It is still being transcribed, but some is better than none.
Hm, I was right about the Secretary of State gaffe... it's paragraph #33 or so...
Quote:
Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of State Rumsfeld and a number of NATO defense and foreign ministers are exploring a more formal role for NATO, such as turning the Polish-led division into a NATO operation and giving NATO specific responsibilities for border control.
I thought the following were the most pointed questions asked, but by no means can anyone accurately evaluate them as "hostile." At least not in the sense of a free press that asks legitimate, tough questions that need to be asked- and more importantly- need to be answered. I think the President failed us tonight by refusing to admit any specific mistake and by refusing to accept personal responsibility for anything- among other things. I don't think the President's *wink-and-grin* or his empty platitudes can compensate for his flat-footed performance tonight.
Quote:
QUESTION: Mr. President, thank you. You mentioned that 17 of the 26 NATO members providing some help on the ground in Iraq. But if you look at the numbers -- 135,000 U.S. troops, 10,000 or 12,000 British troops. Then the next largest, perhaps even the second- largest contingent of guns on the ground are private contractors, literally hired guns.
Your critics, including your Democratic opponents, say that's proof to them your coalition is window dressing. How would you answer those critics?
And can you assure the American people that, post-sovereignty, when the handover takes place, that there will be more burden-sharing by allies in terms of security forces?
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9-11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you prepared to give them one?
QUESTION: You've mentioned it at Fort Hood on Sunday. You pointed out that it did not warn of a hijacking of airplanes to crash into buildings, but that it warned of hijacking to obviously take hostages and to secure the release of extremists that are being held by the U.S.
Did that trigger some specific actions on your part in the administration, since it dealt with potentially hundreds of lives and a blackmail attempt on the United States government?
QUESTION: Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked.
One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9-11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism, and do you believe that there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE), Mr. President. To move to the 9-11 commission, you yourself have acknowledged that Osama bin Laden was not a central focus of the administration in the months before September 11th. I was not on point, you told the journalist Bob Woodward. I didn't feel that sense of urgency.
Two and a half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?
QUESTION: Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq: that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers; that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction but, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we know where they are.
How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series of false premises?
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half of Americans now support it.
What does that say to you? And how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?
QUESTION: Mr. President, thank you. You mentioned that 17 of the 26 NATO members providing some help on the ground in Iraq. But if you look at the numbers -- 135,000 U.S. troops, 10,000 or 12,000 British troops. Then the next largest, perhaps even the second- largest contingent of guns on the ground are private contractors, literally hired guns.
Your critics, including your Democratic opponents, say that's proof to them your coalition is window dressing. How would you answer those critics?
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.
You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?
QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?
I think that Bush did well for half of the press conference: most of the speech was well delivered and some of the questions.
It came across like he is a man who really believes that what they we did in the Middle-East was right: it was believed 'with his whole soul'.
He came across as a convinced man.
That said, I think that I have never seen it spelled out so clearly: the entire time he built a case that said this: we invaded Iraq because we think that we can instill Democracy, which is the 'Truth', and it is the right thing to do.
It became clear that the WMD was not ever the reason for the invasion.
He even said as much when asked about his 'mistake' . . . while refusing to answer, he said that even knowing what we now know he would have invaded . . . . this was followed up with rigamarole about hidden weapons and etc . . .
but it was allready said: we would have invaded
Then the rest of the context was built: namely, the setting of non-stop discussion about how the 'right thing' to do is to build democracy based on the vision that we have (which is that of 'the Almighty'):
The old Conservative's hated notion of 'social engineering' seen writ large in the whole of the Middle-East . . . only now they don't hate it!?!?!
they seem to want to engineer the whole world into their vision.
His case was almost convincing: sure I like democracy, but I have learned to truly despise systems of Government that are blinded by thier "true" Vision: such as Totalitarian systems like Communism . . . this I learned from my Conservative dad . . . and since I distrust this kind of system/vision which replaces adaptive humanity and the reality of human indefiniteness, I see what Bush is saying as sheer blindness . . . blindness at best and tyranical madness at worst.
