Bush's lame response to the responsibility question

[ripdog]

What a no-good pathetic loser. I guess with Bush the buck stops somewhere other than here. When the leader of the free world refuses to take responibility for what comes out of his own mouth, it's time to throw him out on his worthless ass. It's hard to believe that the Dems are so weak that they'll have a tough time challenging this dimwit. What a sad state this country is in.

[MMMMMM]

If this attack on Bush is the best Dems can come up with, we'll very likely see Bush in the oval office again 2004.


ripdog, you can serve as an alternate on the Orange team if they'll have you and if you submit two sports/contests/games for consideration as tiebreaking events (matchups must be able to be played out within a ten-minute window of time).

[adios]

"I guess with Bush the buck stops somewhere other than here. When the leader of the free world refuses to take responibility for what comes out of his own mouth, it's time to throw him out on his worthless ass."

Personally I'm not familiar with any statement where Bush was quoted as saying that he did not take responsibility for what he said. Can you provide a source?

[nicky g]

On a different note, I thought this was funny:

"The admission came a day after President George Bush, whose malapropism has spawned dozens of websites and books, uttered one of his most extraordinary gaffes yet when he told reporters that the US had invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein had refused to allow weapons inspectors in.

Pressed during an Oval Office press conference on the now infamous assertion that Iraq had sought to buy uranium ore in Africa, he said: "The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons programme? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in.

"And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region."

The comment, made on Monday, received little coverage in the US media. Although it did raise some eyebrows at the Washington Post, which, in understated style noted: "The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to the war this spring." " /forums/images/icons/confused.gif /forums/images/icons/crazy.gif /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

From Bush gaffe (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,999235,00.html)

[Chris Alger]

At the bottom are the paragraphs from that story from Tuesday's W. Post. I like the description of White House statements as "evolving." Bush's two new lies indicate that he's so dumb that he can't even lie according to the script.

The Guardian accurately notes that apart from the Post and the Times the national media here have shown little interest in the President's apparent lying about the reasons for the war. When Rumsfeld and Rice appeared on last morning Sunday talk shows the questioners framed it as a problem of "faulty intelligence" brought to light by partisan squabbling. The right-wing press has been trumpting the UK's claim of an independetly-sourced African connection, (the WSJ having just run a second editorial to that effect; no evidence of course). One clue is Blair's statement yesterday that Iraq bought uranium from Niger "in the 1980's," suggesting that he's warming us up to learn that the event reported as recent was actually more than a decade old, prior to Iraq's stated termination of its nuclear weapons program. Then they'll argue that the essential facts were right, the dates were just off, that they erred on the safe side conncerning the chronology, and so forth.

From the Post:

"Bush said the CIA's doubts about the charge -- that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa -- were "subsequent" to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation. Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."
Bush's position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush's speech. The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective. In the face of persistent questioning about the use of intelligence before the Iraq war, administration officials have responded with evolving and sometimes contradictory statements."

[jokerswild]

The economy is in shambles. He has no respect for consitutional law. The war is a quagmire that I personally don't enoy paying taxes to support. The latest Zogby poll shows his job approval at 53% with 47% negative. 47% favor electing someone else, 48% state that he deserves reelection. You should take heart that the Supreme Court ruled that the new computer systems used to tally votes cannot be audited.

The man is a liar, a cheat, and has ordered the death of Iraqis and US soldiers for no other reason than to give the Iraqi oil fields to Halliburton.

[ripdog]

I was listening to NPR or some other radio station and heard his answer to the question. He ducked the "16 words" that the question was really about and said that he took responsibility for making the tough decision to go to war with Iraq. In short, he didn't answer the question at all. I would expect that a leader who's worth anything would take responsibilty, apologize to the world, and fire the person that gave him the faulty intelligence. But it seems that he knew the intelligence was bad prior to giving the speech--so better to just duck the question until the idiotic American public forgets this ever happened.

[adios]

You wrote:

"I guess with Bush the buck stops somewhere other than here. When the leader of the free world refuses to take responibility for what comes out of his own mouth, it's time to throw him out on his worthless ass."

