Bush on Meet The Press tomorrow morning (This place should be hopping!)

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Bush definately didn't hurt himself with this interview. Those who don't like him are going to criticize it and those who are in love with him are going to praise it.
Really? Did you watch the same interview? He was having problems with the soft ball questions from Russert. I will admit, I'm not a fan, but you really think this was a good appearance??
I didn't see him having any problems. He gave the answers he wanted and seemed not to be flustered. He did better than he did back in the 2000 Elelctions

Bush called the interview, dictated the questions, planned pre thought out responses, and gave a performance to combat his falling poll numbers. He hasn't changed a thing, other than pander to the public about another tax break at your childrens children expense.

Kerry will kick his ass in the election. And no fiasco like Florida 2000 will ever be tolerated by the voters again.
Bush is toast! :)
 

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,693
376
126
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Bush definately didn't hurt himself with this interview. Those who don't like him are going to criticize it and those who are in love with him are going to praise it.
Really? Did you watch the same interview? He was having problems with the soft ball questions from Russert. I will admit, I'm not a fan, but you really think this was a good appearance??
I didn't see him having any problems. He gave the answers he wanted and seemed not to be flustered. He did better than he did back in the 2000 Elelctions

Bush called the interview, dictated the questions, planned pre thought out responses, and gave a performance to combat his falling poll numbers. He hasn't changed a thing, other than pander to the public about another tax break at your childrens children expense.

Kerry will kick his ass in the election. And no fiasco like Florida 2000 will ever be tolerated by the voters again.
Bush is toast! :)

never again eh?

maybe they create the problems themselves
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
as you anticipated, Bush speaking on T.V. has the same effect on liberals that poking a beehive with a stick has on bees.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
It's going to be interesting to watch McClellan get bombarded the next few days. I bet he's sweating it. (I know I would be) ;)
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I thought it was telling how Bush was setting up more lies for future deniability, much as he did with "imminent". Whenever Russert asked about weapons of mass destruction, Bush replied with "weapons". For example:
But David Kay did report to the American people that Saddam had the capacity to make weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with the ability to make weapons.
If someone calls Bush on this, pointing out that Kay did NOT say Iraq still had WMD production capabilities, the Bush administration will just whip out the transcript and prove Bush didn't say that, even though it was his clear intention when taken in context. As I said before, it's a very polished form of lying.


Speaking of "imminent", Bush was equally evasive on that subject:
Russert: Mr. President, the Director of the CIA said that his briefings had qualifiers and caveats, but when you spoke to the country, you said "there is no doubt." When Vice President Cheney spoke to the country, he said "there is no doubt." Secretary Powell, "no doubt." Secretary Rumsfeld, "no doubt, we know where the weapons are." You said, quote, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.? ?Saddam Hussein is a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible."

You gave the clear sense that this was an immediate threat that must be dealt with.

President Bush: 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. But what I do want to share with you is my sentiment at the time. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a danger to America.

Russert: In what way?

President Bush: Well, because he had the capacity to have a weapon, make a weapon. We thought he had weapons. The international community thought he had weapons. But he had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network.
No surprise to anyone, but I thought it was a pretty weak performance by Bush. Had this been a one-on-one debate with the Democratic nominee, Bush would have been toast. I was also disappointed Russert gave Bush a pass on his non-answers. Russert is traditionally tenacious to the point of becoming obnoxious when previous guests tried to talk around a question. He kept letting it go with Bush. Not surprising, but disappointing.


Edit: One more thing. I agree with Red that Bush did a good job of maintaining his composure and giving the answers he intended to give instead of carelessly blurting out something embarrassing.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I thought it was telling how Bush was setting up more lies for future deniability, much as he did with "imminent". Whenever Russert asked about weapons of mass destruction, Bush replied with "weapons". For example:
But David Kay did report to the American people that Saddam had the capacity to make weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with the ability to make weapons.
If someone calls Bush on this, pointing out that Kay did NOT say Iraq still had WMD production capabilities, the Bush administration will just whip out the transcript and prove Bush didn't say that, even though it was his clear intention when taken in context. As I said before, it's a very polished form of lying.


Speaking of "imminent", Bush was equally evasive on that subject:
Russert: Mr. President, the Director of the CIA said that his briefings had qualifiers and caveats, but when you spoke to the country, you said "there is no doubt." When Vice President Cheney spoke to the country, he said "there is no doubt." Secretary Powell, "no doubt." Secretary Rumsfeld, "no doubt, we know where the weapons are." You said, quote, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.? ?Saddam Hussein is a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible."

You gave the clear sense that this was an immediate threat that must be dealt with.

President Bush: 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. But what I do want to share with you is my sentiment at the time. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a danger to America.

Russert: In what way?

President Bush: Well, because he had the capacity to have a weapon, make a weapon. We thought he had weapons. The international community thought he had weapons. But he had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network.
No surprise to anyone, but I thought it was a pretty weak performance by Bush. Had this been a one-on-one debate with the Democratic nominee, Bush would have been toast. I was also disappointed Russert gave Bush a pass on his non-answers. Russert is traditionally tenacious to the point of becoming obnoxious when previous guests tried to talk around a question. He kept letting it go with Bush. Not surprising, but disappointing.


