boxers or briefs?

By Todd Stadler · Friday, January 17, 2003 4:37am

The secret's out: the best source of comedy, befuddlement, or maybe both is none other than the Whitehouse.gov press briefings.

Narrowly edging out, of course, the official North Korean news agency's Web site.

(What's that you say? The Korean people vow to win in decisive battle against U.S.? And the patriotic youth of Korea, under the leadership of President Kim Il Sung ("the lodestar of the nation", as you may remember) "rendered distinguished services shining in the history of the nation"? Gosh, why does that language sound so familiar?)

But I digress.

From the January 9, 2003 White House press briefing:

Q: The President used the phrase, class warfare, again today, alluding to criticism of his tax plan. Why is it class warfare to point out that the overwhelming majority of the tax cut would go to the wealthiest people in the country?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'll tell you, it's class warfare to say that there are wrong people in America and these wrong people are not deserving of tax relief. The President doesn't look at the American people and say, I'm from the government, I know who the right people are ... I'm from the government, I know who the wrong people are. The President believes that's a divisive approach, and the President seeks an approach that unifies people. And that's why he wants to work closely with members of Congress, just as he did in 2001, to try to arrive at an agreement so taxes can be cut. And he will fight for the plan that he proposed.

Q: Does that mean that anybody who disagrees with him is having a divisive approach?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that there's a ... there are ways of disagreeing. But to say that there are wrong people is certainly a divisive approach.

Clever, that. The only wrong people are those who say there are wrong people. And, as we see below, those who say that the benefits will go to the wealthy.

Q: Specifically, is it considered class warfare to point out that most of the tax cut benefits go to the wealthy, as opposed to the less wealthy? And can you give us what the President considers a working definition of what class warfare is?

MR. FLEISCHER: First of all, it's inaccurate to say that the benefits will go to the wealthy.

Q: Regardless of whether it's accurate or inaccurate, if you think it is, is it class warfare to point that out?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think it's inaccurate. And because it's inaccurate, it is used in the political lexicon as a way to divide and to play class warfare in an effort to portray some Americans as unworthy of tax relief and other Americans as worthy of tax relief based on their class. That is class warfare, in the President's judgment.

Q: So someone who legitimately feels that way, they may be mistaken, but you're saying they're not mistaken, they're using it for their own political purpose?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President defines it as class warfare, yes.

So, um, the president wants to unify people, like say, me and a billionaire. And he'll do that by, um, implementing a plan that, how's that go again, will cut a nice chunk out of the taxes that the billionaire pays. And he'll give me diddly-squat. Unity!

Except that Ari points out that it's inaccurate to say that the benefits will go to the wealthy, even if poor people don't tend to own lots of stock (a little known fact outside the beltway, I suppose).

Of course, the president doesn't want to say that any person or group of persons is unworthy of tax relief, so what he's cleverly done is propose a bill that would say that only people with dividend-bearing stocks and other (mostly family-related) qualifications are worthy of tax relief.

Which, you know, tends to come across to normal folk like myself as something like "Dear Todd, I'm from the government, and I know that you are unworthy of a tax break because the stock you own pays crap for dividends and you don't have a family," even though it's obvious President Bush is apparently saying the exact opposite of that, or something.

It's enough to make one hope that Bush will declare war on class warfare, and that we'll eventually start detaining people offshore for secret military tribunals when they mention that the middle class never gets the good tax breaks or whatever. Spit.

Here's a nugget of wisdom from the January 13, 2003 press briefing:

MR. FLEISCHER: The American people are the least willing people in the world to go to war. The American people are also people who understand the need to protect ourselves from an enemy that has weapons that may seek to use them again, particularly after what we went through on September 11th. And this is what the President has to weigh, is when it reaches a tipping point in his judgment that the price of inaction is greater than the price of action; the risks of doing nothing will lead to another attack on the United States. These are the difficult judgments the President of the United States has to make. He has not yet made them.

Sure, sure, we in America sure hate war. I mean, the majority of us approve of sending our kids off to die for some secret reason in Iraq and all, but you know, we're not happy about it or whatever.

But hold on a second. Did Ari mention September 11th? Did he say "an enemy that has weapons that may seek to use them again, particularly after what we went through on September 11th" or was it just me and my emphasis?

Um, pop quiz time. Who attacked us on September 11th? When was the first time Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against Americans that they could use them "again"? Or is someone cleverly confusing Iraq and al Qaeda and all those foreigners over there who talk about Allah ... you know the ones?

More from the same briefing:

Q: All right, and the second question ... we've seen then Governor Bush's record on death penalty cases in Texas. What is his stand on what Governor Ryan has done?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that these are matters that states review under the state laws. He has made no specific comment about what Illinois has done in this case. The President believes in, just as he said when he was governor of Texas, he didn't think it was the purview of the federal government to dictate to the states how they should have their own laws be administered.

