President Bush to Appear on Meet the Press

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
Uh oh.....

Will Russert treat him the way he treated Dean? The gloves were off last Sunday!!!! Dean was great!

Predictions....
 
:hyper:

Now I'll have something really fun to do on Sunday morning

:D

Seriously, I didn't see Dean on there, what did he ask him? I'm hungry for a Bush grilling :evil:
 
Just read the Washington Post. It had some quotes from the show. I will wait for context before I comment. i was not happy with what I read.
 
the transript of this show will not show it...Bush was manhandled by Russert.
 
MSNBC is airing the show several times today.

I caught some of it while I was half asleep (I was mostly listening, rather than watching then)... Bush didn't seem to carry himself very smoothly, he seemed a bit nervous and kept stuttering for the most part, except when he's defending his economic plan, in which he says he's helping everybody... :eyebrow:
 
"except when he's defending his economic plan, in which he says he's helping everybody..."

5.6% unemployment and dropping.
 
I have not seen this yet. Dread claims its a disaster so I'll be looking for one.
 
Did I say disaster? I said manhandled. There were some awful LONG pauses. He appeared to NOT be enjoying himself. He was pale.

Russert had him on the ropes.

I am hoping for his sake this is his warm up for the political season.
 
Mofo, thanks for the link! :up: I read the transcript, and Bush did indeed dodge the important questions and (as he acknowledged himself) he sounded like a broken record. I kinda wish Russert had pushed him, but ppl can tell without him saying, "Sir, that was a Class A Dodge." Bush seemed to be pleading, "Look I did the best I could with what I had" and that would be fine, except that when you're President, and this is a matter of life and death, you WAIT until you have at least most of the facts, rather than jumping the gun as he did. As Tenet said, the CIA did NOT claim there was an imminent threat. As Bush reminded us, the White House did not claim there was an imminent threat. So why on earth was there at least not a few months to let the inspections continue for the sake of our allies, if nothing else?

I 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.

I'd love to hear the impressions of others who saw this. :)

Cheers,
SD
 
Even in the transcript.....it reads poorly at times.

Many of my Republican friends are NOT voting for Bush. not so much over Iraq, but because they feel fiscally betrayed.

To quote one friend...he makes Clinton seem cheap with his money.

I digress.....I am still reading and thinking about the transcript. I watched a replay of the interview. I would say it was NOT a disaster. If Russsert had pressed, I think he was close to snapping at one or two points.
 
i'd say watching the session is better gauge than reading the transcript.... it's interesting to watch (or for me, to listen) Bush's speech behavior.

Here in West Coast, it's on at 10pm on CNBC (after Dennis Miller), and 11pm on MSNBC.
 
Dreadsox,

I finally saw the interview. Not bad, not bad at all. Bush is not the best at speaking and its a serious mistake to judge him or anyone that is president simply based on their speaking ability. Its their decisions and actions which are important. From what I have seen of Bush before as far as answering questions, this was very good.

Sherry Darling,

""Look I did the best I could with what I had" and that would be fine, except that when you're President, and this is a matter of life and death, you WAIT until you have at least most of the facts, rather than jumping the gun as he did. As Tenet said, the CIA did NOT claim there was an imminent threat. As Bush reminded us, the White House did not claim there was an imminent threat. So why on earth was there at least not a few months to let the inspections continue for the sake of our allies, if nothing else?"

Inspections in Iraq started back in April of 1991!

Achieving VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT is not something that takes 13+ years. Ukraine, Kazakstan, Belarus, and South Africa all Verifiably disarmed in under a year.

Jumping the Gun?!!! After 13 years of Saddam's Bullshit? I think not.

The President had all the facts he needed upon entering office. Saddam had failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM per multiple UN resolutions and a ceacefire agreement. You can debate until hell freezes over about what Saddam had or did not have. The point here is he was supposed to have VERIFIABLY NOTHING! This was the requirment that the United Nations deemed necessary back in 1991 and it backed it up with resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules allowing military force to be used to enforce them if necessary. Saddam failed to fullfill his obligations which made the use of military force a necessity to insure regional and international security.

" 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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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? :slant:
 
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.....
 
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.
 
STING2 said:
" 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 said:


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.
 
anitram said:


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.


:madspit: :sad: :down:

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
 
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" :eyebrow:

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

VOTE, VOTE, VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Sherry Darling said:



:madspit: :sad: :down:

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Back
Top Bottom