Bush on Meet the Press

[subgenius]

"I'm a war president."
Instead of "I happen to be president when our country is at war."
But he's right, the only "legitimacy" to his rule is the perceived outgroup threat. That's all he's got. And anyone in the office would enjoy the same understandable support. Its not him, its them.
I think he's over-politicizing the "threat" that America perceives. Everything is rationalized in terms of the "war."

 

[Frank Newgent]

"I'm a war president."

Then why are we doing business with the enemy?

 

[renata]

According to this article, Bush also made at least one misstatement. It is uncertain if he used different figures, or simply does not know.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23494-2004Feb8_2.html

Bush said critics, including conservatives, are "wrong" to say he has not kept control of the federal budget. "If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined," he said.

Federal discretionary spending has grown by more than 25 percent in the past two fiscal years, following average annual increases of 2.4 percent in discretionary spending in the 1990s, according to figures from congressional budget panels.

Same paper also points this out- regarding justifications for invading Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24031-2004Feb8.html

In defending his decision to go to war in Iraq, President Bush suggested yesterday a belief that U.N. inspections and sanctions were of limited utility in preventing Saddam Hussein from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

"Containment doesn't work with a man who is a madman," Bush said during his interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," even as he acknowledged banned weapons have yet to be found.

Bush's assessment of the U.N. efforts, however, does not appear to be shared by his own former chief weapons inspector, David Kay. In testimony Jan. 28 before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Kay lauded the effectiveness of past U.N. efforts. "In holding the [Iraq arms] program down and keeping it from break out [building numbers of weapons], I think the [U.N.] record is better than we would have anticipated," Kay said.
.....

NBC's Tim Russert asked Bush about statements he had made during fall 2002 when the administration was building support for a congressional authorization for war. These included Bush saying, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency," and "Saddam Hussein is a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible." Bush did not acknowledge having made those statements and said, "In my language, I called it a 'grave and gathering threat,' " a phrase he used in a speech before the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002.

White House aides have insisted, since no weapons have been found, that Bush never used the word "imminent" in describing the Iraq threat. Yesterday, Bush said, "I don't want to get into a word contest."

....

In describing the threat posed by Hussein, Bush said twice that the former Iraqi leader was a threat to the United States because he "was paying for suicide bombers" that went into Israel, implying that the Iraqi money generated the attacks. After suicide bombings, Hussein in recent years said that, as Saudi Arabia and several Gulf states had been doing for years, he would give $25,000 to support each of the perpetrators' families. But many experts agree those funds, no matter where their origin, were not the motivation for the attackers.

.....

 

[subgenius]

Renata:
According to this article, Bush also made at least one misstatement. It is uncertain if he used different figures, or simply does not know.


You can't lie if you're just an idiot-boy puppet.
Time to put an end to our national nightmare.

 

[JesFine]

According to this article, Bush also made at least one misstatement. It is uncertain if he used different figures, or simply does not know.

Bush said critics, including conservatives, are "wrong" to say he has not kept control of the federal budget. "If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined," he said.

Federal discretionary spending has grown by more than 25 percent in the past two fiscal years, following average annual increases of 2.4 percent in discretionary spending in the 1990s, according to figures from congressional budget panels.

Interesting you should bring this up. Earlier this week I was perusing the whitehouse.gov website and they did an "Ask the White House" chat thingy with the Deputy Directory of the OMB. He gave the same info to a similar question:

Coralie, from Hornell, NY writes:
Dear Sir: We conservative republicans have been hearing a lot of complaints from our camp, about this administrations big spending. How can this segment of voters be satisfied and regain confidence in our present government?

Joel Kaplan
As Director Bolten explained on Monday, the President is committed to spending what is necessary to provide for our security and restraining spending elsewhere.

Over 75% of the increases in discretionary spending since September 11, 2001 have been directly related to the War on Terror, enhanced homeland security, and our response to the attacks.

