President Bush to Appear on Meet the Press - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-09-2004, 03:00 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
theSoulfulMofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,490
Local Time: 03:07 AM
i finally *saw* the whole interview an hour ago...

few notes:

*in the interview, Bush said something like "you know, Saddam might have destroyed all the WMDs before we got there"... isn't that something like what I asked about how do you confirm someone to "VERIFIABLY DISARM" what you can't find?

*Slipping on the argument: When Bush can't support his main argument regarding WMD, I don't think it's justifiable to bring up the human rights issue, when you sold US (sic) mainly on WMDs and terrorism... IMHO.

Quote:
Originallly posted by STING2:
5.6% unemployment and dropping.
*According to the interview, Russert referred that unemployment rate was 4.2% on the day of Bush's inaugration.

*Bush seemed nervous and on the edge... and as a psychology graduate, I could infer that Bush's tendency to shift his eyes specifically to his left, indicates some degree of untrustworthiness. But if Bush is not "the best at speaking" as Sting says, then I could also infer that: 1.) He is not all that intelligent. 2.) He is a socially inept klutz like me. (And I don't think Bush is a socially inept klutz, because from what I've read in the press before, Bush is supposedly charismatic, and has more personality than Gore.. which is a plus point for him winning the election. One could argue that between two presidential candidate, the following three informal factors gives an edge: 1.) Looks 2.) Personality 3.) Character )... or 3.) Bush is hiding something. From what I personally observe, it's almost like he can't say "war on terror" with a straight face; but maybe that's just me. :\ if someone TiVo'd it, correct me if I'm wrong.)

*It's interesting that the interview didn't bring up that Bush premediated invading Iraq in the first days of his candidacy... and yet, Bush made a point in the interview that 9/11 put the pressure for a pre-emptive strike in Iraq.


that's all i have to say... but i'm a deluded person to begin with, who is prone to say something stupid... so why take my word for any worth?
__________________

__________________
theSoulfulMofo is offline  
Old 02-09-2004, 03:36 AM   #17
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 10:07 AM
I've only seen a short clip of it on the news, and read that transcript, and in the short clip he didn't look all that confident (talking about Iraq - not waiting till the threat became 'imminent'). It's especially noticeable considering how cocky he's acted in the past.
One bonus to Bush though, it looks like this time he actually tried to put *some* thought into his answers. He normally seems to dodge most questions with soundbite B.S.
Still, the interviewer should have pushed more, much much more.....
__________________

__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 02-09-2004, 07:31 AM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:07 AM
You could take his answers about Iraq and show how the actions do not match his words.

On the opne hand he speaks of going to the UN. Then he says Saddam violated 1441. If the inspectors were there, how could he have violated it? If the inspectors were doing their jobs, how could he have violated it? Then he says based on the context of 9/11 he felt we were in danger from Saddam. So violation of 1441 plus the context of 9/11 = Invasion. If I am not mistaken the case Powell made for violating 1441 at the UN has been shown to be a false case. The president then admits the information was wrong elsewhere in the show. BUT, Saddam could have made weapons. His investigation will end in 2005 after the elections. Britain's is ending long before that.

I am sorry....does anyone else see the....

#1 We went to the UN
#2 1441 was working but I wanted to invade
#3 We invaded on faulty intelligence
#4 I did not make a case for war on anything other than immediate danger.
#5 We are not in immediate danger.
#6 We will investigate intelligence slowly
#7 The CIA director is not in jeopardy because the CIA told us the truth and we misinterpreted it.
#8 After I am elected, you can hold my administration accountable.

That is what I got from it......

Although, my Jessia Jackson voting father thought the President was excelletn yesterday. He listened on the radio. Said he wondered about a Kennedy Nixon debate effect.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-09-2004, 12:56 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,284
Local Time: 05:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
" can't imagine voting for this man. I'm happy to say, also, that more and more of my Republican friends are saying they don't plan to, either."

They may change their minds when they learn more about Kerry's voting record and the decisions he has made as a US Senator. There is very little there even for the most moderate or liberal Republican to like.
Here's a CRAZY idea - who's to say they're voting at all?

If you don't like Bush and are unhappy with Kerry, don't vote. It's that simple. Or vote for a third party candidate.

I would never, ever vote of somebody I disliked intently.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-09-2004, 01:05 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Here's a CRAZY idea - who's to say they're voting at all?

If you don't like Bush and are unhappy with Kerry, don't vote. It's that simple. Or vote for a third party candidate.

I would never, ever vote of somebody I disliked intently.
A substantial number of Americans do this each election. They either vote for "3rd Party" candidates or they don't vote at all, not seeing any real impact by voting for either candidate.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-09-2004, 01:33 PM   #21
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 06:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Here's a CRAZY idea - who's to say they're voting at all?

If you don't like Bush and are unhappy with Kerry, don't vote. It's that simple. Or vote for a third party candidate.

I would never, ever vote of somebody I disliked intently.



Bad boy, anitram. You need a spanking.

Guys VOTE! I can't say it enough. I'll mail you a clothespin if you need. VOTE! People getting disgusted (understandably enough) and washing their hands of it (supposedly) only preserves the status quo.



sd
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 02-09-2004, 02:16 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:07 AM
Yes, vote! If you want to vote for a lefty in the U.S, write in Dennis Kucinich. No, he won't win, but hey, it's a vote.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-09-2004, 03:43 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,979
Local Time: 05:07 AM
I saw it last night, don't know if that was the whole interview

Geesh, Dubya was a bit arrogant - "I will win". He always gets testy and nervous when he's uncomfortable, in my opinion.

