During the October 13 presidential debate, President George W. Bush denied he'd ever said he wasn't worried about Osama bin Laden, as Senator John Kerry stated. In fact, Bush did say it, as a March 13, 2002, video clip, which was played repeatedly by cables and networks after the debate, demonstrates. But even with a video clip that starkly contradicted Bush's assertion, several pundits and reporters rushed in the hours after the debate to claim, falsely, that Bush's 2002 comments about bin Laden were being taken out of context.
From the October 13 debate:
KERRY: Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."
[...]
BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.
But Bush wasn't telling the truth. From a March 13, 2002, press conference:
Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
BUSH: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
From the October 13 debate:
KERRY: Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."
[...]
BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.
But Bush wasn't telling the truth. From a March 13, 2002, press conference:
Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
BUSH: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
So not only did he say it, he said it TWICE. And basically called Kerry a liar for saying he did. Media Matters titles there similar analysis "Wrong on Osama. " You'd think being wrong on Osama would be a liability for President who's best rationale for re-election was the War of Terror.
Here's a transcript of the press conference (yes, it's from CNN, but I'm sure Fox has one enshrined somewhere, too; CNNs was just the first I found: )
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/03/13/bush.transcript/
Please don't say WMD unless you have airtight proof that he knew they did not have them.
No, no airtight proof he didn't know, just former senior intelligence staffers who BEGGED him not to state Iraqi WMDs to be fact. Anyway, he still had a few of the chemical rockets we sold him to use on Iran, so it was technically true, even if 95% of this country would never have supported an invasion on that basis. And when we went in we found a few 20 year old dismantled missiles but nothing else, clearly proving Saddam had the weapons but shipped them out of the country when the US Army arrived. Probably to Iran, since they were so chummy; let's go look 'n see; as Bush himself told us at the White House Correspondents Dinner, they've "gotta be around here somewhere" (much like bin Laden, I suppose.... )
But I understand why one is a big deal and the other isn't; Clinton lied about his sex life in the course of an investigation of real estate fraud, yet all Bush did was lie about the entire basis for a war that's been going on in two countries for eight years (so far.... ) Guess which lie ballooned the deficit, squandered international US support so strong FRANCE was on our side and took the lives of thousands of US military personnel. Yeah, I know that's the long version of the 2004 chant, but I've always believed in trading brevity for accuracy.
With Clinton and Bush you at least knew where they stood on issues. You might want to fact check them once the start trying to sell their ideas but you at least had a pretty good idea what they were selling. I think Obama's basic problem is not that he is so smart he can't talk down to the rest of us but that he is much more liberal then he wants to let on and because of that he is always out of his element. He can't just go with his instincts because he misrepresented what those instincts were. That is why he doesn't speak without a teleprompter. That only helps so much since most of his advisors are as liberal and out of touch with the rest of the country as he is. Blind leading the blind.
I don’t believe Obama needed to respond to this issue at all. If the city was behaving improperly it would have made sense for him to speak out. I think Obama may have sipped the kool-aid a bit and is buying into the idea that the real problem is conservative talk radio and Fox News not simply that the rest of country doesn’t agree him. He doesn’t need to react to at all to most of this stuff. I would say he is getting drawn off message but beyond “it is all Bush’s fault” I am not sure what his message even is.
I don’t believe Obama needed to respond to this issue at all. If the city was behaving improperly it would have made sense for him to speak out. I think Obama may have sipped the kool-aid a bit and is buying into the idea that the real problem is conservative talk radio and Fox News not simply that the rest of country doesn’t agree him. He doesn’t need to react to at all to most of this stuff. I would say he is getting drawn off message but beyond “it is all Bush’s fault” I am not sure what his message even is.
I'm inclined to agree with the second part of that, but if he's so "much more liberal" than he wants to admit his policies don't reflect that. Reagan and Bush Jr. didn't give corporate America as much taxpayer money; his prescription for ending the recession has basically been "extend unemployment benefits long enough for trickle down theory to save us" which would be fine if trickle down ended recessions instead of causing them. It wouldn't be exactly "liberal" though.
But, yes, he's fallen into the trap of reacting from Day One (again, "reactionary" and "liberal" aren't exactly synonymous. ) I have no earthly idea why, but he sure blew his momentum and ceded the initiative to the loyal opposition as fast as they could grab it.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
An amusing column on the NYC mosque by Maureen Dowd....
- 20/08/2010 12:33:27 AM
1470 Views
She has a point. Bush had the guts to weather the storm on DPW.
- 20/08/2010 12:42:21 AM
878 Views
DPW? I keep sitting here trying to figure out what that means.
- 20/08/2010 12:50:14 AM
741 Views
Re: DPW? I keep sitting here trying to figure out what that means.
- 20/08/2010 12:56:44 AM
1001 Views
Once again, listen to the Economist and don't use abbreviations that aren't obvious.
- 20/08/2010 06:38:08 PM
735 Views
That abbreviation was obvious and all over the place at the time the incident happened.
- 20/08/2010 07:59:08 PM
795 Views
I certainly don't remember seeing it anywhere. The abbreviation was unnecessary in any event.
- 20/08/2010 10:43:05 PM
722 Views
Sure, I could've done that, if I had realized it would puzzle people. I did not. *NM*
- 20/08/2010 10:59:42 PM
478 Views
well since Christie is actually a republican he makes a better example than Bloomberg
- 20/08/2010 01:53:44 PM
818 Views
Gingrich thinks he is a deep thinker?
- 20/08/2010 09:42:15 AM
685 Views
He makes historical references as often as possible, or at least in pretty much everything I've seen
- 20/08/2010 12:37:02 PM
814 Views
As he was a history professor and writes histories and alternate histories, this is not surprising
- 20/08/2010 05:33:48 PM
982 Views
I'm aware of that
- 20/08/2010 11:47:32 PM
706 Views
Re: I'm aware of that
- 21/08/2010 12:40:29 AM
994 Views
Conservatives love Rome. I don't know why.
- 21/08/2010 01:20:27 AM
792 Views
Rome was more often than not governed by aristocrats and did, after all, invent the republic.
- 21/08/2010 04:50:53 PM
1120 Views
Except there doesn't seem to be any conflict between either position.
- 20/08/2010 10:06:20 AM
931 Views
He has to learn he needs to be crystal clear on sensitive issues
- 20/08/2010 02:03:43 PM
991 Views
In Washington, one must always present the APPEARANCE of integrity...
- 20/08/2010 02:40:24 PM
875 Views
Clinton lied about the BJ but what is your airtight proof that Bush lied?
- 20/08/2010 07:44:53 PM
942 Views
Ask and ye shall receive:
- 21/08/2010 06:42:50 PM
1117 Views
This is a bit along the lines of what I have been thinking.
- 20/08/2010 07:49:15 PM
965 Views
I didn't see the problem either. He was simply stating the obvious.
- 21/08/2010 01:39:44 AM
702 Views
Then restating it for those who refused to hear it, so that someone else could refuse to hear it.
- 21/08/2010 04:22:30 PM
956 Views
Yes, his backtracking was quite pussy-ish. *NM*
- 21/08/2010 04:00:31 AM
349 Views
How did he "backtrack" exactly?
- 21/08/2010 04:35:33 PM
1007 Views
c'mon Joel. are you being intentionally thick?
- 21/08/2010 05:02:27 PM
1025 Views
Having read those quotes I don't think he was backtracking on anything. (With link to speech)
- 22/08/2010 06:27:06 AM
981 Views
*NM*
did you take into your consideration
- 22/08/2010 03:50:59 PM
719 Views
I can't imagine why they would express concern over it. It wasn't controversial. That is on them
- 22/08/2010 03:58:32 PM
919 Views
I agree he is not backtracking
- 22/08/2010 06:49:36 PM
828 Views
While we're picking sides, I'm with Mook and Roland. 
- 22/08/2010 08:20:11 PM
756 Views
- 22/08/2010 08:20:11 PM
756 Views
I like how he's got rhetorical talents when it works
- 22/08/2010 08:32:15 PM
778 Views
nope just human *NM*
- 22/08/2010 08:37:17 PM
418 Views
*NM*
- 22/08/2010 08:37:17 PM
418 Views
that's not what Paul just said.
- 22/08/2010 08:42:24 PM
843 Views
- 22/08/2010 08:42:24 PM
843 Views
He couldn't stay out, no.
- 22/08/2010 08:56:47 PM
878 Views
I don't want to argue with you on a Sunday, my religion says I have to relax.
- 22/08/2010 09:03:54 PM
899 Views
- 22/08/2010 09:03:54 PM
899 Views
key word: seem
- 22/08/2010 09:06:40 PM
815 Views
I was only using that term for you guys. I don't feel like beating you with a rolling pin until you
- 22/08/2010 09:14:39 PM
715 Views
Seems I interpret his speech on the iftar differently from you and Tash - see my reply to Tash. *NM*
- 22/08/2010 09:25:13 PM
492 Views
I'm not even taking the time to comment on something so obvious as what he did. *NM*
- 22/08/2010 02:53:10 AM
472 Views
Joel
- 22/08/2010 05:37:45 AM
1031 Views
His phrasing in the first speech implied that it was a bad idea. But legally they have the right.
- 22/08/2010 06:32:59 AM
948 Views
nonsense
- 22/08/2010 03:39:30 PM
892 Views
I still don't see how it can be misinterpreted except by intent by the listener.
- 22/08/2010 04:08:52 PM
867 Views
so we have reached the point of no return...
- 22/08/2010 04:18:46 PM
876 Views
In your case it would have to be number 2.
- 22/08/2010 07:38:20 PM
851 Views
ah, but I have no agenda here...
- 22/08/2010 07:41:59 PM
683 Views
lol.<3 
- 22/08/2010 08:49:35 PM
861 Views
- 22/08/2010 08:49:35 PM
861 Views
that it is...
- 22/08/2010 08:57:05 PM
830 Views
hee. Well, I still don't agree with you, but at least you're snuggly.^_^ *NM*
- 22/08/2010 09:09:22 PM
636 Views
Tash you are very much a fair person in this world
- 22/08/2010 08:34:38 PM
951 Views
Or there is another option: 3) He was using tact.
- 22/08/2010 09:01:49 PM
856 Views
I really have to disagree with your interpretation of that first speech.
- 22/08/2010 09:22:32 PM
1153 Views
Lies, prevarication and deceit again, eh?
- 22/08/2010 01:17:45 PM
1345 Views
- 22/08/2010 01:17:45 PM
1345 Views
that was a decent explanation....
- 22/08/2010 05:18:18 PM
795 Views
In the interests of fairness ( this does not support or detract from my position), here is the full
- 22/08/2010 09:22:50 PM
1063 Views