I asked:

"Personally I'm not familiar with any statement where Bush was quoted as saying that he did not take responsibility for what he said. Can you provide a source? "

You responded:

"I was listening to NPR or some other radio station and heard his answer to the question."

I respond:

What question?

You further wrote:

"He ducked the "16 words" that the question was really about and said that he took responsibility for making the tough decision to go to war with Iraq."


I respond:

Originally you made a claim that more or less that Bush refuses to take responsibility. I asked you provide a source and you respond with this post. First of all this lame excuse for a source in no way proves your claim and it hardly qualifies as a source to back it up. You can't provide the QUESTION or the ANSWER.

[Chris Alger]

He probably means this:

"President Bush and his national security adviser yesterday placed full responsibility on the Central Intelligence Agency for the inclusion in this year's State of the Union address of questionable allegations that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa. The president defended use of the allegation by saying the Jan. 28 speech 'was cleared by the intelligence services.' Within hours of Bush's comments, CIA Director George J. Tenet accepted blame for allowing the allegations into the Jan. 28 address, saying the information 'did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches and the CIA should have ensured that it was removed.'" "Bush, Rice Blame CIA for Iraq Error," W. Post, 7/12/3. This was the initial spin strategy, accompanied by complaints about the CIA from Bush's supporters, like this one from Sen. Pat Roberts (R. Kan.): "So far, I am very disturbed by what appears to be extremely sloppy handling of the issue from the outset by the CIA."

The drastic course of blaming the CIA (and inspiring the inevitable counter-leaks) might have been fueled by fears of a burst of serious war criticism based on a host of White House lies and half-truths (Bush's phony drone story, the non-existent IAEA report, the Kamel WMD destruction non-disclosure, Powell's doctoring of intercepted transmissions, the aluminum tubes, the WMD "trailers," Cheney's "resonstituted nuclear weapons" claim, etc.). Within a day or two, however, it became apparent that the story would be dominated by partisan critics of the President who supported the war while seeking to capitalize solely on this one incident. The chief complaint was not that the country was deceived into supporting the war, but that Bush failed to own up to his statement (e.g., Sen. Bob Graham's tepid complaint: "we don't have a George Tenet problem, we have a George Bush problem").

So the White House shifted toward asserting that the claim was technically true. "Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in separate appearances on Sunday television talk programs that the disputed sentence in Mr. Bush's January speech was carefully hedged, enough that it could still be considered accurate today. . . . The legalistic defense of the phrasing seemed to signal a shift in the White House's strategy in dealing with the political fallout over Mr. Bush's public use of evidence that was based in part on fabricated documents and in part on uncorroborated reports from abroad." "Bush Aids Now Say That Claim on Uranium Was Accurrate," NY Times, 7/14/3.

Knowing he was safe, Bush followed up with a whole new round of lying, which the media barely noticed. "Bush said the CIA's doubts about the charge -- that Iraq sought to buy 'yellowcake' uranium ore in Africa -- were 'subsequent' to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation. Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein 'a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in.'" "President Defeneds Allegation on Iraq," W. Post, 7/15/3. Statements like these are too preposterous for even Bush to hide behind his legendary ignorance. As the Post politely noted, "Bush's position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush's speech. The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: ussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective." Other than this Post article, I didn't see any much attention made over these lies, even though the White House was supposedly embroiled in a controversy about lying on this very subject. Weird.

No matter. Although support for the war is now approaching a minority of the population, enough of the public has been conditioned to accept Bush's lying as well-intentioned errors "on the side of caution" or the fantasy of a hostile media. Recent polls show that a third of the public believes either that Iraqi WMD have been found or will be found. One poll showed 22% of the population believing that Iraq had "actually deployed" (http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8270) WMD during the conflict.

The upshot was that Bush eventually accepted responsibility for "the decisions I made" when asked about the Niger statement at the July 17 Blair-Bush press conference, after a long discourse about Iraq's threat and the war on terror, without addressing the SOU speech expressly.

