Liberal Repercussion: 02/08/2004

vendredi, février 13, 2004

Bush & Co are making a big deal about Kerry's VVAW testimony and they're doing that by insinuation or distorting what was said. When you meet a neo-nazi complaining about this, it'd be a good idea to give them a copy of what was said and ask about their specific problems with it. Here it is:

Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry, 1971 to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations

April 23, 1971

I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term Winter Soldier is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriots and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out....

In our opinion and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American.

We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and search and destroy missions, as well as by Viet Cong terrorism - and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.

We watched the United States falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings." We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater. We watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the hill for reoccupation by the North Vietnamese. We watched pride allow the most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point, and so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 81s and Fire Base 6s, and so many others.

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese.

Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?....We are here in Washington to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country - the question of racism which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions such as the use of weapons; the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.

An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation of Alcatraz put it to me very succinctly. He told me how as a boy on an Indian reservation he had watched television and he used to cheer the cowboys when they came in and shot the Indians, and then suddenly one day he stopped in Vietnam and he said, "my God, I am doing to these people the very same thing that was done to my people," and he stopped. And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this thing has to end.

We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country....

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission - to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more. And more. And so when thirty years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.

From http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1972VVAW.html

jeudi, février 12, 2004

Here's the lyrics to American Stranger's cult hit, ABB (Anybody But Bush). These are the only known set of transcribed lyrics I know of, and I just finished transcribing them myself. So if they need revision, please let me know. You that knows what, knows how to tell me. AND be sure to go download the REAL DEAL at blah3.com. See post below.

ABB

Harm it with harmony

ABB. How can I explain it?
I think you frame by frame it
I'll have you all jump in, and shall we sing it?

A is for Anybody, B is the big ol' funky BUT
the last B; well, now we're getting down to the nut

It stands for the guy who some can call the president
Approval ratings that he had, they all came and went.
He's a Bush and I don't want to bring him to the party.
Who's in his place? If you ask me, I say anybody.

If you ever cast a vote, I know you would regret it.
Don't look for Bush's help, because you can just forget it.
If you're living here, you realize the country's hurting,
Unless you're holding stock in Raytheon or Halliburton

All of a sudden there's a Democratic primary,
Better ideas on what they think the country ought to be.
Media says that there ain't no winner in the bunch,
But we're all knowing that the media is out to lunch

How many brothers out there know just what I'm getting at?
That think it's wrong because they don't agree that Bush is wack
Well if you do, that's ABB and you're not down with it.
But if you don't, here's your membership
You're down with ABB

Who's down with ABB?
(Yeah, you know me)
Who's down with ABB?
(Yeah, you know me)
Who's down with ABB?
(Yeah, you know me)
Who's down with ABB?
The whole Dem party

As for Bush, ABB's a little something different
Results are still the same, but it affects you kind of different
As mean Republicans go, he is the meanest.
Done more damage than even Clinton's penis.

The little punk never got elected properly,
Now he thinks the whole world is his property,
Starting war every where that the eye can see
Because you know my boy is down with PNAC

We got the numbers, but they got the voting machines
Gonna have to turn out like they've never seen.
Gonna have to win big, gonna have to win clean.
Don't matter if its Wesley Clark or Howard Dean,

My man Kerry is sure to get the job done
Even Mosely-Braun, or Reverend Sharpton
Even my little buddy Dennis Kucinich gonna take it all the way to the finish
Throw in with Gephardt, if that's the way it goes.
Or even Lieberman; you're gonna hafta hold your nose.

Too long standing and looking from the outside
Say ABB!
ABB!
I like to say it with pride
Now when you vote, vote well and make sure that it counts
And now you're down, with a discount

You're down with ABB
(Yeah, you know me)
You're down with ABB
(Yeah, you know me)
You're down with ABB
(Yeah, you know me)
Who's down with ABB?
The whole Dem party

You're down with ABB
(Yeah, you know me)
Who's down with ABB?
(Yeah, you know me)
You're down with ABB
(Yeah, you know me)
Who's down with ABB?
The Democrat Party

Break it down
ABB, Anybody But Bush

Den of Thieves

http://www.blah3.com/dot.html

Check this out. My buddy Stranger is gifted and has got a message.

"The project is intended to be, in a very loose sense, a chronicle of Bush's time as leader of our country. It is not kind to Bush and those who work for him, and they do not deserve kindness. They have dragged us into a zone where no one is even sure how free we are any more through the use of fear and partisan games.

They have thrown down against all who disagree with them, calling us unpatriotic, calling us traitors and haters. Well, I don't accept it. I reject their ideas, I reject their dystopian vision, and I reject their characterizations.

They won't call me a traitor without hearing me call them a few things in return. That's the reason for this album. I get to have my say. "

mercredi, février 11, 2004

"The best American is one who considers himself a citizen of the planet" -- Chuck D

http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/1076537702112250.xml

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsp/038/0100/01660152.gif

President Madison's objections to the bill "Incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Town of the District of Columbia, communicated to the House of Representatives, 11th Congress, 3rd Session, February 21, 1811.

Wherein Madison smacks down the House for attempting to circumvent the separation of church and state. lol

From an interview of Russell Simmons, the Godfather of Hip Hop

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/09/60II/main598970.shtml

"I want to speak to that issue. 50 Cent, his mother was killed when he was 8. She was a drug dealer. 50 Cent has been shot a lotta times. Nine times one time. And he didn't die,” says Simmons. “His poetry is about -- it's his reality. You may not like the truth that's coming out some of the mouths of young people. But those are people that you wouldn't hear from at all.”

And he isn’t afraid to bring politics into this discussion.

“They brutalize their women and then they worship the gun,” says Rose.

“Worship a gun? George Bush worsh -- what! What,” says Simmons.

“George Bush is not the issue there,” says Rose.

“Not the issue-- why are we talking about that? Why aren't we talking about the ‘gangsta government’ we have? Why are we talking about gangsta rappers. They're imitating the gangsta government … You wanna point at the rappers,” says Simmons.

“The conditions of suffering that exist today in our impoverished communities are not acceptable. The reflection of those conditions are less concerning to me. And I work everyday about changing the conditions.”

Now, I am just willing to bet that Donald Ensenat knows aaaaaaaaaalllll about those missing six months. Wotta pal. Skip past the Meet the Press blather and read up on Mr. Ensenat. If the tryst of Bill and Monica constituted a vital public interest, then I guess that this is life or death stuff. You decide.

Bush and Cocaine sent/written by DMullaley

(to bartcop.com and lifted by me. Yes, I am shamelessly derivative. So, bite me.)

