# Bush on "Meet The Press."



## Enzo (11 Feb 2004)

For those of you who missed this:

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/4179618/ 

Read it for yourselves, draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (11 Feb 2004)

I get the feeling Tim Russert went into this interview with some biased opinions backing his questions. Bush came up with some great points, and I love how his simplicity and logical explanations stomps out all the ranting of those anti-bush tools.

"We cant say â Å“Let‘s don‘t deal with Saddam Hussein.  Let‘s hope he changes his stripes, or let‘s trust in the goodwill of Saddam Hussein.  Let‘s let us, kind of, try to contain him.â ?  Containment doesn‘t work with a man who is a madman.

And remember, Tim, he had used weapons against his own people."

That alone would make me want him to be re-elected back into office.


----------



## muskrat89 (11 Feb 2004)

I don‘t think the President is a good speaker. I don‘t understand the rationale for doing an interview like that, at this time.

That being said, I‘d rather have a man with ‘nads running the country, than some hand-wringing wimp, who was an excellent public speaker....


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (11 Feb 2004)

I agree muskrat89, He‘s a good public speaker, but not necessarily presidential quality. But thats besides the point, its what he has to say that matters to me, not how he says it.


----------



## onecat (11 Feb 2004)

"And remember, Tim, he had used weapons against his own people."

you do know that when he used those weapons it was under Reagan, and nothing happened.  In fact he got more money to kill Kurds and keep up his fight against Iran.  So for me that does hold water, because the US govn‘t at the time didn‘t care.  I‘m not going to rebate the Iraq war, it done and over with.  Now Iraq is totally unstable, I don‘t think that is going to change for years.  So I‘m Iraqi people will be happy to have bombs going off for years to come.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2004)

Plus, there was a little thing called the Soviet Union at that point in time...I‘m sure they would have had something to say about invading their client states.


----------



## onecat (11 Feb 2004)

Iraq was not a client state of Soviet Union, it was being funded by the United States.  Yes it had lots of Soviet kit, but that point in time 1986-1989 it was supported by the US.  

S_baker, I can‘t say i can find another country was upset enough to do something either.  To me, I can‘t agree with Bush using it as a reason to invade 16 years later.


----------



## muskrat89 (11 Feb 2004)

He didn‘t use it as a reason to invade. He used it as an example of Saddam‘s willingness to use chemical weapons. That, in turn, substantiated the perceived threat of Saddam‘s possession, and possible use of - WMDs.

For such a stickler for facts and semantics while on the defense, you seem to make some pretty tenuous connections while trying to support your own position....


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2004)

> Iraq was not a client state of Soviet Union, it was being funded by the United States.  Yes it had lots of Soviet kit, but that point in time 1986-1989 it was supported by the US.


Those weren‘t M-60‘s getting shot up by the US and the Brits in the Sandbox.  

If you remember, George Bush Sr. had to really finesse Gorbachev over lauching the first invasion.  The Soviet‘s considered the Arab states their turf due to America‘s support of Israel.  That is why they threatened to turn Tel Aviv into a glowing parking lot following the Arab reversal in the Yom Kippur War.
This combined with the military relationship between the two meant big ties.  Yes, they were supported by the states in their conflict with Iran, but it doesn‘t mean Saddam was cutting ties with the Soviets.


----------



## mattoigta (11 Feb 2004)

Did anyone watch the the Daily Show with Jon Stewart yesterday? He showed a clip from meet the pres in which GWB says "I think we‘re welcomed in Iraq"
jon: "He further added, rocket propelled grenades is the new ‘aloha‘ "


----------



## koalorka (11 Feb 2004)

"RPG‘s are the Iraqi way of saying aloha."

Hehehe


----------



## koalorka (11 Feb 2004)

Here‘s the video:

 http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/8096.html


----------



## Kaitain (10 Aug 2004)

First off I have to say you people must be insane!   For ANYONE to read that transcript and think "President" Bush was intelligent and made great points truly demonstrates that you are deluding yourself.   You KNOW he sounded like an idiot, but you are unwilling to admit that your guy F*d up.   That he came off sounding like a lying little boy, unable to answer a question directly (not that ANY politician can).

