I just read Juan Williams' NPR interview of George W. Bush, and I've got to tell you, it was difficult to finish. However, I persevered (after taking some Pepto to control the nausiousness) to provide some gems from the interview for the disgust and amusement of the DKos Community. Please follow below the fold.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, now, one of the concerns might be that you have – the gunmen were trying to assassinate clerics and pilgrims – Shia pilgrims. So I'm wondering if that's an indication of a civil war – a term that, you know, you've been reluctant to use.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I think it's an indication that there are murderers who will kill innocent people to stop the advance of a form of government that is the opposite of what they believe. You know, we can debate terms, but what can't be debated is the fact that Iraq is violent, and the violence is caused by Sunni Arabs like al-Qaida, who have made it clear that they want to create chaos and drive the United States out so they can have safe haven, and then they could launch attacks against America. No question the attack on the Golden Mosque of Samarra, which is a Shia holy site, caused Shia extremists to retaliate.
You say WMD, I say Weapons of Mass Destruction related program activities. I mean, seriously... What exactly IS Dubya's definition of civil war anyway? Let's see what Merriam-Webster has to say on this matter.
civil war - a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country
Hmmmm... pretty simple stuff... and that was the only definition. The Shia are fighting Sunni Arabs (both from the same country) and Bush will not admit that it is a civil war. Perhaps our "liberal" friend, Juan Williams, could have pointed that out.
Next, Bush invokes his favorite "Democrat Party" member: Joementum Leiberman.
MR. WILLIAMS: Now, you've got a vote tomorrow in the Senate to consider a resolution opposing the troop buildup. Vice President Cheney said last week that vote would validate the insurgents' strategy. And so, do you agree?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, there's a lot of strong opinions about it. My attitude is – my feeling to the Senate echoes what Joe Lieberman said the other day – Senator Joe Lieberman – and that is it is ironic that the Senate would vote 81 to nothing to send a general into Iraq who believes he needs more troops to do the job and then send a contradictory message.
Bush's straw man approach to answering this question probably sickens me more than his reference to Leiberman. He is suggesting that because 81 Senators voted to confirm General Petraeus, they are also supporting the Bush/Leiberman/McCain Iraq escalation plan. Let's face it, whoever Bush appointed would be a sock puppet. Blocking Petraeus' nomination would have accomplished nothing.
Let's continue...
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, another question about Vice President Cheney – he said last week that – here I'm quoting – "we've encountered enormous successes and we continue to have enormous successes in Iraq." Two weeks ago you said, quote, "there hadn't been enough success in Iraq." So it sounds like there's a conflicting message there.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Oh, I don't think so. I think that the vice president is a person reflecting a half-glass-full mentality, and that is he's been able to look at – as have I, and I hope other Americans have – the fact that the tyrant was removed, 12 million people voted, there is an Iraqi constitution in place that is a model for – and unique for the Middle East.
I just received my son's report card, and he got a D-minus in Algebra. He was quick to point out that he received a B-plus in English and had exemplary conduct. He had a "half-glass-full mentality", much like Dick Cheney. Never mind that my son is in danger of flunking math and being held back. Sure, Iraq might be a total disaster and is getting worse. And thousands of U.S troop and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed. But at least Sadam Hussein is dead and 12 million people voted. Our countries leaders are behaving like high school freshmen.
Let's see how our "liberal" journalist at NPR asks the next quesiton.
MR. WILLIAMS: All right. You know, people are praying for you; people – the American people want to be with you, Mr. President, but you just spoke about the polls and they indicate the public – and you know about what's going up on Capitol Hill with the Congress, some in the military. Even many Iraqis, according to the polls, don't like the idea of sending more troops into Iraq. So I wonder if you could give us something to go on, give us something – say, you know, this is a reason to get behind the president right now.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, one way to – and one of the things I have found here in Washington amongst those who were skeptical about whether the Iraqis will do what it takes to secure their own freedom, is to remind them of what would happen if there's failure. In other words, there would be chaos. If we did not work to secure Baghdad and help the Iraqis to secure Baghdad, the country could evolve into a chaotic situation, and out of that chaos would emerge an emboldened enemy.
Juan Williams said that the American people are praying for the president and want to be with him. That is not correct. Most American people are praying for the safety of the country and do not want to be with Bush. Just take a look at recent polls showing Bush approval near and below 30%. I for one am not "with" the president, and never will be. He has caused too many deaths for me to be with him on anything. And Bush's response to Juan's fellating question... blame the Iraqis. HEY PRESIDENT ASSHOLE!!! THEY NEVER ASKED TO BE ATTACKED!!! YOU MADE THIS MESS!!!
It took me a while to calm down after seeing that, but I eventually read the rest of Bush's response.
See, the difference, Juan, between other conflicts in the past and this one is that failure would endanger the homeland. In other words, the enemy isn't going to be just contained in the Middle East if they succeed in driving us out or succeed in wrecking the Iraqi democracy. The enemy would be likely to follow us here. And that's why I tried in my State of the Union speech, why I reminded people that September the – the lessons of September the 11th need to be remembered. It is a – and look, September the 11th changed my attitude about a lot of things. It really did. And I recognize that the world we live in is one where America cannot be isolated from the ills in other parts of the world. As a matter of fact, those ills can come home to haunt us.
YOU ENDANGERED THE HOMELAND BY ATTACKING IRAQ, YOU STUPID ASSHOLE!!! AND IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 911... NOTHING!!!