Looks more, and more, like author J.H. Hatfield's claims that George W. Bush was arrested for cocaine possession in 1972, but had his record expunged with help from his family's political connections - Were TRUE.

Bush has fought very hard to not release his military records. Even after the release today of his pay records. Why?

Most of the public is already well aware of his grounding & suspension for his failure to take the annual miltary medical exam.

Examine the time frame.

It all fits the time frame gaps of Bush's military duty dates, fits GWBush's suspension and grounding from TANG dates, fits GWBush's assignment to ARF- the disciplinary unit. Matches the dates of Bush's admitted community service time frame in Houston at PROJECT PULL Fits why 6 MONTHS were added to Bush's final separation date

So then.....was Bush arrested for drugs in 1972?

The gaps in Bush's TANG records that do not match the records from Denver (because ARF points do NOT count toward duty at TANG) AGAIN this fits time frame of Bush being SUSPENDED and GROUNDED from the National Guard for failure to take required military annual physical, with drug testing- which had just been implemented

Bush looks to have been disciplined by his assignment to the ARF. ARF is the reserves, and among other things it's where members of the National Guard are sent for disciplinary reasons. ARF duty is NOT counted as official duty by the Texas Air National Guard.

THEN - Read this from SALON -
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/cocaine/

excerpts -

The Texas governor had admitted to working at Houston's Project P.U.L.L. in 1972, and author Hatfield says he began to wonder if that was actually the community service sentence.

Hatfield quotes "a high-ranking advisor to Bush" who confirmed that Bush was arrested for cocaine possession in Houston in 1972, and had the record expunged by a judge who was "a fellow Republican and elected official" who helped Bush get off "with a little community service at a minority youth center instead of having to pick cotton on a Texas prison farm."

Hatfield quotes a former Yale classmate who told him: "George W. was arrested for possession of cocaine in 1972, but due to his father's connections, the entire record was expunged by a state judge whom the older Bush helped get elected. It was one of those 'behind closed doors in the judges' chambers' kind of thing between the old man and one of his Texas cronies who owed him a favor ... There's only a handful of us that know the truth."

Another source named only as "a longtime Bush friend" described the situation this way: "Say you get a D in algebra ... and now you're going to be required to repeat the class the following year, but your teacher says if you promise to be tutored during the summer by a friend of hers who's good in math, she'll change the D to a C. You spend a few hours a week during the summer vacation learning all about arithmetical operations and relationships, and then the teacher issues you a new report card, replacing the old one on file in the principal's office ...
Something akin to that scenario is what happened with Bush in 1972."

Hatfield also says that when he asked Scott McClellan to comment on the allegation of a former Yale classmate of Bush's that the presidential hopeful was arrested for cocaine possession in 1972 and had his record expunged in exchange for community service at Project P.U.L.L., the Bush campaign spokesman said, sotto voce, "Oh, shit," followed by, "No comment."

McClellan denies that the exchange ever occurred. "I never spoke to the guy, and I'm not aware that anyone at the campaign has spoken to him," he told Salon News.

MORE...........

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/cocaine/

--------------------------

Of course the Bushitas attacked the messenger with a vengeance. And it helped the attackers that Hatfield had a very tarnished past.

Now Hatfield is dead. Suicide. Convenient, or coincidence? Or both?

------------------------

Final Summary of Bush's military records.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/3671

For the Guard, for the ranking officers involved and for Lieutenant Bush the easiest and quietest thing to do was adding time onto his commitment and
placing that time in the inactive reserves.

Among these old documents there is a single clue as to how Bush finally fulfilled his obligations and made up for those missed drill days. In my first request for information I received a small three-page document containing the "Military Biography Of George Walker Bush." This was sent from the Headquarters Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) in Denver Colorado.

In this official summary of Bush's military service, I found something that was not mentioned in Bush's records from the National Guard Bureau in Arlington, Virginia. When Bush enlisted his commitment ran until May 26, 1974. This was the separation date shown on all documents as late as October 1973, when Bush was transferred to the inactive reserves at Denver, Colorado. But the date of final separation shown on the official summary from Denver, is November 21, 1974. The ARPC had tacked an extra six months on to Bush's commitment.
- - - - -

Why was 6 months tacked on to George W Bush's military duty?

What was this punishment for? a punishment for not showing up?

A punishment for his "grounding" and "suspension" for Bush's failure to take his required military physical?

Or something worse? drugs? drunk? assault?

Truly, this man is too stupid to be President. But judge for yourself. A RARE transcripted interview with actual full sentences uttered by the Unelected One.

Meet the Press

Transcript for Feb. 8th
Guest: President George W. BushNBC News
Updated: 4:44 p.m. ET Feb. 09, 2004Copyright© 2004, National
Broadcasting Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

advertisement

"MEET THE PRESS WITH TIM RUSSERT"

INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

THE OVAL OFFICE, FEBRUARY 7, 2004

BROADCAST ON NBC'S "MEET THE PRESS"

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2004

PLEASE CREDIT ANY EXCERPTS TO NBC'S "MEET THE PRESS"

Tim Russert: And we are in the Oval Office this morning with the
President of the United States. Mr. President, welcome back to "Meet
The Press."

President Bush: Thank you, sir.

Russert: On Friday, you announced a committee, commission to look
into intelligence failures regarding the Iraq war and our entire
intelligence community. You have been reluctant to do that for some
time. Why?

President Bush: Well, first let me kind of step back and talk about
intelligence in general, if I might. Intelligence is a vital part of
fighting and winning the war against the terrorists. It is — because
the war against terrorists is a war against individuals who hide in
caves in remote parts of the world, individuals who have these kind
of shadowy networks, individuals who deal with rogue nations. So, we
need a good intelligence system. We need really good intelligence.

So, the commission I set up is to obviously analyze what went right
or what went wrong with the Iraqi intelligence. It was kind of
lessons learned. But it's really set up to make sure the
intelligence services provide as good a product as possible for
future presidents as well. This is just a part of analyzing where we
are on the war against terror.

There is a lot of investigations going on about the intelligence
service, particularly in the Congress, and that's good as well. The
Congress has got the capacity to look at the intelligence gathering
without giving away state secrets, and I look forward to all the
investigations and looks.

Again, I repeat to you, the capacity to have good intelligence means
that a president can make good calls about fighting this war on
terror.

Russert: Prime Minister Blair has set up a similar commission in
Great Britain.

President Bush: Yeah.

Russert: His is going to report back in July.

President Bush: Right.

Russert: Ours is not going to be until March of 2005, five months
after the presidential election.

President Bush: Yeah.

Russert: Shouldn't the American people have the benefit of the
commission before the election?

