The OAO Tuesday Night with the Texan

[Guest Astro]

Comment at will

[Guest Astro]

Bush bashes the Iraq soilders efforts

 

Then a reporter asks everything we've been asking (WMD etc)

 

Bush made a quick comeback... He even spoke of "conspricy theorists"

[Guest Astro]

Oil revenues bigger than we thought "pretty darn significant"

 

Iraqi's pleased we got rid of Hussein

 

Iraqi not happied to be occupied

[Mole 0]

What about the FCC and Janet's boob? THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW!!!

[Guest Astro]

Does anyone else picture Ralph Wiggum whenever Mole posts?

[NoCalMike 0]

I am in class right now.....is the speech over? How many actual questions were asked/answered?

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

The speech is over and he's still going. I'm sure the full thing will be up on all the major websites and repeating on C-SPAN over and over. He's answering a lot of questions, sorta half-dodging parts.

[Guest Astro]

"I have some must calls...sorry"

 

 

Does he have certain press junkets he needs to call out first?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

So, how do you think that went?

 

for a press conference, i think it was quite ugly..

[Guest Cerebus]

I spent the whole time moping that Scrubs wasn't on to help alleviate the pain of my knee.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Best moment was when President Bush called the AP reporter You.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm...ubsection=world

 

"We'll also need to continue training the Iraqi troops. I was disappointed in the performance of some of the troops. Some of the units performed brilliantly; some of them didn't, and we need to find out why."

 

"Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale." (Bojinka??)

 

"Some of the debate really center around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing and free."

 

"Oceans don't protect us. They don't protect us from killers"

 

"I plan on telling the American people that I've got a plan to win the war on terror. And I believe they'll stay with me."

 

"I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it."

 

"Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders. He was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States." - (wasn't he just immiment??)

 

"What else -- part of the question -- oh, oil revenues. Well, the oil revenues are -- they're bigger than we thought they would be at this point in time. I mean, one year after the liberation of Iraq, the revenues of the oil stream is pretty darn significant. One of the things I was concerned about prior to going into Iraq was that the oil fields would be destroyed."

[Art Sandusky 0]

The "I've got a plan if you'll stay with me" line sounds like he's trying to sell a car.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."

 

- Bush, State of the Union

Jan. 28, 2003

 

-

 

"There was nothing in there that said, you know, there's an imminent attack. There was nothing in this report to me that said, 'oh, by the way, we've got intelligence that says something is about to happen in America,"

 

- Bush, responding to questions about the Aug. 6, 2001 PDB

Apr. 13, 2004

[Guest OctoberBlood]

He did a good job last night. The improv questions was a tough one for him, and he did it well. Despite some stupid ass questions from the reporters.

[BUTT 0]

From what I saw of the speech, he didn't look too good up there, although I'll admit some of the reporters were giving him an awfully hard time.

 

However:

 

"Some of the debate really center around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing and free."

 

So now he's playing the race card? If you aren't with him on Iraq, you're a racist? It sounds like Bush has been getting campaign advice from Al Sharpton.

 

 

EDIT: I think I misinterpreted his quote about the soldiers. I didn't realize he was talking about the actual Iraqis themselves, I thought he meant the U.S. troops in Iraq.

[Guest MikeSC]

"Some of the debate really center around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing and free."

 

So now he's playing the race card?  If you aren't with him on Iraq, you're a racist?  It sounds like Bush has been getting campaign advice from Al Sharpton.

Actually, I think what he was said was quite intelligent. There seems to be a deep undercurrent of assumption that the Iraqis want to be oppressed and can't handle democracy. It's not all that dissimilar to the belief that Germany and Japan couldn't "do" democracy following World War II. He's simply noting something I believe --- that EVERYBODY wants the same things in life.

 

EVERYBODY wants freedom. To assume that the Iraqis DON'T is insulting to the Iraqis.

EDIT:  I think I misinterpreted his quote about the soldiers.  I didn't realize he was talking about the actual Iraqis themselves, I thought he meant the U.S. troops in Iraq.

I was about to ask you about that. I thought he was referring to the Iraqi military and police, which in cases, doesn't seem all that interested in preventing violence.

"Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale." (Bojinka??)

Rob, that is a fair assessment.

