TheAgitator.com
Projection
Sunday, August 3rd, 2003So I caught a rerun of Hardball this afternoon on MSNBC and, in it, an excerpt from President Bush’s press conference last week that I found really, really bizarre.
When questioned about the economy, President Bush in part blamed the slow turnaround on cable news. He complained that “one network in particular” had since last fall been warning about “the march to war, the march to war, the march to war,” which, the President said “made investors afraid to take risks.”
You gotta’ think that the communicator-in-chief was ad-libbing here. No way Karl Rove signed off such an idiotic talking point. The reason the cable news media have been hyping the march to war since last fall is because, duh, the friggin’ Bush administration has been marching to war since last fall.
Our President is correct. Investors do hold back when there’s geo-political uncertainty. But Ashleigh Banfield wasn’t the one who sold us on the Iraqi-Niger-al-Qaeda connection. That was you, Mr. President. Brian Williams go on Sunday talk TV and say “when get a smoking gun, it just may be a mushroom cloud.” That would be your NSA, Condi Rice.
It’s fine to say that war slowed down the economy. But, geez, Mr. President, at least take responsibility for the fact that you launched this war, and then make the case that it was necessary, despite short-term damage to the recovery. Pinning it on the news media might play to the Ann Coulter crowd, but for most of us, it rings awfully lame.
Coulter, BTW, was a guest on Hardball. And, predictably, she defended the President. It wasn’t the war that slowed down the recovery, Coulter intoned, it was the fact that the news media — horrors! — covered it.
To be fair, someone with access to LexisNexis compare the news coverage vis-a-vis the economy and financial markets during the roaring Clinton years when we were involved in conflicts in Africa and the Baltic states. Were the media beating the drums in a march towards “war” in Kosovo, Somalia, etc.? Were the press (un)favorable or indifferent towards Clinton during these times? Were the markets (un)favorable or indifferent? Might be some interesting corollaries, inferences, inductive reasoning and sophistry.
“Were the media beating the drums in a march towards “war” in Kosovo, Somalia, etc.?”
I don’t think those would have the same effect.
Firstly, they were smaller operations.
Secondly, they didn’t take place in the oil-producing region, so they didn’t have much chance of interrupting oil shipments, which hurts the economy.
Also, there wasn’t the same kind of long-term build up. Kosovo was triggered by Milosevic’s actions, and happened not long after, if I recall correctly. Involvement in Somalia was started by Bush I, wasn’t it?
I absolutely cannot believe that Bush said something that stupid. What day was that?
Jon H. Yep Bush I sent troops into Somalia for safeguarding food shipments and got tons of flack for NOT allowing US troops to move out until armour was in place to protect them. It was Slick Willie that changed the mission, withdrew US armour because the UN was there (and if the UN is there, what else could you need?) and could provide the support, provided of course that their respective governments approved of the action. Revisionist history always helps one’s arguement.
Uh, your point bob? I never claimed Somalia wasn’t a first class screw up. I never tried to exonerate Clinton or blame Bush.
Nice knee-jerk reaction.
The point was that there was no buildup even remotely resembling Gulf War 1 or 2.
Remember, buildup comes before. Therefore it would have been before the screw up, before Black Hawk Down and all the rest.
I’d guess the press probably expected Somalia to be a dinky little thing like Grenada or Panama, with little effect on the economy.