President Bush: Well, the reason why we gave it time is because we
didn't want it to be hurried. This is a strategic look, kind of a
big-picture look about the intelligence-gathering capacities of the
United States of America, whether it be the capacity to gather
intelligence in North Korea or how we've used our intelligence to,
for example, learn more information about A.Q. Khan. And it's
important that this investigation take its time.

Now, look, we are in a political season. I fully understand people —
He's trying to avoid responsibility. There is going to be ample time
for the American people to assess whether or not I made a — good
calls, whether or not I used good judgment, whether or not I made the
right decision in removing Saddam Hussein from power, and I look
forward to that debate, and I look forward to talking to the American
people about why I made the decisions I made.

The commission I set up, Tim, is one that will help future presidents
understand how best to fight the war on terror, and it's an important
part of the kind of lessons learned in Iraq and lessons learned in
Afghanistan prior to us going in, lessons learned that we can apply
to both Iran and North Korea because we still have a dangerous
world. And that's very important for, I think, the people to
understand where I'm coming from to know that this is a dangerous
world. I wish it wasn't.

I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in
foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't
true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got
a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that
exist, and it's important for us to deal with them.

Russert: Will you testify before the commission?

President Bush: This commission? You know, testify? I mean, I'd be
glad to visit with them. I'd be glad to share with them knowledge.
I'd be glad to make recommendations, if they ask for some.

I'm interested in getting — I'm interested in making sure the
intelligence gathering works well.

Listen, we got some fine — let me — let me, again, just give you a
sense of where I am on the intelligence systems of America. First of
all, I strongly believe the CIA is ably led by George Tenet. He
comes and briefs me on a regular basis about what he and his analysts
see in the world.

Russert: His job is not in jeopardy?

President Bush: No, not at all, not at all. We've got people
working hard in intelligence gathering around the world to get as
good an information as possible.

Intelligence requires, you know, all kinds of assets to bring
information to the President, and I want that intelligence service to
be strong, viable, competent, confident, and provide good product to
the President so I can make judgment calls.

Russert: There's another commission right now looking into September
11th.

President Bush: Yeah.

Russert: Will you testify before that commission?

President Bush: We have given extraordinary cooperation with
Chairmen Kean and Hamilton. As you know, we made an agreement on
what's called "Presidential Daily Briefs," so they could see the
information the CIA provided me that is unique, by the way, to have
provided what's called the PDB, because —

Russert: Presidential Daily Brief?

President Bush: Right.

And see, the danger of allowing for information that I get briefed on
out in the public arena is that it could mean that the product that I
receive or future presidents receive is somewhat guarded for fear of —
for fear of it being revealed, and for fear of people saying, "Well,
you know, we're going to second-guess that which you told the
President."

I need good, honest information, but we have shared this information
with both those gentlemen, gentlemen I trust, so they could get a
better picture of what took place prior to September the 11th.

And again, we want — I want the truth to be known. I want there to
be a full analysis done so that we can better prepare the homeland,
for example, against what might occur.

And this is all in the context of war, and the more we learn about,
you know, what took place in the past, the more we're going to be
able to better prepare for future attacks.

Russert: Would you submit for questioning, though, to the 9/11
Commission?

President Bush: Perhaps, perhaps.

Russert: Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican —

President Bush: Yes.

Russert: — said he is absolutely convinced we will capture Osama bin
Laden before the election.

President Bush: Well, I appreciate his optimism. I have no idea
whether we will capture or bring him to justice, may be the best way
to put it. I know we are on the hunt, and Osama bin Laden is a cold-
blooded killer, and he represents the nature of the enemy that we
face.

These are — these are people that will kill on a moment's notice, and
they'll kill innocent women and children. And he's hiding, and we're
trying to find him.

There's a — I know there is a lot of focus on Iraq, and there should
be, but we've got thousands of troops, agents, allies on the hunt,
and we're doing a pretty good job of dismantling al-Qaida — better
than a pretty good job, a very good job. I keep saying in my
speeches, two-thirds of known al-Qaida leaders have been captured or
killed, and that's the truth.

Russert: Do we have a pretty good idea where Osama is?

President Bush: You know, I'm not going to comment on that.

Russert: Let me turn to Iraq. And this is the whole idea of what
you based your decision to go to war on.

President Bush: Sure, sure.

Russert: The night you took the country to war, March 17th, you said
this: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no
doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of
the most lethal weapons ever devised."

President Bush: Right.

Russert: That apparently is not the case.

President Bush: Correct.

Russert: How do you respond to critics who say that you brought the
nation to war under false pretenses?

President Bush: Yes. First of all, I expected to find the weapons.
Sitting behind this desk making a very difficult decision of war and
peace, and I based my decision on the best intelligence possible,
intelligence that had been gathered over the years, intelligence that
not only our analysts thought was valid but analysts from other
countries thought were valid.

And I made a decision based upon that intelligence in the context of
the war against terror. In other words, we were attacked, and
therefore every threat had to be reanalyzed. Every threat had to be
looked at. Every potential harm to America had to be judged in the
context of this war on terror.

And I made the decision, obviously, to take our case to the
international community in the hopes that we could do this — achieve
a disarmament of Saddam Hussein peacefully. In other words, we
looked at the intelligence. And we remembered the fact that he had
used weapons, which meant he had had weapons. We knew the fact that
he was paying for suicide bombers. We knew the fact he was funding
terrorist groups. In other words, he was a dangerous man. And that
was the intelligence I was using prior to the run up to this war.

Now, let me — which is — this is a vital question —

Russert: Nothing more important.

President Bush: Vital question.

And so we — I expected there to be stockpiles of weapons. But David
Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. Now, when David Kay
goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's
theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been
destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have
destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They
could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out.
That's what the Iraqi Survey Group — let me — let me finish here.

But David Kay did report to the American people that Saddam had the
capacity to make weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with
weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with the ability to make
weapons. He was a dangerous man in the dangerous part of the world.

And I made the decision to go to the United Nations.

By the way, quoting a lot of their data — in other words, this is
unaccounted for stockpiles that you thought he had because I don't
think America can stand by and hope for the best from a madman, and I
believe it is essential — I believe it is essential — that when we
see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become
imminent. It's too late if they become imminent. It's too late in
this new kind of war, and so that's why I made the decision I made.

Russert: Mr. President, the Director of the CIA said that his
briefings had qualifiers and caveats, but when you spoke to the
country, you said "there is no doubt." When Vice President Cheney
spoke to the country, he said "there is no doubt." Secretary
Powell, "no doubt." Secretary Rumsfeld, "no doubt, we know where the
weapons are." You said, quote, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of
unique urgency." "Saddam Hussein is a threat that we must deal with
as quickly as possible."

