Feb 8, 2004
President Bush answers Russert's questions
Tim Russert fails to ask the President a really direct question. He immediately asks a handful of general ones related
to Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction, but nothing that requires a really direct answer.
PB, really - in my opinion,
does answer the questions posed. He answers in pretty much the way any president would answer - non-directly.
though, when confronted with a question about whether or not you made the "right" decision about "war" what is a president
going to answer - sure, the so-and-suches are correct in their criticisms - I should have let Saddam Hussein lie to the United
Nations some more and I shouldn't have used the force I did on the country of Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
problem with the interview: Russert fell for the same ploy as most of the rest of the so-called media. Keep the attention
on the current drama raised mostly by liberals who want to be elected to the highest office in the land. Forget about, all
about, the one major historical event which propeled George W. Bush to proclaim a war on terror in the first place. Remember,
that declaration to win the war on terror occurred before the War on Iraq.
What is that event? The use of airplanes
as weapons of mass destruction on our own soil. Even more particularly, the use of "hijacked" airplanes - the hijacking of
commercial airplanes, reportedly as they were flying overhead in the United States. How did that happen? Where was the FAA
when the airlines were receiving calls from airline personnel who were aboard these planes?
More importantly, where
was the president when he learned that airplanes had reportedly been "hijacked?"
(You know the answer if you've read
This is not a Conspiracy Theory.) Since the War on Iraq was a "pre-emptive" war, and it was a war in response to the events
of September 11, 2001, there should have been a series of questions about what the president knew before 9/11.
could have asked the following:
What absolute iron-clad evidence-intelligence was given to you that Saddam Hussein
had those weapons of mass destruction?
Were you given real-time satellite photographs, for instance, or dated satellite
images and when were those images verified and how?
Now, Mr. President, following up on your answers. Let's backtrack
to the date of September 11, 2001. The premise that we, the United States, are engaged in a war on terrorism, began with that
tragic day. Mr. President, before the time of 9:00 a.m. and before you entered the Emma E. Booker Elementary School were you
told that airplanes had been hijacked? I just want to know specifically when you were apprised that one airplane or more than
one airplane had reportedly been hijacked?
But of course, Russert doesn't ask any of those questions.
does ask something about the 9/11 Commission, he asks whether the president will "testify" before the 9/11 Commission.
the president says exactly what any president would say, "perhaps."
Russert does continue to expand on the focus of
the interview and states the theory is the intelligence you had was ambiguous.
How would he ever be able to know that.
fact, before Bush acted on any intelligence he was given, Congress acted to give the power to Bush to make a decision on all
of their behalves, and ours.
Now Congress can't claim it didn't have the same information as the President. They gave
up the right to criticize Bush's use of force when passed the Iraq Resolution.
Of course, Bush has to be held accountable
- for something - but not for making the determination to use force when that determination was made based on military intelligence.
the war on Iraq a war of choice, or a war of necessity.
There was no choice, when I looked at the intelligence we had,
that there was no choice, the man was a threat.
Oh well, read the transcript over at MSNBC...Transcript for Feb. 8th
Guest: President George W. Bush
Dean is on CNN with Wolf Blitzer - yeah, right Dean, we weren't told why we were going to war? Were you listening?
The Congress itself in the way of the Senate Intelligence Committee, obtained, information from CIA, FBI, etc. After receiving
this information and assessing the information, surely they reviewed the information, the entire Congress voted on the proposal
to give Bush the authority to do whatever Bush deemed was necessary on the question of Iraq's dictator. Bush was given intelligence
that enabled him to determine at that time that there were weapons of mass destruction.
Obviously, that information
would have been the same information no matter WHO WAS IN OFFICE, that is, if Al Gore had become president, and if 9/11 had
happened, Al Gore would have been given the same exact intelligence Bush was given.
Not only that, a Gore president
would have been privy to the same intelligence during the Clinton Administration and guess what, the Clinton Administration
believed Hussein had WMD. People counter, but Clinton didn't go to war because of that. Well, how do these people address
this: On Dec. 16, 1998, then-President Bill Clinton ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets
Hmm, guess if the bombing doesn't last longer than a few hours, it isn't war.
Clinton bombed Iraq.
Even though Clinton did send out the bombers to bomb Iraq, that wasn't considered a "war." Right, bomb a country, pre-emptively,
that's not a war.
The same thing is only a war when the word "war" is used.
