I just read the transcript of Russert’s interview with George Bush and have to say that I’ve seldom seen a more stupefying display of circular logic and nonsensical statements.
I think it was a serious political blunder for him to appear on this program and attempt to wing it. To categorically deny in the face of the facts that he has not exceeded the spending of any president in history shows him to be either arrogant or just plain stupid.
On the contrary, he made some excellent points. Not only was he firm about having completed his service to the Guard, but his demeanor and presence while he said it were compelling.
It was a great idea, and he will benefit from this appearance.
I can certainly tell you that I am much more inclined to vote for someone who won’t raise my taxes. I am sure that this feeling is also shared by much of the voting public.
Hope your cantidate has fun campaigning this year amidst all of the protests. When was the last time (other than the ribs incident) where Bush wasn’t at a rally with unscreened crowds? How is he going to campaign with security like he always has to have? How many first-ammendment zones will it take before it becomes a negative thing? Whether you think he’ll win or lose you have to admit its a huge negative against his campaign that he stirs more people to hatred than any president in recent memory (including Clinton)
I think that Bush the Cowboy is a big asset to his poll numbers. Hell I kinda even like the guy when he’s like that, but I know its only an emotional response. But I don’t think bush the waffler is an asset to his desired target (the middle). You have the far right that will be with him no matter what, but people who are actually trying to get a grip (probably for the first time the question is raised to them, “is the guy really honest?”) its not specifically helpful. I am already predisposed to have a certain judgement. But if i were curious about why we went to war, and especially about the economy and spending, then it wouldn’t be good. With the economy he is taking credit for the fact that worse things didn’t happen. That’s not easy to prove and blaming it on other people isn’t helpful. Why no Plame questions? That would have been nice to see.
The way I see that GWB’s popularity works is by being the cowboy and bragging about accomplishments (wheter real or percieved) at the perfect moment. Before Bush the waffler always appeared to be unfairly attacked. Now that he hasn’t had a cowboy moment in a while I think people are siding less with him and giving him an honest review.
You may have found his “demeanor and presence” compelling, but what he said was far from conclusive. He skirted the issue (“I flew F 102 aircraft. I got an honorable discharge”–facts that are not in question) before throwing up a smokescreen defense of the Guard, which is irrelevant to the questions regarding his service.
But who cares about issues and social responsibility, as long as we can avoid paying taxes! Yee-ha!
So he says he won’t raise taxes? Seems I’ve heard that before. Did he ask you to “read his lips”?
He did skirt the Guard question. I think all the mentions of the Guard will make him look bad in front of Kerry anyway. Kerry was in the war and decorated and Bush somehow managed to get landed in the Guard? It doesn’t even matter if he finished it or not, it was a piece of cake. Also he doesn’t seem to state that he completed everything. He also mention that there was “an agreement made” that is basically everything. His father most likely made a political agreement to let him off the hook so he could go. He’s saying I flew the jets and I got an honorable discharge.
In the end Fat Timmy wasn’t so bad, but he didn’t want to beat him up because he wants the prez on one more time before he loses.
I was shocked his handlers let him go into this so completely unprepared. He was totally out of his depth. A pathetic display. It’ll be amusing to watch people try to defend his performance.
Yep, nobody likes tax increases. So the Feds actually cut taxes, and the states and locals have to increase them to make up for the shortfall. Way to pass the buck. 
The tax increases will have to come someday. Just not before November. Someone has to pay for the current Federal spending level.
Moving this to Great Debates.
Of course he’s a big fucking liar about his Guard “service.” Of course he skipped out a year early. What’s truly chilling about this interview is:
(emphasis added)
First, that he feels comfortable labeling (or at least conenting to the labeling of) the leaders of at least four nations as “madmen” and then very flippantly asserts his right to go in and topple them on a whim. And he wonders why America is so hated in so many parts of the world…
We did NOT all think that they were there.
Bush did not think that they were there, he knew that they were there, or at least that’s what he told us.
No doubt about it, Bush is a lying Liar.
I just can’t understand this point of view, and believe me, I’m not a blind Bush apologist. To believe he lied is to believe the administration brought us into a war where they knew at some point we’d be in exactly the position we’re in–no WMD’s, and an election year to try to explain it in. Why? Why would he do that? What benefit does it produce? To say they knowingly lied seems ridiculous on its face.
