Weekly Shredder 44:
Danish TV vs. Bush
by James Norton

Lots of juicy stuff in the world of government corruption this week. None of it is perfect for this forum (which revolves around the digestion of documents), but it would be irresponsible not to mention that...

Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-San Diego, is under pressure for letting wealthy businessmen buy his personal property at double or triple the market rate...

Superpowered GOP lobbyist and powerbroker Jack Abramoff is under continued scrutiny for illegal and unethical activities including providing complimentary meals for lawmakers such as Majority Leader Tom DeLay...

Bush strategist Karl Rove seems to have been the guy who outed the identity of an undercover CIA agent to settle a political score...

For archives, audio, and background about the column, click here.

And then there's the new Republican "Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005" which — naturally — is designed to kill people faster. To quote Reuters:

Death penalty opponents say the law would strip the ability of federal courts to review most claims in capital cases.

Long live the "culture of life." The bill isn't actually corruption in a legal sense, but accelerating the machinery of death with legislation named as bloodlessly as the "Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005" definitely qualifies as moral corruption.

But let's stick to the rot at the very top. The symptom and cause of so many of our major problems: the president's use and misuse of language.

In a recent interview with the Danish Broadcasting Corp., President Bush once again showed off his talent for not answering questions — dodging responsibility, misleading listeners and hacking away at the transparency of government in the process.

For the purposes of this Shredder, we'll look at what the questioner asked. Then we'll find the closest thing to an answer in the president's reply. Then we'll bridge the gap.

Question No. 1:

There are many people in Europe and in Denmark who feel that America, under your leadership, has become an often arrogant superpower.

Answer #1:

In defense of my policies, I did go to the United Nations, not only for Afghanistan, but for Iraq. And we did work with allies and we did ask people's opinion. And we put a coalition together, of which your great country joined.

Gap #1: Brilliant reframing, and technically true. Bush did go to the United Nations. Note that he doesn't elaborate on how it actually went.

BUSH: Excuse me, UN?

UN: Yes?

BUSH: My political party, which currently controls government, would like to invade Iraq. And Hillary Clinton, too. Plus Joe Lieberman.

UN: We need to vote on it. And it looks as though you're going to lose.

BUSH: Well, screw you. We're invading anyway.

UN: Oh, OK. Hey, thanks for dropping by and letting us know about your unilateral invasion! That wasn't arrogant at all!

Question #2:

There are some who feel that the moral leadership of the United States has been somehow compromised by the fact that the world was led to the war in Iraq believing that there was weapons of mass destruction. It now seems like there wasn't.

Answer #2:

Well, I'm obviously disappointed. I thought there were — I thought we'd find weapons of mass destruction, as did the world. In other words, it wasn't just our intelligence, nor was it just my administration. My predecessor, President Clinton, felt the same way, based upon what everybody thought was solid intelligence.

Even though we hadn't found the weapons themselves, we certainly know [Saddam] made the capacity.

Gap #2: Solid intelligence? Ahmed Chalabi, the convicted embezzler with more to gain from ousting Saddam than just about any other individual? Satellite photos of food trucks? Really great hunches?

Also: there is an important difference between the George W. Bush administration and the Clinton administration that is worth mentioning. CLINTON DID NOT INVADE IRAQ.

Vis-a-vis "capacity" — this argument would be great, had it been the one used to sell the invasion, and had the argument not been coupled with the equally discredited "Saddam was involved in Sept. 11 and/or has a working relationship with Al Qaeda" line of bullshit that made the WMD claims exponentially more powerful.

Question #3:

The cultural war... is something that we in Denmark look upon with some interest... gay marriage, abortion and so forth. Why have these subjects become such a focus in America today?

Answer #3:

I happen to be one who believes that we ought to guard life; life is precious in all forms, all stages.

Gap #3: Greasing the skids of the death penalty. The treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo. The treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Raising the cap on dangerous mercury emissions. Blocking stem cell treatments of deadly disases. Etc.

Question #4:

What do you think about when you have time alone?

Answer #4:

Yes, fascinating question... I would say, I make a lot of decisions. It's a decision-making job... I sleep well at night. I subscribe that — this may be controversial for some — I subscribe it to the fact that I've got peace of mind... I'm an exerciser. I love to exercise... And that helps take the stress off.

I read a lot... I like to read history. I just finished a book about George Washington. And so I get my mind off my work, and get my — I get — if I've got troubles, I get my — get the troubles off my mind by reading a lot.

Gap #4:Yes, fascinating answer. Note the lack of "think" as verb.

Of course, it's entirely possible that the president spends his free time thinking about how he deceived a nation into a bloody war, how his irresponsible health, foreign and even economic policies undermine his "culture of life," and how the US has plunged in popularity since his election.

In which case, declaring an interest in sleeping, exercise and American history might be the smartest way to handle the question.

E-mail James Norton at jrnorton@flakmag.com.

— graphic by Derek Evernden (derek@ocellus.net)