Legitimate criticism of the
president is welcome, partisan motivation for the criticism is unwelcome.Black Caucus Fought Bush, Backed Clinton on Iraq Resolutions
Saturday, Oct. 19, 2002
NEWSFLASH On FoxNews, Monday, Feb. 9, 2004, guests Vin Weber, with Empower America, and former U.S. Senator Dennis
DeConcini, Democrat. DeConcini, during the course of discussing Bush's interview with Russert says that Clinton manipulated
intelligence when he bombed Iraq and when he said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Now let me get this straight,
neither Bush nor Clinton were given any intelligence which reflected that weapons of mass destruction were present in Iraq?
Both of these presidents just made this up as an excuse to bomb Iraq?
What are these people drinking?
the entire world community of leaders believed Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Including Bill Clinton. Where was
Al Gore?Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big
difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long
war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain
and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein
will use these terrible weapons again.
Wednesday, December 16, 1998 Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
Cable News Network
Was Senator DeConcini in office when Clinton bombed Iraq? You bet!
Track him down... he's everywhere.
President Bill Clinton had the opportunity to stop, catch, or kill bin Laden more than twelve times during
his presidency, a new book set for release this week claims. And on at least two occasions through Drones and Global Positioning
Systems the Clinton Administration knew exactly where bin Laden was -- and refused to take him out well after knowing he was
as a national security threat.
Saddam is caught. foxnews is showing the hideout. a correspondent is shown going into the opening of the hole then wiggling
back up and out. He said the hole was 6 feet by 6 feet. It looked to me like the hole got narrower on the way down. Now how
on earth did a big guy like Saddam fit in that hole. The hole is also slanted, I can imagine a thin guy slipping through,
but really, not Saddam. Even though the images of Saddam show he lost weight, did he loose that much in his big fat head and
I mean come on, look at the huge head on Saddam on this cover of 1990 Time Magazine
cover. As an aside, Fox n Friends reported this morning at about 8:30 a.m. that the scheduled cover for the mag was changed
from one featuring Jesus to the image of Hussein. So don't we all wonder when the actual news of the capture was known, or
leaked, to reporters and correspondents?
What American citizens have to wonder about also is the idea that Saddam will
be tried in Iraq. Why don't we bring him over to the United States and charge him with an attempt to assassinate a United
States president, in addition to plotting terrorism, and any number of other charges, according to our law of the land?
are we so afraid of? He might testify that he was paid by the CIA at one point in time, or that he was supported by the United
States way back in the early '80s?
How gullible is the American public? Pretty gullible.
Don't forget that Wesley
Clark is testifying at the Hague. Wesley Clark Testifies at Milosevic War Crimes Trial
15 Dec 2003General Clark was commander of NATO during the alliance's 1999 air campaign against Yugoslavia
during Belgrade's crackdown on Kosovo Albanian separatists. He will testify behind closed doors for two days. Editorial
Clark was on CNN or Meet the Press and wherever else yesterday after the news broke that Saddam was caught. Here is
a man who knows all about "bad" guys. But would he rather fight the bad guys under NATO, or the United Nations than under
our own law of the land, by the way, called the United States Constitution?
So now just how mesmerized are Americans?
Clark become president, what mistakes will he make and will we hear about them?Gen. Wesley Clark to Testify at Milosevic Trial
Sunday, Nov. 16, 2003
ExcerptClark said he made a mistake in a 1994 meeting with Bosnian
Serb Gen. Ratko Mladic, posing for pictures with him and accepting a bottle of brandy and a pistol.
Clark told NBC
he was never told not to meet with Mladic, who is accused of slaughtering hundreds of civilians in pursuit of ethnic cleansing.
He said the meeting was part of an effort to get both sides of the story in the Balkan conflict. At the time, Mladic had not
been indicted as a war criminal.
"I thought it was very important that I be able to talk to the general that, if he
didn't comply, we might have to fight some day," Clark said. "I should not have accepted the gifts."
member CFR? See
Roster 2001. By the way, Diane Feinstein recently became a CFR member.
Name index for Council
on Foreign Relations. Annual Report. 2001 http://www.namebase.org/xchu/Wesley-K-_28gen_29-Clark.htmlGen. Wesley Clark
Interviews Clark: http://www.wamu.org/dr/2003/drarc_030721.html
My research shows on September 11, 2001 George W. Bush remained seated in the Florida Emma E.
Booker Elementary School's second-grade classroom for at least 6 minutes, and thus, did not immediately take action when he
was informed that America was under attack.
There are a lot of questions the 9/11 Commission needs to ask about those
briefings Bush had in the weeks before 9/11.
That doesn't mean that Clark or any of the Democrats are any better as
far as leading this country in any way.
In fact, the candidate who would be the best for the United States would be
one who would immediately sign an executive order to eliminate our participation in all foreign countries business, and would
get us out of the United Nations.
