Meet The Press with Bush. Stupefying.

Great Debates
21

Stratocaster, this line of thought really pisses me off. I’m going to try my best to explain why, but I suspect you’re going to take some of this personally. For that I am sorry, but it is necessary.

The war on Iraq began as a necessity. The President intended to prosecute that war less than one week after the attacks of September 11. Bush Administration officials were so careful about mentioning “Saddam Hussein” in conjunction with “Osama bin Laden” that by September of last year seven out of ten Americans believed the two worked together when in fact there is no solid information supporting that idea.

One of the first lies about the upcoming war was that the President had no plans on his desk to invade Iraq. Colin Powell weaseled around that statement by treating it as literal; in reality, as we now know, the plans were very much in development at the time. So while it was literally true, the statement is in fact an attempt at obfuscation–a lie, the first of many.

The second lie is one of coersion. Without any solid information, the Bush Administration made war on Iraq the centerpiece of the Republican election campaign in 2002. This was a brilliant, no doubt Rove-ian maneuver which placed fear before all other issues in the campaign, and it yielded a rare and smashing off-year election victory.

But once that victory was consolidated, the Bush Administration was also set upon a collision course with Iraq which could not easily be abandoned. Congress had been coerced into letting Bush start the war by making them appear as cowards if they didn’t vote in favor of it in an election year; now Bush had to deliver. It looks to me as if they quickly realized that and decided to fight it out as early as possible–before the summer heat set in, before the intelligence which supposedly gave their rationale for invading was properly developed, and most importantly, as quickly as possible so that American troops would be moving out of the region come November 2004.

The truth is self-evident. There were no post-war plans. Nobody really knew what they were going to do once they knocked over Saddam Hussein, or if they did, whatever they planned didn’t work. But the momentum was there and the war had to be fought right then, so they did. And today we’re paying the price, as we will every day that we continue to waste time and resources there.

Bush really is a cowboy, in a Johnny Mercer sense of the term. All hat and no cattle. And most of you people bought it while some of us screamed that you shouldn’t. The proof is in the 2002 election and the polls which show most of us to be as foolish as our President.

22

Needed to note this one for Sam Stone, who swore no one would care about this. Guess what? This is probably going to be the biggest issue come the general election.

23

Great googly moogly, Bricker, you really think he answered anything directly? You can be satisfied with a man’s demeanor, but brush off what he does? You can like cutting taxes while not looking into what happens because of that? You can believe what you want to believe, facts be damned, but you’ll pay a price for it here. I present you George Bush, the Candidate of Ignorance.

Sam, you take a different approach, but still one you’ve used before: When there is no way out to avoid acknowledging that you’ve been badly wrong on a point, simply call it insignificant, and those who pay attention to it unserious. You may “tune it out” if you wish, and you obviously do, but that is in no way distinguishable from simple childish obstinacy. Fortunately there are still a lot of us who do care about the substance of what a leader says and what he does. It’s part of accepting the responsibility of citizenship in a democracy.

24

Lol Sam Stone you are the Faith Based Pundit. Perfect for a Faith Based President

25

selected quotes from Bush via the transcript in the OP –

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/

Intelligence is required in order to have the concept of terrorist or war or fighting or winning or losing, or any concept for that matter. Then he brings up “good intelligence”. I wonder what that is…

This must be what “good intelligence” is. War. To see things as they really are. War. Danger to what? Danger to whom?

What exactly are you protecting by killing a human being against their will? What are you protecting by existing against the will of another human being?

It’d be a treat if Bush is capable of seeing that a big picture veiw of ethics is not supposed to be self refuting / hypocritical. You’re protecting the very thing you’re trying to battle, through the method of your battle plan. How could Saddaam possibly be any more of a madman than you?

26

Bush’s erroneous claims about what we “know,” have satellite photos of, etc, were either gross exaggerations, terrible mistakes, or outright lies. It seems to me that there has been some of each. Bush took a leap of faith regarding WMDs believing he would be vindicated in the end–a view promoted, no doubt, by his coterie of paranoid fundamentalists. It turned out to be more of a gamble than he realized. The bigger question, and potentially the bigger lie, regards why we were in Iraq in the first place. Wolfowitz admitted that WMDs were just an excuse, while the Bush administration tosses out excuses right and left hoping one will stick.