[Timer]

>>The economy is in shambles.<<

I've heard this line before. As far as I'm concerned the economy is in pretty good shape and getting better.

Old bromides die hard.

[**MR.MANHATTAN**]

I like the idea of the bush girls partying w/kobe bryant

[jokerswild]

You either don't live in the USA, or are one of the elite that benefits from corporate fraud.

[adios]

"President Bush and his national security adviser yesterday placed full responsibility on the Central Intelligence Agency ..."

This like many other instances in your post provides the media analysis. It specifically does not provide a quote directly attributable to Bush saying he doesn't take ultimate respsonibility. It's why I answered the post in the first place because it's simply another way the media is being manipulitive. Instead of reporting the news the media often interjects their own bias inappropriately into their reporting of the news. The much maligned Fox News at least attempts to present both sides of an issue. You've only posted excerpts so I'm not sure it's not you being manipulitive in this instance or it's poor journalism but probably the latter.

[MMMMMM]

This is a good point. I think all newscasters and newswriters who provide news analysis in the guise of reporting and in lieu of reporting facts should be forced to write "I will only report the news; my analysis will be clearly partitioned from my reporting of facts" 1,000,000 times on a great big blackboard on national TV. A rather pleasant backdrop scene.

Any editors who encourage reporting analysis as fact should be fired;-)

There is a time and place for everything. Factual reporting should come first, and commentary/analysis later and in a separate section or segment.

[ripdog]

Actually, I'm not arguing that he specifically didn't take responsibility--it's the fact that he's not taking responsibility that sickens me. Read the article I've linked. The quote I'm talking about is in there. The paragraph that starts "when asked directly..." Argue that, Mr. Haley. The truth is that Bush is a no-good, lying weasel and should be prosecuted.

Bush ducks the direct question (http://www.islandpacket.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/story/945201p-6607249c.html)

[adios]

"Actually, I'm not arguing that he specifically didn't take responsibility--it's the fact that he's not taking responsibility that sickens me."

Basically he said he was responsible which he doesn't need to say because the answer is obvious to all. If you took a poll in this country and asked if George Bush was he ultimately responsible for the statement his State of the Union address IMO at least 90% of the country would say yes including George Bush.

"The truth is that Bush is a no-good, lying weasel and should be prosecuted."

That's not the truth. Why is he no good? The answer is because you don't care for him. Calling him a lying weasel is like calling him a hypocrite. You might as well just call him a human being. Have you ever lied and if so do you think you'll lie again sometime in the future? Be specific regarding the lies if you want a rational discussion. Prosecuted for what? For excercising a legitimate use of power granted to him on a bi-partisan basis in Congress? For following the same policy towards Iraq that the US has followed for the last 10 years? For proclaiming the same things Clinton said after he, Clinton, carried out the bombing of Baghdad in 1998?

[ripdog]

Rational discussion? I doubt that you're capable of it here. Your refusal to acknowledge that Bush's response was disingenuous at best is disingenuous itself. I wonder if you'd pat your kid on the head and say "Good boy!" if his answer to your question "Do you take responsibilty for driving recklessly and getting a $600 ticket for doing so?" was "I take responsibilty for having a job and trying to get there on time. I take responsibility for that." That's what you're doing for Bush. I've leveled my charges very clearly. George Bush has been asked repeatedly whether he takes responsibility for those words and ducked the question outright, or given the pathetic response that started this thread. Bush should be prosecuted for lying to the world in an attempt to justify war. Get over it, Tom. Your man is no better than Clinton was. I get the feeling that I could argue with a brick wall and get the same results, so until you can pull your head out and clean the feces off, I'll not bother to respond to any more of your posts.

[adios]

"Rational discussion? I doubt that you're capable of it here."

Oh really? Is there a full moon or something.

"Your refusal to acknowledge that Bush's response was disingenuous at best is disingenuous itself."

Ok if I don't agree with you I'm being disingenuous. That doesn't seem very rational to me.

"I wonder if you'd pat your kid on the head and say "Good boy!" if his answer to your question "Do you take responsibilty for driving recklessly and getting a $600 ticket for doing so?" was "I take responsibilty for having a job and trying to get there on time. I take responsibility for that." That's what you're doing for Bush."

