Favorite comments from the Bush press conference

[Chris Alger]

"Them" are the radical Islamists--in this example, al Qaeda."

Multilevel insanity. "In this example?" You think that 9/11 and the other al Qaeda terrorism is just an "example" of what "radical Islam" constantly perpetrates to the U.S.? 9/11, Kenya, USS Cole and Bali are all the same small group. So you want to commit genocide and "wipe out" all the radicals to get at the 100 or 1,000 terrorists that actually threaten, and assume that this can't produce a million or hundred million terrorists? By the same logic, we should "wipe out" all the "radical" U.S. patriots because of Timothy McVeigh and similar nuts while assuming the innocent among them will never fight back. And the link to Iraq? Your prescription is pretty much what Saddam already did to his Islamic fundamentalist rivals in order to make Iraq secular.

[MMMMMM]

No...READ what I wrote--I said "defeat" regarding radical Islamists and terrorists, but I said "wipe out" only regarding al Qaeda. That's NOT at all the same as saying wipe out all radical Islamists--although I can see why a careless reading might lead someone to think so. Further, I only said that I'm coming to this conclusion--I didn't say I had fully arrived at this conclusion.

Do I need to clarify these subtle points which should be obvious from a careful reading of my words? Apparently so, since you, andyfox, and others have at times missed the finer yet important points in my words--which greatly alter the meaning.

You're misunderstanding my prescription. I'm suggesting that it may be necessary to defeat radical Islamists and terrorists--and to wipe out the worst such as al Qaeda--but I'm certainly not suggesting wiping out large segments of the population.

[BruceZ]

This is absurd on two levels: (1) there's no "them" defined, so it makes as much sense as saying "look what they did to us with anthrax, what they did at Pearl Harbor, what they did to Custer;"


"Them" refers to international terrorism by which we are currently threatened, not the Japanese nor the American Indians. I thought that was abundantly clear. If it wasn't clear to you, then I fail to see how you would have any credibility at all in any other analyses of this issue. If it was clear to you (which I actually think it was) then it is you who is offering an absurd argument solely for the purpose of advancing your cause, rather than arguing an issue on its merits.

(2) in the second sentence, you are effectively admitting that there is no reason to believe that invading Iraq will have any effect on terrorism. You could just as easily say "if we invade Iraq, they can certainly do that again or even worse." Moreover, you and Bush are both ducking the issue of whether the rage ignited by invading Iraq will exacerbate the inclination toward terrorism to the point where it overwhelms any ability to reduce the ability of terrorists to operate, accepting the dubious assumption that we can do even that.


In the first place, I'm not saying or ducking anything, I am interpreting Bush's comments to those who apparently had trouble understanding them. I thought I made that clear. In the second place, your statement is completly incorrect logically. You are saying effectively:

<font color="red">"If we invade they may attack us, and if we don't invade they can certainly attack us worse."</font color>

Is equivalent to:

<font color="red">"If we invade they can certainly attack us worse."</font color>

and we can deduce from this

<font color="red">"There is no reason to believe that invading Iraq will have any effect on terrorism."</font color>

Think about these assertions some more and see if you can't find the errors on your own. I can't teach a course in formal logic here on the other topics forum. I will tell you that this is incorrect in a very fundamental way. If this is representative of your thinking, then I would suspect that your arguments would carry very little weight at all until this is corrected.

[Chris Alger]

In the first place, "terrorism" is a "thing," not a "them." If you are referring to "terrorists" in connection with a proposed bombardment and invasion of Iraq, perhaps you could draw some slight connection between the people Bush proposes to kill and some terrorism on their part that could justify it.

As for inability to see a distinction between terrorists that "may attack us" in one case, and "can certainly attack us worse" in another, I'd like to know what, in the real world, that could be. For example, just how will invading Iraq make it less "certain" that terrorists "can attack us worse?" How will invading Iraq preclude terrorists stealing plutonium for a dirty bomb from India, Pakistan or Russia, or just highjacking a few more planes with boxcutters the next time?

Any argument that the U.S. is justified in waging war with Iraq because of 9/11 is no better than an argument for murdering Sikhs or throwing virgins into volcanos because of 9/11.

[John Ho]

In response to a question from CNN's John King, Bush answered part of the question then said (with a smile and laugh) "The rest of your 6 point question?"

King (straight faced)refers him back to the part of his question not answered which was as follows: "And as you prepare the American people for the possibility of military conflict, could you share with us any of the scenarios your advisers have shared with you about worst-case scenarios, in terms of the potential cost of American lives, the potential cost to the American economy and the potential risks of retaliatory terrorist strikes here at home?"

I don't understand how Bush can be so flip about this topic or forget that this type of question was asked that he needs reminding. It's just another disturbing sign that perhaps Bush is living in another world. I suspect that, aside from his drinking problem, Bush has never really suffered very much in his life. Perhaps he is out of touch with the populace.

I remember his father getting heat for being out of touch. But I would imagine that his son would be even more out of touch. At least the father fought in a war. His son seemingly has done nothing but drink and have the road to positions of influence, power, and prestige paved for him.

From published reports Bush does not like formal news conferences because he rightly believes reporters hot dog him (and all presidents) with complex questions hoping to trip him up. I think that's what he was joking about. But I don't understand how a man who has the lives of so many people can make a joke at the first news conference in a while we've seen him conduct.