary?