Redstate

Peacenik pair attempt to channel "rational people."

By Mark Kilmer Posted in Archived — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The results can be considered amusing. Is this what they were trying to accomplish?

I know it can be difficult for some folks to put a glossy infotainment weekly^* on the World Wide Web, but the good folks at Newsweek do try, as do their clowns. In a column entitled Not-So-Straight Shootin’: Bush seems to be intentionally sending mixed messages on Iran, two folks, or one, called Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey admittedly struggle with the following exchange from the President's press conference this afternoon [transcript]

Read On…

[^* - It is difficult to consider the mag anything but a "glossy infotainment weekly," but I suspect that's their tacit intent.]

STEVE [Holland, Reuters?]: General Pace says that these bombs found in Iraq do not, by themselves, implicate Iran. What makes you so certain that the highest levels of Tehran's government is responsible?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes --

Steve: And how can you retaliate against Iran without risking a war?

THE PRESIDENT: What we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that. And we also know that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. That's a known. What we don't know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds force to do what they did.

But here's my point: Either they knew or didn't know, and what matters is, is that they're there. What's worse, that the government knew or that the government didn't know? But the point I made in my initial speech in the White House about Iraq was, is that we know they're there and we're going to protect our troops. When we find the networks that are enabling these weapons to end up in Iraq, we will deal with them. If we find agents who are moving these devices into Iraq, we will deal with them. I have put out the command to our troops -- I mean, to the people who are commanders, that we'll protect the soldiers of the United States and innocent people in Iraq and will continue doing so.

Now read (and absorb) how Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey describe this:

President Bush wasn’t so sure about the Tehran part. But he also wasn’t so sure that he cared. “What we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that,” he explained. “And we also know that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. That's a known. What we don't know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds force to do what they did.”

That explanation left a lot of reporters looking puzzled. So the president tried again.

“Either they knew or didn't know, and what matters is, is that they're there. What's worse, that the government knew or that the government didn't know?”

At this point he flashed a wide grin, as if he had just hit upon a great way to distill the problem. But what’s worse: that the president knows or that he doesn’t know whom the enemy is?

What was that? The President said the Quds force played a critical role in making these IEDs responsible for American deaths. The President said that he knew that the Quds force was a part of the Iranian government, which means that he knows that the Iranian government at some level plays a role. He does not yet know at what level the Iranian government is involved: Is it the Mullah's directing this scene? Further down the ladder of power, is it President Ahmadinejad or Majils speaker Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel? Or is it the commanders of the Quds?

Intelligence isn't perfect. And neither are unintelligent assertions about what the President thinks or intends.

I saw the press conference on TV, and the President did not seem to be reacting to puzzled looks on reporters' faces. It seemed to me that he thought that his explanation could be more clear, so he rephrased.

As quoted above, Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey then write: "At this point he flashed a wide grin, as if he had just hit upon a great way to distill the problem." The President's smile indicated to me that he had hit upon a simple enough explanation for the assembled reporters to grasp, but my observation is probably no more valid than Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey's anti-Bushie-driven conjecture.

The columnist/s close/s:

But there’s a fine line between keeping the pressure on Tehran and what sounds like fightin’ words. The challenge for the administration is to calm the fears of war while still making Iran fearful of American military power. No wonder rational folks are confused.

Wrong. Potential misinterpretation is one of the dangers lurking near public statements, and there is no fine line. They almost seem to grasp that it is difficult for the President to make the Iranians understand that their will be consequences for their bad actions while Democrats in the U.S. Congress are trying their level-best to castrate him politically.

"No wonder rational folks are confused," the write. How would they know?

The President was clear, but I'll admit to some uncertainty about what these columnists were trying to accomplish with that silliness.

That's infotainment.