 

Again, I go back to Pearl Harbor. Was there intel that Japan wanted to attack Pearl Harbor? Yes. We definitely had some --- but amidst the untold millions of pieces we get everyday, we are unable to act on all of them.

 

I simply want Bush to answer with this: "OK, let's say we knew everything ahead of time. What, precisely, would you propose we do? Shut down Manhattan --- oh, wait, they almost definitely had secondary targets."

-=Mike

[Guest MD2020]

Gregg Easterbrook had a good article about alternative history. Don't know if it was posted already:

 

http://tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=1545

 

 

As for the Press Conference, as a link on Instapundit put it, did the press become Dr. Phil or Oprah--apologies, asking him about mistakes, etc. Sure, these are topics of discussion, but it seemed, to me, that the press kept harping on it.

[Guest netslob]

for no reason i can fathom, i actually watched this last night (well, not really "Watched"...i was drunk and my mind was wandering), and maybe it's just me, but did it seem to anyone else that he was being fed his lines? it just seemed by the way he talked, the cadence he spoke in, that he was being told what to say in an earpiece and he was just parroting it. i dunno, maybe it was the booze...

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Rob, that is a fair assessment.

 

Again, I go back to Pearl Harbor. Was there intel that Japan wanted to attack Pearl Harbor? Yes. We definitely had some --- but amidst the untold millions of pieces we get everyday, we are unable to act on all of them.

 

and we were unable to act after the arrest of Zacarias Moussaouri as well?

 

Still, with the rumors of how an 'Operation Bojinka' was stopped, I guess there could be something drawn out of that.

 

AQ's interest in hijacking was mentioned in that report, and before that.

 

But, has AQ ever taken hostages in the time before 9/11? Was it still more reasonable that they would take hostages, instead of using the planes as weapons. Hadn't almost all of the AQ attacks or plots involved trying to kill alot of people?

 

And unless there is a context/perspective here, there is more to suggest AQ would attack than suggested a Japanese attack. AQ had attacked American interests (embassies), ships (Cole) and buildings (WTC).

 

I simply want Bush to answer with this: "OK, let's say we knew everything ahead of time. What, precisely, would you propose we do? Shut down Manhattan --- oh, wait, they almost definitely had secondary targets."

 

I'm not sure if Bush could pull that off. And one thing to do.. if they knew everything, would be stopping the hijackers from boarding.

 

Another thing that stood out to me during the press conference was this quote, that I mentioned earlier.

 

"Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders. He was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States."

 

Why did it stand out?

 

because the spin lately was that Bush attacked Iraq to stop Saddam from becoming a threat. Bush even mentioned it in his speeches at that time. He didn't want to wait until Saddam was a threat. Yet, he comes out and says that Saddam was a threat at that time. Contradicting what he had said before.

 

Honestly, Bush looked really shaky up there, and he was put on the ropes by a consistant line of questioning. Basically, he will be hit more on the fact that he doesn't admit fault or weakness. Even if this is exaggerated after the last President, who had admitted fault, alot. Bush will be hammered on that.

 

And to recap, the questions from last night.

 

1.- Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half Americans now support it. What does that say to you and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

 

2.- What's your best prediction on how long US troops will have to be in Iraq? And it sounds like you will have to add some troops; is that a fair assessment?

 

3.- Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq that US troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers, that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but as Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld said, we know where they are. How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents, who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series a false premises?

 

4.- To move to the 9/11 Commission. You, yourself, have acknowledged that Osama bin Laden was not a central focus of the administration in the months before September 11th. "I was not on point," you told the journalist, Bob Woodward, "I didn't feel that sense of urgency." Two-and-a-half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?

 

5.- Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked. One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism? And do you believe there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?

 

6.- Mr. President, good evening. You've talked on the -- I'd like to ask you about the August 6th PDB. (..) You mentioned it at Fort Hood on Sunday. You said -- you pointed out that it did not warn of a hijacking of airplanes to crash into buildings, but that it warned of hijacking to, obviously, take hostages and to secure the release of extremists being held by the US Did that trigger some specific actions on your part and the administration, since it dealt with potentially hundreds of lives and a blackmail attempt on the United States government?