You gave the clear sense that this was an immediate threat that must
be dealt with.

President Bush: I think, if I might remind you that in my language I
called it a grave and gathering threat, but I don't want to get into
word contests. But what I do want to share with you is my sentiment
at the time. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a
danger to America. No doubt.

Russert: In what way?

President Bush: Well, because he had the capacity to have a weapon,
make a weapon. We thought he had weapons. The international
community thought he had weapons. But he had the capacity to make a
weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy
terrorist network.

It's important for people to understand the context in which I made a
decision here in the Oval Office. I'm dealing with a world in which
we have gotten struck by terrorists with airplanes, and we get
intelligence saying that there is, you know, we want to harm
America. And the worst nightmare scenario for any president is to
realize that these kind of terrorist networks had the capacity to arm
up with some of these deadly weapons, and then strike us.

And the President of the United States' most solemn responsibility is
to keep this country secure. And the man was a threat, and we dealt
with him, and we dealt with him because we cannot hope for the best.
We can't say, "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." Containment
doesn't work with a man who is a madman.

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

Russert: But can you launch a pre-emptive war without iron-clad,
absolute intelligence that he had weapons of mass destruction?

President Bush: Let me take a step back for a second and — there is
no such thing necessarily in a dictatorial regime of iron-clad
absolutely solid evidence. The evidence I had was the best possible
evidence that he had a weapon.

Russert: But it may have been wrong.

President Bush: Well, but what wasn't wrong was the fact that he had
the ability to make a weapon. That wasn't right.

Andy Johnson says: NO SHIT. WELL, NO SHIT. EVERY COUNTRY HAS THE
ABILITY TO MAKE A WEAPON. YOU CAN'T GO TO WAR BASED ON THIS.

Russert: This is an important point because when you say that he has
biological and chemical weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles —

President Bush: Which he had.

Russert: — and they could come and attack the United States, you're
saying to the American people: we have to deal now with a man who has
these things.

President Bush: That's exactly what I said.

Russert: And if that's not the case, do you believe if you had gone
to the Congress and said he should be removed because he's a threat
to his people but I'm not sure he has weapons of mass destruction,
Congress would authorize war?

President Bush: I went to Congress with the same intelligence —
Congress saw the same intelligence I had, and they looked at exactly
what I looked at, and they made an informed judgment based upon the
information that I had. The same information, by the way, that my
predecessor had. And all of us, you know, made this judgment that
Saddam Hussein needed to be removed.

You mentioned "pre-emption." If I might, I went to the United
Nations and said, "Here is what we know, you know, at this moment,
and you need to act. After all, you are the body that issued
resolution after resolution after resolution, and he ignored those
resolutions."

So, in other words, when you say "pre-emption," it almost sounds
like, "Well, Mr. President, you decided to move." What I decided to
do was to go to the international community and see if we could not
disarm Saddam Hussein peacefully through international pressure.

You remember U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 clearly
stated "show us your arms and destroy them, or your programs and
destroy them." And we said, "There are serious consequences if you
don't" and that was a unanimous verdict. In other words, the worlds
of the U.N. Security Council said we're unanimous and you're a
danger. So, it wasn't just me and the United States. The world
thought he was dangerous and needed to be disarmed.

And, of course, he defied the world once again.

In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious
consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates
adverse consequences. People look at us and say, they don't mean
what they say, they are not willing to follow through.

And by the way, by clearly stating policy, whether it be in
Afghanistan or stating the policy that we expect you, Mr. Saddam
Hussein, to disarm, your choice to disarm, but if you don't, there
will be serious consequences in following through, it has had
positive effects in the world. Libya, for example, there was an
positive effect in Libya where Moammar Khaddafy voluntarily disclosed
his weapons programs and agreed to dismantle — dismantle them, and
the world is a better place as a result of that. And the world is a
safer and better place as a result of Saddam Hussein not being in
power.

Russert: There's a sense in the country that the intelligence that
was given was ambiguous, and that you took it and molded it and
shaped it — your opponents have said "hyped" it — and rushed to war.

President Bush: Yeah.

Russert: And now, in the world, if you, in the future, say we must
go into North Korea or we must go into Iran because they have nuclear
capability, either this country or the world will say, `Excuse you,
Mr. President, we want it now in hard, cold facts.'

President Bush: Well, Tim, I and my team took the intelligence that
was available to us and we analyzed it, and it clearly said Saddam
Hussein was a threat to America.

Now, I know I'm getting repetitive, but I'm just trying to make sure
you understand the context in which I was making decisions.

He had used weapons. He had manufactured weapons. He had funded
suicide bombers into Israel. He had terrorist connections. In other
words, all of those ingredients said to me: Threat.

The fundamental question is: Do you deal with the threat once you
see it? What — in the war on terror, how do you deal with threats?
I dealt with the threat by taking the case to the world and
said, "Let's deal with this. We must deal with it now."

I repeat to you what I strongly believe that inaction in Iraq would
have emboldened Saddam Hussein. He could have developed a nuclear
weapon over time — I'm not saying immediately, but over time — which
would then have put us in what position? We would have been in a
position of blackmail.

In other words, you can't rely upon a madman, and he was a madman.
You can't rely upon him making rational decisions when it comes to
war and peace, and it's too late, in my judgment, when a madman who
has got terrorist connections is able to act.

Russert: But there are lots of madmen in the world, Fidel Castro …

President Bush: True.

Russert: … in Iran, in North Korea, in Burma, and yet we don't go in
and take down those governments.

President Bush: Correct, and I could — that's a legitimate question
as to why we like felt we needed to use force in Iraq and not in
North Korea. And the reason why I felt like we needed to use force
in Iraq and not in North Korea, because we had run the diplomatic
string in Iraq. As a matter of fact, failed diplomacy could embolden
Saddam Hussein in the face of this war we're in. In Iraq — I mean,
in North Korea, excuse me, the diplomacy is just beginning. We're
making good progress in North Korea.

As I've said in my speeches, every situation requires a different
response and a different analysis, and so in Iran there is no
question they're in danger, but the international community is now
trying to convince Iran to get rid of its nuclear weapons program.
And on the Korean peninsula, now the United States and China, along
with South Korea and Japan and Russia, are sending a clear message to
Kim Jung Il, if you are interested in a different relationship,
disclose and destroy your program in a transparent way.

In other words, the policy of this administration is to be — is to be
clear and straightforward and to be realistic about the different
threats that we face.

Russert: On Iraq, the vice president said, "we would be greeted as
liberators."

President Bush: Yeah.