Okay, I'm calm now. But what is most infuriating about this statement (and the thousands of similar ones) is the suggestion that everyone who's against him has forgotten 911. Mr. President, we have not forgotten what happened on September 11th 2001, shortly after you returned from your month-long vacation... shortly after you ignored warnings in a PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S." And we have not forgotten that you have not captured or killed Bin Laden as promised.
The interview then turned to the topic of Iran. I'll spare you all of the details, but Bush's main point was that Iran better do exactly what we want... or else. At one point, Juan Williams asked a legitimate question about the president's authority to invade Iran.
MR. WILLIAMS: By the way, just quickly, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader says that if you have an incursion into Iran, he expects that you would come to the Senate for approval.
PRESIDENT BUSH: I have no intent upon incur—going into Iran. I mean, this is the kind of thing that happens in Washington. People ascribe, you know, motives to me beyond a simple statement – of course we'll protect our troops. I don't know how anybody can then say, well, protecting the troops means that we're going to invade Iran. If that's what he's talking about, there's – I mean, we will protect our interests in Iraq. That's what the American people expect us to do. That's definitely what our troops want to do, and that's what the families of our troops want us to do. And if we find the Iranians are moving weapons that will end up harming American troops, we'll deal with it.
Oh no, here we go again with the straw man tactics. This one is not very clever either. All Harry Reid said was that Bush needs congressional approval before any invasion of Iran, which he would likely get quickly if there was any "real" and immediate threat from Iran. But Bush twisted it to suggest that Harry Reid does not support the safety of the troops. And for Senator Reid to, as Bush says, "ascribe, you know, motives to me"... We have seen your motives in action President Bush, and you are not to be trusted.
And on the subject of New Orleans...
MR. WILLIAMS: Let's talk for a second about the State of the Union speech. You didn't mention Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, or the Gulf Coast. A lot of people from Louisiana, including David Vitter, the Republican senator, say they regret that. Do you?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I gave a speech that I thought was necessary to give. On the other hand, I had been talking a lot about Katrina and about the fact that I worked with the Congress to get about $110 billion sent down to both Mississippi and Louisiana to help them on their reconstruction efforts. Obviously, there is more work to be done. But to take the housing issue, for example, we have sent money down to the Louisiana folks, Louisiana Recovery Authority, to fund their plan. And the money is there and the money is available. And now it's up to the folks down there to get this plan implemented so people can start rebuilding their houses.
If there's bureaucratic slowdowns in Washington, we've got a man named Don Powell who is working to address them. But no, our response to the Katrina recovery has been very robust. And I appreciate the taxpayers of the United States helping the folks down there in Mississippi and Louisiana.
Bush never mentioned New Orleans. He talked about Mississippi and Louisiana (in that order), but never mentioned the face of Katrina, the city of New Orleans. It seems intentional... a talkiing point. Karl Rove tells him to (1) remind people that Mississippi was also struck by Katrinaa and (2) never mention New Orleans. Sickening.
On global warming...
MR. WILLIAMS: Now, also in the State of the Union, you talked about the – quote here – "the serious challenge of global climate change." Were you talking about global warming there?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Absolutely, and it's a serious challenge. And one of the things that I am proud of is this administration has done a lot on advancing new technologies that will enable us to do two things – strengthen our economy, and at the same time, be better stewards of the environment. In 2002, I talked about an energy efficiency standard, which says new technologies will enable us to grow our economy, and at the same time, improve the environment, and we're meeting certain standards that I set for the country.
Mister "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" thought Juan was talking about the economic environment, not the actual environment. And he says that we're meeting the standards the he (The Decider) set for this country. Of course he fails to mention that his standards are less restrictive than in the past. But that is for another diary.
I won't get into detail on his explaination of the phrase "Democrat Party". Basically, he said: "I didn't do it on purpose. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge." This one quote is worth seeing.
And that I did, I didn't mean to be putting fingernails on the board, I meant to be saying why don't we show the American people we can actually work together? There is a lot of politics in Washington – in my judgment, needless politics. And it's almost like, if George Bush is for it, we're against it, and I – and if he's against it, we're for it. And the American people don't like that.
We are against everything you do, Mr. President. And the polls show that the American people DO like it.
On healthcare, Juan Williams asked about his health insurance plan.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. President, you're bringing out a new budget next week, and I presume you're going to have healthcare, health insurance plan in it. To pay for some of the plan, some people who don't pay taxes on their health insurance plan now will have to pay taxes. Isn't that a tax increase for them?
PRESIDENT BUSH: No, really what it is, it's a rewriting of the tax code. We've got a tax code today that says if you get your insurance from a large employer, for example, it's part of your – it's a non-taxable event. And yet if you're an individual, like Juan Williams out there as an independent contractor, and you buy your own health insurance, you're at a tax disadvantage. And so I'm asking the Congress to reform the tax code to treat everybody fairly. And in my judgment, such a plan will encourage and enable more individuals to be able to buy health insurance, which will help us deal with the uninsured.
Does the term "non-starter" mean anything to you Mr President? And no, I am not talking about releif pitchers.
And one last exchange of interest..
MR. WILLIAMS: So, some people would say, well, if you believe in spending restraint, why haven't you vetoed one bill, you know, one appropriations bill?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Because the United States Congress that was controlled by Republicans exercised spending restraint. Now, I didn't particularly like – the size of the pie was what I requested. It's some of the pieces of the pie that I didn't particularly care for, but that is why the president needs a line-item veto, and that is why Congress has got to reform the earmark process. What the American people need to understand is that sometimes special projects get put into bills without ever having seen the light of the day. In other words, they don't get voted on; they just show up, and we need transparency in the earmark process, and expose the process to hearings and votes so that the American people will know that any project was fully heard on the floor of the House and the Senate.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!