 

7.- You mentioned the PDB and the assurance you got that the FBI was working on terrorism investigations here. The number they had used was 70. But we learned today in the September 11th hearings that the Acting Director of the FBI at the time says -- now says the FBI tells him that number was wrong, that he doesn't even know how it got into your PDB. And two of the commissioners strongly suggested the number was exaggerated. Have you learned anything else about that report since that time? And do you now believe you were falsely comforted by the FBI?

 

8.- Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9/11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?

 

9.- You mentioned 17 of the 26 NATO members providing some help on the ground in Iraq. But if you look at the numbers -- 135,000 US troops, 10,000 or 12,000 British troops, then the next largest, perhaps even the second largest contingent of guns on the ground are private contractors -- literally, hired guns. Your critics, including your Democratic opponent, say that's proof to them your coalition is window dressing. How would you answer those critics? And can you assure the American people that post-sovereignty, when the handover takes place, that there will be more burden sharing by allies, in terms of security forces?

 

10.- Mr. President, why are you and the Vice President insisting on appearing together before the 9/11 Commission? And, Mr. President, who will you be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?

 

11.- You have been accused of letting the 9/11 threat mature too far, but not letting the Iraq threat mature far enough. First, could you respond to that general criticism? And, secondly, in the wake of these two conflicts, what is the appropriate threat level to justify action in perhaps other situations going forward?

 

12.- Sir, you've made it very clear tonight that you're committed to continuing the mission in Iraq. Yet, as Terry pointed out, increasing numbers of Americans have qualms about it. And this is an election year. Will it have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?

 

13.- In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?

 

14.- Looking forward about keeping the United States safe -- a group representing about several thousand FBI agents today wrote to your administration begging you not to split up the law enforcement and the counterterrorism, because they say it ties their hands, it's blinders -- yet, you mentioned yesterday that you think perhaps the time has come for some real intelligence reforms. That can't happen without real leadership from the White House. Will you, and how will you?

 

15.- Following on both Judy's and John's questions, and it comes out of what you just said in some ways, with public support for your policies in Iraq falling off the way they have -- quite significantly over the past couple of months -- I guess I'd like to know if you feel in any way that you've failed as a communicator on this topic? Because -- (..) Well, you deliver a lot of speeches and a lot of them contain similar phrases, and they vary very little from one to the next. And they often include a pretty upbeat assessment of how things are going -- with the exception of tonight's pretty somber assessment, this evening. (..) I guess I just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any way? You don't have many of these press conferences, where you engage in this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to really make the case to the American public?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

and some more

 

The transcripts are just coming out, and there will be plenty to pull from George W. Bush's press conference to show that he's ignorant, clueless and an embarrassment to our country.  For instance, Bush made the absolutely stunning claim that his administration was somehow successful in breaking up A. Q. Khan's "dangerous network," which is crazy considering that Khan's "dangerous network" is otherwise known as the government of Pakistan.  It's a success to find out ex post facto that our supposed vital ally in the war on terror provided the means for North Korea to develop a nuclear weapon? 

Some of the press conference was a rerun of typical Bush behaviors.  He suggested that criticizing him or our actions in Iraq sends a bad message to our troops and our enemies--i.e., dissent is treason.  He also kept talking about the war on terror, as if it's still the shibboleth that signals to the press that he knows they're not going to ask uncomfortable questions.  (Unless, of course, he's "got some must-calls," at which point the Washington Times' correspondent springs forth to give him a brief respite.) 

 

But this press conference was also different, in large part because of the reporters in the room.  Bush approaches the world as if the good things that happen to him are the result of virtue and the bad things the result of environment, but with other people it's the exact opposite.  We're all susceptible to that mistake.  But with Bush it's reached a truly bizarre level, and makes listening to him an unsettling experience.  When he's not questioned or challenged, or things are going swimmingly, he comes across as confident and resolute.  But when the environment changes--like tonight, when even NYT correspondent Elizabeth Bumiller (!) asked a slightly pointed question, and the White House press corps showed signs that they're embarrassed about their performance over the last three years, Bush resumes smirking and becomes that smug jerk we all hated in high school.

 

Whenever asked about the effects of his actions, Bush answered by affirming his virtuous motives.  When asked about a situation or development, Bush answered by referencing himself, often with strange third person-like observations of himself.  He failed to give even an approximation of an answer to all but a couple of the questions.  And most damning, despite being given numerous opportunities, Bush showed he's constitutionally prohibited from accepting responsibility--not blame, responsibility. 