Edit: One more thing. I agree with Red that Bush did a good job of maintaining his composure and giving the answers he intended to give instead of carelessly blurting out something embarrassing.
Yep, Smith & Wesson and everyone else that makes a "Weapon" better look out.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
here are what i consider his most pointed answers:

President Bush: I went to Congress with the same intelligence Congress saw the same intelligence I had, and they looked at exactly what I looked at, and they made an informed judgment based upon the information that I had. The same information, by the way, that my predecessor had. And all of us, you know, made this judgment that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed.
And that's very important for, I think, the people to understand where I'm coming from to know that this is a dangerous world. I wish it wasn't.
I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them
i believe this highlights a basic difference in philosophy between Bush and the liberals....he understands that this is a global war against terrorism, the liberals just think this is a police action and should be prosecuted by lawyers and the cops...

Kerry is a rabid pacifist...he voted against the first Gulf War (he never even thought there was sufficient reason to KICK SADDAM OUT OF KUWAIT for heaven's sake), he "voted for the second Gulf War (although now it seems it depends on the meaning of the words "voted for"), and he pushed to have CIA and Defense funding slashed during Clinton's years in office (the only part of the federal budget that clinton ever cut was military spending).
 

Napalm

Platinum Member
Oct 12, 1999
2,050
0
0
Heartsurgeon,

I think you have hit the nail on the head. The basic difference between the neo-cons and liberals is their stance on this so-called war on terror.

However, you are incorrect in your assertion that liberals see the war as a "police-action". Most liberals see this war within the context of OIL, profiteering and global domination. If this war was truly about terrorism, it would require tactics other than invading Afghanistan and Iraq. And if nations really did need to be invaded - I'd suggest starting with Saudi Arabia where the terrorists, money and machinery lie - not Iraq...

N
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
If this war was truly about terrorism, it would require tactics other than invading Afghanistan
A truely informed opinion from our friend from the north...I do not recall anyone including Senator Kerry, criticising the military intervention in Afganistan..indeed your glorious motherland (Soviet Canuckistan) itself contributed 2500 commandos, as well as ships and aircraft to the MILITARY INVASION of Afganistan..

Most liberals see this war within the context of OIL
The only export coming out of Afganistan is opium....I've never heard it refered to before as "OIL", is this a new street term I'm not familiar with?

it's a war..over 3000 people died in one day in three airplanes, the Pentagon, and in New York....
a minor detail, eh?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
here are what i consider his most pointed answers:

President Bush: I went to Congress with the same intelligence Congress saw the same intelligence I had, and they looked at exactly what I looked at, and they made an informed judgment based upon the information that I had. The same information, by the way, that my predecessor had. And all of us, you know, made this judgment that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed.
And that's very important for, I think, the people to understand where I'm coming from to know that this is a dangerous world. I wish it wasn't.
I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them
i believe this highlights a basic difference in philosophy between Bush and the liberals....he understands that this is a global war against terrorism, the liberals just think this is a police action and should be prosecuted by lawyers and the cops...

Kerry is a rabid pacifist...he voted against the first Gulf War (he never even thought there was sufficient reason to KICK SADDAM OUT OF KUWAIT for heaven's sake), he "voted for the second Gulf War (although now it seems it depends on the meaning of the words "voted for"), and he pushed to have CIA and Defense funding slashed during Clinton's years in office (the only part of the federal budget that clinton ever cut was military spending).

It's probably more accurate to say that, iyo, those are his most pointed statements. IMO, they're not very good answers to the questions posed to him.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
If this war was truly about terrorism, it would require tactics other than invading Afghanistan
A truely informed opinion from our friend from the north...I do not recall anyone including Senator Kerry, criticising the military intervention in Afganistan..indeed your glorious motherland (Soviet Canuckistan) itself contributed 2500 commandos, as well as ships and aircraft to the MILITARY INVASION of Afganistan..

Most liberals see this war within the context of OIL
The only export coming out of Afganistan is opium....I've never heard it refered to before as "OIL", is this a new street term I'm not familiar with?

it's a war..over 3000 people died in one day in three airplanes, the Pentagon, and in New York....
a minor detail, eh?
Afghanistan and Iraq are not equivalent. The former was a response to 9/11, the latter was not. Iraq has turned out to be a war in search of justification.

BTW, the claim of war for oil is about Iraq. I don't believe it is, but the real motivation is beyond me. Certainly 9/11 provided an opportunity for the Iraq war, but not the need.
 

Napalm

Platinum Member
Oct 12, 1999
2,050
0
0
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this war was truly about terrorism, it would require tactics other than invading Afghanistan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A truely informed opinion from our friend from the north...I do not recall anyone including Senator Kerry, criticising the military intervention in Afganistan..indeed your glorious motherland (Soviet Canuckistan) itself contributed 2500 commandos, as well as ships and aircraft to the MILITARY INVASION of Afganistan..
Wow - now that was nasty, nasty, nasty... Heartsurgeon, do you operate with those fingers or simply use them to type hurtfull things? In any event, whether you recall it or not is not the point. The point (not the one on top of your head) is that the US pretends to be in a war on terrorism for many reasons that have nothing at all to do with terrorism. If you care to debate this one, we can do so in a different thread...


