The Bush Meet the Press interview and why Democrats have their wires crossed
by JohnHuang2
President Bush, under fire for not ignoring U.S. intelligence pointing to the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, defended the U.S.-led 12-year rush to war against Saddam in a broadcast interview Sunday. (A ruthless, murderous, genocidal madman and tyrant -- toppled from power: Bush, what were you thinking?) He even defended his decision to go-it-alone with 60 countries, rather than building a broad coalition of 62 countries (any coalition without the heroic French or the Germans is a 'Fraudulent Coalition' -- see Sen. John F. Kerry).
 |
"I'm a war president," said Bush on NBC's Meet the Press, in wide-ranging interview delving on Iraq, the invasion, and weapons of mass destruction to Saddam, the invasion and weapons of mass destruction. The interview also touched on the subject of Iraq. "I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind," Bush explained. (Clinton made decisions there in the Oval Office on all policy matters with sex on his mind).
Outrageously, say Democrats, Bush refused to take the war back and apologize. (Worse, he doesn't even wish he could take it back! How could he even sleep at night after all this liberation he perpetrated?)
Critics charge that Bush marched the country into war without building a case against the accused beyond unreasonable doubt, leading America into battle under the unthinkable notion that Saddam was a threat (Iraq may not have been friendly Sweden, but certainly no imminent threat like Haiti, Milosevic or John Ashcroft!) Rather than doing the sensible thing and giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt, and one last, last, last, last chance to comply, Bush, say Democrats, led America recklessly to victory in Iraq, hurting French feelings, and making al-Qaeda even madder at us. (As retaliation for Bush's flagrant attack on Iraq, al-Qaeda, which Democrats say had no links to Iraq, has since struck back hard, launching 6 or 7 very deadly videos on U.S. soil. The Pentagon has since confirmed the videos as authentic. Stations aired it with a 3-minute delay in case al-Zawahiri pulls a wardrobe malfunction on Osama).
 |
"Saddam was dangerous," Bush told host Tim Russert during the hour-long interview, his first in Sunday talk-show format as President, "and I'm not just going to leave him in power and trust a madman." Democrats counter that Saddam was no threat to America, citing the failure to find any illicit murder weapon as proof Saddam was innocent and that BUSH LIED!! by basing the invasion on faulty intelligence. (Saddam hid his planes in the sands of the desert; what makes you think Saddam hid WMD?) In short, BUSH KNEW!! saddam had no weapons and, despite heated objections from Saddam, only invaded Iraq to prove that Saddam had no weapons and that BUSH LIED!! because of faulty intelligence. Bush cited WMD in Iraq as the main justification for war against Saddam. (Democrats cite the lack of WMD in Iraq as their main justification for war against Bush. Problem is, the promised stockpiles of BUSH LIES! have not been found, despite Democrat-led search crews scouring this war for months, fueling questions of whether Democrats have taken the party to war under a false pretense). Although Democrats hotly deny Saddam was a threat to America, Democrats concede America is safer with Saddam no longer in power -- no longer positioned to be a threat to America. Sen. Kerry insists the War on Terror should be waged primarily through law enforcement. (I bet Saddam could've been demolished under withering cross-examination!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bush cited the case of Libya's Muammar Gadhafi, who, citing the case of Bush's invasion of Iraq, announced his decision to abandon development of weapons of mass destruction, offering to disarm under full monitoring. (With the Taliban and Saddam gone, a dictator can't be too cautious these days, not with that crazy, unilateralist, Texas cowboy in the White House running the most reckless, arrogant, inept and ideological foreign policy in modern history -- see Kerry).
Democrats insist Gadhafi has Gadhafi all wrong, that his decision had nothing to do with the Iraq invasion and that the timing was just a coincidence.
Al Gore, who says he won the elections in 2000 but Bush stole the elections by getting more voters to the polls than Gore in 30 states, blasted Bush Sunday before a crowd of Tennessee Democrats. (Gore also says he lost the elections in 2000 but Ralph Nader stole the elections for Bush by getting Gore voters to vote Nader in 30 states. Gore also says he won the election in 2000 but the U.S. Supreme Court stole the elections for...).