My favorite part was where he said he didn't preemptively attack Iraq but the UN attacked Iraq!   I couldn't believe it!

You people need to admit that "President" Bush:
1) Was not legally elected but stole the election.
2) Is not the brightest bulb on the tree.
3) Attacked an evil man that had nothing to do with 9/11.
4) Ignored Saudi Arabia, the country that IS be directly linked to the 9/11 attack, because he and his family have close economic ties with the Saudi Family.
5) Gave Cheney's old company, Halliburton, no bid contracts worth billions of dollars.
6) SAT FOR SEVEN MINUTES, LOOKING DUMBLY ALL AROUND, AFTER HE FOUND OUT THE NATION WAS UNDER ATTACK!
7) Is attacking a bonified war hero for his honarable service while he was AWOL, drunk, and high on cocaine.
8) Pretends to run a Christian government and care about "obscenity" on the air waves but supports his Vice President when he curses out a US Senator (Not ONE republican has said boo about this, but they sure do want Howard Stern shut down for disagreeing with the "President")

How anyone can vote for this booze addled coke head is beyond me.   How any active duty member or veteran can support this coward while he attacks a war hero on the hero's war record, escapes me.   How anyone can have read that Bush transcript and say he made even a modicum of sense baffles me.

The only thing I can think of is that you hate Clinton SO MUCH that you still can't see beyond your blind rage.   Or maybe you just hate Liberals and are willing to ignore how evil your guy is just to beat them.

You people need to sit down, count to 10, and THINK about what is reality.   I know if you are honest with yourself you will be able to admit that Bush should not be reelected (not that he was elected the first time.)


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Aug 2004)

Kaitain said:
			
		

> First off I have blahblahblah




I wish Americans could be like Canadians and decide elections on WHAT THE CANDIDATES WILL DO TO FIX THE PROBLEMS rather than WHAT DID HE DO THIRTY YEARS AGO.   As boring as our election was, it was nice to see the candidates and the people talk about current problems and how they will fix them.  Character issues were made, but they dealt with the present, not the 1970s.  I'll be glad when this crappy election is over with already, yearlong campaigning is a bit much.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Aug 2004)

Kaitain,

First post, and you decide to dig up a dead post and launch into a rabid, Michael Moore inspired diatribe against George W Bush.  For the most part, nobody cares.  Maybe you should try a little harder on post 2....


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Aug 2004)

1) Go read the court documents and the results of several recounts.
2) Bush is not as stupid as portrayed, either.  Does difficulty speaking publicly necessarily imply stupidity?
3) Probably true.
4) Ignored Saudi Arabia, but not for the reason you cited.  To attack Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca and Medina, would have been gravely provocative to Muslims.
5) Done to bypass a tendering process that takes months to produce results.
6) You can't possibly know why he continued calmly to complete his current activity.  Have you asked him?
7) Prove that Bush was drunk, high, and AWOL.  Prove that Kerry is anything more than someone who merely did his duty for 4 months and ran home as soon as regulations permitted.

>How anyone can vote for this booze addled coke head is beyond me. 

You believe he still is a substance abuser?  Prove it.

A "war hero" is someone like Audie Murphy.  What Kerry did is nothing more than what would be expected of a junior officer.

>The only thing I can think of is that you hate Clinton SO MUCH that you still can't see beyond your blind rage.

It occurs to me that the people who have gone insane with rage and frustration to the point of losing their objectivity are not necessarily people on the Republican side of the spectrum.

Are you poorly educated, ill- or misinformed, or just being deliberately obtuse by placing your beliefs about how you would like things to be ahead of things as they really are?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Aug 2004)

Brad, as you well know, most combatant officers in Vietnam served tours of duty only half as long as the men they commanded, at least in the Army and Marines.   Read Caputo's book A RUMOR OF WAR, or Anderson's book on the rear areas of Vietnam (name escapes me right now, I can find it at home).