Russert: It's now nearly a year, and we are in a very difficult
situation. Did we miscalculate how we would be treated and received
in Iraq?

President Bush: Well, I think we are welcomed in Iraq. I'm not
exactly sure, because the tone of your question is, we're not. We
are welcomed in Iraq.

Russert: Are you surprised by the level and intensity of resistance?

President Bush: No, I'm not. And the reason I'm not surprised is
because there are people in that part of the world who recognize what
a free Iraq will mean in the war on terror. In other words, there
are people who desperately want to stop the advance of freedom and
democracy because freedom and democracy will be a powerful long-term
deterrent to terrorist activities.

See, free societies are societies that don't develop weapons of mass
terror and don't blackmail the world.

If I could share some stories with you about some of the people I
have seen from Iraq, the leaders from Iraq, there is no question in
my mind that people that I have seen at least are thrilled with the
activities we've taken. There is a nervousness about their future,
however.

Russert: If the Iraqi people choose —

President Bush: Well, let me finish on the nervousness. I don't
want to leave it on that note.

There's nervousness because they're not exactly sure what their form
of government will look like, and there is — you can understand why.
In nine months' time, there's — we're now saying, democracy must
flourish. And as I recall from my history, it took us quite a while
here in the United States, but nevertheless we are making progress.

And so, when you see the debate and the discussion about freedom,
those are welcoming signs as far as I'm concerned. People are saying
how best to develop this system so that we're free and minority
rights are protected.

Russert: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime,
would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States
than Saddam Hussein?

President Bush: They're not going to develop that. And the reason I
can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're
writing. They're not going to develop that because right here in the
Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim,
people from different parts of the country that have made the firm
commitment, that they want a constitution eventually written that
recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion.

I remember speaking to Mr. al-Hakim here, who is a fellow who has
lost 63 family members during the Saddam reign. His brother was one
of the people that was assassinated early on in this past year. I
expected to see a very bitter person. If 63 members of your family
had been killed by a group of people, you'd be a little bitter. He
obviously was concerned, but he — I said, you know, "I'm a Methodist,
what are my chances of success in your country and your vision?" And
he said, "It's going to be a free society where you can worship
freely." This is a Shiia fellow.

And my only point to you is these people are committed to a
pluralistic society. And it's not going to be easy. The road to
democracy is bumpy. It's bumpy particularly because these are folks
that have been terrorized, tortured, brutalized by Saddam Hussein.

Russert: You do seem to have changed your mind from the 2000
campaign. In a debate, you said, "I don't think our troops ought to
be used for what's called 'nation-building.'"

President Bush: Yeah.

Russert: We clearly are involved in nation-building.

President Bush: Right. And I also said — let me put it in context.
I'm not suggesting you're pulling one of these Washington tricks
where you leave half the equation out.

But I did say also that our troops must be trained and prepared to
fight and win war and, therefore, make peace more possible. And our
troops were trained to fight and win war, and we did, and a second
phase of the war is now going on. The first phase, of course, was
the Tommy Franks troop movement.

Russert: But this is nation-building.

President Bush: Well, it is. That's right, but we're also fighting a
war so that they can build a nation. And [crosstalk] the war is
against terrorists and disgruntled Baathists who are saying we had it
good in the past, and therefore we don't want this new society to
spring up because they have no faith in democracy, and the terrorists
who want to stop the advance of freedom.

And if I might, people say to me, `OK, you made a judgment as to how
to secure America for the short term with the Taliban and with Saddam
Hussein, and with staying on the hunt for al-Qaida, but what about
the long term?' Which is a legitimate question. And the best way to
secure America for the long term is to promote freedom and a free
society and to encourage democracy.

And we're doing so in a part of the world where people say it can't
happen, but the long-term vision and the long-term hope is — and I
believe it's going to happen — is that a free Iraq will help change
the Middle East. You may have heard me say we have a forward
strategy of freedom in the Middle East. It's because I believe so
strongly that freedom is etched in everybody's heart — I believe
that — and I believe this country must continue to lead.

Russert: Are you now willing to allow the United Nations to play a
central role in the reconstruction?

President Bush: In the recon — in spending our money, no. They
don't want to spend our money, the money that was appropriated by the
United States Congress I think you're talking about, but they will
play a vital role in helping the Iraqis determine the proper course
to democracy.

Russert: In transferring power, the U.N. will play a central role?

President Bush: Yeah. I call it a vital role because there is a lot
of roles being played by different players, but the U.N. will play —
and this role is a very important role. It says to the Iraqi
citizens who again are trying to figure out the right balance as they
head toward this new democracy after years of — after years of being
enslaved by a tyrant — how best to do this, and I think it's very
helpful to have the stamp of the international community be placed
upon the political process.

In terms of reconstruction, of course we want the international
community to participate, and they are. There's a lot of
participation by the international community in restoring this
infrastructure of the country of Iraq that Saddam Hussein had just
totally — I shouldn't say "totally," but destroyed a lot of.

Russert: Before we take a break, now that we have determined there
are probably not these stockpiles of weapons that we had thought, and
the primary rationale for the war had been to disarm Saddam Hussein,
Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defense Secretary, said that you had
settled on weapons of mass destruction as an issue we could agree on,
but there were three. "One was the weapons of mass destruction, the
second is the support for terrorism, and third is Saddam's criminal
treatment of his Iraqi people."

He said the "third one by itself is a reason to help Iraqis but it's
not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on
the scale we did."

President Bush: Um-hmm.

Russert: Now looking back, in your mind, is it worth the loss of 530
American lives and 3,000 injuries and woundings simply to remove
Saddam Hussein, even though there were no weapons of mass destruction?

President Bush: Every life is precious. Every person that is
willing to sacrifice for this country deserves our praise, and yes.

Russert: Do you think —

President Bush: Let me finish.

Russert: Please.

President Bush: It's essential that I explain this properly to the
parents of those who lost their lives.

Saddam Hussein was dangerous, and I'm not gonna leave him in power
and trust a madman. He's a dangerous man. He had the ability to
make weapons at the very minimum.

For the parents of the soldiers who have fallen who are listening,
David Kay, the weapons inspector, came back and said, "In many ways
Iraq was more dangerous than we thought." It's — we're in a war
against these terrorists who will bring great harm to America, and
I've asked these young ones to sacrifice for that.

A free Iraq will change the world. It's historic times. A free Iraq
will make it easier for other children in our own country to grow up
in a safer world because in the Middle East is where you find the
hatred and violence that enables the enemy to recruit its killers.

And, Tim, as you can tell, I've got a foreign policy that is one that
believes America has a responsibility in this world to lead, a
responsibility to lead in the war against terror, a responsibility to
speak clearly about the threats that we all face, a responsibility to
promote freedom, to free people from the clutches of barbaric people
such as Saddam Hussein who tortured, mutilated — there were mass
graves that we have found— a responsibility to fight AIDS, the
pandemic of AIDS, and to feed the hungry. We have a responsibility.
To me that is history's call to America. I accept the call and will
continue to lead in that direction.

Russert: In light of not finding the weapons of mass destruction, do
you believe the war in Iraq is a war of choice or a war of necessity?

President Bush: I think that's an interesting question. Please
elaborate on that a little bit. A war of choice or a war of
necessity? It's a war of necessity. We — in my judgment, we had no
choice when we look at the intelligence I looked at that says the man
was a threat. And you know, we'll find out about the weapons of mass
destruction that we all thought were there. That's part of the Iraqi
Survey Group and the group I put together to look at.

But again, I repeat to you, I don't want to sound like a broken
record, but David Kay, who is the man who led the Iraqi Survey Group,
who has now returned with an interim report, clearly said that the
place was a dangerous place. When asked if President Bush had done —
had made the right decision, he said yes. In other words, the
evidence we have uncovered thus far says we had no choice.

Russert: We're going to take a quick break.

President Bush: Thank you.

Russert: We're going to come back and talk to the President a lot
more about our world and our economy here at home and the
presidential election of 2004. We're in the Oval Office with
President George W. Bush.

(Commercial)

Russert: And we are back in the Oval Office talking to the President
of the United States.

Mr. President, this campaign is fully engaged. The chairman of the
Democratic National Committee, Terence McAuliffe, said this last
week: "I look forward to that debate when John Kerry, a war hero
with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man
who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard. He didn't show up when
he should have showed up…"

President Bush: Yeah.

Russert: How do you respond?

President Bush: Political season is here. I was — I served in the
National Guard. I flew F-102 aircraft. I got an honorable
discharge. I've heard this — I've heard this ever since I started
running for office. I — I put in my time, proudly so.

I would be careful to not denigrate the Guard. It's fine to go after
me, which I expect the other side will do. I wouldn't denigrate
service to the Guard, though, and the reason I wouldn't, is because
there are a lot of really fine people who have served in the National
Guard and who are serving in the National Guard today in Iraq.

Russert: The Boston Globe and the Associated Press have gone through
some of the records and said there's no evidence that you reported to
duty in Alabama during the summer and fall of 1972.

President Bush: Yeah, they're — they're just wrong. There may be no
evidence, but I did report; otherwise, I wouldn't have been honorably
discharged. In other words, you don't just say "I did something"
without there being verification. Military doesn't work that way. I
got an honorable discharge, and I did show up in Alabama.

Russert: You did — were allowed to leave eight months before your
term expired. Was there a reason?

President Bush: Right. Well, I was going to Harvard Business School
and worked it out with the military.

Russert: When allegations were made about John McCain or Wesley
Clark on their military records, they opened up their entire files.
Would you agree to do that?

President Bush: Yeah. Listen, these files — I mean, people have
been looking for these files for a long period of time, trust me, and
starting in the 1994 campaign for governor. And I can assure you in
the year 2000 people were looking for those files as well. Probably
you were. And — absolutely. I mean, I —

Russert: But you would allow pay stubs, tax records, anything to
show that you were serving during that period?

President Bush: Yeah. If we still have them, but I — you know, the
records are kept in Colorado, as I understand, and they scoured the
records.

And I'm just telling you, I did my duty, and it's politics, you know,
to kind of ascribe all kinds of motives to me. But I have been
through it before. I'm used to it. What I don't like is when people
say serving in the Guard is — is — may not be a true service.

Russert: But you authorize the release of everything to settle this?

President Bush: Yes, absolutely.

We did so in 2000, by the way.

Russert: Were you favor of the war in Vietnam?

President Bush: I supported my government. I did. And would have
gone had my unit been called up, by the way.

Russert: But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go.

President Bush: No, I didn't. You're right. I served. I flew
fighters and enjoyed it, and provided a service to our country. In
those days we had what was called "air defense command," and it was a
part of the air defense command system.

The thing about the Vietnam War that troubles me as I look back was
it was a political war. We had politicians making military
decisions, and it is lessons that any president must learn, and that
is to the set the goal and the objective and allow the military to
come up with the plans to achieve that objective. And those are
essential lessons to be learned from the Vietnam War.

Russert: Let me turn to the economy.

President Bush: Yes.

Russert: And this is one of my charts that I would like to show you.

President Bush: I was hoping to see one of them.

Russert: The Bush-Cheney first three years, the unemployment rate
has gone up 33 percent, there has been a loss of 2.2 million jobs.
We've gone from a $281 billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit.
The debt has gone from $5.7 trillion, to $7 trillion — up 23 percent.

Based on that record, why should the American people rehire you as
CEO?

President Bush: Sure, because I have been the President during a
time of tremendous stress on our economy and made the decisions
necessary to lead — that would enhance recovery. Let me review the
bidding here. The stock market started to decline in March of 2000.
That was the first sign that things were troubled. The recession
started upon my arrival. It could have been some say February, some
say March, some speculate maybe earlier it started, but nevertheless
it happened as we showed up here.

The attacks on our country affected our economy. Corporate scandals
affected the confidence of people and therefore affected the
economy. My decision on Iraq, this kind of march to war, affected
the economy, but we have been through a lot. And what those numbers
show is the fact we have been through a lot.

But what the people must understand is that instead of wondering what
to do, I acted, and I acted by cutting the taxes on individuals and
small businesses, primarily. And that, itself, has led to this
recovery.

So, you show that the numbers kind of — I'm not suggesting the chart
only shows the bad numbers, but how about the fact that we are now
increasing jobs or the fact that unemployment is now down to 5.6
percent? There was a winter recession and unemployment went up, and
now it's heading in the right direction.

The economic stimulus plan that I passed, or I asked the Congress to
pass, and I worked with Congress to pass, is making a big difference.

Russert: But when you proposed your first tax cut in 2001, you said
this was going to generate 800,000 new jobs. Your tax cut of 2003,
create a million new jobs. That has not happened.

President Bush: Well, it's happening. It's happening. And there is
good momentum when it comes to the creation of new jobs.

Again, we have been through a lot. This economy has been through a
lot, which is why I'm so optimistic about the future because I know
what we have been through.

And I look forward to debate on the economy because I think one of
those things that's very important is that the entrepreneurial spirit
of this country be strong and the small business sector be strong.
And the policies I have laid out enhance entrepreneurship, they
encourage small business creation, and I think this economy is coming
around just right, frankly.

