Favorite comments from the Bush press conference

[adios]

I've got a few [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]:

"The attacks of September the 11th, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction."

"I think, first of all, it's hard to envision more terror on America than September 11th, 2001. We did nothing to provoke that terrorist attack. It came upon us because there's an enemy which hates America. They hate what we stand for. We love freedom and we're not changing. And, therefore, so long as there's a terrorist network like al-Qaida, and others willing to fund them, finance them, equip them -- we're at war."

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation. September the 11th changed the strategic thinking, at least, as far as I was concerned, for how to protect our country. My job is to protect the American people. It used to be that we could think that you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror. September the 11th should say to the American people that we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organisation could be deployed here at home."

"Question: The potential price in terms of lives and the economy, terrorism.

Bush: The price of doing nothing exceeds the price of taking action, if we have to. We'll do everything we can to minimise the loss of life. The price of the attacks on America, the cost of the attacks on America on September 11th were enormous. They were significant. And I am not willing to take that chance again."

"This has been an important week on two fronts on our war against terror. First, thanks to the hard work of American and Pakistani officials, we captured the mastermind of the September 11th attacks against our nation. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed conceived and planned the hijackings and directed the actions of the hijackers. We believe his capture will further disrupt the terror network and their planning for additional attacks."

"If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks."

"Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists -- terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries."

"Inspection teams do not need more time, or more personnel. All they need is what they have never received -- the full cooperation of the Iraqi regime."

" The world needs him to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by resolution 1441, or has it not? "

"Iraq's dictator has made a public show of producing and destroying a few missiles -- missiles that violate the restrictions set out more than 10 years ago. Yet, our intelligence shows that even as he is destroying these few missiles, he has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles."

"Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors. In some cases, these materials have been moved to different locations every 12 to 24 hours, or placed in vehicles that are in residential neighbourhoods."

"We know from multiple intelligence sources that Iraqi weapons scientists continue to be threatened with harm
should they cooperate with UN inspectors."

"In the event of conflict, America also accepts our responsibility to protect innocent lives in every way possible. We'll bring food and medicine to the Iraqi people. We'll help that nation to build a just government, after decades of brutal dictatorship. The form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose."

[brad]

-------------
We love freedom and we're not changing. And, therefore, so long as there's a terrorist network like al-Qaida, and others willing to fund them, finance them, equip them -- we're at war."
-------------

as far as i know, US funded al-qaida until right up to 9-11.

as far as i know, US is drastically changing. has US always been pro-torture? has US always called on americans to 'give up rights for security'? p.a.t.r.i.o.t. act, homeland security, operation t.i.p.s., poindexters office of total information awareness, ashcroft's 'if youre not with us you are a terrorist', 'those who complain about phantoms of lost liberty are aiding the terrorists', etc?

i think not. no i think the US is changing, and for the far worse.

officials and commentators are condoning hand-wringing and saying 'we must' torture suspects children.

i say no.

i strongly believe all of these evil people who publicly support torture and even torture of the children of suspects need to be brought up on criminal charges immediately.

i say shame on all americans who fall victim to this propaganda and brainwashing.

[IrishHand]

Your thoughts echoed my father's - he said the most painful aspect for him of watching Bush's speech was how clearly his lack of intelligence came through. Take away the script, and it's pretty clear that he simply searches the recesses of his brain for some crafty line he's used before in a speech. The only times he allowed original thought to enter his responses, he contradicted him official line.

As for him looking down at the podium prior to each question, the primary reason for that, as I understand it, is that Bush has absolutely no idea who 99% of the media are. It wouldn't look to good for him to be like "how about you...no, not you...you in the yellow shirt with the bad tie...yeah you!" I tend to doubt the questions were scripted, but I'm likewise positive that his handlers told him only to ask questions of reporters who could be counted on to lob softballs as opposed to hammer him with the challenging questions he'd hang himself on.

Good points from all above though.