 

The problem of troop strength in Iraq got punted to Abazaid and Sanchez.  The failure to anticipate 9-11 was because "I can't make good decisions if I can't get good information."  (He surely failed to notice how that standard could be applied to the bad information he accepted on WMD and Iraq's supposed connection to 9-11.)  Instead of demonstrating evidence or making an argument, several times he resorted to "I know." "I hope you have a sense of my convictions."  "When I say something, I mean it."  In short, for Bush it's all about his internal purity of purpose vs. the external threats to his success--and maybe even his salvation. 

 

Immediately afterward David Brooks began bloviating on PBS about how Bush talks past "elites" and communicates directly with the common people of America.  Apparently Brooks, like Bush, doesn't know much about how common American's think.  Common Americans don't trust people who can't think of a single mistake in over three years on the job.  Common Americans don't like people who don't answer questions. And common Americans don't like people who blame all their failures on other people.

[Guest MikeSC]

And to recap, the questions from last night.

 

1.- Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half Americans now support it. What does that say to you and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

 

2.- What's your best prediction on how long US troops will have to be in Iraq? And it sounds like you will have to add some troops; is that a fair assessment?

 

3.- Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq that US troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers, that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but as Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld said, we know where they are. How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents, who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series a false premises?

 

4.- To move to the 9/11 Commission. You, yourself, have acknowledged that Osama bin Laden was not a central focus of the administration in the months before September 11th. "I was not on point," you told the journalist, Bob Woodward, "I didn't feel that sense of urgency." Two-and-a-half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?

 

5.- Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked. One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism? And do you believe there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?

 

6.- Mr. President, good evening. You've talked on the -- I'd like to ask you about the August 6th PDB. (..) You mentioned it at Fort Hood on Sunday. You said -- you pointed out that it did not warn of a hijacking of airplanes to crash into buildings, but that it warned of hijacking to, obviously, take hostages and to secure the release of extremists being held by the US Did that trigger some specific actions on your part and the administration, since it dealt with potentially hundreds of lives and a blackmail attempt on the United States government?

 

7.- You mentioned the PDB and the assurance you got that the FBI was working on terrorism investigations here. The number they had used was 70. But we learned today in the September 11th hearings that the Acting Director of the FBI at the time says -- now says the FBI tells him that number was wrong, that he doesn't even know how it got into your PDB. And two of the commissioners strongly suggested the number was exaggerated. Have you learned anything else about that report since that time? And do you now believe you were falsely comforted by the FBI?

 

8.- Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9/11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?

 

9.- You mentioned 17 of the 26 NATO members providing some help on the ground in Iraq. But if you look at the numbers -- 135,000 US troops, 10,000 or 12,000 British troops, then the next largest, perhaps even the second largest contingent of guns on the ground are private contractors -- literally, hired guns. Your critics, including your Democratic opponent, say that's proof to them your coalition is window dressing. How would you answer those critics? And can you assure the American people that post-sovereignty, when the handover takes place, that there will be more burden sharing by allies, in terms of security forces?

 

10.- Mr. President, why are you and the Vice President insisting on appearing together before the 9/11 Commission? And, Mr. President, who will you be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?

 

11.- You have been accused of letting the 9/11 threat mature too far, but not letting the Iraq threat mature far enough. First, could you respond to that general criticism? And, secondly, in the wake of these two conflicts, what is the appropriate threat level to justify action in perhaps other situations going forward?

 

12.- Sir, you've made it very clear tonight that you're committed to continuing the mission in Iraq. Yet, as Terry pointed out, increasing numbers of Americans have qualms about it. And this is an election year. Will it have been worth it, even if you lose your job because of it?

 

13.- In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?

 

14.- Looking forward about keeping the United States safe -- a group representing about several thousand FBI agents today wrote to your administration begging you not to split up the law enforcement and the counterterrorism, because they say it ties their hands, it's blinders -- yet, you mentioned yesterday that you think perhaps the time has come for some real intelligence reforms. That can't happen without real leadership from the White House. Will you, and how will you?

