President Bush's Interview

[Thanatoast]

I didn't see the interview, has anyone else? Here's an article from the BBC.

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3470139.stm)

What concerns me is Bush's insistence that he's a wartime president and that the country should act as if it's at war. He seems to be using this excuse to run up military spending while starving other domestic spending.

Also, he seems to think the only definition of American "power" is the use of our military. This, I think, is a dangerous way to look at the world -- everyone is our enemy and our only control over them comes from our military might. Thinking like that, war is the only solution to any problem.

However, I'm almost starting to believe that Bush isn't the root of all evil, that he's simply out of his league and being advised by bloodthirsty animals.

Any thoughts?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Thanatoast

However, I'm almost starting to believe that Bush isn't the root of all evil, that he's simply out of his league and being advised by bloodthirsty animals.


out of his league? he's been peter-principled all the way to the top. i can only think the last time he was in his league was as a drunken frat boy (and even that was at a university he wouldn't have been admitted to under normal circumstances).

[john123]

I saw it.

Tim Russert just destroyed him...and as an objective, nonpartisan journalist, that wasn't even Russert's intention.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by john123

Tim Russert just destroyed him...and as an objective, nonpartisan journalist, that wasn't even Russert's intention.

does that mean that bush destroyed himself? (i haven't seen the interview)

[john123]

Originally posted by zimv20
does that mean that bush destroyed himself? (i haven't seen the interview)

Pretty much.

I mean, hardcore Republicans will deny this...and hardcore Democrats will put their own partisan slant on it.

But if you distance yourself from it all ideologically and politically, and LISTEN to the interview -- the questions Russert asked and the answers Bush gives -- it's just embarrassing for Bush. Sometimes he dodged questions, and other times he admitted to flip flips, failures, etc. He wasn't even terribly slick about his gaffes, in my opinion.

Yeah I think he destroyed himself. But then again, I have for quite some time now thought the guy's done a really lousy job and run about the worst foreign policy the U.S. has seen since before Harry Truman. (Vietnam had bigger implications because of its scope, but at least it was in the context of a different geopolitical environment in which it was the U.S. and allies of capitalism versus the Soviet Union and allies of communism...at least then there was some SENSE to why we did it.)

[Neserk]

:D I'd hoped he would show his true colors in the interview. Anytime he isn't reading from a cue card he sounds like an idiot.

[zimv20]

i figured out the base reason bush and i disagree on just about everything.

from here (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/09/politics/campaign/09ASSE.html?hp)

The "most solemn responsibility" of an American president, Mr. Bush concluded, "is to keep this country secure."


i disagree. i say it's to defend the constitution.

[john123]

Originally posted by Neserk
:D I'd hoped he would show his true colors in the interview. Anytime he isn't reading from a cue card he sounds like an idiot.

Whoa....you think he can read?

[DavisBAnimal]

I think this interview is evidence of some of the difficulties Bush is going to have in this upcoming election cycle - you can just tell flat out he's not comfortable unscripted with the media when they are asking him tough questions (although I think his shining moment as President came during his unscripted response to the 9-11 attacks, when he broke down in front of the cameras and showed some real emotion).

The dude is not a fan of question-answer sessions, to say the least. How many press conferences has he had - what is it, like 3 or so? And everytime he does it's with the same, handpicked, administration friendly reporters. He's going to have a hard time once a lot of those hard-hitting questions that have been acumulating over his presidency start actually getting asked during the inevitable press circus that surrounds any major election.

Davis

[Neserk]

Originally posted by john123
Whoa....you think he can read?

Good point... but he must because once in a blue moon he can make a statement without sounding like an idiot. I can only guess it is because he can read. Perhaps the statements are written at the 2nd grade level?

[john123]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
I think this interview is evidence of some of the difficulties Bush is going to have in this upcoming election cycle - you can just tell flat out he's not comfortable unscripted with the media when they are asking him tough questions (although I think his shining moment as President came during his unscripted response to the 9-11 attacks, when he broke down in front of the cameras and showed some real emotion).

