Reply
Fri 3 Feb, 2006 12:50 pm
Oprah "Freys" President Bush: Read It Here First
By Greg Mitchell, editor of E&P.
February 01, 2006
For the past week, liberal commentators have expressed one simple fantasy: that Oprah Winfrey get a chance to grill President Bush the way she went after fabulist author James Frey. Here they get their wish.
In the days since Oprah Winfrey sliced and diced writer James Frey on her TV show for misleading the public with lies in his bestselling memoir, many liberal commentators have expressed a single wish: to watch Oprah have the opportunity to do the same with President George W. Bush concerning the alleged lies that got the U.S. into Iraq (2200 lost American lives ago).
Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post columnist, observed on Tuesday, "If there were justice in the world, George W. Bush would have to give his State of the Union address from Oprah's couch....Bush should have to face the wrathful, Old Testament Oprah who subjected author James Frey to that awful public smiting the other day."
Syndicated columnist Norman Solomon cited the Winfrey/Frey tussle, then charged, "Yet the journalists who interview Bush aren't willing to question him in similar terms." On "The Daily Show" Monday, Jon Stewart contrasted Oprah's tough questioning of Frey with obsequious TV news treatment of President Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and others. Maureen Dowd compared "disgraced author" Frey with "a commander in chief who keeps writing chapter after chapter of fictionalized propaganda."
So I have taken the liberty of pushing all this dreaming one step beyond, imagining an Oprah sitdown with the president--based almost word-for-word on the transcript of her latest session with Frey, with just a few phrases obviously changed here and there.
Here it is, without commercial interruption, or claps and boos from the audience. It even has a happy ending.
*
Oprah: President Bush is here and I have to say it is difficult for me to talk to you because I feel really duped. But more importantly, I feel that you betrayed millions of citizens in your statements about WMD in Iraq and Saddam's connection to Al Qaeda. I think it's such a gift to have millions of people to believe in you and your office and that bothers me greatly. So now, as I sit here today I don't know what is true and I don't know what isn't. So first of all, I wanted to start with The Huffington Post report titled, "The Man Who Conned Oprah" and I want to know?-were they right?
Bush: I think most of what they wrote was pretty accurate. Absolutely.
Oprah: Okay.
Bush: I think they did a good job detailing some of the discrepancies between some of the actual facts of the events.
Oprah: Was your description of how Saddam Hussein was about to get nuclear weapons true?
Bush: He was about to get nuclear weapons, yes.
Oprah: About to?
Bush: I mean, that was one of the details I altered about him.
Oprah: Okay. And why?
Bush: Because all the way through the run up to the war I altered details about every single one of the WMD possibilities to render them unidentifiable.
Oprah: Nuclear weapons are more dramatic than conventional weapons?
Bush: I don't think either is more dramatic than the other.
Oprah: But why did you lie? Why did you do that?
Bush: I think one of the coping mechanisms I developed was sort of this image of myself that was greater, probably, than?-not probably?-that was greater than what I actually was. In order to get through the experience, I thought of myself as being tougher than I was and badder than I was?-and it helped me cope. When I was selling the war &hellip instead of being as introspective as I should have been, I clung to that image.
Oprah: And did you cling to that image because that's how you wanted to see yourself? Or did you cling to that image because that would make a better sell job?
Bush: Probably both.
Oprah: How much of your statements on WMD and Saddam's connections to Al Qaeda were fabricated?
Bush: Not very much. I mean, all the people are real.
Oprah: But I acted in defense of you and as I said, my judgment was clouded because so many people seemed to have gotten so much out of it. But now I feel that you conned us all. Do you?
Bush: I don't feel like I conned everyone.
Oprah: You don't.
Bush: No.
Oprah: Why?
Bush: Because I still think the war is about WMD and Al Qaeda and nobody's disputing that I was a addicted...to fighting Saddam. And it's a battle to overcome that.
Oprah: Your charges about WMD, you said that that was true then. Would you say that today?