Question: Did any of you watch Gore's performance? I haven't met anyone who has. I'll admit it scared the bejeesus out of me when I heard him call Bush a traitor to his country, a liar who betrayed America. "He betrayed his country!!!!", Gore calmly said of Bush in his highly nuanced speech. I said to myself, 'Oh, no -- Bush's really finished now; Gore must think Bush's a Democrat and he's about to endorse him...'
Democrats not only think Bush stole the issue of betraying America from them, they also complain of him plagiarizing Democrats in another sense: Going AWOL during Vietnam. What nonsense! First, that was long ago. Secondly, if Bush were trying to mimic your average Dem during this period, he'd have fled to Canada. Or become a Rhodes scholar in England.
If you think Democrats are furious now -- furious at Bush for stealing their positions -- imagine had Bush told Russert he was on the side of the Viet Cong! (DNC Memo: 'That's the last straw! Why, that miserable Shrub! Next he'll call American G.I.s a bunch of baby-killers and war criminals and people will think he's John Kerry!') Bush, perhaps seeking to allay Democrat concern, noted in the interview that he backed the U.S. side in Vietnam.
 |
DNC chair Terry McAuliffe, who accuses Bush of dodging service during Vietnam by joining the service during Vietnam (what neater way to avoid combat than by learning to fly Delta-wing combat interceptors like F-102s as Bush did! War resisters were lining up to join the Air Force in between protest marches!), says John F. Kerry is more qualified to be president than Bush because Kerry served in Vietnam (there are reports that Kerry has mentioned service in Vietnam, though nothing solid yet) and Bush didn't. So, Bush is not as qualified as Kerry to be president. (Sure, Bush can fly a plane -- but can he drive a tank, a Bradley fighting vehicle, fire artillery? If not, he's not qualified to remain president.)
Democrats, convinced this election will be decided based on 'who did what in Alabama' only 35 years ago, plan to make the issue of military service a major issue in this campaign. Don't discount the power of this issue of military service, and how vulnerable Bush is. Recall how powerfully this message resonated on the campaign trail when a certain White House hopeful -- a candidate hardly anybody knew -- vividly recounted his harrowing days of military service at ... Oxford. Clinton's incredible war record helped him defeat that draft-dodger George H.W. Bush -- and later Bob Dole, another draft-dodger! (Democrats, who decry division in America, plan to unite America in this campaign by re-fighting Vietnam. Doesn't that make you feel warm and unified all over? ;-).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, what's my take on his Meet the Press performance last Sunday, overall?
In all honesty, his performance was awful -- no, gawd-awful. I'm not going to sugar-coat it. He was repetitive, way too repetitive. He seemed out of his game, struggling, yet seemingly overly-prepared, overly rehearsed, at times playing word games, firm but unable to project authority, and often noticeably irritated. This is not the Tim Russert we've come to know.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for the President's performance, well, it was very disappointing, too. We expect glib, phony, sound-bite answers from our presidents, but Bush, on that score, failed to deliver. Rather than offering easy answers, Bush screwed up royally, offering straight, honest answers instead. From presidents, we expect lies, hemming and hawing, talking points, bumper-sticker slogans, but Bush doesn't even try to lie -- what's wrong with this guy? We expect presidents to use such forums to attack opponents, rub their noses where they were wrong, divide the country, take partisan swipes, but Bush seemed totally unprepared to act unpresidential. We expect presidents to play word games, avoid responsibility, parse words, cloak language with nuance to confuse the issue, but Bush seemed unable to act undignified or dishonorable. He missed every opportunity in this interview to behave unbecoming and unworthy of the office -- what a scandal! If lying and BS-ing the public was the purpose behind this interview, Bush blew it. And I'm glad he did.
Great job, Mr. President.
Anyway, that's
My two cents...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Kerry - Dean - Kucinich), hiding your eyes and ears, and covering your mouth so you will not emit 