 

15.- Following on both Judy's and John's questions, and it comes out of what you just said in some ways, with public support for your policies in Iraq falling off the way they have -- quite significantly over the past couple of months -- I guess I'd like to know if you feel in any way that you've failed as a communicator on this topic? Because -- (..) Well, you deliver a lot of speeches and a lot of them contain similar phrases, and they vary very little from one to the next. And they often include a pretty upbeat assessment of how things are going -- with the exception of tonight's pretty somber assessment, this evening. (..) I guess I just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any way? You don't have many of these press conferences, where you engage in this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to really make the case to the American public?

Rob, that is a fair assessment.

 

Again, I go back to Pearl Harbor. Was there intel that Japan wanted to attack Pearl Harbor? Yes. We definitely had some --- but amidst the untold millions of pieces we get everyday, we are unable to act on all of them.

and we were unable to act after the arrest of Zacarias Moussaouri as well?/QUOTE]

We were, at the time, still treating it as a law enforcement issue and not an issue of warfare.

Still, with the rumors of how an 'Operation Bojinka' was stopped, I guess there could be something drawn out of that.

 

AQ's interest in hijacking was mentioned in that report, and before that.

With exceptionally vague language. They want to unleash an attack "in the U.S". Well, that only encompasses a BIG FRIGGIN' AREA.

 

This going back and saying "Look at this piece of evidence here", honestly, is just 20/20 hindsight. And having Gorelick on the commission ASKING questions is insulting since she INSTITUTIONALIZED a lot of the problems that the Patriot Act had to clear up.

 

Not attacking you, Rob, just stating it overall.

But, has AQ ever taken hostages in the time before 9/11? Was it still more reasonable that they would take hostages, instead of using the planes as weapons. Hadn't almost all of the AQ attacks or plots involved trying to kill alot of people?

And the WTC were quite ready for a bomb attack. That was what they were expecting.

 

Kamikaze missions were something new for terrorists. We got cold-cocked and are dealing with it.

 

Again, going back to Pearl Harbor --- we knew that they planned on attacking a base. We assumed it's be the Phillippines and we assumed it'd be through sabotage. What they did shocked us and we learned a lesson. I don't blame FDR for that.

And unless there is a context/perspective here, there is more to suggest AQ would attack than suggested a Japanese attack. AQ had attacked American interests (embassies), ships (Cole) and buildings (WTC).

We had broken the Japanese codes before Pearl Harbor and knew of planned assaults on US bases. We just didn't assume they could hit Pearl Harbor.

I simply want Bush to answer with this: "OK, let's say we knew everything ahead of time. What, precisely, would you propose we do? Shut down Manhattan --- oh, wait, they almost definitely had secondary targets."

 

I'm not sure if Bush could pull that off. And one thing to do.. if they knew everything, would be stopping the hijackers from boarding.

 

Another thing that stood out to me during the press conference was this quote, that I mentioned earlier.

 

"Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders. He was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States."

 

Why did it stand out?

 

because the spin lately was that Bush attacked Iraq to stop Saddam from becoming a threat. Bush even mentioned it in his speeches at that time. He didn't want to wait until Saddam was a threat. Yet, he comes out and says that Saddam was a threat at that time. Contradicting what he had said before.

What I get from Bush's comment was that the fact that the Saddam was seeking to BECOME a threat and had the ability to become a threat will, thus, MAKE him a threat.

Honestly, Bush looked really shaky up there, and he was put on the ropes by a consistant line of questioning. Basically, he will be hit more on the fact that he doesn't admit fault or weakness. Even if this is exaggerated after the last President, who had admitted fault, alot. Bush will be hammered on that.

No offense, but when did Clinton admit fault for anything?

 

I personally thought Bush did a good job last night.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

having Gorelick on the commission ASKING questions is insulting since she INSTITUTIONALIZED a lot of the problems that the Patriot Act had to clear up.

 

And in regards to Gorelick, I don't expect many to mention that she had left the job of Deputy AG in 1997. We'll see what happened in regards to her and what she did.

 

What I get from Bush's comment was that the fact that the Saddam was seeking to BECOME a threat and had the ability to become a threat will, thus, MAKE him a threat.

 

so, he wasn't a threat, but he could have been and he may have wanted to be, so he was a threat. But, we shouldn't wait until he was a threat, so we had to attack before he became a threat. Something like that?

 

No offense, but when did Clinton admit fault for anything?