Bush: I...I had documents that supported it. About nine months after the war, I was speaking to somebody from State. They said that they doubted it happened that way, but that there was a chance that it did?-that cases like that are reviewed on an individual basis.
Oprah: This is what I don't get. Because when you were here before, you said that there were about 400 pages of documents..That there were documents and reports. Because I said, "How can you remember such detail? And that's how you explained it to me.
Bush: Absolutely.
Oprah: Do you now wish you had added a disclaimer?
Bush: I don't know if I wish I had offered a disclaimer or if I had just talked about certain events in a different way. I think that would have been the more appropriate thing to do than putting in a disclaimer.
Oprah: I appreciate you being here because I believe the truth can set you free. I realize this has been a difficult time for you, maybe this is the beginning of another kind of truth for you.
Bush: I think you're absolutely right. I mean, I think this is obvious-- this hasn't been a great day for me. It certainly hasn't been a great couple weeks for me. But I think I come out of it better. I mean, I feel like I came here and I have been honest with you. I have, you know, essentially admitted to...[sigh]...to lying.
Oprah: Which is not an easy thing to do.
Bush: No, it's not an easy thing to do in front of an audience full of people and a lot of others watching on TV. I mean, if I come out of this experience with anything, it's being a better person and learning from my mistakes and making sure that I don't repeat them.
Oprah: Good.
So, the only way you can obtain "proof" that Bush lied is by making it up, like Frey did, right?
Brandon9000 wrote:So, the only way you can obtain "proof" that Bush lied is by making it up, like Frey did, right?
It took 33 minutes to come up with this response. So now we can calculate the speed of dumb.
Cut Brandon a break, joe. Sure, he can come off as being a bit literal-minded at times, but hey, subtlety is not in everyone's repertoire...
Wait a minute. What if it took him 30 minutes to read it and two minutes to figure out it was SATIRE.
Does that change the speed?
Joe(e pluribus unum)Nation
Joe Nation wrote:Wait a minute. What if it took him 30 minutes to read it and two minutes to figure out it was SATIRE.
Does that change the speed?
Joe(e pluribus unum)Nation
merely the division of the parts of the dumb that make up the whole dumb....the speed remains a constant....
I logged on, read it, and responded immediately. Your idea that I read it the moment it appeared is merely stupid. However, that's all irrelevant. It's obvious that most A2K liberals operate by impeaching the source of an idea, since they can't compete with the idea itself.
The meaning of my post was:
1. The only way the libs can find Bush guilty of lying is to present things that never happened. When left with only the actual public record, they can only shriek unfounded accusations.
2. The author of the post was doing something similar to what Frey did by manufacturing false history to make a point.
Brandon9000 wrote:I logged on, read it, and responded immediately. Your idea that I read it the moment it appeared is merely stupid. However, that's all irrelevant. It's obvious that most A2K liberals operate by impeaching the source of an idea, since they can't compete with the idea itself.
The meaning of my post was:
1. The only way the libs can find Bush guilty of lying is to present things that never happened. When left with only the actual public record, they can only shriek unfounded accusations.
2. The author of the post was doing something similar to what Frey did by manufacturing false history to make a point.
Actually, the author created something that is known as "satire." A satire is not intended to fool the reader into thinking it really happened that way. It's intended to make a point by exaggerating a bit. What Frey did was meant to fool the reader into believing in something that never happened...
Does that make any sense, Brandon?
D'artagnan wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:I logged on, read it, and responded immediately. Your idea that I read it the moment it appeared is merely stupid. However, that's all irrelevant. It's obvious that most A2K liberals operate by impeaching the source of an idea, since they can't compete with the idea itself.
The meaning of my post was:
1. The only way the libs can find Bush guilty of lying is to present things that never happened. When left with only the actual public record, they can only shriek unfounded accusations.
2. The author of the post was doing something similar to what Frey did by manufacturing false history to make a point.
Actually, the author created something that is known as "satire." A satire is not intended to fool the reader into thinking it really happened that way. It's intended to make a point by exaggerating a bit. What Frey did was meant to fool the reader into believing in something that never happened...