...

Q: But under this most recent situation, there's a lot of controversy with it. Does he at least believe there needs to be some kind of study before other states take this kind of action that Governor Ryan has taken?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President does not tell states how to conduct their business. These are individual judgments that the elected officials in these sovereign 50 states are paid to make on the basis of information on how their state systems are run. It is not the federal system, these are 50 different state systems.

Ha ha. Ho ho. Bush and states' rights. Good one.

From the January 14, 2003 press briefing:

Q: Why do you go so far out of your way to say that the burden is not on the inspectors? I mean, does the President think that the inspectors are doing any good? Does he care what they say or what they conclude? Or does he simply believe either Saddam Hussein puts up or shuts up and the U.S. gets ready to go to war?

MR. FLEISCHER: Of course, the President thinks that they're doing good, and that's why he wanted them to go there. But the fact of the matter is if Saddam Hussein is hiding his weapons from them, it makes it very hard for them to fulfill their mission. And this is why the inspectors will be the first to tell you, if Iraq fails to cooperate, it makes their mission very, very difficult to prove whether Saddam Hussein does or does not have the so-called smoking gun. Because smoking guns, as we know, can be hidden.

Q: Well, then, what is the United States doing specifically to help them do a good job? What's the evidence of that good job that they're doing, and what specifically is Saddam Hussein holding out on?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the question is Saddam Hussein has had a history of failing to cooperate with the inspectors. He has the ability and the means to hide the weapons that he has developed and that he is developing. I think the declaration that he made is proof positive that he has withheld information about his weapons of mass destruction program, programs that these previous inspectors said were there when they were forced out of the country in 1998. And now Saddam Hussein still has failed to account for the weapons that's there. And these are statements that come from Hans Blix and Dr. ElBaradei about what is ... the gaps that are in the declaration.

Q: What help are giving, if we know about all this?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as Dr. Blix said yesterday, that he is satisfied with the help that he has been getting from the United States government.

Q: But Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei are the experts. They're the ... that's why they're there. They're the experts. They say they need months to get that proof positive, to get the answer to the question. Why does the President think he knows better?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President has made plain that the burden does not fall on the inspectors; the burden falls on Saddam Hussein to comply with the inspectors. And that's the judgment of the President, having judged Iraq's past behavior, their ability to fool the inspectors, to deceive the inspectors, to hide things from the inspectors, and Saddam Hussein's motives, moving forward, in terms of whether he has indeed changed and is at this time cooperating. The President has seen no proof that this time he is complying and willing to disarm.

Q: But the inspectors aren't saying they're being fooled, they're being duped. Does the President think that he knows better than they do as to how effective their work can be?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the inspectors have raised a number of concerns that they have, and they have said they don't believe they're getting full cooperation and compliance from Saddam Hussein. They have found problems that they have cited. And the President is content to let them continue in their work, of course. And the President is looking forward to the January 27th date. He believes it will be an important date. And as I said yesterday, the President hasn't put a specific date on when he believes the inspections will come to some type of conclusion or not. But the President's message is clear to Saddam Hussein, that he needs to comply.

Q: It's not up to the inspectors to judge how effective their own work is and can be; it's up to the President to say if their work is over ...

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think it's something that we're going to continue to work together on.

Q: But it seems like you've already decided.

MR. FLEISCHER: Patsy.

Q: Everything you say makes it suggest that you've already decided that the answer is that they haven't cooperated.

MR. FLEISCHER: But they haven't cooperated.

Q: No matter what the inspectors say?

MR. FLEISCHER: Patsy.

Q: No matter what.

I just like how that devolves from pointed discussion into "I'm not going to talk to you anymore." Like two lovers fighting. Very dramatic. I bet you'll see that almost word-for-word in an upcoming West Wing episode.

And finally, from the January 15, 2003 press briefing:

Q: One more on the topic of race. Does the President consider racial diversity a plus when it comes to hiring people within the White House or within the administration?

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I defer on all questions until you see the President's ...

Q: You can't defer something that has nothing to do with this case.

MR. FLEISCHER: I just did.

Q: Wait a second, Ari. I don't think ... I think people expect to have that question answered when it comes to hiring practices at the White House. It doesn't relate to college admissions. I'm asking you whether he believes ...

MR. FLEISCHER: In the obvious context of what is about to happen and is pending, in terms of you being able to hear from the President about this ...

Q: It has nothing to do with the case. It's an issue. Has anybody within the White House ever said that it was a plus, that racial diversity was a plus within the White House when it came to hiring, or within the administration?

MR. FLEISCHER: April.

Whoops. Ari's regular "answer a different question in the guise of the one that was just asked" routine didn't work, nor did his secondary "defer to some upcoming statement by somebody else" shtick. Fortunately, his ultimate line of defense, the "ignore the petulant journalist and find someone with a nicer question" bit never fails.