I believe they were certain they’d find WMD’s–absolutely certain. I think they didn’t think it was remotely likely that they wouldn’t. I don’t think they ever envisioned trying to explain this position. That may raise other issues about this administration, of course.
The question is not whether he “completed” his service. The question is whether he did any service at all during the time he was in Alabama, since there are no records of him doing doodly squat and his CO’s and fellow members of the unit have no recollection of him ever reporting for duty.
The string-pulling and abuse of privilege seem quite obvious.
Clearly, Bush is talking about the intelligence community, other country’s intelligence community’s etc. I’m sure he’s quite aware that there were people around who claimed that Iraq didn’t have any WMD.
In the world intelligence community, there was disagreement on the extent of Iraq’s nuclear program. There was disagreement on the state of Iraq’s biological program. But NONE of the major intelligence agencies in the world that I know of disputed the existence of a significant stockpile of chemical weapons.
The left should learn to temper its arguments so that it can be taken more seriously. There are good arguments to be made about the run-up to the war. You could argue that Bush cherry-picked intelligence. You could argue that there was enough uncertainty in the intelligence that a war was not prudent. You could argue that stockpiles of chemical weapons, even if found, did not justify a war. But when you stick to, “BUSH LIED!!!”, you just sound unserious, and people tune you out.
Sure, don’t raise taxes, just run deficits to the moon. :rolleyes:
That’s like, I won’t make more money this year, but I am going to run my credit card debt up as far as it will go.
“The left” is made up of many people. People who simply say “Bush lied” are hopefully a small part of the “left.”
Also, hopefully, the “right” could do better than blind subservience to anything that comes out of the mouths of the administration.
This is not meant to castigate you, Sam, as you are a fairly reasoned fellow. Most of the time. 
Well, gee, Sam how about this: I’m very, very serious now. No kidding, I think when Bush and his minions told us they knew, they were certain that the WMD were there, he lied. That is the charitable assumption, the other is that he doesn’t know the difference between an opinion and a fact.
As to the whole Guard thing: I also noticed when he said that he would release all records, and further asserted that he had already done so, back in 2000.
Please see JMM’s Talking Points Memo for a better explication…
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
This is very confusing. This interview must have been carefully prepared for. How did this statement get in there? No one but he seems to remember any such release of records. And yet, under close advisement as he is, why would he make such a categorical statement if it is so easily disproven?
Or, as Disraeli once remarked, “What the fuck!?”
How many threads are out there about this topic? This one is as good as any, I s’pose…
My take? He’s a Chat-Bot! He picks up on key words and responds with preprogrammed phrases. If someone asks a question about Iraq, BushBot v1.0 responds with, “Saddam Hussein was a naughty boy. Democracy in Iraq is a good thing. It’s part of the War on Terror.” Ask him about WMDs, and he responds with “We’re not done looking yet. Saddam Hussein was a madman. Iraq was dangerous.” His service in the National Guard? “I was honorably discharged. Discharged honorably, I was.”
Someone clarify this for me – he said that he authorized the release of everything having to do with his service in Alabama, but he also made it sound like the guys in Colorado (he believes) who keep the records have nothing to release? Like they’ve lost it or something? Did I misunderstand? He was very unclear here, at least to me.
At the beginning, I really, REALLY tried to be as nonpartisian as I could. Even with that, I could not help but notice that the man does not know what he’s talking about. He most often responds with platitudes and empty words. Whenever he tries to say something substantive (say, a number or a proper noun, for example), he often stammers and ends up looking like he’s pulling something out of his ass. I’m not saying he’s making shit up, but it sure looks like it. He’s simply not comfortable beyond quips and phrases.
quixotic78: you got that right.
Sorry, couldn’t resist:
Department of Repetition Department:
Russert: How do you respond to critics who say that you brought the nation to war under false pretenses?
President Bush:…I based my decision on the best intelligence possible, intelligence that had been gathered over the years, intelligence that not only our analysts thought was valid but analysts from other countries thought were valid…But David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons…But David Kay did report to the American people that Saddam had the capacity to make weapons…
Russert: But can you launch a preemptive war without iron clad, absolute intelligence that he had weapons of mass destruction?