27

From the Bush transcript:

Compiled at Kintera.com

This man cannot open his mouth without lying. He chooses to give billions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest, taking it from the rest of us, including the military, and then tries to tell us he is committed to giving them the best possible pay. This man is a fucking disgrace.

I hope you are filthy rich, Bricker, because otherwise the net result of your tax cut may tear the lining of your rectal cavity.

28

I don’t think he lied about the WMDs.

I think he was quite sure there were WMDs there, based on the intelligence I get weekly in the friggin’ newspapers.

For that matter, I was frankly surprised when we didn’t find poison gas of some sort. I figured if he was going to have anything, that’s what it would be; it’s the easiest to make and use of all WMDs, and Saddam used the stuff in the past.

What I think Bush lied about was the reason for going to war in the first place. At this point, the Spin Team is going on about how nobody said it was IMMEDIATE…

…so why did we go to war again?

Mexico has WMDs. And if they don’t, they could cook them up quick enough. And they wouldn’t even need any kind of sophisticated delivery system to get them to American cities. So… why have we not invaded Mexico?

Because Mexico would have to be insane to do or use such things.

…and therein lies the rub. Saddam would have had to be NUTS to give us a REASON to come storming in. He wasn’t ABOUT to attack anyone with WMDs, even if he had them. The most he was going to do was take potshots into the no-fly zones, just to support his failing manhoo-- er, regency-- um, administration.

Gee, Somalia did worse than that to us. Why didn’t we go storming into THERE?

No, this was not about WMDs, and I don’t think it was about freeing the poor benighted Iraqi people. I don’t even really think it was about terrorism. This was an opportunity for Bush to (a) kick around the guy his old man should have had dragged out in the first place, and (b) replace our presence in Saudi Arabia with a presence in a country that can’t dictate any kind of terms to us.

True, we said we’d get out of Iraq when the time came. You’ll notice it hasn’t come yet, nor will it arrive for some time. And in that time, what’s Halliburton (among other American contractors) going to be up to in Iraq, I wonder?

And how much of it will get kicked back to the Bush clan?

29

You know, what really bugs me more than anything (and seems to belie the whole “liberal media” bias) is this: if Dopers can pull up cites like Hentor’s, why the hell can’t the mainstream media? Russert threw little more than softballs at Bush - it’s one thing to ask a question, it’s another to follow up with specific points.

30

Mighty preachy from a man who was second to none in slurping up the “truth” of Bush’s WMD claims. You not only bought everything the administration was selling, but probably a dozen fringe-press accusations as well.
This suggests to me at least, that your standards for sorting out truth from fiction, and fact from supposition could use a little work.
You could start with Bush’s use of the term “we all” in his words today “the weapons of mass destruction that we all thought were there.”
If Mr. Bush actually meant to say "everyone who got their information spoonfed to them by a national security advisor who couldn’t even be bothered to read the national intelligence estimates pertaining to Iraq’s WMD’s, why did he not say that?
If he had a 90% confidence that the weapons were there, why did he not say that?
There are legitimate cultural differences in where those of us in different walks of life draw the line between truth and falsehood, and I’ve tried to make allowances for that with Bush. For a long time, I held onto the idea that Bush merely misled us with his “business world” take on what constitutes truth, but now with this interview, and his appointment of Ken Starr’s buddy to chair the intelligence investigation, I feel that position is no longer tenable.
You’ll not see me harping on the fact that I think that the president is a lying sack of shit (you do have a tactical point after all) but I figured it was worth mentioning it this first time I became utterly convinced of the president’s mendacity with respect to Iraq.

31

Frankly, I cannot recommend strongly enough Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them by Al Franken, and Had Enough? by James Carville. I just read these two books over the weekend.

George W. Bush is a lying piece of shit.

32

An interesting story: The Lie Factory.

In particular, check out this graphic as well.

33

Is “social responsibility” code for “I am unable or unwilling to work to feed, clothe, and medicate my own family, so you should pay for my inability by supporting my family as well as your own?”

Just checking.

