A rare and spontaneous moment

As planned, Bush traveled to Philadelphia today to deliver the third of four speeches on Iraq in advance of Iraq’s upcoming elections. Unlike every other presidential speech over the last several years, Bush opened the floor to questions after his address — and according to several news accounts, the questions were not scripted or asked exclusively by pre-screened sycophants.

To be sure, this is a pleasantly surprising development. Maybe it’s because of the Newsweek cover, or maybe it’s because Brian Williams is following Bush around today and they wanted to score some p.r. points, or maybe the Bush gang decided to just take a chance. Whatever the motivation, they’re to be congratulated — allowing the president to hear five questions from regular Americans may seem pretty routine for a president, but for these guys, it’s a quite a breakthrough.

Early on in the Q and A, Bush told the audience that he’d repeat their question so others could hear it. He added, “If I don’t like it, I’ll make it up.” The comment, according to the transcript, prompted laughter and applause. Let’s hope Bush was kidding.

As for the questions themselves, only one was pointed. A woman asked, “Mr. President, I would like to know why it is that you and others in your administration keep linking 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq when no respected journalist or Middle Eastern expert confirmed that such a link existed.” Here’s Bush response, in its entirety:

“I appreciate that. 9/11 changed my look on foreign policy. I mean, it said that oceans no longer protect us, that we can’t take threats for granted; that if we see a threat, we’ve got to deal with it. It doesn’t have to be militarily, necessarily, but we got to deal with it. We can’t — can’t just hope for the best anymore.

“And so the first decision I made, as you know, was to — was to deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan because they were harboring terrorists. This is where the terrorists planned and plotted. And the second decision, — which was a very difficult decision for me, by the way, and it’s one that I — I didn’t take lightly — was that Saddam Hussein was a threat. He is a declared enemy of the United States; he had used weapons of mass destruction; the entire world thought he had weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations had declared in more than 10 — I can’t remember the exact number of resolutions — that disclose, or disarm, or face serious consequences. I mean, there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein, you’re a threat. And the 9/11 attacks extenuated that threat, as far as I — concerned.

“And so we gave Saddam Hussein the chance to disclose or disarm, and he refused. And I made a tough decision. And knowing what I know today, I’d make the decision again. Removing Saddam Hussein makes this world a better place and America a safer country.”

Needless to say, this didn’t answer the woman’s question about why the Bush gang linked 9/11 to Iraq. But the president’s response did raise a different question.

Most of this was boilerplate rhetoric, but I wonder what, exactly, Bush means when he says “we gave Saddam Hussein the chance to disclose or disarm, and he refused.” He did? I know 2003 was a while ago, but as I recall, Hussein let weapons inspectors into Iraq. He couldn’t very well “disarm,” in large part because he didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction.

Bush does realize that Hussein couldn’t disclose and disarm stockpiles that didn’t actually exist, right? And if the president does realize this, where was he going with these comments?

Needless to say, this didn’t answer the woman’s question about why the Bush gang linked 9/11 to Iraq. But the president’s response did raise a different question.

Actually CB, I think it raises the SAME question… What did Saddam Hussein have to do with 9/11??

Make him answer the friggin’ question!!

  • Isn’t it sad/telling that this “rare and spontaneous” moment- however lame – is considered noteworthy?

  • Isn’t it sad/telling that this “rare and spontaneous” moment- however lame – is considered noteworthy?

    It sure is. To use Bush talk, it’s the soft bigotry of low expectations. Seeing the president answer a question from an American citizen is now such a rare event, it’s startling. In and of itself, that speaks volumes.

  • “Bush does realize that Hussein couldn’t disclose and disarm stockpiles that didn’t actually exist, right?”

    One could make a long list of the forced narratives, which underlie the worldview of the Republicans and the Bush Administration.

    The Congress never voted on invasion, per se, either. They authorized force, for the purpose of getting Hussein to give up the weapons he did not have. But, Democrats are still asked if they would make the same decision now that they did then, if they knew what they now know about Hussein. Tim Russert asked Madelaine Albright about this on Sunday, and Albright never voted on anything!

