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?