This is rational? /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

"I've leveled my charges very clearly."

Not really but go on.

" George Bush has been asked repeatedly whether he takes responsibility for those words and ducked the question outright, or given the pathetic response that started this thread."

See my first response. We've come full circle and gotten nowhere.

"Get over it, Tom. Your man is no better than Clinton was. "

I don't no where this comes from. I haven't stated that he necessarily was. If fact I've more or less stated that I feel that Clinton was more effective as President in certain areas.

"I get the feeling that I could argue with a brick wall and get the same results, so until you can pull your head out and clean the feces off, I'll not bother to respond to any more of your posts. "

Is this your example of a rational discussion? If so it's quite pathetic really.

[Chris Alger]

The direct quotes are further down in the article:

"'I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services,' Bush said after a meeting with Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. 'And it was a speech that detailed to the American people that dangers posed by the Saddam Hussein regime. And my government took the appropriate response to those dangers. And as a result, the world is going to be more secure and more peaceful.' Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, offered more specifics. 'I can tell you, if the CIA, the director of central intelligence, had said "take this out of the speech," it would have been gone, without question,' Rice said in a briefing aboard Air Force One en route to Uganda from South Africa. Instead, after some changes sought by the agency were made, 'the agency cleared the speech and cleared it in its entirety,' she said." Two hours later, Tenet gave a statement in which he took full responsibility for the statement. I don't see anything that suggests media manipulation.

So the mainstream media, unlike Fox, don't even attempt to "provide both sides of the issue?" I can't recall any news article or TV news story about White House policy that didn't include the Bush administration's point of view. I can remember quite a few that consisted of little more than statements of the administration, its agencies or its supporters, often all three. That the government line dominates public thinking is borne out by opinion polls which consistently show widespread misunderstanding and confusion resulting from bad information from the government via tha media. For example, the vast majority of the public prior to the war believed it "certain" or "probable" that Iraq had both nuclear weapons and ties to al Qaeda, despite the absence of any hard evidence to support these allegations and much evidence that they were false. Despite recent slippage, these attitudes remain robust despite the dearth of evidence since the end of the war and the inability of US officials to prove such claims despite unrestricted access to all of Iraq and Afghanistan and countless Iraqi prisoners and documents.

Nor does this "unfair bias" make any sense from an institutional perspective. The mass media are, by and large, commercial corporations that derive nearly all their revenue from advertising. Their profits come from the same affluent corporate and financial community that tends to support foreign policy, employs most lobbyists, vets legislation and provides the lion's share of campaign financing. To get this money, the news media require access to officials that the government can turn off at will, including press passes, invitations to press conferences, opportunities to accompany officials, and, probably most important, ongoing relationships with officials and their staff for background and unattributable information. Finally, in today's "soundbite" culture, news articles are fairly short and TV broadcasts last only a few minutes. To assert something sharply at odds with the state requires explanation, detail and time that the media simply don't have.

So there are all sorts of pressures on the press to broadcast the official line and very few to broadcast dissent. The notion that antagonistic critics, usually identified one or two anchor-employees of some conglomerate, so dominate this process that they actually subvert what the government wants people to think is silly.

(The few exceptions to the usual parroting of the official line, Watergate and Vietnam after 1967 prove the rule, as these were cases where a sharp division among the government officials and elites existed, causing unusual poltical crises. Iraq could develop into a similar crisis, but it's unlikely).

None the less, there is a more partisan faction (Fox and the Wall Street Journal opinion page are good examples) that would prefer the public to more slavishly follow the official line and preferably are more extreme version of it. Its the faction that constantly complains and insinuates that the impressions people get from the media are filtered by excessive hostility and skepticism, a claim that objective media watchers find bizarre, although understandable as a propaganda tool.

[MMMMMM]

So Bush should be prosecuted for "ducking a question???"

I see. I wonder if there have ever existed ANY Presidents or politicians who never ducked a question. And exactly what statute would that fall under?

[J.R.]

its not just any question.