He says that we are not Imperialists, and in a sense if things went well he would be right, however what he does not acknowledge, or seem to understand is that what he is doing is a kind of ideological-Imperialism:
"live in this 'Vision" . . . it is best for you"
Old style Imperialism also justified themselves in the same way:
"We are 'civilizing' you . . . lay down and take it"
I hope that I am wrong and that we all look back and say: he was right, democracy was what was best for everyone in the Middle-East even though collectively they seem to express themselves in different forms of governance . .
I hope that my suspicions are wrong . . . but either way Bush laid it on the line: he said that we would have invaded even if there were no WMD .. . which says the same thing, almost, as: we invaded because we believe Democracy will flourish and so we lied to you about the reasons why.
As I was walking out of the room I heard Bush make a comment (I'm paraphrasing what he said) when he was talking about freedom being somthing that was given by the all mighty.
The comment went something like this:
... and the suicide bombers who die for a false ideology ...
Does anyone else here have concerns that some (alot) of the Islamic world will see that as Bush saying: Islam is a false ideology
That was my first thought and it scared me to think how the Islamic world would react and how many new "marytrs" would step forward.
Its really sad how badly Bush did tonight. Of course, thats what we get when a weak candidate buys the Republican nomination out from under a strong candidate(s) with the blessing of the party.
As I was walking out of the room I heard Bush make a comment (I'm paraphrasing what he said) when he was talking about freedom being somthing that was given by the all mighty.
The comment went something like this:
... and the suicide bombers who die for a false ideology ...
Does anyone else here have concerns that some (alot) of the Islamic world will see that as Bush saying: Islam is a false ideology
If he really said this I think it should be enough to get him impeached. My freedom has nothing to do with his 'all mighty' and I hope shrub chokes on his all mighty's all mighty like it's an all mighty pretzel.
And what else was part the question? Oh, oil revenues.
Well, the oil revenues, they're bigger than we thought they would be at this point in time. I mean, one year after the liberation of Iraq, the revenues of the oil stream is pretty darn significant.
One of the things I was concerned about, prior to going into Iraq, was that the oil fields would be destroyed, but they weren't. They're now up and running. And that money is -- it will benefit the Iraqi people. It's their oil, and they'll use it to reconstruct the country.
That said, I think that I have never seen it spelled out so clearly: the entire time he built a case that said this: we invaded Iraq because we think that we can instill Democracy, which is the 'Truth', and it is the right thing to do...................(which is that of 'the Almighty'):
The old Conservative's hated notion of 'social engineering' seen writ large in the whole of the Middle-East . . . only now they don't hate it!?!?!
they seem to want to engineer the whole world into their vision.
Good post---but I do think *some* of the reasons to invade are sufficient---but also you cannot separate, in reality, the regiem from what surrounds it. That is what the carefully crafted question was designed to do.
Bush may in fact be ahead of his time---if Iraq, in fact, cannot handle democracy, i.e. it cannot exist outside totalitarianism becuase of the prevelance of Isamic cultural artifacts and genuine practices, this may in fact be the equivalent of a historical ultimatum. Not that Bush is dangleing a choice to accept western political practices--or else; but the ultimatley, the legacy and legitmate inheritance of Isalm may be setting itself up for marginalization---and elimination.
A question of idealogical domination---as the world globalizes this will be inevitable.
podmate suggested that Bush did. Is there where I ask if we are reading the same thread?
I'm not saying that ideology = religion, what I am saying is that I believe that many followers of Islam will hear it as Bush saying that Islam is a false religion. I should have written clearer.
Good post---but I do think *some* of the reasons to invade are sufficient---but also you cannot separate, in reality, the regiem from what surrounds it. That is what the carefully crafted question was designed to do.
Bush may in fact be ahead of his time---if Iraq, in fact, cannot handle democracy, i.e. it cannot exist outside totalitarianism becuase of the prevelance of Isamic cultural artifacts and genuine practices, this may in fact be the equivalent of a historical ultimatum. Not that Bush is dangleing a choice to accept western political practices--or else; but the ultimatley, the legacy and legitmate inheritance of Isalm may be setting itself up for marginalization---and elimination.
A question of idealogical domination---as the world globalizes this will be inevitable.