Russert: The General Accounting Office, which are the nation's
auditors —

President Bush: Yeah.

Russert: — have done a study of our finances.

President Bush: Um-hmm.

Russert: And this is what your legacy will be to the next
generation. It says that our "current fiscal policy is
unsustainable." They 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.

President Bush: Um-hmm.

Russert: How — why, as a fiscal conservative as you like to call
yourself, would you allow a $500 billion deficit and this kind of
deficit disaster?

President Bush: 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 if Congress is wise with the people's money, we can cut
the deficit in half. And at that point in time, as a percentage of
GDP, the deficit will be relatively low.

I agree with the assessment that we've got some long-term financial
issues we must look at, and that's one reason I asked Congress to
deal with Medicare. I strongly felt that if we didn't have an
element of competition, that if we weren't modern with the Medicare
program, if we didn't incorporate what's called "health savings
accounts" to encourage Americans to take more control over their
healthcare decisions, we would have even a worse financial picture in
the long run.

I believe Medicare is going to not only make the system work better
for seniors but is going to help the fiscal situation of our long-
term projection.

We got to deal with Social Security as well. As you know, these
entitlement programs need to be dealt with.

We're dealing with some entitlement programs right now in the
Congress. The highway bill. It's going to be an interesting test of
fiscal discipline on both sides of the aisle. The Senate's is about
370, as I understand, $370 billion; the House is at less than that
but over $300 billion. And as you know, the budget I propose is
about $256 billion.

Russert: But your base conservatives — and listen to Rush Limbaugh,
the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, they're all saying you are
the biggest spender in American history.

President Bush: Well, they're wrong.

Russert: Mr. President —

President Bush: 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.

And the other thing that I think it's important for people who watch
the expenditures side of the equation is to understand we're at war,
Tim, and any time you commit your troops into harm's way, they must
have the best equipment, the best training, and the best possible
pay. That's where we owe it to their loved ones.

Russert: That's a very important point. Every president since the
Civil War who has gone to war has raised taxes, not cut them.

President Bush: Yeah.

Russert: Raised to pay for it. Why not say, I will not cut taxes
any more until we have balanced the budget? If our situation is so
precious and delicate because of the war, why do you keep cutting
taxes and draining money from the treasury?

President Bush: Well, because I believe that the best way to
stimulate economic growth is to let people keep more of their own
money. And I believe that if you raise taxes as the economy is
beginning to recover from really tough times, you'll slow down
economic growth. You'll make it harder.

See, I'm more worried about the fellow looking for the job. That's
what I'm worried about. I want people working. I want people to
find work. And so, when we stimulate the economy, it's more likely
that person is going to find work. And the best way to stimulate the
economy is not to raise taxes but to hold the low taxes down.

Russert: How about no more tax cuts until the budget is balanced?

President Bush: That's a hypothetical question which I can't answer
to you because I don't know how strong the economy is going to be.

I mean, the President must keep all options on the table, but I do
know that raising the child — lowering the child credit thereby
raising taxes on working families does not make sense when the
economy is recovering, and that's exactly what some of them are
calling for up on Capitol Hill. They want to raise taxes of the
families with children, they want to increase the marriage penalty.
They want to get rid of those taxes on small businesses that are
encouraging the stimulation of new job creation, and I'm not going to
have any of it.

Russert: We're going to take another quick break. We'll be right
back with more of our conversation with the President in the Oval
Office, right after this.

(Commercial)

Russert: And we are back.

Mr. President, last time you were on this show you said that you
wanted to change the tone in the nation.

President Bush: Yeah.

Russert: This is Time magazine: "Love Him or Hate Him: Why George
Bush arouses such passion and what it means for the country."

President Bush: Yes.

Russert: Tom Daschle, the Democratic Leader in the Senate, said that
you've changed the tone for the worse; that it's more acrimonious,
more confrontations, that you are the most partisan political
president he's ever worked with.

Our exit polls of primary voters, not just Democrats but Independents
in South Carolina and New Hampshire, more than 70 percent of them
said they are angry or dissatisfied with you, and they point to this
whole idea of being a uniter as opposed to a divider.

Why do you think you are perceived as such a divider?

President Bush: Gosh, I don't know, because I'm working hard to
unite the country. As a matter of fact, it's the hardest part of
being the president. I was successful as the governor of Texas for
bringing people together for the common good, and I must tell you
it's tough here in Washington, and frankly it's the biggest
disappointment that I've had so far of coming to Washington.

I'm not blaming anybody. It's just the environment here is such that
it is difficult to find common ground. I`ll give you a classic
case: the Medicare bill. The Medicare bill was a tough vote, but
the Medicare bill is a bill that a lot of people could have signed on
to and had it not been for kind of the sense of, well, `Bush might
win, we might lose,' you know, or `Bush might lose, we might win'
kind of attitude.

And… but I will continue to work hard to unite the country. I don't
speak ill of anybody in the process here. I think if you went back
and looked at my comments, you will see I don't attack. I don't hold
up people. I talk about what I believe in, and I lead, and maybe
perhaps I believe so strongly in what we are doing around the world
or doing here at home.

Russert: But around the world, in Europe, favorable ratings —
unfavorable ratings, 70 in Germany, 67 in France.

President Bush: But you know, Tim, that —

Russert: Why do people hold you in such low esteem?

President Bush: Heck, I don't know, Ronald Reagan was unpopular in
Europe when he was President, according to Jose Maria Aznar. And I
said, `You know something? `

He said to me, he said, `You're nearly as unpopular as Ronald Reagan
was.' I said, `so, first of all, I'm keeping pretty good company.'

I think that people — when you do hard things, when you ask hard
things of people, it can create tensions. And I — heck, I don't know
why people do it. I'll tell you, though, I'm not going to change,
see? I'm not trying to accommodate — I won't change my philosophy or
my point of view. I believe I owe it to the American people to say
what I'm going to do and do it, and to speak as clearly as I can, try
to articulate as best I can why I make decisions I make, but I'm not
going to change because of polls. That's just not my nature.

Russert: Two polls out this weekend show you —

President Bush: See there, you're quoting polls.

Russert: — you're trailing John Kerry in both U.S.A. Today and
Newsweek polls by seven and five points.

President Bush: Yeah.

Russert: This is what John Kerry had to say last year. He said that
his colleagues are appalled at the quote "President's lack of
knowledge. They've managed him the same way they've managed Ronald
Reagan. They send him out to the press for one event a day. They
put him in a brown jacket and jeans and get him to move some hay or
move a truck, and all of a sudden he's the Marlboro Man. I know this
guy. He was two years behind me at Yale. I knew him, and he's still
the same guy."