I have seen 4 and 6 month figures given for Kerry.   Did the Navy have different requirements vis a vis tours of duty in combat duties?   I don't necessarily believe that Kerry shirked his duty; whether or not his awards of the Order of the Purple Heart were for serious wounds, it seems likely to me, based on the limited information I've read, that he did what other junior officers in-country did:   serve a six month tour of duty in a combat role.

If you know otherwise, I would love to be corrected - I can't seem to find the correct answer on this point.


----------



## brin11 (10 Aug 2004)

Here's some info I've found just by searching around.  It doesn't sound like the Purple Hearts were awarded for serious wounds, esp. the first one.  He was awarded a bronze and a silver star though.  Were those given out as often (and as easily) as the purple heart?  

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/04/14/kerry_faces_questions_over_purple_heart/

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200405041626.asp


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Aug 2004)

brin11 said:
			
		

> Here's some info I've found just by searching around.   It doesn't sound like the Purple Hearts were awarded for serious wounds, esp. the first one.   He was awarded a bronze and a silver star though.   Were those given out as often (and as easily) as the purple heart?
> 
> http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/04/14/kerry_faces_questions_over_purple_heart/
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200405041626.asp



Yes, but the V for Valor was harder to (legitimately) earn - Bronze Star was given for merit as well as bravery, but the V distinction was only for bravery under fire.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Aug 2004)

I don't see President bush as a brilliant man by any stretch of the word. From interviews, to comments on TV to comments to michael moores video to the little interview link i just read.  Kerry seems like he has the backbone of a bag of milk. He flip flops through everything.
He just comes across as a real oddball.

I would rather see the americans have a president who fights a war in the middle east than a president who lets a war be fought in north america.

No sitting on the fence for our southern friends, its far right wing or far left wing.

I think Arnold The terminator should leave office in california and run for president.  Laugh if you will but he strikes me as having a head on his shoulders. As for being a war hero, he's stoped the predator and saved john conner like twice.


----------



## dutchie (10 Aug 2004)

Order of precedence aside, I feel that Kerry's merit as a soldier falls somewhere between 'ordinary' and just shy of 'hero'. He certainly served with honour, but whether he was extraordinarily brave or not is up for debate, and to me, not that important to his political aspirations. Would I choose a certified War Hero over an ordinary soldier? Not for that reason alone, I wouldn't.

The really interesting thing in the interview for me was President Bush's comments on WMD. If you recall, that was the main stated reason for the invasion. Once it became clear that they were not to be found, the President tried to make us believe that they went to war because Saddam COULD have obtained WMD. His story changed. 

Unlike previous posts by others, I will not quote Michael Moore or F/911 as I feel his sources are suspect and his agenda quite obvious. However, to me, Bush either had the intelligence fabricated to conform to his desire to invade Iraq, or the intelligence was flawed and he acted upon that flawed intel. Either way, the reason he invaded, or at least what he stated the reason was at the time, was that Saddam had WMD. He now admits that they are not there. 
Second point: What did Iraq do to deserve invasion? He reportedly offered money to the families of suicide bombers, but others have done far worse (Iran actually committed state terrorism against the US, Israel, and the US and they weren't invaded). So you can't use that excuse. Saddam had the desire to obtain WMD, but North Korea might actually have Nukes, and Syria has Chem/Bio weapons, Pakistan (Nukes), etc...so you can't use that one either. The truth is that Saddam, although a monster to his own people, was not much of a threat to the US after the first Gulf War. Bush was not justified in his invasion, and his own comments prove that. We don't need Michael Moore and left-ist slanted propaganda to point it out, a comparison of his comments before and after do that for us. 

ps - no man who attains the position of President could possibly be stupid. He may not be that gifted when it comes to public speaking, but he is no dummy.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Aug 2004)

Kerry had some time (in Vietnamese waters) prior to his swift boat duties, if memory serves.

