Spencer278
Diamond Member
- Oct 11, 2002
- 3,637
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: Spencer278
I would like to see bush get interviewed by the daily show. Now that would be funny.
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
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!
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.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.
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.
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: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.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.
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.
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 themi 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).
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..If this war was truly about terrorism, it would require tactics other than invading Afghanistan
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?Most liberals see this war within the context of OIL
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 themi 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.
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
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..If this war was truly about terrorism, it would require tactics other than invading Afghanistan
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?Most liberals see this war within the context of OIL
it's a war..over 3000 people died in one day in three airplanes, the Pentagon, and in New York....
a minor detail, eh?
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..
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?
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.it's a war..over 3000 people died in one day in three airplanes, the Pentagon, and in New York....
a minor detail, eh?
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.
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?
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?