Cliff LyonBush Belongs on Couch In Howard Baker’s Minds Eye
As James Baker took questions today at the Iraq Study Group briefing:
A CBS reporter asked.
You are a close friend of the president’s father. You recommend negotiating with the Iranians. This would require a 180 degree turn for the president, do you think Bush will do that?
Baker responded;
I’ve worked for four presidents and I am always asked to compare them. I don’t do that. I don’t put presidents on the couch. I don’t psychologically analyze these guys.
Classic Freudian slip. He didn’t have to say ‘couch.’ He could have stopped after ‘I don’t do that.’ Or, he could have said something like, ‘I don’t do that. The president is an open-minded man and will make the final decision.’ Or he could have said, ‘I don’t do that. The president is the decider’ (or something to that effect).
…But he didn’t. He said ‘couch’ i.e., nutso, patso, ferruckt, barmy, batty, berserk, bonkers, cracked, crazed, cuckoo, daft, delirious, demented, deranged, dingy, dippy, erratic, flaky, flipped, flipped out, haywire, idiotic, insane, kooky, lunatic, mad, maniacal, mental, moonstruck, nuts, nutty, potty, psycho, screw loose, screwy, touched, unbalanced, unglued, unhinged, unzipped, wacky, whacked.
I can’t think of a situation prior to this president in which for James Baker, the idea of ‘couch’ might have entered his mind in reference to a reason not to answer a question, especially about one of his own, let alone the son of his best friend, the president’s father.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:44 am
Cliff,…in your para, above, starting “But he didn’t, He said ‘COUCH’ ie, nutso,…etc, etc. You lifted the words right off of my keyboard.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Cliff,
Do infer correctly from one of the quotes you supply that you support negotiating with the Iranian government?
I can’t see how it would help. They have declared that they will wipe America out as soon as they have the means to do so.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:42 am
James Baker supports negotiating with Iran and Syria. James Baker is hand in glove with the Saudis. James Baker was in favor of leaving the Soviet Union in place. James Baker was in favor of leaving Saddam Hussein in place after Operation Desert Storm. James Baker vetoed any more than one (former) member of the military on the ISG, because he already knew what he wanted the document to say. So why is everyone in the media touting James Baker as America’s Knight in Shining Armor?
December 12th, 2006 at 10:45 am
I don’t know if Baker is regarded by anyone as a knight in shining armor. The ISG proposal for Iraq isn’t as workable as Rep. Murtha’s proposal, but at least the report includes a reality-based view of what is happening in Iraq. One of the potential outcomes if our forces stay in the thick of the Iraqi civil war is that we’ll help the Shiites eliminate all Sunni resistance– doubt if the Saudis are in favor of that. Baker’s alliance with the Saudi monarchy might help us get out of there.