Under regulations one could request to be sent home after receiving three purple hearts.   I don't recollect reading that one was sent home regardless.   Draw your own conclusions about the nature of the wounds and the character of a man who would take advantage of that regulation under those circumstances, particularly one who admitted at one point to having requested swift boats _before the mission profile change to become more hazardous_ because he didn't want to be too involved in the war.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Aug 2004)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Kerry had some time (in Vietnamese waters) prior to his swift boat duties, if memory serves.
> 
> Under regulations one could request to be sent home after receiving three purple hearts.   I don't recollect reading that one was sent home regardless.   Draw your own conclusions about the nature of the wounds and the character of a man who would take advantage of that regulation under those circumstances, particularly one who admitted at one point to having requested swift boats _before the mission profile change to become more hazardous_ because he didn't want to be too involved in the war.



But my point is that even if he did request the time off due to his Purple Hearts - serious or not - you imply that he was doing it to get out of six months more of combat duty.   My point is that most combatant officers in the Marines and Army, if I understand it correctly, only did six months tours in front line units anyway, so if the Navy was similar, he was only requesting to be relieved from combat duty for as much as two months and perhaps much less.

But as I say, I don't know if that is accurate or not.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Aug 2004)

More myth propagation.   The people who state that a pre-emptive war was unjustified because it turns out Iraq did not have WMD are wrong.   What was proposed was a _preventive_ war based on indications that Hussein could, or was trying to, acquire WMD.   Those indications were not mere fabrications by the US; they were the shared international majority opinion and Hussein was not exactly forthright in setting people at ease.   Whether you agree with either as a cause for war or not, whether sanctioned by the UN or not, whether Hussein was a threat to the US or not, the latter - preventive, just in case - is how the WMD case for war was originally laid out.

For the UN Charter absolutists among you, yes, a preventive war is one step further removed from immediate self-defence than a pre-emptive war.

Almost any decision a nation makes with respect to other nations is going to be based on intelligence.   Intelligence is rarely either correct or incorrect; reliability falls on a spectrum between the absolutes.

Of excuses for war, there is no doctrine which states a nation must act against the worst offenders first.   If state-sponsored terrorism is a just excuse for war, then any state sponsoring terrorism may be attacked.   Any state over the threshold of pretext for war is fair game.   There are no rules which require you to pick the biggest apples first, or to refrain from picking any if you can't pick them all.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Aug 2004)

My point is that if he requested to return home (and was not ordered home) it doesn't matter whether it was two months, two weeks, or two days - it tends to lessen the image of the valiant war hero putting duty before self.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Aug 2004)

Hmm...good posts, nice to see there was something salvageable here.  Now where did our mini-Michael Moore get to....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Aug 2004)

No I think Mr. Dorosh pretty much nailed the way politics seem to be played down there and maybe that hit a senstive nerve. Mr. Baker. 
I'm no fan of our" backroom playing" either but it hasen' sunk to the levels down there, YET.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Aug 2004)

People who claim Canadian media provide more objective reporting than American media simply aren't hearing the slant they prefer from the American media.  Canadian agencies each have a bias.  It's laughable when even a film reviewer can't refrain from finding some excuse to snipe at some favoured political target.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Aug 2004)

What exactly did Kerry do to be considered a war hero?  Not to knock someone wounded in the line of duty but please tell me being wounded 3 times doesn't make him a hero.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Aug 2004)

Presumably his Silver Star.  It is also merely possible that he benefits from the current fashion of overstatement - every veteran a hero, every innocent casualty a genocide, etc.


----------



## muskrat89 (11 Aug 2004)

Another perspective on Kerry's hero status :   www.swiftvets.com


----------



## Kaitain (11 Aug 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I wish Americans could be like Canadians and decide elections on WHAT THE CANDIDATES WILL DO TO FIX THE PROBLEMS rather than WHAT DID HE DO THIRTY YEARS AGO.     As boring as our election was, it was nice to see the candidates and the people talk about current problems and how they will fix them.   Character issues were made, but they dealt with the present, not the 1970s.   I'll be glad when this crappy election is over with already, yearlong campaigning is a bit much.