    What we now know is not just that Hussein had no WMD; we now know that Bush is an incompetent. That’s the revealed knowledge, which ought to give us pause.

  • And knowing what I know today, I’d make the decision again.

    That’s exactly why he shouldn’t be President. In the face of the mounting evidence that we shouldn’t have gone to war, he still would do it today if he had the chance.

  • He DOES have the choice, again, to go to war: with Syria; with Iran; with North Korea. And, as we all know from PNAC ravings, that is precisely what we will have: perpetual war. If he could talk — i.e., lie, embarass, bribe and blackmail — the Congress into authorizing his “use of force,” then he can do the same to force a military draft (tailored, of course, to protect the rich and politically connected).

    It is imperative to our survival as both a country and as a species that the Dems find a spine and win back the Congress next year and impeach these Lying.Fucking.Bastards. If that doesn’t happen, there will be no country safe and far enough away to provide us refuge from these raging monsters.

  • I sat watching the Q&A on C-Span wondering how anyone in the audience could listen so passively to lies like the one you reference above and wanting to scream.

    More whoppers came in response to a question about winning the hearts and minds of the Moslem world. The president trumpeted the role the US played in response to the tsunami and Pakistan earthquake, asserting that while others sat still, “we saw a problem and we moved.” According to him, America was “first on the scene” after the earthquake hit.

    Is this how he’ll be talking about New Orleans in a few months?

  • CB, this is a question I’ve been asking since Hans Blix and his team were on the ground in Iraq, not finding anything. The administration refused to even entertain the possibility that the inspectors might be right. (And yet, if you remember, Blix and his team were asking for help from US intelligence – “if you know where he’s got the stuff, point us in that direction.” As I recall, we weren’t very accommodating.) Instead, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al blanketed the airwaves with scary stories of what Saddam had and how anxious he was to use it against us. I remember thinking, “how do you prove you DON’T have something?”

    And then last week, from Rumsfeld during his interview with Jim Lehrer on PBS…
    “Furthermore, you can’t prove a negative.”

    You don’t say, Mr. Secretary?

    That said, Bush & Co. have been able to prove with relative ease that they DON’T have: character, morals, ethical standards, foresight, compassion, hearts, memories… . And they prove it over and over again every time they open their collective mouth.

    I applaud the questioner, but does anyone really expect any of these guys to come clean about anything, ever?

  • A “well rehearsed” spontaneous moment!

    An enormous amount of preparation on the part of dozens of people we’ll never meet went into it. They deserve a hearty “Well Done”.

    As is axiomatic in politics, once you learn to fake the sincerity, the rest is easy.

  • I guess no one seems to count the fact that Al-Zaqari (sp?) was in Iraq before we ever went there- to recieve medical care for injuries sustained from fighting us in Afghanistan- was a link beween Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and that other terrorists were already there under the protection of Saddam’s regime. Oh well.

  • “oceans no longer protect us, that we can’t take threats for granted; that if we see a threat, we’ve got to deal with it. It doesn’t have to be militarily, necessarily, but we got to deal with it. We can’t — can’t just hope for the best anymore.”

    I guess that’s why securing the nation’s ports and chemical facilities has been such a high (cough) priority with the Bush administration. Because they know “we can’t just hope for the best anymore”.

  • Hi forcemajure. You’re thinking of Abu Musab Zarqawi, (or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.) I recommend you read a few old blog posts CB made about him. I just plugged “Zarqawi” into CB’s search engine and came up with the following interesting posts.

    “A new CIA assessment undercuts the White House’s claim that Saddam Hussein maintained ties to al-Qaida, saying there’s no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored Osama bin Laden associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.”

    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/2688.html

    “[T]he Zarqawi link — which Bush insists is the “best evidence” — has also been discredited.”

    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/1977.html

    This second one sources different third-party articles that discuss the Zarqawi debunking in a little more detail.

    Also, this is incidentally interesting,

    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/2534.html

    Which is about how we did not take out Zarqawi when we had multiple opportunities to do so before the war. If we attacked Iraq because of its terrorist connections and Iraq was thusly a part of the war on terror, why did we avoid taking out the terrorists we are ultimately after?

    Cheers.

  • Comments are closed.