The dude is not a fan of question-answer sessions, to say the least. How many press conferences has he had - what is it, like 3 or so? And everytime he does it's with the same, handpicked, administration friendly reporters. He's going to have a hard time once a lot of those hard-hitting questions that have been acumulating over his presidency start actually getting asked during the inevitable press circus that surrounds any major election.

Davis

I imagine he'll play this the way I would if I were him: by minimizing those kinds of situations.

Don't expect any more than three presidential debates, despite how much the Democratic nominee will want more than that.

Don't expect Q&A media, because that's not going to happen (unless GWB suddenly finds himself down substantially). Expect every attempt to maintain the status quo while letting the financial juggernaut raise money to do good-feeling TV ads and ads that slam the Democratic nominee.

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by john123
I imagine he'll play this the way I would if I were him: by minimizing those kinds of situations.

Don't expect any more than three presidential debates, despite how much the Democratic nominee will want more than that.

Don't expect Q&A media, because that's not going to happen (unless GWB suddenly finds himself down substantially). Expect every attempt to maintain the status quo while letting the financial juggernaut raise money to do good-feeling TV ads and ads that slam the Democratic nominee.

I'm sure this will be his strategy, but he won't be able to avoid the media entirely during this election cycle. His avoidance may work to some extent, but people are going to expect him to come out of his cocoon a bit more. This interview was the second unscripted encounter with media in which he made a bit of an ass of himself in less than two weeks - the first being that awkward exchange at that Ribs place. It's already started.

Davis

[john123]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
the first being that awkward exchange at that Ribs place

You heard about that too, eh?

[kuyu]

The funniest part of the whole thing was when Russert held up the Time magazine with the "love him, hate him" thing.

Also, did anyone catch the point-blank skull n bones question? For those who don't know, both Kerry and Bush are members of one of the most secretive organizations on the planet. Every member winds up running some section of the government.

Hmmm. Bones vs. Bones. I guess they can't lose.

[IJ Reilly]

Bush didn't even say he was a "wartime president." He said he was a "war president." Now, there's an interesting choice of words.

[john123]

Originally posted by kuyu
The funniest part of the whole thing was when Russert held up the Time magazine with the "love him, hate him" thing.

Also, did anyone catch the point-blank skull n bones question? For those who don't know, both Kerry and Bush are members of one of the most secretive organizations on the planet. Every member winds up running some section of the government.

Hmmm. Bones vs. Bones. I guess they can't lose.

The Skull and Bones question was hilarious. Bush's answer to it was the one time during the interview I stopped being pissed off and smiled. Very funny...

[zimv20]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
that awkward exchange at that Ribs place.

i hadn't heard about this. what is it?

[john123]

Originally posted by zimv20
i hadn't heard about this. what is it?

This is not a joke (look at the URL):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040122-5.html

[3rdpath]

i watched the interview and i thought Russert did a superb job. each of his questions contained factual information that left bush very little wiggle room...so bush just ducked most of them....relying on well-rehearsed scripts.

and i agree, his " i am a war president " and " i make decisions here in the oval office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind"....are quite telling of his mindset.

Russerts use of reference materials was also nice...once again, bush chose not to talk about the facts. bush obviously prefers to look at the 'big' picture without any concept of the realities of implementation or ramifications.

also, he seemed VERY certain that his "military"( sheesh...) records couldn't be found regardless of the years people have spent looking for them. NTM, he clearly sees nothing conspicuous with his leaving the service early to attend harvard.

his sense of entitlement is galling. if it wasn't for his dad he'd be just another failed oilman living the life of a drunkard in a midland trailer park.

hightower said it best " bush was born on third, and thinks he hit a triple..."

[zimv20]

Originally posted by john123
This is not a joke (look at the URL):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040122-5.html


bush: You've got plenty of money in your pocket, and when you spend it, it drives the economy forward.


genius. GENIUS.

i see now that krugman has no idea what he's talking about.

[wwworry]

Plus he said he released his air national gaurd records in 2000 when he didn't. Maybe it's his own intelligence that's bad and not the CIA's.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by wwworry
Plus he said he released his air national gaurd records in 2000 when he didn't.

released to whom? his dad's pres library, alongside all his now inaccessible governor records?