What the fuuck are   you talking about?   I'm talking about an illegal coup that happened 3 years ago, I'm talking about a bullshit war that's happening right now....


----------



## Kaitain (11 Aug 2004)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> It occurs to me that the people who have gone insane with rage and frustration to the point of losing their objectivity are not necessarily people on the Republican side of the spectrum.



I beg to differ.  AM radio is not filled with liberal hate mongers, it's filled with conservatives spewing their right-wing neo-fascist propaganda.  As annoying and silly as liberals are, they haven't turned the word "conservative" into a dirty word, while the conservatives HAVE turned "liberal" into a dirty word.  A word that often leaves them spitting as if something vile had crossed their tongue leaving behind the bitter taste of bile.  Apparently living in Canada you don't get to see or hear the constant hatred regurgitated by mindless ditto heads.  

The irony being they don't care that their "hero" is another drug addict high on hillbilly heroin, their protestations that those filthy druggies should be locked up for good instantly forgotten.  They moral outrage they foster and nourish for Howard Stern's words is instantly forgoten when it's their own Vice President telling a U.S. Senator to perform an impossible act upon himself on the Senate floor.  When that happens is just a good ol' boy expressing himself and by gosh golly he well ought to have that right, oh but fuck Howard Stern.




			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Are you poorly educated, ill- or misinformed, or just being deliberately obtuse by placing your beliefs about how you would like things to be ahead of things as they really are?



Well I am a victim of the American skool system, but you are simply proving my point.  You KNOW Bush was lying, is lying, and will continue to lie as long as it serves his purpose.  You KNOW he got out of Vietnam because of his father's money and political connections.  You KNOW he broke federal law when he had his minions expose the identity of an undercover Intelligence officer simply because her husband had the audacity to speak out against the "President."  You KNOW he shouldn't be running for a second term but instead should be facing a special Courts-Martial for treason.  And yet faced with all the facts you refuse to even THINK about it.  Instead you would rather attack a fellow veteran, a man that proved his worth in combat.  Even republicans have said the attack on Kerry's military record is "Dishonest and dishonerable."

I know I won't change your mind, either through lack of intellect, education, or just blinding hatred you lack the ability to hold two opposing thoughts in your head.  Good luck with that.


----------



## Kaitain (11 Aug 2004)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Another perspective on Kerry's hero status :   www.swiftvets.com



I see you've done your research... NOT!  That is the bullshyt organization put together by Bush supports to attack Kerry.  Why don't you ask yourself, "Gee how many people on that site actually served with Kerry?  Gee why do Republicans even think these guys are "Dishonest and Dishonerable?""  One of the so called witnesses to Kerry's actions is a political hit man hired by Tricky Dick in the 70's to try to bring down the growing political power of the anti-war movement, and guess what, he's moved from working for a Dick to working for a Bush.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (11 Aug 2004)

Kaitain said:
			
		

> What the fuuck are  you talking about?  I'm talking about an illegal coup that happened 3 years ago, I'm talking about a bullshit war that's happening right now....



There was no "coup" and the drug addiction and evasion of service you are whining about happened 30 years ago. You've got four posts in total on this forum, none of which have to do with the Canadian Army, and in fact, it since you show an inability to respond intelligently to anyone else's point of view, I would rather suggest you are merely a troll looking for a fight.  If you want to whine and cry about 30 years of alleged misconduct on the part of the US President, I suggest you do it someplace else.  I'm going to lock this one up since I see it going downhill from here. 

This is a political forum - not a place to rant and rave, but to discuss and consider the opinions of others.  Namecalling and swearing don't seem to fit into our vision of that...this IS Canada after all.

Have a nice day, eh.


----------