Was Saddam a threat to the United States? Of course, there is historical evidence
that he was such a threat. So too are many others who are permitted to continue to terrorize their own people the way Saddam
undoubtedly did. Do we need to declare war on them. Absolutely, when they directly attack the United States of America.
the American people still do not know who exactly is responsible for the travesty of September 11, 2001. We don't know because
reportedly, according to an Insight Magazine piece, at least six of the initial identified 19 terrorists - had fake ids which
later turned out to be the identities of men who are alive.
Until the Bush Administration explains how men who are
alive are the same ones who were identified as those who perished on 9/11, there will always and forever be doubt about the
official explanation of who is responsible for 9/11.
Laurie Mylroie - guest on C-span, Dec. 23, 2003.
Updated 2/22/04 I've been reading up on Mylroie... I received
the tape in the mail, but haven't yet had a chance to view it - so many other C-Span programs to watch. I should have watched
the tape last night instead of Komodo and Curse of Komodo, but hey, sometimes you just need to watch mindless fiction. I also
did catch ZDTV program on Conspiracies. Don't miss that program ever again.
go visit my new blog: http://conspirannoyya.blogdrive.com
have purchased the videotape, even at the hefty price, of this interview. I have since thought about this guest's presentation.
I believe her explanation for the criticism she received - mid-way through the interview, a caller noted she sounded a bit
off, almost as if she were on something. She explained the camera she was looking at was angled differently, and she should
have been looking into another camera. I still have skepticism about her comment concerning the inablility of intelligence
to "prevent" 9/11, but will wait to review the entire taped program.) (updated 1/14/04
the one hand, Mylroie noted that 9/11 could have been prevented, but she said, state involvement (Iraq) was evident
in the first terrorist attack in 1993, yet was ignored by Clinton. She said the C Administration treated terrorism as a law
enforcement issue. (She was an advisor to Clinton on Iraq in 1992) she mentioned the Sakeik Omar plot. Interesting, she mentioned
the first world trade center bombing being part Iraq involvement and part Sudanese.
At the time, Clinton did bomb Iraq,
she said, but the reason stated was for the attack on the life of george bush, not connection with the first terrorist attack.
worked on us central command, left military stating all we did was encourage al qaida, we emboldened these people when we
merely bombed an aspirin factory. He mentioned Halberstan's book.
LM: clinton didn't want to deal with foreign affairs
issues... the strange thing is, in 92 campaign clinton wasn't like that he was tougher on saddam during the campaign. in july
92, lake and berger said this is just a campaign... clinton didn't deal with national security isses after the campaign, but
you wouldn't have known that from the campaign.
the decision to have war on iraq was made about a week after the 9/11
attacks, she said.
responsible for this intelligence failure, the bureaucrats, part of the democrats and part of the
liberal media. Every time somebody comes along with a link between al qada and iraq and 9/11 attacks, it's ... not covered
by newsweek... after 93 attack, clinton administration turned away the journalists from any connection with iraq.
the issue is politically laden, the clinton white house made the mistake that resulted in the worst intelligence failue since
there was a recognition prior to 9/11 trhat there was a lot wrong with the middle east, proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction... let's use 9/11 to cope with this mess, that's what the white house was saying... there hasn't been
enough clarity about the role of iraq in 9/11.
Caller since end of war in iraq what have we learned of their role,
saddam's role in 9/11.
LM: ... ed epstein done great work on this issue and explained that was in united states was
cell phone calls, but she says that doesn't disprove the czechs at all and their info that ... did meet with ...
YOU THINK PREZ BUSH HAD GENERALLY ANY INFO ABOUT ATTACKS OF 9/11?
PERHAPS ON A VERY GEN LEVEL HE HAD INFO
WOLFSTEADER, VERY IMP BOOK ON PERAL HARBOR COULD NOT REALLY HAVE PREVENTED PH ALTHO A LOT OF NOISE IN THE BACKGROUND, THE
INFO GETS LOST IN THE NOISE...
SHE THINKS 9/11 COULDN'T HAVE BEEN PREVENTED?
Caller: you just contradicted yourself
basically, this administration tries to blame everything on the previous administration. Why were investigations ignored...
it is very difficult to prevent these attacks true in Feb of 93 and 9/11 complaint with clinton is not that they didn't prevent,
but afterwards they deliberately set aside the role of state sponsorship...
promote a false understanding of terrorism,
and people can no longer deal with it.
only, well 59 died in terrorism prior to 9/11
Caller: clinton adm successful
in preventing terrorism during their term.
LH. not successful, lucky, what could have happened in their 8 years in
office, happened in the next administration!