SHAMEFUL

[mactastic]

Link (http://www.americanprogress.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/040208.HTM)

Scorecard from the interview....
Statement of John Podesta, President and CEO, Center for American Progress

"President Bush wouldn't have agreed to an hour long network interview without a good reason and today he had one: in the span of a week he's faced the dual challenges of a loss of credibility on the war in Iraq and his management of the economy.

"His statement this morning that he would cut the deficit in half is simply laughable. Analyses by independent organizations like Goldman Sachs, the Concord Coalition, the Committee for Economic Development, and Decision Economics all project deficits of about $5 trillion over the next decade, even assuming a return to strong growth."

"The President's statement that there is ‘good momentum' on the job creation front is dishonest: while we are averaging 72,000 new private sector jobs created per month, at that pace, it would not be until May 2007 that this President would have created his first net job. President Bush is well on his way to having the worst job creation record since the Great Depression. His bragging today only served to reinforce his lack of credibility on managing the nation's economy.

"And what the President referred to as a "word contest" regarding the threat from Iraq is, in fact, his attempt to change the rationale for going to war and rewrite the history of what has occurred. His argument today that Iraq had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction and pass them into the hands of shadowy terrorist networks is inconsistent with the intelligence provided to him.

President Bush sought to restore his credibility today and he clearly failed to do so."

CLAIM vs. FACT
Pre-War Assertions

PRE-WAR INTELLIGENCE HYPE

CLAIM: "I expected to find the weapons [because] I based my decision on the best intelligence possible...The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon."

FACT - WHITE HOUSE REPEATEDY WARNED BY INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY: The Washington Post reported this weekend, "President Bush and his top advisers ignored many of the caveats and qualifiers included in the classified report on Saddam Hussein's weapons." Specifically, the President made unequivocal statements that Iraq "has got chemical weapons" two months after the DIA concluded that there was "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons." He said, "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production" three months after the White House received an intelligence report that clearly indicated Department of Energy experts concluded the tubes were not intended to produce uranium enrichment centrifuges. He said, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," three months after "the CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about" the claim. [Sources: WP, 2/7/04; Bush statement, 11/3/02; DIA report, 2002; Bush statement, 1/28/03; NIE, October 2002; WP, 7/23/03; Bush statement, 10/7/02; WP, 9/26/03]

IGNORING INTELLIGENCE

CLAIM: "We looked at the intelligence."

FACT – WHITE HOUSE IGNORED INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS: Knight Ridder reported that CIA officers "said President Bush ignored warnings" that his WMD case was weak. And Greg Thielmann, the Bush State Department's top intelligence official, "said suspicions were presented as fact, and contrary arguments ignored." Knight Ridder later reported, "Senior diplomatic, intelligence and military officials have charged that Bush and his top aides made assertions about Iraq's banned weapons programs and alleged links to al-Qaeda that weren't supported by credible intelligence, and that they ignored intelligence that didn't support their policies." [Knight-Ridder, 6/13/03; CBS News, 6/7/03; Knight Ridder, 6/28/03]

IGNORING INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS

CLAIM: "The international community thought he had weapons."

FACT – INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TOLD WHITE HOUSE THE OPPOSITE: The IAEA and U.N. both repeatedly told the Administration it had no evidence that Iraq possessed WMD. On 2/15/03, the IAEA said that, "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq." On 3/7/03 IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said nuclear experts have found "no indication" that Iraq has tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge enrichment of uranium. At the same time, AP reported that "U.N. weapons inspectors have not found any 'smoking guns' in Iraq during their search for weapons WMD." AP also reported, "U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said his teams have not uncovered any WMD." [Source: U.S. State Department, 2/14/03; NY Times, 3/7/03; AP, 1/9/03; AP, 2/14/03]

INFORMING CONGRESS OF INTELLIGENCE CAVEATS

CLAIM: "I went to Congress with the same intelligence. Congress saw the same intelligence I had, and they looked at exactly what I looked at."

