When a person is attacked, it’s human nature to fight
back. The U.S. didn’t just sit around after Pearl Harbor was
attacked. Or when France decided not to support the Iraqi invasion,
how silly would it have been not to change the name of our favorite
snack to “freedom fries”?
If the U.S. hadn’t retaliated in both of these cases, we
would have risked our security, reputation and pride. We know that
defending oneself is extremely important for survival in this harsh
world.
Which is why I must ask the Secret Service why it did not, for
the love of God and good publicity, remove the president or Stephen
Colbert from the April 29 White House Correspondents’
Association Dinner.
The host of “The Colbert Report” on Comedy Central
was a keynote speaker for the dinner. This is an annual event,
during which the reporters who ask the White House questions joke
with the officials who refuse to answer them.
Those who invited Colbert to speak probably thought he would
amuse them with some lighthearted fare.
Instead, he nearly made them cry. Colbert hit them square in the
face with problems that both the president and the press attempt to
talk their ways around. And more importantly, he reminded the
public about issues that the administration and the media work hard
to make us forget.
He went after the president for the ill-planned invasion of
Iraq. “I believe the government that governs best is the
government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set
up a fabulous government in Iraq,” he said.
Colbert pointed out that the war ““ and the money and blood
that paid for it ““ should not be seen as a bad decision that
is now a fact of life. Rather, it continues to consist of a series
of bad decisions and ongoing failure.
He also scolded the press for their blind acceptance,
particularly concerning the question of weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq, something for which the New York Times issued a public
apology.
“Write that novel … the one about the intrepid
Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the
administration. You know ““ fiction,” said Colbert.
At first audience members twittered with nervous laughter, but
soon after they resembled a room of stomach flu sufferers.
Dumb Bush jokes had flown across the room all night, but when
Colbert mocked him for basing decisions on his “gut”
and refusing to change his mind despite all logic, no one laughed.
In fact, the complexions of the attendees seemed to turn an even
deeper shade of green. Apparently they’ve spent so much time
away from the truth that they have lost their immunity.
The media did their part to salvage the president’s image
and their own by ignoring these hilarious and vicious comments. In
some news reports about covered the dinner, Colbert wasn’t
mentioned at all.
The apologies issued by various media outlets for not adequately
scrutinizing prewar intelligence was sweet, but does it mean
anything now?
In this age of precarious foreign policy and internal government
scandal, can we rebuild trust with reporters who are even incapable
of fairly reporting dinner parties?
Thanks to such modern conveniences as C-SPAN’s Web site
and Google, however, Colbert’s speech can be viewed by anyone
with a decent Internet connection. It’s one of the most
popular clips online, and with good reason ““ the speech
highlights some of the country’s most critical problems with
a blunt honesty that both politicians and reporters lack.
This is the very reason President Bush had no business being
that close to Colbert. This is the same man only allowed to address
those with Jerry Falwell’s face tattooed on their chests.
What did they expect to hear from someone who makes a living
making fun of the Bush administration? And they know Bush
doesn’t watch or read the news, so he had no way of
anticipating the disaster himself.
Even worse, Bush didn’t offer a response. As I explained
earlier, defending yourself after an attack is as American as apple
pie, pickup trucks and illegal wire-tapping. Bush’s inability
to whip out a good comeback makes him look weak ““ which, as
we know, means the terrorists win.
In all fairness, though, I’m not sure he could launch a
counterattack even if he wanted to. Honestly, what is he going to
say? That the war in Iraq looks good, or even decent? That his
presidency and poll numbers aren’t taking a similar journey
to what Colbert described as “the Titanic”?
The only response anyone has been able to conjure up so far has
come from Richard Cohen, a columnist for The Washington Post.
“Stephen Colbert was not funny,” he wrote.
Of course he wasn’t funny. He was touching on subjects
like the poor planning in Iraq that is costing hundreds of lives
and the ability of the press to be critical of the administration
only when poll numbers are sinking.
Funny could have been laughed off and forgotten. Colbert was
being honest, a concept so foreign to the White House and the media
that both sides have no way of coping.
Those who protect our president from reality must begin doing a
better job. The only way to survive a fight is to win or run.
Simply sitting there is a surefire way to lose. Sure, the jokes may
fly over his head at first, but they’ll come back to haunt
him.
E-mail Strickland at kstrickland@media.ucla.edu. Send
general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.