President Bush:…The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon…
Russert: And now, in the world, if you, in the future, say we must go into North Korea or we must go into Iran because they have nuclear capability, either this country or the world will say, Excuse you, Mr. President, we want it now in hard, cold facts…
President Bush:…Now, I know I’m getting repetitive, but I’m just trying to make sure you understand the context in which I was making decisions…
Blah, blah, over and over and over again.
Department of Repeating the Big Lie:
Russert: And if that’s not the case, do you believe if you had gone to the Congress and said he should be removed because he’s a threat to his people but I’m not sure he has weapons of mass destruction, Congress would authorize war?
President Bush:…So, in other words, when you say “preemption,” it almost sounds like, Well, Mr. President, you decided to move. What I decided to do was to go to the international community and see if we could not disarm Saddam Hussein peacefully through international pressure.
You remember U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 clearly stated show us your arms and destroy them, or your programs and destroy them. And we said, there are serious consequences if you don’t. That was a unanimous verdict. In other words, the worlds of the U.N. Security Council said we’re unanimous and you’re a danger. So, it wasn’t just me and the United States. The world thought he was dangerous and needed to be disarmed.
And, of course, he defied the world once again. (poster’s note: flatout, bald-faced lie. Should have been called on this.)
Department of Utter Incompetence:
Russert: The Bush Cheney first three years, the unemployment rate has gone up 33 percent, there has been a loss of 2.2 million jobs. We’ve gone from a $281 billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit. The debt has gone from 5.7 trillion, to $7 trillion up 23 percent.
Based on that record, why should the American people rehire you as CEO?
President Bush:…The economic stimulus plan that I passed, or I asked the Congress to pass, and I worked with Congress to pass, is making a big difference.
Russert: But when you proposed your first tax cut in 2001, you said this was going to generate 800,000 new jobs. Your tax cut of 2003, create a million new jobs. That has not happened.
President Bush: Well, it’s happening. It’s happening. And there is good momentum when it comes to the creation of new jobs. (poster’s note: 112000 new jobs last month. There has been no month in the past three years that the economy has created the minimum 150000 jobs needed to keep up with population growth. Pathetic.)
Russert: Now why, as a fiscal conservative as you like to call yourself, would you allow a $500 billion deficit and this kind of deficit disaster?
President Bush: Sure. The budget I just proposed to the Congress cuts the deficit in half in five years. (poster’s note: utter fantasy. Doesn’t include Iraqi costs, doesn’t include reform of the AMT, which will occur in a second Admin because it will be demanded by the middle class that will have re-elected him, should he get that second term.)
Now, I don’t know what the assumptions are in the GAO report, but I do know that if Congress is wise with the people’s money, we can cut the deficit in half. And at that point in time, as a percentage of GDP, the deficit will be relatively low. (poster’s note: relative to what standard, exactly?)
…
And the other thing that I think it’s important for people who watch the expenditures side of the equation is to understand we are at war, Tim, and any time you commit your troops into harm’s way, they must have the best equipment, the best training, and the best possible pay. That’s where we owe it to their loved ones.
Russert: That’s a very important point. Every president since the Civil War who has gone to war has raised taxes, not cut them.
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: Raised to pay for it. Why not say, I will not cut taxes any more until we have balanced the budget? If our situation is so precious and delicate because of the war, why do you keep cutting taxes and draining money from the treasury?
President Bush: Well, because I believe that the best way to stimulate economic growth is to let people keep more of their own money. And I believe that if you raise taxes as the economy is beginning to recover from really tough times, you will slow down economic growth. You will make it harder. (poster’s note: this response has squat to do with the question asked. The man is incapable of getting off his talking points.)
…
Russert: How about no more tax cuts until the budget is balanced?
President Bush: Well, that’s a hypothetical question which I can’t answer to you because I don’t know how strong the economy is going to be.
(poster’s note: but note that above, he knows to a dead certainty that his budget will cut the deficit in half.)…
Department of Inadvertently Revealing Your True Self:
Russert: Biggest issues in the upcoming campaign?