FACT – CONGRESS WAS OUTRAGED AT PRESENTATION BY THE WHITE HOUSE: The New Republic reported, "Senators were outraged to find that intelligence info given to them omitted the qualifications and countervailing evidence that had characterized the classified version and played up the claims that strengthened the administration's case for war." According to Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), many House members were only convinced to support the war after the Administration "showed them a photograph of a small, unmanned airplane spraying a liquid in what appeared to be a test for delivering chemical and biological agents," despite the U.S. Air Force telling the Administration it "sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03; Wilkes Barre Times Leader, 1/6/04; WP, 9/26/03]

CLAIM vs. FACT
Pre-War Assertions

PRE-WAR "IMMINENT THREAT" ASSERTION

CLAIM: "I believe it is essential that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It's too late if they become imminent."

FACT – ADMINISTRATION REPEATEDLY CLAIMED IRAQ WAS AN "IMMINENT THREAT": The Bush Administration repeatedly claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat before the war – not that it would "become imminent." Specifically, White House communications director Dan Bartlett was asked on CNN: "Is [Saddam Hussein] an imminent threat to US interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?" Bartlett replied, "Well, of course he is." Similarly, when White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked whether America went to war in Iraq because of an imminent threat, he replied, "Absolutely." And White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the reason NATO allies – including the U.S. - should support the defense of one of its members from Iraq was because "this is about an imminent threat." Additionally, the Administration used "immediate," "urgent" and "mortal" to describe the Iraq threat to the United States. [Source: American Progress list, 1/29/04]

BUSH'S THREAT RHETORIC BEFORE THE WAR

CLAIM: "I think, if I might remind you that in my language I called it a grave and gathering threat, but I don't want to get into word contests."

FACT – BUSH MADE FAR MORE DIRE STATEMENTS BEFORE THE WAR: While the President did call Iraq a "grave and gathering" threat, that was not all he said. On 11/23/02, he said Iraq posed a "unique and urgent threat." On 1/3/03 he said "Iraq is a threat to any American." On 10/28/02 he said Iraq was "a real and dangerous threat" to America. On 10/2/02 he said, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency" and that Iraq posed "a grave threat" to America. [Bush, 11/23/02; Bush; 1/3/03; Bush, 10/28/02; Bush, 10/2/02; Bush, 10/2/02]

SADDAM-AL QAEDA-WMD CONNECTION

CLAIM: "Iraq had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network."

FACT – ASSERTION BELIES PREVIOUS INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS: This assertion belies the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate which told the White House that Iraq would most likely only coordinate with Al Qaeda if the U.S. invaded Iraq. As the NYT reported, "[A] CIA assessment said last October: 'Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks' in the United States." The CIA added that Saddam might order attacks with WMD as 'his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.'" Previously, the CIA had told the White House that Iraq "has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups." And David Kay himself said, " I found no real connection between WMD and terrorists" in Iraq. [Source: NIE, 2002; NY Times, 1/29/03; NY Times, 2/6/02; NBC News, 1/26/04]

[kuyu]

Politicians lie. They always have, and always will. Liars fill both sides of the aisle.

Rep's are sure dem's are evil, and Dem's are sure rep's are evil. One of the two must be lying.

Maybe it's a little of both.

Hence the saying, "Don't vote, you'll just encourage them" (origin unknown).

One things for sure, I'm going to vote for the skull and bones member!;)

[zimv20]

thanks for the post, mactastic. how any reasonable person can review the evidence and chalk it up to 'politicians always lie' is beyond me.

they get away w/ it because we let them.

[kuyu]

Originally posted by zimv20
how any reasonable person can review the evidence and chalk it up to 'politicians always lie' is beyond me.

they get away w/ it because we let them.

Do you disagree that politicians always lie? As far as I know, I've never heard of an honest one.

I'm not saying that they lie for lyings sake, mind you, I am just stating that the job demands empty promises. It's part of the whole election process, and always has been.

Things have gotten better though. George Washington bought votes for one pint of beer apiece! That's my kind of candidate.:)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by kuyu
Do you disagree that politicians always lie?

yes, i disagree. (i'm seldom given to absolutes)

[john123]

Originally posted by kuyu
Do you disagree that politicians always lie? As far as I know, I've never heard of an honest one.