I agree, and I think that that is one of the reasons that Al Quaida is sprouting up, it is a reaction to the pressures to modernize.
I think that generally there is no more potent force than capitalism and marketting and open discourse . . . . given the threat of terrorism I can see why some would want to speed up the process.
But, I don't think that cultural groups not inclined to immediate and fast life-style switching do well when forced at gunpoint to 'be free'.
In fact I worry about what seems 'totalitarian' in such a case
I'm not saying that ideology = religion, what I am saying is that I believe that many followers of Islam will hear it as Bush saying that Islam is a false religion. I should have written clearer.
Point taken you're right. Bunge just has to follow me around the forum like a yapping dog and posting useless replies questioning me.
I hope that my suspicions are wrong . . . but either way Bush laid it on the line: he said that we would have invaded even if there were no WMD .. . which says the same thing, almost, as: we invaded because we believe Democracy will flourish and so we lied to you about the reasons why. [/B]
Exactly... Bush would have invaded no matter what, and he knows he might as well admit it now that the importance of his "Iraq regime change policy" has been made clear by Clarke and others.
But, would Congress, the American public, and the "coalition of the willing" have jumped on Mr. Bush's Wild Ride without the WMD smokescreen? Of course not. And, the most amazing thing... he won't admit he made a mistake, and sure as hell won't admit that he lied to get everyone on board with his master plan.
You previous post raises a serious question. The Bush admin floated a TON of arguments about justifying the invasion of Iraq: terrorism, bad bad man, WMD, 1441, etc.
I don't remember them making any kind of official statement where they justified the war by laying out the neo-con agenda for the ME. I've said on more than one occasion that I wish that they'd explained this ideology publicly and officially from the get-go, rather than mask it with a ton of flimsy arguments for invasion. I would've respected that more.
Aside: BTW...does anyone know exactly how the neo-con plan for the ME works? I know that it hinges on occupying Iraq, and that there's a domino theory that argues that the rest of the countries of terrorism concern related program activites will fall in line. But I've never seen anything about how and why, precisely, this will happen.
Can anyone point me to a seminal article (perhaps from PNAC or AEI?) that does more than simply assert that this will happen?
Comments
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../13/bush13.DTL
It is still being transcribed, but some is better than none.
Originally posted by SeanM
Shawn:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../13/bush13.DTL
It is still being transcribed, but some is better than none.
Hm, I was right about the Secretary of State gaffe... it's paragraph #33 or so...
Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of State Rumsfeld and a number of NATO defense and foreign ministers are exploring a more formal role for NATO, such as turning the Polish-led division into a NATO operation and giving NATO specific responsibilities for border control.
I thought the following were the most pointed questions asked, but by no means can anyone accurately evaluate them as "hostile." At least not in the sense of a free press that asks legitimate, tough questions that need to be asked- and more importantly- need to be answered. I think the President failed us tonight by refusing to admit any specific mistake and by refusing to accept personal responsibility for anything- among other things. I don't think the President's *wink-and-grin* or his empty platitudes can compensate for his flat-footed performance tonight.
Your critics, including your Democratic opponents, say that's proof to them your coalition is window dressing. How would you answer those critics?
And can you assure the American people that, post-sovereignty, when the handover takes place, that there will be more burden-sharing by allies in terms of security forces?
Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9-11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you prepared to give them one?
Did that trigger some specific actions on your part in the administration, since it dealt with potentially hundreds of lives and a blackmail attempt on the United States government?
One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9-11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism, and do you believe that there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?
Two and a half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?
How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series of false premises?
Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half of Americans now support it.
What does that say to you? And how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?
Your critics, including your Democratic opponents, say that's proof to them your coalition is window dressing. How would you answer those critics?
In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.
You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?
It came across like he is a man who really believes that what they we did in the Middle-East was right: it was believed 'with his whole soul'.
He came across as a convinced man.
That said, I think that I have never seen it spelled out so clearly: the entire time he built a case that said this: we invaded Iraq because we think that we can instill Democracy, which is the 'Truth', and it is the right thing to do.
It became clear that the WMD was not ever the reason for the invasion.