Does that make any sense, Brandon?
Obviously, but the fact remains that:
1. The only way the libs can ever support their oft stated idea that Bush is a liar is to make up history. They never support their assertion, and rarely even try to, that Bush lied with real events.
2. Both Frey and the post author/article author manufactured false history for some form of gain - Frey to sell a book, and the post author to make a point that they couldn't make with the bare truth.
parados wrote:D'artagnan wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:I logged on, read it, and responded immediately. Your idea that I read it the moment it appeared is merely stupid. However, that's all irrelevant. It's obvious that most A2K liberals operate by impeaching the source of an idea, since they can't compete with the idea itself.
The meaning of my post was:
1. The only way the libs can find Bush guilty of lying is to present things that never happened. When left with only the actual public record, they can only shriek unfounded accusations.
2. The author of the post was doing something similar to what Frey did by manufacturing false history to make a point.
Actually, the author created something that is known as "satire." A satire is not intended to fool the reader into thinking it really happened that way. It's intended to make a point by exaggerating a bit. What Frey did was meant to fool the reader into believing in something that never happened...
Does that make any sense, Brandon?
Quote:Brandon9000: Absolutely.
Oprah: Do you now wish you had added a disclaimer?
Play with it all you like, the only evidence against Bush is fiction like the article which started the post.
blueveinedthrobber wrote:zzzzzzzzzz....
Notice how he takes my assertions and disproves them point by point! What a credit to the liberal viewpoint.
Actually, Brandon, we liberals have dropped the idea that Bush lied his way into war and decided, as have the majority of all Americans, that he is a jerk who couldn't find his own ass with both hands. Looking at him the other night, for as long as I could stand it, he appeared to be the same guy who was as surprised as anyone else that he would be standing there.
Here he is, the President of the United States, and he doesn't have a clue what he should do to improve the lives of the average American so he goes on about how secure he is trying to make things while at the same time acerbating the world situation by his dim-witted, though charming, idea that democracy fixes everything. We haven't heard anything about the threat level to this country lately, not because the danger has been reduced, but because it's off the charts.
Watch him in the next few weeks, he's giving a speech, to the usual carefully controlled audiences, (god, what speaker wouldn't want that?) outlining his new energy policy (which Dick has already vetoed), his education plan (another unfunded effort that the States, this time, will refuse to pay for, and chirping that everything is going to be hunky-dory in the Middle East (If he can just figure out how to turn back time on the Iranian's Nuclear efforts and Hamas' victory in Palestine.). Don't mention North Korea. He just doesn't have enough time to do his abs work and think about that.
Joe(Okay? Not a liar. A jerk)Nation
Brandon,
Individual delusions of grandeur or the same projected onto another individual are both signs of mental/emotional problems. I urge you to seek help.
Or possibly, if you were to stop drinking the kool-aid, the problem would, in all likelihood fix itself.
JTT wrote:Brandon,
Individual delusions of grandeur or the same projected onto another individual are both signs of mental/emotional problems. I urge you to seek help.
Or possibly, if you were to stop drinking the kool-aid, the problem would, in all likelihood fix itself.

Translation: I cannot attack your ideas, so I will attack you instead.
Brandon9000 wrote:I logged on, read it, and responded immediately. Your idea that I read it the moment it appeared is merely stupid. However, that's all irrelevant. It's obvious that most A2K liberals operate by impeaching the source of an idea, since they can't compete with the idea itself.
The meaning of my post was:
1. The only way the libs can find Bush guilty of lying is to present things that never happened. When left with only the actual public record, they can only shriek unfounded accusations.
2. The author of the post was doing something similar to what Frey did by manufacturing false history to make a point.
The article was a satire, Brandon.
But, here's an "actual public record" from the White House:
Quote:Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
Test for Brandon:
Was Bush lying to us or was he engaged in a satire of his own?
Take all the time you need to figure it out and then report back with your answer.