Did you know him at Yale?

President Bush: No.

Russert: How do you respond to that?

President Bush: Politics. I mean, this is — you know, if you close
your eyes and listen carefully to what you just said, it sounds like
the year 2000 all over again.

Russert: You were both in Skull and Bones, the secret society.

President Bush: It's so secret we can't talk about it.

Russert: What does that mean for America? The conspiracy theorists
are going to go wild.

President Bush: I'm sure they are. I don't know. I haven't seen
Web pages yet. (Laughs)

Russert: Number 322.

President Bush: First of all, he's not the nominee, and — but look, I
look forward —

Russert: Are you prepared to lose?

President Bush: No, I'm not going to lose.

Russert: If you did, what would you do?

President Bush: Well, I don't plan on losing. I've got a vision for
what I want to do for the country. See, I know exactly where I want
to lead. I want to lead us — I want to lead this world toward more
peace and freedom. I want to lead this great country to work with
others to change the world in positive ways, particularly as we fight
the war on terror, and we got changing times here in America, too.

Russert: Biggest issues in the upcoming campaign?

President Bush: Who can properly use American power in a way to make
the world a better place, and who understands that the true strength
of this country is the hearts and souls of the American citizens, who
understands times are changing and how best to have policy reflect
those times.

And I look forward to a good campaign. I know exactly where I want
to lead the country. I've shown the American people I can lead.
I've shown the American people I can sit here in the Oval Office when
times are tough and be steady and make good decisions, and I look
forward to articulating what I want to do the next four years if I'm
fortunate enough to be their president.

Russert: Mr. President, we thank you for sharing your views. I hope
we can come back and talk about issues during the course of the
campaign.

President Bush: Thank you, Tim.

Russert: That's all for today. We'll be back next week. If it's
Sunday, it's "Meet The Press."

http://www.pantsonfire.net/

TrueMajority members donated the funds needed to build the PantsOnFire-mobile. We've built a 12' high statue of our president with his pants on fire (as in "liar, liar"). Now TrueMajority members are driving George and his pants all over the country. You can check it out at www.pantsonfire.net.

He's had rave reviews in New York City, Vermont, Philadelphia and Georgia and he just appeared on the CBS Sunday Morning show.

George is coming to you fresh from Tallahassee, Florida. He is on his way out west and will pass through Austin to take in SWSX and maybe swing by his Crawford ranch. He’ll then travel on to Dallas, El Paso and finally continue on through New Mexico and into California.

Now you have the once in a lifetime opportunity to volunteer to drive PantsOnFire around your hometown -- something to tell your grandchildren about! Like Paul Revere, George rides at night -- the better to see his pants on (fake) fire. (He works OK during the day, but really rocks at night.) So with a minimum 4-hour commitment some evening, you too can drive PantsOnFire. Of course the more nights you can do the better.

And it's a pretty cushy job. George comes complete on a small trailer with his very own tow vehicle - a 1997 Crown Victoria with leather interior, power seats, AC, power windows, cassette tape player - the works to make cruising with George a delight.

So if you're interested in:

* Driving George around town or
* Putting up George when he's not being driven (the 18' car and 15' trailer need a secure place to park - with enough room to turn around) or
* Driving the PantsOnFire-mobile from Texas to his next location in New Mexico…

Just click here and fill out the little form that pops up:

http://action.truemajority.org/ctt.asp?u=148164&l=166

**********************
Join Amy Goodman and Tom Tomorrow at CB's Gallery (NYC)
Friday February 27, 2004 @ 830pm
For a party to launch the Palast Investigative Reporting Fund
$20
MC is Britian's top comic and novelist, Rob Newman
Co-Sponsored by Charles Lewis from International Consortium of
Investigative Journalists
For more info go to http://www.GregPalast.com
*********************

Kahn Job: Bush Spiked Probe of Pakistan?s Dr. Strangelove, BBC reported in 2001

On November 7, 2001, BBC TV and the Guardian of London reported that the Bush Administration thwarted investigations of Dr. A.Q. Kahn who this week confessed selling atomic secrets to Libya, North Korea, and Iran.

The Bush Administration has expressed shock at the disclosures that Pakistan, our ally in the war on terror, has been running a nuclear secrets bazaar. In fact, according to the British News Team sources', Bush did not know of these facts because, shortly after his inauguration, his National Security Agency defectively stymied the probe of Kahn Research Laboratories. CIA and other agents could not investigate the spread of Islamic Bombs through Pakistan because funding appeared to originate in Saudi Arabia.

Greg Palast and David Pallister received a California State University Project Censored Award for this expose based on the story broadcast by Palast on BBC Television Newsnight.

According to both sources and documents obtained by the BBC, the Bush Administration Spike of the investigation of Dr. Kahn's Lab followed
from a wider policy of protecting key Saudi Arabians including the Bin Laden Family.

Noam Chomsky, who read the story on page one of the Times of India, has wondered, "Why wasn't this all over US papers?"

To learn why, read the following excerpt from the 2003 edition of Palast's book, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy @ http:\\www.GregPalast.com

http://www.deckofbush.com

What a perfect gift for your favorite Republican.

Virus Warning for Windows Users - Very Serious

Message added by Marc Perkel - Host for Bartcop http://www.bartcop.com

Microsoft has yet another very serious security flaw that gives anyone with the right know how total access to your computer. I
don't know all the details - but it might be the biggest one yet. If you remember the SoBig and Code Red viruses last fall - this one
will similar in that it doesn't require you to get email for you to be attacked or hacked. Your computer can be hacked into and
viruses installed without you doing anything to cause it to happen.

I say "will be" because right now there is no virus - yet. But the flaw is there and it will be a matter of days before someone writes
a virus to take advantage of the flaw. And - your anti-virus software will have no effect. Microsoft has posted a patch and that is
how you protect yourself - download and install that patch.

Here's the link to Microsoft's Windows Update:

http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com

You must use Microsort Explorer to install it.

I am also asking that those of you who have blogs and newsletters and high traffic web sites post this warning on your front page
and include it in your newsletters. The best defense to this virus is to stop it before it begins. As you all know - this virus will affect
non-windows users in that the new viruses turn windows computer into spam robots and we are still getting the bounce messages
from the last virus. Let's see if we can stop this before it starts by first - patch your computer now - then - tell everyone to patch
theirs. You can cut and paste this warning into your blog or newsletter.

Liberal Repercussion

vendredi, février 13, 2004

jeudi, février 12, 2004

mercredi, février 11, 2004

Qui suis-je

Links

Previous Posts

Archives