He even said as much when asked about his 'mistake' . . . while refusing to answer, he said that even knowing what we now know he would have invaded . . . . this was followed up with rigamarole about hidden weapons and etc . . .
but it was allready said: we would have invaded
Then the rest of the context was built: namely, the setting of non-stop discussion about how the 'right thing' to do is to build democracy based on the vision that we have (which is that of 'the Almighty'):
The old Conservative's hated notion of 'social engineering' seen writ large in the whole of the Middle-East . . . only now they don't hate it!?!?!
they seem to want to engineer the whole world into their vision.
His case was almost convincing: sure I like democracy, but I have learned to truly despise systems of Government that are blinded by thier "true" Vision: such as Totalitarian systems like Communism . . . this I learned from my Conservative dad . . . and since I distrust this kind of system/vision which replaces adaptive humanity and the reality of human indefiniteness, I see what Bush is saying as sheer blindness . . . blindness at best and tyranical madness at worst.
He says that we are not Imperialists, and in a sense if things went well he would be right, however what he does not acknowledge, or seem to understand is that what he is doing is a kind of ideological-Imperialism:
"live in this 'Vision" . . . it is best for you"
Old style Imperialism also justified themselves in the same way:
"We are 'civilizing' you . . . lay down and take it"
I hope that I am wrong and that we all look back and say: he was right, democracy was what was best for everyone in the Middle-East even though collectively they seem to express themselves in different forms of governance . .
I hope that my suspicions are wrong . . . but either way Bush laid it on the line: he said that we would have invaded even if there were no WMD .. . which says the same thing, almost, as: we invaded because we believe Democracy will flourish and so we lied to you about the reasons why.
The comment went something like this:
... and the suicide bombers who die for a false ideology ...
Does anyone else here have concerns that some (alot) of the Islamic world will see that as Bush saying: Islam is a false ideology
That was my first thought and it scared me to think how the Islamic world would react and how many new "marytrs" would step forward.
Its really sad how badly Bush did tonight. Of course, thats what we get when a weak candidate buys the Republican nomination out from under a strong candidate(s) with the blessing of the party.
Originally posted by podmate
As I was walking out of the room I heard Bush make a comment (I'm paraphrasing what he said) when he was talking about freedom being somthing that was given by the all mighty.
The comment went something like this:
... and the suicide bombers who die for a false ideology ...
Does anyone else here have concerns that some (alot) of the Islamic world will see that as Bush saying: Islam is a false ideology
If he really said this I think it should be enough to get him impeached. My freedom has nothing to do with his 'all mighty' and I hope shrub chokes on his all mighty's all mighty like it's an all mighty pretzel.
Originally posted by Fran441
Plus, he can't answer simple questions like, "Why do you have to appear before the 9/11 commission with the Vice President instead of alone?"
Chenney HAS to be there...to operate the mouthpiece in Bush's back...Bush. is. a. tool.
Originally posted by Scott
Ideology != Religion
No one implied that it does.
And what else was part the question? Oh, oil revenues.
Well, the oil revenues, they're bigger than we thought they would be at this point in time. I mean, one year after the liberation of Iraq, the revenues of the oil stream is pretty darn significant.
One of the things I was concerned about, prior to going into Iraq, was that the oil fields would be destroyed, but they weren't. They're now up and running. And that money is -- it will benefit the Iraqi people. It's their oil, and they'll use it to reconstruct the country.
A half-truth is a lie.
http://www.christianaid.co.uk/news/m...el/031023p.htm
Originally posted by bunge
No one implied that it does.
podmate suggested that Bush did. Is there where I ask if we are reading the same thread?
Originally posted by Scott
podmate suggested that Bush did.
You're absolutely wrong. Read it again and you might find that you're completely incorrect.
Originally posted by Scott
Ideology != Religion
I expected someone would say this.
Remember, I said that I was paraphrasing. I'm not sure if he said ideology or not. I believe that he did.
Regardless of the semantics (or whatever), if Bush said anything like this then he just provided alot of fuel for the extremists.
I sincerely pray that I misheard what he said.