What about "I'm a war President"

I thought Russert was too easy on him. For a minute I thought it was Sean Hannity

VOTE, VOTE, VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-09-2004, 04:01 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 05:07 AM
Just about everyone I know: brother, sister, friends, coworkers, bandmates, girlfriend will be voting AGAINST Bush.
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 02-09-2004, 05:32 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,284
Local Time: 05:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Sherry Darling





Bad boy, anitram. You need a spanking.
But...but....I'm a girl.

Regardless, I do not agree with voting if you do not support any party or candidate that is running. I don't care what anyone says. For example, if you are a Green and there is no Green presidential candidate or Senate/Congress candidate running in your riding, why the hell should you feel obligated to vote for the Dem or whoever instead? That's just a bunch of crap.

I make it a point to vote, but I have never voted for somebody I don't believe in and I never would.

Certainly you can argue that voting against Bush is a strategy. Great. I don't disagree per se. But say, if I were American and the alternative was Lieberman or Sharpton? Sorry, I'm not voting for them. Sometimes, principles matter.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-09-2004, 05:49 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Sherry Darling

Bad boy, anitram. You need a spanking.
d
Ani is a girl....

If anyone spanks her...it will be FERNANDO
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-09-2004, 05:55 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:07 AM
theSoulfulMofo,

"*in the interview, Bush said something like "you know, Saddam might have destroyed all the WMDs before we got there"... isn't that something like what I asked about how do you confirm someone to "VERIFIABLY DISARM" what you can't find?"

If Saddam destroyed the WMD prior to the war, it is his responsibility to show where it was destroyed so the remains can be inspected and it can be confirmed that it was destroyed. This is not fantasy land where things magically disappear. Its incumbent upon Saddam to hand over the WMD or if it was destroyed to show the remains of the destruction. Accounting errors, "we forgot where we buried the stuff", dog ate my homework BS are infact, violations. Whether there was mistakes or errors made by Saddam's WMD teams, the world does not have the luxury of taking their or Saddam's word that is in fact what happened. That would be the most irresponible thing the international community could do. That is why VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT was requied in the Ceacefire of 1991.

"*Slipping on the argument: When Bush can't support his main argument regarding WMD, I don't think it's justifiable to bring up the human rights issue, when you sold US (sic) mainly on WMDs and terrorism... IMHO."

Bush's main arguement was rock solid because Saddam failed to meet his obligations in regards to the UN resolutions and the Gulf War Ceace Fire Agreement.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-09-2004, 06:22 PM   #28
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 10:07 AM
A badly recorded broken record. I can't imagine being reassured by what I saw yesterday.

VOTE! It DOES mean something.
__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 02-09-2004, 06:24 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:07 AM
Dreadsox,

"Then he says Saddam violated 1441. If the inspectors were there, how could he have violated it? If the inspectors were doing their jobs, how could he have violated it?"

Simple, the resolution requires Saddam to resolve all questions about his WMD program and to account for all his WMD. He never did any of this. The inspectors can't complete their job without some level of cooperation from Saddam, and I don't mean simply the freedom of movement. Its Saddam's responsiblity to roll out the stocks, programs etc. and have the inspectors see them and dismantle them or show where in the past he dismantled or destroyed WMD if that was in fact the case.

I don't know anyone who claims that Saddam fully complied with resolution 1441 or any other resolution passed against him.

David Kay in his report listed hundreds of items that he found that UN inspectors did not that were in DIRECT VIOLATION OF 1441!

"If I am not mistaken the case Powell made for violating 1441 at the UN has been shown to be a false case."

No it has not! It was never incumbent upon on the administration to actually find this stuff, rather it was Saddam's responsibility to account for and Verifiably dismantle or destroy it. The failure to find a number of items on the list does not mean that do not exist or never existed. The vast majority of Iraq has yet to be searched and as I have mentioned before, only 10 of 113 major Weapons dumps in Iraq have been fully searched so far. It is possible that certain items will never be found because of Saddam's attempts to conceal it or his mishandling of it. Either way it was Saddam's responsibility and not any member of the international community.

It was Saddam's responsibility to Verifiably Disarm and the fact remains that he did not.

#1 Bush did go to the UN
#2 1441 was not working at all. 1441 called for a lot more than simply the letting inspectors back into Iraq.
#3 We invaded on the fact that Saddam had failed to Verifiably disarm and all methods to achieve this barring military invasion had failed.
#4 He made the case for war based on "A Grave and Gathering Threat" which Saddam was.
#5 The international community required Saddam to Verifiably Disarm in 1991 because it felt not requiring him to do so would be an immediate danger to the international community. No one predicted his invasions of Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and attacks on Israel or his use of WMD on such a large scale. There was no room for error with Saddam and verifiable disarmament was the only way short of regime change to insure security. Unfortunately Saddam was unwilling to Verifiably Disarm which is why his removal was required.
#6 Any investigation in regards to intelligence should be done accurately and objectively and be as free of politics as possible, in order for it to be relevant and useful.
#7 No one misinterpreted the intelligence from the CIA, rather that intelligence was simply more information in the case against Saddam. Saddam was under strict obligations to comply with multiple UN resolutions and the CIA's intelligence only helps show how far he was from meeting those obligations.
#8 I think its a good idea to have the investigation end after the elections so it will not be used has a Democratic which hunt. We want the investigation to be objective and accurate and not be some play thing for Democrats. This is an investigation into how the intelligence agencies operated and performed in their tasks, it is not an investigation into the President or his cabnit members as some would like to have it.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-09-2004, 06:26 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:07 AM
najeena,

"A badly recorded broken record. I can't imagine being reassured by what I saw yesterday."

What could the President of said that would have reassured you?
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com