34

But you have no problem foisting massive debt onto your children (and mine) to finance this President’s re-election? So they should support you and your politics as well as themselves and their own families when they need to, long after this political season is forgotten? Precisely how do you justify this?
Just checking.

35

Did you just watch the program or did you actually read the transcript? In the cold light of day, without the trappings of the oval office and without his good ol’ boy crap, the thing reads like an indictment.

Ya know, the old “tax and spend” argument just doesn’t hold water. I don’t spend money I don’t earn. I don’t borrow from my retirement account to go buy a car. I don’t imperil the well-being of others in order to fund my political war agenda.

Republicans and Democrats spend in like quantities (or at least they did until this guy). The difference is that the left spends from a tax base; the right just keeps running up the debt for someone else to have to handle later.

36

Do you really believe that wishing for a balanced budget is comparable to wanting a welfare society?

Just checking.

37

No. It’s more about not claiming to care about men and women in the military and their families and then cutting their pay, funding for their housing, funding for their medical care, their child credits, and so forth.

It’s about not claiming to leave no child left behind, and then budgeting $4.6 billion less for Title I than congress authorized in the No Child Left Behind Act, freezing funding for the homeless education program, and training 92 thousand fewer teachers than promised in the act.

It’s about not stonewalling the present investigation into 9/11 and urging it to be ended before the committee feels it is done, and then claiming that your new commission on pre-war intelligence will be concluded after the next election because “Well, the reason why we gave it time is because we didn’t want it to be hurried.”

It’s about not claiming to be strong on terrorism and then reducing anti-terrorism funding.

It’s about not changing the Clean Water Act to allow more mining waste to be dumped into waterways.

It’s about not claiming that you are going to change the tone while simultaneously running push polls that suggest to South Carolina voters that John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child.

It’s about not claiming that you said you would only have deficits in the case of a war, a recession or an emergency, when you never said any such thing.

Social responsibility is about recognizing that America is a great society because we take care of Americans and cherish the principles upon which our society is founded.

It’s about being a man of honor, integrity, personal responsibility… about being a man.

Bush is not a man.

38

Hey, Rick.

You’ve proven that you can hit softballs, much like Bush.

Try swinging at some of the curves and fastballs.

I know you’re up to it.

39

Unable to work? In a word, yes. Not forever, year after year, but getting families back on their feet until they can manage is a part of being socially responsible. Then they join in and do the same. No one asks you to pay anywhere near the full cost for others survival, just a bit. I guess you haven’t needed to collect unemployment or FEMA money recently. I hope no major disaster like that befalls you friend, to where you need that kind of assistance.

Civilization is all about sharing resouces. The opposite of civilization is every man for himself.

Unwilling to work?" F*** 'em. If they’re not willing to share, they ought to be put to work.

Regarding intellegence, we know that some in the administration, such as Paul Wolfowitz, had been making public the notion of going into Iraq for the last 10 years. The Clinton administration considered it and I know Mardeleine Albright stated that they passed this info onto the Bush administration when the office changed hands.

What steams me is that long before they went in, the Bushies would not say anything about what they planned to do after the war was won. Without a doubt, if they had a plan, it did not work at all. For all the years worth of intelligence they could pore over, they obviously failed completely at making heads or tails of it. If Paul O’Neill is correct in stating that they were talking about going into Iraq in the first few days of the Presidency, they had two and a half years to consider this outcome as a possibility. If nothing else, expert after expert was predicting the things that happened for months before we went in. This actually a worse failure of not understanding intelligence than the WMD misreading.

I heard an interview with the head of an international aid agency a couple months before the war who said that his and other such agencies had a golden opportunity to prepare for months, not days or weeks, before being needed. The administration basically told them “We have it under control” and gave them no idea of even the quantity of supplies that might be needed. "We’ll call you."m was the attitude implied

They simply did not have a plan that would work. This was one of the big sticking points for many of us, that they were completely mum about what to do afterwards, not allowing anyone to scrutinize their miserable post-war strategy. The only thing that surprised me after the war was that we didn’t find at least a little bit of chemical weaponry. The rest was all foretold. But Bush won’t listen to anyone except his advisors, and whatever he thinks God tells him.

40

Nope. But Wesley Clark damn sure is.