Originally posted by pfflam
That said, I think that I have never seen it spelled out so clearly: the entire time he built a case that said this: we invaded Iraq because we think that we can instill Democracy, which is the 'Truth', and it is the right thing to do...................(which is that of 'the Almighty'):
The old Conservative's hated notion of 'social engineering' seen writ large in the whole of the Middle-East . . . only now they don't hate it!?!?!
they seem to want to engineer the whole world into their vision.
Good post---but I do think *some* of the reasons to invade are sufficient---but also you cannot separate, in reality, the regiem from what surrounds it. That is what the carefully crafted question was designed to do.
Bush may in fact be ahead of his time---if Iraq, in fact, cannot handle democracy, i.e. it cannot exist outside totalitarianism becuase of the prevelance of Isamic cultural artifacts and genuine practices, this may in fact be the equivalent of a historical ultimatum. Not that Bush is dangleing a choice to accept western political practices--or else; but the ultimatley, the legacy and legitmate inheritance of Isalm may be setting itself up for marginalization---and elimination.
A question of idealogical domination---as the world globalizes this will be inevitable.
Originally posted by Scott
podmate suggested that Bush did. Is there where I ask if we are reading the same thread?
I'm not saying that ideology = religion, what I am saying is that I believe that many followers of Islam will hear it as Bush saying that Islam is a false religion. I should have written clearer.
Originally posted by dmz
Good post---but I do think *some* of the reasons to invade are sufficient---but also you cannot separate, in reality, the regiem from what surrounds it. That is what the carefully crafted question was designed to do.
Bush may in fact be ahead of his time---if Iraq, in fact, cannot handle democracy, i.e. it cannot exist outside totalitarianism becuase of the prevelance of Isamic cultural artifacts and genuine practices, this may in fact be the equivalent of a historical ultimatum. Not that Bush is dangleing a choice to accept western political practices--or else; but the ultimatley, the legacy and legitmate inheritance of Isalm may be setting itself up for marginalization---and elimination.
A question of idealogical domination---as the world globalizes this will be inevitable.
I agree, and I think that that is one of the reasons that Al Quaida is sprouting up, it is a reaction to the pressures to modernize.
I think that generally there is no more potent force than capitalism and marketting and open discourse . . . . given the threat of terrorism I can see why some would want to speed up the process.
But, I don't think that cultural groups not inclined to immediate and fast life-style switching do well when forced at gunpoint to 'be free'.
In fact I worry about what seems 'totalitarian' in such a case
Originally posted by podmate
I'm not saying that ideology = religion, what I am saying is that I believe that many followers of Islam will hear it as Bush saying that Islam is a false religion. I should have written clearer.
Point taken you're right. Bunge just has to follow me around the forum like a yapping dog and posting useless replies questioning me.
Originally posted by pfflam
. .
I hope that my suspicions are wrong . . . but either way Bush laid it on the line: he said that we would have invaded even if there were no WMD .. . which says the same thing, almost, as: we invaded because we believe Democracy will flourish and so we lied to you about the reasons why. [/B]
Exactly... Bush would have invaded no matter what, and he knows he might as well admit it now that the importance of his "Iraq regime change policy" has been made clear by Clarke and others.
But, would Congress, the American public, and the "coalition of the willing" have jumped on Mr. Bush's Wild Ride without the WMD smokescreen? Of course not. And, the most amazing thing... he won't admit he made a mistake, and sure as hell won't admit that he lied to get everyone on board with his master plan.
Originally posted by pfflam
...
You previous post raises a serious question. The Bush admin floated a TON of arguments about justifying the invasion of Iraq: terrorism, bad bad man, WMD, 1441, etc.
I don't remember them making any kind of official statement where they justified the war by laying out the neo-con agenda for the ME. I've said on more than one occasion that I wish that they'd explained this ideology publicly and officially from the get-go, rather than mask it with a ton of flimsy arguments for invasion. I would've respected that more.
Aside: BTW...does anyone know exactly how the neo-con plan for the ME works? I know that it hinges on occupying Iraq, and that there's a domino theory that argues that the rest of the countries of terrorism concern related program activites will fall in line. But I've never seen anything about how and why, precisely, this will happen.
Can anyone point me to a seminal article (perhaps from PNAC or AEI?) that does more than simply assert that this will happen?