Bush: On Meet the Press 2/08/04

Caught the end of it....will see the repeat later today. From what I saw, this is a summary of Bush's statements (Am trying to be as objective as I can)...

* Don't talk to me about polls.

* The key issue in the next election is how to use American power to bring about world peace in a changing world.

* I have a vision for America, and where I want to lead her.


I missed the earlier interview, specifically about Iraq, which is what most interests me. CNN is saying Bush did nothing to address the criticisms about the war/intel, and in fact sort of underlined the perception that he doesn't understand the extent of concerns people have about those issues, but again, I didn't see this part, so have no direct knowledge.

 

I know you're joking an the plot aspect, but is it true that you haven't seen it there yet?

Oh, and CNN and MSNBC analyists have oth said in the past few minutes that if Bush was hoping this would be an opportunity to reverse the slide he's currently experiencing, he did a very poor job. He didn't have any stumbling moments, but overall he seemed vague and repetetive when addressing specific questions.

On the other hand, they all acknowledged that he essentially outlined what his stance on the war is going to be from here on in. Essentially:

* We did what we thought was best given what we thought we knew at the time.

* We are surprised/dissapointed about there being no WMDs, but Saddam could have made them later, and we prevented that.

* We need to review our intelligence gathering methods.


You can decide for yourselves how accurate and genuine these positions are, I'm just trying to summarize as accurately as possible.

 

Man, this is painful. What a mo-ron.

 

I was watching the end with a few of my roommates, and at one point he says something like : I'm trying to be as clear as I can...to articulate as best I can." and all 3 of them laughed spontaneously at both comments.

 

Dang, I missed the first 30 minutes of it, but am currently watching. What is critical in this interview is that Bush not let Russert dictate the pace of the conversation. It's like when the Rockets play the Kings -- he doesn't want to get into an up tempo shooting match. Russert and O'Reilly are very skilled in making people feel uncomfortably by cutting them off, asking abrupt questions, and being confrontational at awkward moments.

I'm not too concerned about intellectual snobs such as MacBeth and Rimbeaux chastising the President's performance. Bush isn't quite in their 'grey poupon on a croissant' league of haughtiness.

 

Hey, look everybody...somebody's being exclusionary...about snobbery! Dance, monkey, dance!

 

God, I'm watching some repeats....


I think, for all of those in here and elsewhere who were commenting this week about how Janet Jackson's 'performance' reaffirms negative opinions of the US throughout the world, you are worrying about the wrong boob.

 

It's a lot funnier when people call it the teat.

Thanks.

 

Hey TJ, if you are trying to spell my nick phonetically, it might be better if it was accurate. Just a suggestion, though...because I care about you.

 

Ha! I knew the cajun bastardization of your name would bring out a response from you! I was correct. I thought it was quite clever, given the way you probably look down upon the state and citizens of Louisiana.

 

Oh, you are no fun. You missed the point.

 

Does anyone else think that T_J rejecting intellectualism is sort of like Danny DeVito rejecting a career in the NBA?

 

wow, TJ, i was suprised your first post didnt make any accusations towards 'LIBERALS', and you actually used a metaphor that made sense and had some insight in your comments. i was very impressed, thought you were taking it easy on sunday....then i read your second post.

 

All I saw in the interview was a bunch of rambling vagaries.

Would not own up to the WMD question, wouldn’t own up to the debt, wouldn’t own up to his military service.

Hemmed and hawed through the whole interview. And body language is a b****!

 

That's not what I saw. I guess this shows how much baggage people bring to the table when they make judgments (and this is not a slight against you, my opions are formed by my "baggage" as well.).

With regard to his service record he said look all you want and he denied being AWOL.

With regard to the economy he said that the economy has been significantly strained by events and that his tax cuts are helping and taking away those cuts during a recovering economy would not be wise. I guess a persons political bias will affect how much things like 9/11 and Enron factor into people's confidence in the economy. If you like Bush they matter and if you don't they didn't. Some people on the board believe that the economy would have been worse under Bush and some think it could have been better. Who's right?

With regard to WMDs and Iraq he said that he felt that in this era of catastrophic terrorism (my words) he felt he couldn't sit by and let someone like Saddam become more of a threat than he already was.

Also, he implied that Kerry (and all of congress) agreed with him as they had the same intelligence Bush had and they voted to go to war. They are saying know that they were deceived but if they had the same intel how can that be? They could have all been duped, however.

The bottom line for the war is that if you didn't feel it was justified for any reason nothing is going to change your mind. If you feel that it was justified ONLY because of the WMDs you have a right to be mad. However, if you feel that it was justified because Saddam was a threat with regard to the region and terrorism and therefor a threat the the US than the WMD issue is not that important.

If you are part of the first two vote him out in November.

However, he is a horrible extemporaneous speaker. The worst. And it was very painful to watch.

 

Great. The BBS equivalent of "made you look."

We've diagnosed the problem. T_J has been thinking.