 

Well, in regards to the Lewinsky situation, he did admit lying, I believe. And basically his 'feel your pain' attitude seemed to be more willing to admit mistakes.

[Guest MikeSC]

having Gorelick on the commission ASKING questions is insulting since she INSTITUTIONALIZED a lot of the problems that the Patriot Act had to clear up.

 

And in regards to Gorelick, I don't expect many to mention that she had left the job of Deputy AG in 1997. We'll see what happened in regards to her and what she did.

Her memo in 1995, basically directing a wall to be erected between intel agencies, has come out.

 

The BIG problem here is that many on the right (myself, included) feel that this entire 9/11 Commission is just a dog-and-pony show for the Democrats to blame Bush for everything. Having people with a vested interest in covering up their own faults as a commissioner is bad. Heck, the only reason this even came out was that John Ashcroft declassified it to explain why there was such a problem with communication.

 

I've always thought the Commission was a joke. They aren't doing all that much to change my perception. From Kerrey's whining about Rice "filibustering" him to Gorelick's memo coming out --- the Commission just looked terrible.

What I get from Bush's comment was that the fact that the Saddam was seeking to BECOME a threat and had the ability to become a threat will, thus, MAKE him a threat.

 

so, he wasn't a threat, but he could have been and he may have wanted to be, so he was a threat. But, we shouldn't wait until he was a threat, so we had to attack before he became a threat. Something like that?

Confusing, but yes. If a guy can and wants to become a threat, the worst thing you can do is allow him to become one.

 

It sounds REAL convoluted when you say it, though.

No offense, but when did Clinton admit fault for anything?

 

Well, in regards to the Lewinsky situation, he did admit lying, I believe. And basically his 'feel your pain' attitude seemed to be more willing to admit mistakes.

He also blamed a "vast right-wing conspiracy" for the Monica thing, and claimed he wouldn't have lied if not for Ken Starr.

 

Honestly, I don't remember him really taking the blame for anything.

 

WTC in 1993? Terrorists (which I fully agree)

OKC Bombing --- talk radio's fault (absurd)

Monica --- Vast right-wing conspiracy (and some BOUGHT it --- which only saddens me)

Inaction on terrorism --- hostile Republican Congress.

 

At this point, I don't blame Bush for not taking blame. If he said anything resembling I'm to blame, do you think the press would report ANYTHING but that? No, they'd run it into the ground. They'd tie him up with it.

 

They don't want an admission of fault.

 

They want a "gotcha!"

-=Mike

[Guest Astro]

for no reason i can fathom, i actually watched this last night (well, not really "Watched"...i was drunk and my mind was wandering), and maybe it's just me, but did it seem to anyone else that he was being fed his lines? it just seemed by the way he talked, the cadence he spoke in, that he was being told what to say in an earpiece and he was just parroting it. i dunno, maybe it was the booze...

I joked to my mother about the same thing

[Some Guy 0]

"Some of the debate really center around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing and free."

That's not a full quote. He said something along the lines of "I don't believe that." Just after and then went on to say that he had great hope for democracy in Iraq.

 

I thought he came across pretty badly. This is not his strength and he should avoid wuestion and answer deals when possible. He has trouble articulating his thoughts in political talk. You could see him start to talk, then pause while he tried to turn what he wanted to say into political language. Bush needs to sell his policies and his beliefs, not be defensive about them or cow tow to the Dems rather than going over their heads to the people. Now if he'd just drop this religous right stuff....

[Guest hunger4unger]

Bush stumbled very badly at one particular question and in answer to others didn't make much sense at all. Bush has a history of saying silly things that don't make sense - and some people want him to continue as their leader! The guy is obviously of average intelligence at the most.

[Styles 0]

Bush stumbled very badly at one particular question and in answer to others didn't make much sense at all. Bush has a history of saying silly things that don't make sense - and some people want him to continue as their leader! The guy is obviously of average intelligence at the most.

Awww, so I guess the Europeans won't invite him for tea and crumpets then?

[Guest hunger4unger]

I dont comment on behalf of all of Europe

[Guest MikeSC]

Bush stumbled very badly at one particular question and in answer to others didn't make much sense at all. Bush has a history of saying silly things that don't make sense - and some people want him to continue as their leader! The guy is obviously of average intelligence at the most.

Because God knows only people who can speak well in public can possibly be intelligent.

-=Mike