President Bush: Who can properly use American power in a way to make the world a better place, and who understands that the true strength of this country is the hearts and souls of the American citizens, who understands times are changing and how best to have policy reflect those times.
(poster’s note: notice that he immediately thinks military. Loves things that go boom, he does. The more expensive those things that go boom are, the better. And if we find a dictator to blow up with those things that go boom, even more better.)
About Bush I am pretty confident that he didn’t really have any kind of ill intentions. I mean I don’t really put to much stock into him to begin with. My first reaction to Bush vis a vis Saddam was “Hmm, I bet he’s just bluffing to get Saddam in line.” Sure intelligence wasn’t perfect, so that I’ll leave aside, but I did recognize at that time that Saddam couldn’t just go on unchecked after 911. But what I really don’t agree with is the way Bush pursued the overthrow of Saddam. Or more importantly, if an overthrow was necessary. WMD was a stupid reason to begin with. Bush should have known that he had them before he went to the UN. If he was just setting up a strawman argument just so he could knock it down when Saddam didn’t find any weapons, then it was useless and it backfired.
Saddam was also stupid during the whole lead up to war. Saddam could have left the country when the US troops were there. That would have led to chaos so the US troops would have to move in. This would be worse than the current situation because at least we have respect from Iraqis for ousting Saddam
Now, currently the problem is that Bush is running a faith-based Administration. They believe tax cuts will eventually make the deficit dissappear. They believed the intelligence said that Saddam had WMD. They believed that the post-war plans would be easy and that the Iraqis could easily govern themselves. We were greeted as liberators in some places and other places not. Now if things had gone the way Bush believed they would go he would have found weapons and Iraq would be stable on the way to a prosperous future, and not costing us 200 billion a year due to all the oil revenue 
If this had happened, I would be a lot more accepting. The true problem, I don’t think, is malice. I think the true problem is that they basically ran the Iraq war as the “pets.com” of wars or whatever Dotcom flop. Before they were hyped to revolutionize the economy and people blindly invested hope and money. When it turned out that there was no actual plan to make money people pull out and the businesses failed. Iraq was hyped to an extent. It was a voluntary project all hype and no details. Well it turned out the plan for a Middle Eastern Arab liberal democracy wasn’t very realistic, and we are left with shitty company trying to make it profitable.
If Bush had an actual plan to make Iraq a real democracy (assuming it were even possible) and said to America, “I got an idea, we’ll turn Iraq into a westernized democracy in a year, it will cost us 200 billion dollars and 550 US soldiers, but after this year we promise it will be the equivalent of a western democracy in the Mid East” If he said this and it came true, I would think it is worth it. The benefits of having Iraq changed in such a way would be worth it.
However thats the problem with you neocon types. The war was sold on WMD or whatever, that’s not important. We all know the real reason was to make Iraq a democracy with the added benefit of getting rid of a dictator making it look like a humanitarian affair. Well, I was doubtful of Bush’s ability to pull it off because as we all know Iraq isn’t an easy country to govern. But I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. Now WMD hasn’t worked and peace and stability seem far away, you neocons have to admit there aren’t many valid reasons left for going into iraq. If we wanted to knock off a dictator I’m sure we could have found more dangerous ones with countries less fractured (north korea).
I’ll of course never forgive the neocons actions against the rest of the world. Their disdain for well-meaning people trying to tell us how screwed up it would be.
Now, I am of course a democrat and Bush’s domestic agenda really pisses me off. Iraq I can understand the reasoning but it is extremely optimistic and run by people who were also extremely optimistic. There were plenty of people before explaining how hard it would be and how we’d be stuck in a quagmire at best.
Bush screwed up for lying us into war. Yeah I said lie. He did. It wasn’t about WMD or a threat to America. Sure in the long term an Iraqi democracy makes America a little safer by proxy but it never was a direct threat. Everytime the president used any other argument than the real one (to set up a democracy in Iraq for the gain of Middle East Peace), then he does the nation a disservice. Any time the democrats mention WMD they dumb down the debate. We all know it was never about WMD.
So that’s where I stand on Bush with Iraq. The Faith Based President.