I'm not saying that they lie for lyings sake, mind you, I am just stating that the job demands empty promises. It's part of the whole election process, and always has been.

Things have gotten better though. George Washington bought votes for one pint of beer apiece! That's my kind of candidate.:)

That's not always entirely true.
(1) There is a difference between a lie and a failure to achieve an objective.
(2) At lower levels of government, lofty campaign promises are fewer, and those that are made are more attainable. You will find many very popular politicians who have no need to "lie," obfuscate, etc.

[Sayhey]

Not all politicians lies end in the invasion of another country and the deaths of hundreds of our fellow citizens and thousands of innocents. Now to be fair, George certainly didn't invent the "lies to get us into war" game, but that doesn't mean he should get away with it anymore than Johnson or McKinley should have.

[kuyu]

Originally posted by Sayhey
George certainly didn't invent the "lies to get us into war" game, but that doesn't mean he should get away with it anymore than Johnson or McKinley should have.

I totally agree. If we went to war over a total figment of W's imagination, then Gdub should be held accountable. I think a lot of people screwed up, and Bush just happens to be their boss (which makes him accountable).

I should qualify my "all politicians lie" comment. In my area, we haven't had an honest politician in years. Our mayors, congressmen, governors, state senators, and city councilmen have done little else but lie and slander for the past 4-5 years.

Google Lexington, KY and you'll see where I'm coming from with my bold statement.

Also, around here, Democrats have run the show for 32 years... run it into the ground. There's a mini political revolution afoot in central Kentucky. We happened to get the worst the Democratic party had to offer, and it left our citizens with a sour taste for the left (I know the whole party isn't corrupt). We've been promised education reform for 30+ years, and all we got was the worst school system in America.

Sorry if my statement was too broad, but in my neck of the woods, it's right on the money.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by zimv20
thanks for the post, mactastic.

No problem. I only posted the first half of the critique, what with the 10,000 character limit and all. The other half is just as interesting.

[john123]

Originally posted by kuyu
I totally agree. If we went to war over a total figment of W's imagination, then Gdub should be held accountable. I think a lot of people screwed up, and Bush just happens to be their boss (which makes him accountable).

I should qualify my "all politicians lie" comment. In my area, we haven't had an honest politician in years. Our mayors, congressmen, governors, state senators, and city councilmen have done little else but lie and slander for the past 4-5 years.

Google Lexington, KY and you'll see where I'm coming from with my bold statement.

Also, around here, Democrats have run the show for 32 years... run it into the ground. There's a mini political revolution afoot in central Kentucky. We happened to get the worst the Democratic party had to offer, and it left our citizens with a sour taste for the left (I know the whole party isn't corrupt). We've been promised education reform for 30+ years, and all we got was the worst school system in America.

Sorry if my statement was too broad, but in my neck of the woods, it's right on the money.

Strangely enough, I'm familiar with your part of the country.

Your mayor is an independent, not a Democrat.

As for the governor, sure, Patton screwed up big time. Then again, Fletcher has sure ticked a LOT of people off in a very short period of time. I'd call it fiscally irresponsible.

And that Democratic machine you're talking about is pretty clearly changing, purging a lot of the "bad" elements out (and "bad" elements appear in both parties) in favor of a more modern approach.

[kuyu]

Originally posted by john123
Strangely enough, I'm familiar with your part of the country.

Your mayor is an independent, not a Democrat.



I never said she was. I was talking about the gov's office. I'm a student, so I know first hand what the educational system lacks.

For the mayor, she's a nice lady (teaches at my uni), but her actual agenda is a far cry from her campaign agenda.

Are you a Lexingtonian too?:)

[john123]

Originally posted by kuyu
I never said she was. I was talking about the gov's office. I'm a student, so I know first hand what the educational system lacks.

For the mayor, she's a nice lady (teaches at my uni), but her actual agenda is a far cry from her campaign agenda.

Are you a Lexingtonian too?:)

No -- I've been there, but am not from there. :)

I don't think that Fletcher is going to be a source of hope for your educational system. I understand the challenges that you all are facing, but that guy's not the solution. :confused: