Transcript of the Bush Press Conference

I'm reading it again, and yes, I really *did* hear him say that. Aaack.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

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 learned from it?

BUSH: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.

John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet.

....

I hope -- I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one. (emphasis mine)

WTF?

and... this one

QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?

BUSH: We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over.

And, secondly, because the 9-11 commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.

BUSH: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9-11 commission is looking forward to asking us. And I'm looking forward to answering them.

Let's see. Hold on for a minute. Let's see. Oh, Jim. [next question]

Comments

[Donald W. Larson]

Susan,

I don't see why a President has to feel he/she is forced to respond in a particular way to please a reporter.

If the President doesn't think he owes an apology, then that is his answer. If he can't think of a mistake at a particular moment, maybe he can come up with one later.

While some people think a Press Conference is tantamount to a witness giving testimony, it isn't.

The President and Vice President can appear together if they choose. Just because the Commission asks for certain things, doesn't mean they can get everything they want.

I think the President delivered his message fine last night. As usual, no reporter gave the President credit for the positive steps he's taken.

President Bush may not be the most articulate President, but I don't have any problem understanding what he means, and even better, that he will do what he says. That's why I support him.

We had a smooth talking President Clinton who, even after several terrorist attacks on American citizens, property and interests, didn't do anything substantial to fight the War on Terrorism. In fact, his Administration weakened the Intelligence gathering abilities of the United States. Instead of working on the security and protection of the United States, President Clinton was working on his young female aides or distracted by civil wars in other parts of the world where our security was not at stake. He was a good speaker, he knew how to explain oral sex as not being sex, and how not telling the truth is not the same as lying. I have to admit, it takes a gifted orator to be able to pull that off.

I'll take a less articulate person who knows how to use action to protect America over a smooth talking wimp who doesn't act to protect America any day of my life.

Don

[Dave Smith]

Susan - Aaack? WTF?

WTF is *your* point? That Bush is inarticulate? Your manner of expressing this implied conclusion is quite curious. It seems that you have some trouble (e.g., here: http://discuss.2020hindsight.org/2004/04/02#a4280) articulating yourself when it comes to politics. Sorry for calling you on it, but I gave you ample opportunity to respond privately. It's also a shame that you must resort to such petty criticism of your President. There was *real* substance in that press conference. Perhaps you should go back and read it a third time.

Don - I totally agree with your Bush-related points. I differ slightly on the Clinton bashing. In fairness, I believe we were all unaware that a terror war of this scope was already upon us during the Clinton Administration. I think it's fair to say that 9/11 was a wake up call, even at the Presidential level.

Was Clinton a great President? Certainly not. Do I want an apology for 9/11 from Clinton? Certainly not. Love 'em or hate 'em, Clinton, Clarke, and Bush are *not* terrorists.

[Hal O'Brien]

Susan: Bush's answer was in some ways predictable, if disheartening. Bush is a man who has never had to take responsibility for any mistake he's ever made, be it in college, in the military, in business, or in public life. Admitting to mistakes is clearly for "little people", as far as Bush is concerned.

As to the testimony, again, it's fairly obvious why Cheney and Bush are insisting on testifying together. First, Cheney doesn't trust Bush to testify in a way consistent with the story they've been advancing. Sticking to the truth would make the task easier, but these guys don't think much of high government officials telling the truth. But more interestingly, Bush doesn't trust Cheney to get his story straight, either.

Don: Let's start with the Harper's Index-style topline:

Number of Americans killed by al Qaeda during the Clinton Administration: 38
Number killed by al Qaeda during the Bush Administration: 3000+

I think it's fairly tough to maintain that the Bush Administration has been effective against terrorism at all. Declaring "war" upon it -- which it can't legally do, only Congress declares war -- is so-so theatre, but not terribly effective. (Just how does "terrorism" surrender, for example? Isn't such a "war" really just an excuse to keep the US on a war-like footing forever?) Invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (Iraq) wasn't terribly effective, either. About the only two effective actions this Administration has taken against terrorism are:

* Letting airline pilots lock their doors.
* Deposing the Taliban.

Of those two, the Afghan campaign has been even more fragile than the Iraqi campaign. The entity we regard as "Afghanistan" controls the capital city, Kabul, and little else. The Taliban could well come back to power. And just how effective is that?

Being a small-c conservative who believes in such antiquated notions as duty, honor, country, I'd much rather have a President who tells fibs responding to questions about his private life that should never have been asked in the first place, than the current President who routinely lies about matters of the gravest concern to the national security of this country, and the lives of its brave soldiers.

Put it to you this way: This is a President so ashamed of his actions he can't bring himself to attend the funerals of the soldiers he's ordered to make the ultimate sacrifice. He doesn't have any respect for himself and his own actions, so why should I respect him?

[Donald W. Larson]

Hal said,

"Number of Americans killed by al Qaeda during the Clinton Administration: 38 Number killed by al Qaeda during the Bush Administration: 3000+"

Hal,

Neither president is responsible for those deaths, the terrorists are.

My statement remains, why didn't President Clinton defend America by attacking our enemies and put the battle on their soils? At least President Bush's decisions has killed off tens of thousands of the terrorists and more to come. I can't think of even one terrorist that President Clinton killed.

Hal said,

"I think it's fairly tough to maintain that the Bush Administration has been effective against terrorism at all. Declaring "war" upon it -- which it can't legally do, only Congress declares war"

Hal,

Let's see, President Bush goes to the Congress to propose his military responses. Both houses of Congress give him overwhelming support based upon the same information he had. He then explains his mission to the American public and the public supported him. While no formal act of war is in effect, the President isn't going to lose the backing of Congress to defend America. It seems to me he has the backing in law that he needed and still has.

Hal said,

"Being a small-c conservative who believes in such antiquated notions as duty, honor, country, I'd much rather have a President who tells fibs responding to questions about his private life that should never have been asked in the first place, than the current President who routinely lies about matters of the gravest concern to the national security of this country, and the lives of its brave soldiers."

Hal,

I really don't care what President Clinton did in his own private life. If he and young women wanted to engage in consensual sex on the job in the White House every day, that was between them. His wife doesn't seem to do much about it either, so why should I be concerned about it?

My point is that Clinton is smooth-talker and eloquent at times. He didn't do much to defend America, although he did send our military to war in nations undergoing civil war without Congressional support. What those military actions had to do with fighting terrorism escapes me.

I don't think President Bush has lied to us at all. Other Americans disagree.

We'll see in November who gets elected. In any case, America will be in a War on Terror for decades to come with huge losses of life in the military and civilians as those years roll by. Even if John Kerry becomes President, he'll be under tremendous pressure keep up the fight to defend America. Any action that is considered making America less secure will led to his own backlash.

I'm voting Republican in every office on the November ballot. If by some reason, John Kerry becomes President, I want him to face Republican opposition in any attempt to weaken America. In that way, I don't see the course America is on changing that much.

Don

[Dave Smith]

Hal: Bush admitted his substance abuse problem to his family. Then he proceeded to beat the problem. So your blanket claim is categorically false. Now, maybe you could back off the "never" rhetoric and kindly supply us with one example of Bush not taking responsibility when he should have. Perhaps then we could raise the intelligence level of this debate a few notches.

Since Bush and Cheney are testifying together because they're "obviously" lying, could you please be specific about just one lie? Without specific examples, you're just engaging in slander.

Oh yeah, and invading a country that had nothing to do with 12/7 (French Morocco) wasn't terribly effective either, right Hal?

[Donald W. Larson]

Dave,

Some people don't like President Bush so they'll use anything they can do try to put him down.

Most of the time I think they are looking for perfection in a human being and since they can't find perfection, they consider that person a liar, a hypocrite, etc.

They can think whatever they like, right?

They aren't changing my mind about who to vote for, who to support, or how to deal with terrorists and terrorist supporting countries.

I think President Bush will win reelection and I look forward to his taking aggressive action against other terrorist supporting nations knowing there will be nothing the folks that opposed him can do to stop it.

Don

[Hal O'Brien]

"My statement remains, why didn't President Clinton defend America by attacking our enemies and put the battle on their soils? At least President Bush's decisions has killed off tens of thousands of the terrorists and more to come. I can't think of even one terrorist that President Clinton killed."

I have other points I may make, but in response to this... Clinton ordered air strikes against al Qaeda targets immediately after the US embassy bombings in 1998.

The principal reason there was so little follow-up after that was because there was very little "actionable" intelligence. The reasons for that are many, but a good summary may be found in a now-prophetic article in The Atlantic from their July/August 2001 issue, "The Counterterrorism Myth", by Reuel Marc Gerecht. Basically, the CIA has very few Arabic-speaking assets on the ground. Given Director Tenet's testimony just last week that it will take about five years to put an adequate intelligence structure in place for this task... that sounds to me like they're still in the hiring stage. Given how often this Administration has tried to block, obstruct, and belittle the CIA's efforts internally (the main reason an internal Pentagon called the Office of Special Plans exists is because neither Rumsfeld nor Cheney liked what CIA was producing for them -- even though CIA turned out to be more accurate.), I don't expect CIA to get the funding or emphasis needed to properly focus on terrorism while Bush is in office.

[Hal O'Brien]

"Bush admitted his substance abuse problem to his family. Then he proceeded to beat the problem. So your blanket claim is categorically false."

I myself don't know anyone in the Bush family... So I just don't know what he did or didn't tell them. I also acknowledge there have been no reports of Bush continuing to have a substance problem... But, as Mr. Rumsfeld has said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But it's funny you should mention this. There has been much sturm und drang regarding Bush's military record, and whether he was or wasn't AWOL during his final year of service. A more interesting question to ask is, Why was a perfectly good pilot grounded during the middle of an intense conflict?

The reason may well be because of something called the Human Reliability Program, which was a stringent set of guidelines used by the Air Force to determine if pilots were reliable enough to be in custody of nuclear weapons. Since we make no distinction between planes that do or do not carry such weapons, all USAF pilots, Air National Guard included, must be deemed so reliable.

But we can't know for sure. Because Mr. Bush hasn't released those records.

Which dovetails to...

"Russert: But you authorize the release of everything to settle this?

President Bush: Yes, absolutely."

(From Meet the Press, 8 Feb 2004.)

Which, given the relevant records haven't been released -- and you'd think the question of whether the man who has his finger on the button, as we used to say in the old days, was thought qualified by the USAF to handle nuclear weapons just might be relevant in an election year -- is what's known in the trade as a lie.

Or, how about this one:

""F--k Saddam. We're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase. The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room." Time magazine, 3/31/2003, emphasis added.

I add the emphasis because Bush said, repeatedly, that he had made no final decision as to invade Iraq, and that if Saddam would just disarm -- a "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question, because it assumes Iraq was armed in the first place -- then our military would be called off. But, there he is, one year before the invasion, being profanely emphatic to a bunch of Senators.

Which means his claims of not having made up his mind were, um, also a lie.

And then let's look at the biggest lie of all -- that Bush believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I'm not talking about whether Iraq did or didn't -- though we now know they didn't -- I'm talking about Bush's belief.

If one believes a target nation has WMD, there's pretty much only one battle plan that makes sense. That's what's known as a "time-on-target" assault, wherein you completely knock out your adversary's capabilities as close to instantaneously as possible. In the case of Iraq, given the military truisms that we own the night, and we own the sky, that would mean a nighttime airborne assault. At 2AM we'd be nowhere, at 3AM we'd be everywhere.

What did we do, instead?

We basically dangled 150,000 soldiers, brave and true, in front of Saddam. We taunted the man. Through our actions, we told him to "use 'em or lose 'em". We invited him to burn our soldiers to a crisp, to justify massive retaliation.

Or...

We knew, in advance, that there was no such danger. That we could do our armored attack up the Tigris-Euphrates valley with no fear of WMD being used against our troops at all, because we knew they didn't exist.

Those are pretty much the only choices we have, given the combination of the battle plan and the "official story".

So, which is it? Is he lying through his teeth, or did he deliberately send 150,000 troopers to get killed?

I'm willing to be charitable and say he's only a liar.

And, before you respond this is Monday morning quarterbacking on my part, please note I made similar predictions on March 8 2003, and other, similar dates.

I'm not looking for "perfection". Competence, honesty, and some mild amount of loyalty to the country would do me fine.

[Donald W. Larson]

Hal,

You're looking for all the negative things that one can conjure out of the thin air.

You go ahead and seek whatever human traits you want, that's your right.

I'm thankful I've got a President and an Administration that attacks the enemy, not a few terrorists that are almost impossible to find. You don't have to like that position or agree, but that's how I and the majority of Americans feel about it.

Whatever President Clinton did, it wasn't enough, but folks like you still sing his praises.

President Bush doesn't do enough either, but he's doing a whole lot more than Clinton did. That's why a majority of Americans and I sing his praises.

Don

[Dave Smith]

"I have other points I may make, but in response to this... Clinton ordered air strikes against al Qaeda targets immediately after the US embassy bombings in 1998."

I trust you're not arguing that the 1998 air strikes were an effective strategy against al Qaeda. Clinton is a very smart man. A strategic military mastermind? Uh, no.

I do agree with you that our biggest problem in the War on Terror is our lack of HUMINT resources. This was totally obvious to any American with a pulse after 9/11. Unfortunately, hindsight usually works that way. I also think it's completely pointless for either side to politicize intelligence issues. Pre-9/11, neither side was kicking and screaming about the erosion of HUMINT that had been going on for 20+ years. This erosion occurred across GOP and Dem Presidencies, and across GOP and Dem Congresses.

Hal, of course we can't grow an effective HUMINT capability overnight. Which second language have you learned fluently in less than 5 years (as if language were the only thing you'd have to learn to become an effective agent)? We've learned our lesson the hard way that ignoring HUMINT can be devastating. Now let Americans of all political persuasions come together on this point, and realize that rebuilding a world-class intelligence organization will take years.

As far as Bush not backing the CIA, let's step back a minute. Assume for argument's sake that Bush's plan is to completely annihilate the CIA. Would that really bother you, as long as Bush's commitment to intelligence remained strong (which it obviously is)? The Bush Administration very well might be tossing around ideas to fix the infamous "stovepipe" problem in the intelligence community at a structural level.

So is the CIA clearly better than some hypothetical XYZ intelligence organization? Or are you just so blind to the big picture because of your deep hatred of All Things Bush? I'm inclined to presume the latter. But I'm comforted in my strong belief that Bush-hata's-for-Bush-hatin'-sake (like you) will land firmly on the wrong side of history.

[Hal O'Brien]

Don:

I am neither singing anyone's praises, nor do I think quoting what Mr. Bush has said about himself and his actions to be "conjuring out of thin air".

You said you couldn't remember a single time Clinton had attacked terrorists. I was just reminding you of when he had.

I agree it wasn't enough. But I also believe that Bush doesn't do enough. I also think the terrorists are our enemy, and if they're difficult to find... well, tough. That's what the job calls for. And letting Bush off the hook because it's hard, and because playing Humpty Dumpty in Iraq against a country that wasn't a credible threat to us is easier than the hard and correct action against the terrorists... well, that's tough, too.

And that you're not willing to take responsibility for your own thoughts, just like Bush isn't willing to take responsibility for his own actions (or lack of them)... well, if so, then so, but that doesn't lessen my responsibility to do what I can to persuade people like yourself that you've been hoodwinked.

That I don't do so well at that persuasion is both a testament to my lack of skills at doing so, and to the observable fact that people would rather hear the right kind of lies than the wrong kind of truth.

(If you only knew the irony of saying I "sing Clinton's praises". See, I used to say that Clinton was the most venal president since Warren Harding. Despite some very stiff competition from Nixon and LBJ. And that Clinton set a standard for lying in office that was going to be tough to beat.)

(Problem is, Bush has beaten it. And I am loyal to my country first, and to my party no better than second... so that truth, while uncomfortable, is still the truth.)

(So, I don't maintain Clinton was great. Far from it. Merely that Bush is worse. Especially for my Republican party -- we may well never recover.)

[Donald W. Larson]

Hal said:

"And that you're not willing to take responsibility for your own thoughts, just like Bush isn't willing to take responsibility for his own actions (or lack of them)... well, if so, then so, but that doesn't lessen my responsibility to do what I can to persuade people like yourself that you've been hoodwinked."

Hal,

If my remarks came out as a way to pick on you as a person instead of your arguments, then I apologize. From what you've written, you're probably as energized about America as I am. Maybe you have different views, but I agree you are entitled to them. :-)

I'm not sure where I didn't take responsibility for my remarks. If I made them, I stand by them. If I make a mistake I apologize.

The fact that my sitting President doesn't find any reason to apologize or cite mistakes is his choice. No one can legally make me do anything I don't wish to do, so I grant the President, any President, to do the same. Besides, I don't believe he lied to me nor has any apologies to make. I know it's an imperfect world and I act accordingly.

Hal said,

"That I don't do so well at that persuasion is both a testament to my lack of skills at doing so, and to the observable fact that people would rather hear the right kind of lies than the wrong kind of truth."

Hal,

I wouldn't say your skills at persuasion are lacking.

I also wouldn't say I rather believe lies than the truth.

As far as what the "real truth" is behind any war, I'm afraid you and I along with the majority will never know.

I will say that for over 30 years I saw America shy away from defending itself by not attacking our enemies. I got tired of that real early in in my adult life. Had Clinton attacked like Bush attacked I would be raving for him. That's because I am not a pacifist.

I haven't lost any faith in the Republican Party. But for those that have, you'll need to do what you think is best.

Don

[Dave Smith]

"I myself don't know anyone in the Bush family... So I just don't know what he did or didn't tell them."
"Bush is a man who has never had to take responsibility for any mistake he's ever made."

Which is it, Hal?

"I also acknowledge there have been no reports of Bush continuing to have a substance problem..."

Do you have any shame? There have been no reports of Hal... (and no, I won’t go there like you did)

"There has been much sturm und drang regarding Bush's military record, and whether he was or wasn't AWOL during his final year of service. A more interesting question…"

"More interesting" because that AWOL dog didn’t hunt a few weeks ago, so you’re expecting us to believe now that you were above that fray, right Hal?

"Why was a perfectly good pilot grounded during the middle of an intense conflict?"

Yes, that is an interesting question, Hal. Please point me to your sources that Bush was a "perfectly good pilot." One book I’ve read leads me to believe that Bush was far from being a good pilot. But we’re splitting hairs here. Whether or not Bush was a good pilot 30 years ago has no relevance to his performance as Commander in Chief.

"Which dovetails to...
'Russert: But you authorize the release of everything to settle this?
President Bush: Yes, absolutely.'"

No, it doesn’t dovetail at all. What you’re engaging in is known in the trade as deceptive quoting. The word "this" in Russert’s question refers back to his prior question, which I’ll include here since you chose not to:

"Russert: But you would allow pay stubs, tax records, anything to show that you were serving during that period?"

So Bush answered "Yes, absolutely" to the question of whether he would release everything to show that he served during this period, not to prove that he was a good pilot (as far as I can tell, that subject never came up in the Russert interview).

Bush lies: 0

"I add the emphasis because Bush said, repeatedly, that he had made no final decision as to invade Iraq, and that if Saddam would just disarm -- a 'Have you stopped beating your wife yet?' question, because it assumes Iraq was armed in the first place -- then our military would be called off."

Hal, don’t let the facts get in your way. Saddam had WMDs. It was Saddam’s responsibility to demonstrate that he had disarmed, and Bush made that point painfully clear to him (and the world) over a long period of time leading up to the invasion. Saddam continued until the very end to jerk the collective chain of the peace loving nations of the world, so we'll never know whether Bush would've kept his word, and called the military off. But again, since Saddam never called his bluff, we're wasting electrons over your creative imagination, not a lie.

Bush lies: 0

"But, there he is, one year before the invasion, being profanely emphatic to a bunch of Senators."

Hal, I feel your pain over the President’s use of the F-word in the presence of our virtuous Senators. Kindly go to this site, look at every single image on all 56 pages, and then please spare me your feigned outrage.

"And then let's look at the biggest lie of all -- that Bush believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

Again, Iraq did have WMDs. The only meaningful question is where are they now?

And please, stop it with the conspiracy theories. That made-for-late-night-TV drivel is putting me to sleep.

Bush lies: 0

Hal - Unfortunately, I’m unable to offer you a sincere apology as Don has. I do believe that you truly love your country, because you obviously have strongly held beliefs, and you express them freely. But if you’re hoping to sway others towards your way of thinking, you need to tone down the Ted Kennedy-esque "lie after lie after lie" rhetoric. Unless you have compelling evidence of a lie (which I strongly believe you have not presented so far), then your slander drowns out your love of country.

[b240e1]

http://uk.geocities.com/pills841sleeping/diet-free-pill.htm http://uk.geocities.com/pills841sleeping/diet-free-pill.htm pictures of pain pills pictures of pain pills http://uk.geocities.com/pills167sex/morning-after-pills-over-the-counter.htm http://uk.geocities.com/pills167sex/morning-after-pills-over-the-counter.htm diet pill study diet pill study http://uk.geocities.com/caffeine854cost/diet-pills-comparison.htm http://uk.geocities.com/caffeine854cost/diet-pills-comparison.htm side effects of taking diet pills side effects of taking diet pills http://uk.geocities.com/caffeine854cost/propecia-order.htm http://uk.geocities.com/caffeine854cost/propecia-order.htm quick weight loss diet pill quick weight loss diet pill http://uk.geocities.com/pills167sex/diet-pills-mexico.htm http://uk.geocities.com/pills167sex/diet-pills-mexico.htm diet pills patentlean diet pills patentlean