Thanks,
Irish

[BruceZ]

Let me try to field a couple of the questions from this thread the way I think the president intended to answer:

When asked about the lack of evidence in support of his claims that Iraq has vast quantities of WMD, combined with the fact that many other nations support continued inspections and diplomacy, Bush boldly declared that if something isn't done now, we'll see something far worse than anything in the past. We saw what they did with just 4 planes, and they possess far worse weapons than that.

Later, when asked whether he ever had any doubts about his present course, whether he thought that maybe aggressive US military action would increase terrorism, Bush replied that he "couldn't imagine anything worse than 9/11."

What I think he he meant was:

Look what they already did to us on 9/11. They may do that again if we act, but they can certainly do that again or even worse if we don't act.

He's saying that he can't imagine anything worse than 9/11 given the present capabilities of the terrorists, and that has already happened anyway and can happen again. If the terrorists get weapons of mass destruction, then we'll see something worse than 9/11. The two statements are not inconsistent in the context in which they were made, only when someone tries to take them out of context in order to manufacture an apparent inconsistency.


Q: "Millions of Americans can recall a time when leaders from both parties set this country on a mission of regime change in Vietnam. Fifty thousand Americans died. The regime is still there in Hanoi. And hasn't harmed or threatened a single American in the 30 years since the war ended. What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?"

A: That's a great question. Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm it will mean regime change. I'm confident we'll be able to achieve that objective in a way that minimizes the loss of life. No doubt, there's risks with any military operation. I know that. But it's very clear what we intend to do. And our mission won't change. Our mission is precisely what I just stated. We have got a plan that will achieve that mission should we need to send forces in.

My translation:

Unlike Vietnam, we have a clear goal going in for what we want to achieve in Iraq, disarmament and regime change. Unlike Vietnam, this goal will not change midstream. Also unlike Vietnam, we have confidence going in that we have what it takes to achieve our goal, and so we will achieve it.

[Chris Alger]

"What I think he he meant was:
Look what they already did to us on 9/11. They may do that again if we act, but they can certainly do that again or even worse if we don't act."

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;" (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.

"Unlike Vietnam, we have a clear goal going in for what we want to achieve in Iraq, disarmament and regime change. Unlike Vietnam, this goal will not change midstream. Also unlike Vietnam, we have confidence going in that we have what it takes to achieve our goal, and so we will achieve it."

The goal in Vietnam remained consistent and clear from 1956 until the embassy evacuation in 1975: to support and maintain an anticommunist regime in southern Vietnam. It never "changed in midstream." The only thing that changed was the cost-benefit analysis of doing this. Obviously, that factor can always change. For example, a recent study by a Yale professor puts the unpward costs of war and reconstruction in excess of $1 trillion. If the costs even approximate that figure, the U.S. will be forced to back down. It's simply a fact of life. As for having "confidence" in our abilities, you'll find that the public was far more confident about the Vietnam undertaking in 1964 than they are now about Iraq.

[John Cole]

Tom Haley owns five houses. In one of those houses, he has WMD. In another, he builds WMD. Tommorow, we decide to search house #1. We arrange this with Tom, but, as our intelligence shows, he has moved the WMD from house #1 to house #2. We show up to search house #1.

Q: Why don't we show up at house #2?

A: ?

[MMMMMM]

This is essentially why the U.N. Inspection teams won't be able to find Iraq's WMD--Iraq knows in advance where they are going and moves the stuff. In addition, instead of 5 houses, Iraq has 5 million houses.

[MMMMMM]

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

SCREW worrying about Muslim rage. There is no point in trying to appease those who are dead set against us REGARDLESS of what we do.

SCREW appeasement. If they attack us or threaten us, defeat them thoroughly--- as al Qaeda is in the process of being wiped out.

The bastards don't have to attack us. It's their choice.

I am coming to the conclusion that terrorists and radical Islamists cannot be reasoned with, cannot be bargained with, and must simply be defeated.

Their goal is to defeat us--while the rest of the wishy-washy world looks on.

The smart money's on the cowboys.

[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.

[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.