Under President Bush, annually appropriated spending unrelated to security has come down every year from 15 % in the last year of the previous Administration (FY 2001) to 6% in 2002, then 5 percent the following year (FY 2003), 4 percent for the current fiscal year (FY 2004), and in the President's FY 2005 Budget he transmitted on Monday, to one half of one percent.

Conservative Republicans - like all Americans - should be confident that the President will do what it takes to defend America, strengthen the economy, and dramatically improve the budget situation.

It seems they don't count discretionary spending if it is "related to security" but I would like to know how they defined "related".

 

[Frank Newgent]

"I'm a war president."

Then why are we doing business with the enemy?

I'll answer my own (rhetorical) question:

We are not at war.

It is one thing to actually declare war. It is another to pretend that we are when actually up against a (mere) criminal element. And yet another to then use the pretense as a political ploy. Chasing votes while the real deal is hidden in plain sight.

It seems obvious to me that control of Middle Eastern oil is what we are fighting over. What the, say, Chinese will be needing badly in another decade or so. Better to overtake now while the overtaking is good.

Might even be good long-term planning, given that we seem to live on a very brutal and backward planet. But quite cynical politically to not just come out and say it, dressed up instead as a force of correctness and rectitude. When about the only ones we're trying to fool would be the voters.

 

[subgenius]

Here's a good point by point refutation of the claims made in the interview:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/s/content.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24899&content_id={DF7E4BE2-9FC7-4C41-89EC-3345A1EBF121}

 

[Clancie]

Regnad Kcin,

That was a good link about Russert's poor performance.

But no, Russert didn’t follow up when Bush gave a speech to avoid his first question. As he did throughout the hour, he simply moved on to Question 2 when Bush failed to answer Question 1.

What happened to that frightening bulldog—the one the press has talked up for years? You saw it—that bulldog turned to a puddy-tat, coughed a hairball and died. What became of Bulldog Tim? That “dog” didn’t bark, hunt or slobber.

Irrelevant “answers” went without follow-up. Blatant misstatements by Bush went unchallenged. Bush was allowed to give long, windy speeches—speeches so long and so slow that it sometimes seemed that Russert must have left the building.

And where, on where were those film clips Tim loves—the clips where he highlights his target’s past statements? Such clips had been sent down the memory-hole, along with the “bulldog” your fake pundits love. “No no no no no no no?” Russert loved lecturing Dean last June. This Sunday, the phrase wasn’t heard.

But don’t worry—pundits immediately began pretending that Russert really put Bush through the hoops. They know the script, and they love to recite. We'll examine the clowning all week.

I agree with all this. Also, does anyone know if there was an agreement (Schwarzenegger-style) to give Bush the questions in advance? It wouldn't surprise me if they did, considering how he usually avoids press conferences, much less a lengthy one-on-one interview like this.

 

[subgenius]

TIM RUSSERT: The General Accounting Office... did a computer simulation that shows that balancing the budget in 2040 could require either cutting total federal spending in half or doubling federal taxes. Why, as a fiscal conservative, as you like to call yourself, would you allow a $500 billion deficit and this kind of deficit disaster?
DUBYA: Sure. The budget I just proposed to the Congress cuts the deficit in half in five years. Now, I don't know what the assumptions are in the GAO report, but I do know that...


The question: "Why?"
The answer: "Sure."

 

[Lemastre]

. . . does anyone know if there was an agreement (Schwarzenegger-style) to give Bush the questions in advance? It wouldn't surprise me if they did, considering how he usually avoids press conferences, much less a lengthy one-on-one interview like this.

Of course, Bush knew the questions in advance –– people have been asking them for months. But he still can't answer them sensibly or even evade them articulately. He is just not a verbal person. It would be interesting to see what form his thoughts exist in. As for Russert, he performs as the rest of the White House press does by not asking Bush to phrase his answers in intelligible form or challenging his logic, where any is perceivable. The American press is far too polite toward politicos, at least compared with the British press and public, which feel that the pols employed in public office should be able to defend themselves in public debate at any time.