Caller: opinion on Flight 800
LH: this is my own personal opinion,
the explosion aboard happened july 17, 1996, is Iraq's national... that morning saddam... the night before a fax was sent
to paper... saudi general... given the facts, given saddam's speech, and the fireball, this was an act of terrorism, she personally
thinks it was an act of terrorism by iraq.
reading from her book, host 30,000 to 60,000 deaths due to nlawful use of
LH: absolutes, one of the most brutal regimes in the world... along with north korea.
have we set a new policy of pre-emption?
LH... or Libya... certainly why concessions made...
caller asks about
false identity or potential identity of...
LH one of the key issues is the identity of al quaida masterminds... the
core of terrorism started with 1993... sheik mohammed, uncle of usaf, financiar of 9/11 hijackers...
WHEW THIS WOMAN
IS JUST DYNAMITE
do you believe iraq was involved in bioterrorism the anthrax attacks.
suni arab trained microbiologist
whose work involves use of this... technical word...
guardian: (julian borger) new theory, saddam was fooled into thinking
he had them...
LH: not fooled that info on which claim based was un weapons inspectors and with deals they had made
caller: clinton's people tried to tell bush's people but were ignored.
what happened with Freeh, appointed in 93... in washington there is a tendency for people to accomodate the president and
since the president didn't want to hear, wasn't pushed... regarding what clinton people told, to a certain extent you may
be right, they had not focused on terrorism policy... iin pentagon different, they had focused on anti-terrorism...
MY GOD... JUST EYE OPENING, SHOCKING...
caller: al duri... any connection to baluchi terrorists you identify as responsible
LM: don't know any specifics of who is responsible but their identity is based on docs in 1998 no other terrorist
group has this family, those are false ids ... kuwait...
emailer: Why bush unwilling to release documents...
privacy should be respected, that's what they want... also concerned about a democratic fishing expedition and may be among
the things that cia told president before 9/11 was related but there is too much noise and you don't differentiate between
the important and the non-important...
caller: journalist on internet wrote about very strong
ties and bush knew about 9/11 and during that time there was a plot to rescue bin laden family.
host: post 9/11 a plane
did bring them out
LM: not sure, sounds somewhat garbled somewhat truthful. I didn't acknowledge that bush had any
knowledge about 9/11 he didn't and there is no connection between bin laden and bush.
Well, people, this is where we
Little Rock: something about kadafi disarming can bush claim any credit for that.
Ohio. Wonder what thought of Daniel Benjamin book... says bush and he met for years before and could have used what had already
been set up.
Age of Sacred Terror, both clinton white house dealt with terrorism, i call it the clinton administration
white wash... i breifed one of those... her previous book, study of revenge, makes the case saddam was behind 93 trade center
bombings, was denied, she met with steve simon, presented that to him, and he sat there for an hour, they saw no evidence
because they were not supposed to clinton didn't want to...
Well that is interesting, but it still doesn't mean that
Bush didn't have any knowledge that planes could be used as missiles, and doesn't mean Rice didn't know either...
mentions project for a new american century
LM: learned in 95 when saddam's son defected and they learned about nuclear
Black hills, South Dakota: one turned up with antrax on his leg one of terrorists, who was terrance
LM regarding anthrax lesion, hadn't been confirmed on one of 911 hijackers, suspected, another concern that received
too little attention.
Host, reads from her book, iraqi freedom... gone well
LM: ... the war was fought brilliantly,
but there was enormous intelligence failure, again, the bureaucracies would remain intact, but the top removed... should have
been much more post war planning...
OK, I understand where she is coming from after reviewing this. Still, however she
dismissed totally the potential "warnings" pre-911 which included such warning from heads of state of other countries. She
catagorically said Bush did not have advance knowledge of 9/11.
Now people, an investigation has yet to be completed
by the 9/11 commission, yet Mylroie doesn't even mention the commission or the fact the commission itself was prevented from
obtaining the full material needed to make an assessment of anything related to what Bush knew or didn't know.
info will follow since the interview will be rebroadcast today.
Naturally, just as I formulate my question to the guest,
the segment is over.
I cannot believe this person (Laurie Mylroie) at all after her comments on several points. First,
Mylroie cites the book of a woman who wrote about Pearl Harbor, advance warning of attacks - that author has been discredited.
Second, Mylroie does not know the facts about the bin Laden family being flown out of the US after 911 - when all other planes
were grounded and the nation had just been attacked by terrorists. Third, it is aggravating to hear Mylroie speak about "chatter
and noise" as a so called excuse for this nation's security failure. Tell that to the widows and loved ones left behind. It
is now well known that George Bush received briefing in August of 2001 about something - yet Mylroie doesn't seem to care
whether that information is released!