Baby Bush defends his lack of intelligence

How sweet. They let their baby attempt to answer questions by himself. I wonder how intelligent these answer will be. This "good vs. evil" rhetoric is pretty bland.
 
I am going to have to stay up tonight to watch it, or i might record it for future reference, and a good laugh. CNBC 1am est.
 
I agree, he should have never even started the war. he just wanted to finish what big bush started. Anyone know why he waited so long? he was only trying to stay in presidency for longer, but what did people do, they turned their back on him, now what we need is a good strong democratic nation....thats just my opinion, beat up if needed
 
It was so apparent whenever Bush wanted to get on a script: "I want to take a step back" from the question; "It's important for people to understand" that I'm not going to answer that question; "If I could" answer a question I've asked in my own head rather than the one you asked me, Tim. (Even at one point posing a question to himself from a fantasy interviewer, Bush said to the voices in his head, "That's a legitimate question.")

In reference to his possible AWOL, Bush defended himself by saying: "There may be no evidence but" you gotta believe what I'm telling you. Isn't this the way the whole Iraq mess happened? Isn't that really what Bush was saying about the WMDs? "There may be no evidence, but..."

Every time Bush made a campaign point, he did that goddamn clenched hand with a thumb on top.

And my biggest cringe came when Russert asked Bush for his opinion on the Vietnam War and, with absolutely no sense of irony, the President responded that the problem with Vietnam was that "we had politicians making military decisions."

:m: GAK!
 
I have found no complete text of this interview. I watched it on MSNBCs server. Was there an uncut conclusion on the networks, anyone? Maybe the public will not be allowed to know how this interview ended, if a limit was reached regarding how unflattering MSNBC is prepared to be toward a mentally handicapped leader.

As is usual with authorized and imbedded journalism, there are no follow-ups insisting that an important question be answered directly and completely. The President was allowed to deviate into tangents and prepared phrases at will. Although this resembles a frank interview on the surface, and did broach important topics, it was not an honest discussion.

To me this President is acutely insulting. The President's clumsy platitutes and alarmism only thinly keep up appearances that we are under accountable and competent leadership. If this suffices as satisfactory government for the American public, we are all in great danger.
 
What Did The NRO Think?

While it's certainly not surprising that I found Bush's performance on Meet the Press weak, I was interested to find those nice conservatives at NRO are really piling it on.

Michael Graham:
President Bush looks like he's afraid of Tim Russert. He's stammering and unsteady. For the first time, I've felt a twinge of fear myself about the November election.
Click to expand...
Kathryn Jean Lopez:
Not to pile on here, but I think lots of eyebrows legitimately raise re: the March 2005 commission deadline. I’m not sure he sufficiently answered that…
Click to expand...
Kathryn Jean Lopez:
A pundit-type just said to me: "If he loses this year, this will be the day he lost it."
Click to expand...
Rod Dreher:
I'm afraid I have to side with Michael on the Bush interview. I kept wincing as the president bobbled his answers....He had better get his act together....
Click to expand...
John Derbyshire:
Just got through watching the President on Meet the Press. I thought it was a pretty dismal performance. I'll be voting for GWB in November, but let's face it, the Great Communicator he ain't. The tongue-tied blather was coming thick and fast. At times, he looked like Al Sharpton on the Federal Reserve.

Russert: "Why didn't you establish the intelligence commission earlier?"
GWB: "Blather blather blather. No answer."
Russert: "Will you yourself testify before the commission?"
GWB: "Blather blather blather. No answer."
Click to expand...
Rod Dreher:
....I can't believe that fiscal conservatives were relieved by the president's patently dishonest answer when Russert brought up the spending issue. Russert said to Bush that even conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh are criticizing his spending. The president countered by saying that in times of war, every government spends more money, for the sake of the troops. Which is true, but evades the point of the Right's critique of this administration's fiscal irresponsibility. Nobody in Bush's base is complaining about military spending. It's all the other spending that's got our knickers in a knot. Bush had nothing to say about that.
Click to expand...
:m: Peace.
 
Goofy: That question stuff is a long-standing technique in politics. They actually outlined it in Yes Minister, I believe. Two tricks:

1. Say, "Well, I think what you're really asking here is," then ask yourself a question and answer it.

2. Say, "I think that's really two questions." Then ask yourself two questions and answer them.
 
meetpressW.jpg
 
I'm voting for Bush , I hope your pist off lol.
Slongans like: "WE WILL REPEAL ALL BUSH TAX CUTS!"
which translate: We will make you pay through the nose!
or
"Corporate America needs to Protect American jobs"
translates: strangle capital and create higher unemployment
 
Not pissed off, just amazed anyone falls for the Republican spin. Why would I pay through the nose if tax cuts were repealed? Tax cuts decreased the value of my tax dollar and debt skyrocketed. Bush created the highest job loss since Hoover. He did what your translations suggest.
 
I noticed that Bush reverted to the same tact for different questions. It was a cognitive surrender if I have ever seen one. What killed me the most was the "capability" aspect now to rationalize the war against Iraq. Now it wasn't that Saddam necessarily had WMD, it was because at the very least Saddam had the capability to make them. Well then Mr. Bush I have a nice list for you:

The nice little map...shall we invade?
 
goofyfish said:
And my biggest cringe came when Russert asked Bush for his opinion on the Vietnam War and, with absolutely no sense of irony, the President responded that the problem with Vietnam was that "we had politicians making military decisions."

:m: GAK!
Click to expand...

GAG, HACK, GAG, VOMIT, YUCK! That's the problem with this war to start with!
 
What a crock of shit. Bush and his cronies took what they wanted from the CIA and ignored what they didn't. Then filled in the holes with dodgy intel from foreign sources.

The CIA is playing the whipping boy once again.
 
And once again, as during Iran-Contra, there will be a tactfully delayed retaliation for this abuse. Intel community loyalties at times run far deeper than particular administrations. Bush strategists would have been far wiser to delay casting aspersions on NSA and CIA until closer to the elections. Now, there is plenty of time for running anti-politician tripwires.
 
I wonder what happened to the nukes S. Africa's white regime was testing in the 80's.

They had nuclear weapons around 7 I believe that were operational. They were the first nation to give them up; I am not under any illusions here. I believe they gave it up because they believed that the Black leadership would simply be too irresponsible with them.

Also missing, Libya

Libya was never even close to the bomb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top