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most liberals see this war within the context of OIL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only export coming out of Afganistan is opium....I've never heard it refered to before as "OIL", is this a new street term I'm not familiar with?

it's a war..over 3000 people died in one day in three airplanes, the Pentagon, and in New York....
a minor detail, eh?
You conveniently left Iraq out of your equasion. Shall I provide you with a link to update you on the latest US-led war effort (the one after Afghanistan...) and another link that makes reference to oil reserves in that region?? And again - if its all about the 3000 dead people from 9/11 - what exactly did invading Iraq have to do with that? You'll need to remind, neo-con.

N

 

conehead433

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2002
5,470
689
126
"Afghanistan and Iraq are not equivalent. The former was a response to 9/11, the latter was not. Iraq has turned out to be a war in search of justification."

Plans to invade these places were started well before 9/11 ever took place. And one of the results in Afghanistan was to free up a major oil pipeline. We could have wiped out the opium fields but then the terrorists wouldn't have the means to continue. And if that were the case then little Bushie couldn't have his fun. The only way he will ever get re-elected is if we have another 9/11 event while he is in office.
 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,640
8
81
Wow!! I saw the interview this morning before Scout Sunday at church and I just couldn't believe my eyes/ears. He sounded more like Governor Bush of 4 years ago than a seasoned president with nearly 4 years under his belt.

If his political advisors thought that this interview with Tim was going to do the president some good, they were dead wrong. Tim handily owned the president as he does all of the political big wigs that come on his show...you know that when Tim breaks out the charts/graphs and the quotes that your ass is TOAST! :p
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
I just watched the replay. My God! If anyone thinks this jerk should be re elected, you deserve him. This interview was first, totally set up by Bush so that Tim would ask pre planned questions that shrubweed could answer, and sure as heck, he answers with his pre-planed script that doesn't even match the question asked.

This is going to hurt him. He doesn't watch polls? BS! He will damn sure being wtching the next one.

Funny, he says we can look at his awol Nat'l Guard record, but its been destroyed. How convenient!:disgust:

He says he wants to be the world leader. That is why we should re elect him? For world dominion? I can't believe any rational thinking person who listens to this crap can ever justify re election , let alone support the lieing bastard in the first place. Those that do haven't a tiddle or speck of self respect.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
it's a war..over 3000 people died in one day in three airplanes, the Pentagon, and in New York....
a minor detail, eh?
Heartsurgeon hit it on the head. Considering the majority of 9/11 terrorists were either Saudi nationals or in America on Saudi visas while the alleged mastermind is hanging out in Pakistan . . . yet we've bombed/invaded Afghanistan and Iraq . . . it's pretty clear that 9/11 was a convenient excuse to invade Iraq. Lame excuse and wholly irrational but who needs rationality when you've got an agenda, ill-informed public, and blank checks.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
I just watched the replay. My God! If anyone thinks this jerk should be re elected, you deserve him. This interview was first, totally set up by Bush so that Tim would ask pre planned questions that shrubweed could answer, and sure as heck, he answers with his pre-planed script that doesn't even match the question asked.
I am guessing you sat for computer classes in high school/college?
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon The only export coming out of Afganistan is opium....I've never heard it refered to before as "OIL", is this a new street term I'm not familiar with?

it's a war..over 3000 people died in one day in three airplanes, the Pentagon, and in New York....
a minor detail, eh?

Before sept 11, deligates from a few countries, US, UK, France, Germany and I think Russia were holding talks with the Taliban over a pipeline through Afghanistan. At one point the US reprisentative got tired how the Taliban reprisentatives were hard to negotiate with he threatened the use of force.
Maybe it was an idle threat or maybe an actual real threat.
 

Draknor

Senior member
Dec 31, 2001
419
0
0
Dang, I missed it this morning. Anyone know where I can find a vidcap of it? Thanks!

Edit: Found the transcript here. MSNBC also has some video, but it apparently requires WMP9, which I refuse to download.
 

preCRT

Platinum Member
Apr 12, 2000
2,340
123
106
It will be replayed in total on NBC in the middle of the night [on most NBC stations], and Dateline NBC will be showing parts tonight as well.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
So far the only thing nobody has disputed, is that CANADA participated in the reckless, lawless, military invasion of Afghanistan.

Can we agree as group that CANADA should be denounced for this aggressive, hegemonistic action?
 

Napalm

Platinum Member
Oct 12, 1999
2,050
0
0
So far the only thing nobody has disputed, is that CANADA participated in the reckless, lawless, military invasion of Afghanistan.

Can we agree as group that CANADA should be denounced for this aggressive, hegemonistic action?
Heartsturgeon: Can you please provide the reference for the above post?

I'm particularly interested in who described the invasion of Afghanistan as "reckless, lawless", not in Canada's participation...

N
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY