http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/

This is the full transcript to President Bush's interview with Tim Russert on NBC's Meet The Press. What are your general thoughts of the interview? Good? Bad? Generally ********d up? Support your positions fully.

 

I didn’t read the entire transcript but got the basic idea about it. It boils down to this, people in this country want to know “if” some of our intelligence was wrong, and “if” so why was it wrong.

Now, first you have to understand that the intelligence this current President had, President Bush is the same intelligence that President Clinton had as well as many of our allies including Britain.

What many of the democrats are “trying” to do is to lead America into believing that this particular President and his administration “purposely” mislead the American people into believing false intelligence. These are the same people who when Clinton was President completely backed going to war as doing exactly as we did with President Bush. However you do not hear these whiners yapping about how Clinton mislead the nation as well, nothing changed from what Clinton had told the nation compared to President Bush.

That is wrong, and that is nothing more then putting ones nation at risk for political gain and that is exactly what many democrats such as Tom Dashel and Ted Kennedy are doing, nothing more then putting their nation at great risk for their own selfish power struggle.

If the investigation is done correctly it will conclude that it is those like and including Tom Dashel and Ted Kennedy that help lead to a poor intelligence gathering due to them doing their best to dismantle the type of intelligence gathering we had in order to be “political correct”. In other words not using some bad people to help us with information.

The damage that has been done to the intelligence agencies in the past decade will take decades again to rebuild, it will not happen over night and it will not happen by the time President Bush is done with his second term in 2008. The current administration is doing their best with what little they have.

Could 9/11 have been avoided? Possibly but very unlikely due to the damage done by past and current democrats to the intelligence agencies. It is what happens when you cut budgets, when you don’t believe you need what actually worked in the past (feet on the ground) and when you believe that social programs and peoples feelings are more important then real world facts. Some people didn’t have a warm fuzzy feeling about some of our past intelligence gathering agents that we paid money to, some were outright killers and no good people, but the fact of the matter it was a source of good information and because some of the “feel good” crowd in Washington did not like that they sliced it and threw it to the side.

Sometimes you have to treat people like grown-ups and just tell them the facts and the truth, if they don’t like it and whine you tell them tough chit but this is the way it is. So if I were President Bush I would have said the reason I hesitated was because I didn’t want to look political in a campaign year because the end results will make many democrats look very bad and very selfish for their past acts.

If they were to release the report before the actual election that is what would come out and everybody in the press would have a field day with it and act as though President Bush was using that information for “political reasons”.

Actually I think he is doing the best thing possible to keep politics out of it by waiting until AFTER the election to show how screwed up many democrats have acted in the past. The democrats know this as well and in their closets they are thanking President Bush otherwise they would be losing many more seats in both houses come 2004, more so then they will end up losing now…

 

01 xlt sport, you have a great piont. being a military man and for the last ten years, i know what goes on. my thing is, when a republican has been in office, we fight, military gets paid, bases don't close! democraps tend to shut down our assests with the help of evert screaming liberel leftist puke. now, do i think that we should have fought with iraq? hell yeah! my reason is that sodom hassain, was a tyrant and ruled by fear. i know all of you back home saw the effect it had on the people of iraq when we came in and liberated them. being out there during all this and talking to some marines that were on my ship, they said people were handing them rolls of cash saying thank you america. what i'm trying to get at is that yes you are right about intel, and that the democraps are trying to push america into believing that dubya did this all himself. even if he did, he got the wrong intel. now cliton on the other hand, he was a wus. when my comrades got attacked at khobar towers, that pansy just tossed some missiles into the sand and called it even! you can not do that. you have to go after the puke that hit you first and hit him ten times harder. and we are going after that other puke osama, we have troops there now finding him. and just like sodom, we will get him too! so as to everyone's whining *** about should we or shouldn't we, yes my friends we should. i'm glad i was there and part of it. also about past democrats, what is up with them and their downsizing everything? so as to anyone who wants to point fingers, look at your hand while your pionting them at someone and you'll notice the other three pionting right back at ya! george dubya will take us for another four and i will vote him again if it were legal! he set out to take care of a problem, and finished his task, unlike any of our past presidents. so think about that. that was just my 3 and a half cents, sorry if i went over budget!!

 

Fighting all the time is a good thing?

What about every nation in Africa? What about North Korea? What about China?

The people of Iraq lived better lives than anyone in these other nations but you would rather we attacked Iraq. Why?

The only thing we saw back home was whatever the news media decided we should see. We certainly saw a lot of suicide bombings.

Where does it end? They hit us, we hit them harder, they hit us back even worse. The only way to win is to destroy them. Do you believe you can accomplish that militarily? We haven't even been able to find Osama Bin Laden and we are somehow going to obliterate all terrorists everywhere?

Be realistic. The way you win this war is to win people to your side. The hardliners will eventually die out. What we should be doing is winning over the younger generations in these countries so that they want to be on our side. Didn't your mother ever tell you that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar?

Thankfully it isn't legal. The irony is that preisdential term limits were passed to keep liberals from being preisdent for more than 8 years.

Finished it? We captured Osama? Afghanistan is now a stable and free country? Iraq is now a thriving democracy? We haven't even begun to deal with the problems we have created. It will be years before we finally get out of Afghanistan and Iraq. And you and I are the taxpayers who get to pay for it all.

You're a Republican so we expect you to be overbudget.

-Don

 

XLT,

Why must everything be the Democrats fault exactly? The blame in this case is with the intelligence agencies themselves and not with either of the political parties.

The NSA and CIA became enamored of gadgets and technology instead of human intelligence. Instead of developing intelligence networks they spent their budgets on spy satellites, reconnaissance drones and code breaking equipment. The problem has been acknowledged by both agencies as well as a number of the former directors of both agencies.

Please stop trying to turn everything that happens in the world into a political issue. Often the real explanation is simple human stupidity.

-Don

 

Seems to make a lot of sense about the argument of “They hit us and we hit back, how does this solve anything?”

I don’t know, I guess if you continue to keep the school bully happy by giving up your lunch money you may be safer and not suffer an *** whooping for standing up for ones self.

It’s called defending yourself and you surly do not do it by pretending nothing is wrong, or by trying to understand how the bad guys feel because they keep attacking you. That makes no logical sense at all. Sure you might try to talk to the other person before fist start flying to get the situation under control with no violence BUT when the other guy throws the first punch you had better be man enough to block it and if he continues to throw another blow you had better be strong enough to whoop his *** or have yours handed to you, if your lucky, otherwise you may end up 8 feet under the ground.

We have our current problems exactly for the reasons brought up which is ”We should try to get along with them, or we should just pretend its not really happening” Well you know what that got us? Yep, planes flying into buildings because some before us were to much a wuss to stand up for the rights of American citizens, afraid to act in the interest of their neighbors for fear of failing.

So the answer to the question of do we hit back is YOUR GD RIGHT WE HIT BACK, we hit back so damn hard they can not get on their feet again, we hit back so damn hard they think twice about throwing a punch our way.

In school when you stand up to the bully you may take some good hits, but if you get in enough good hits on him he will think twice about messing with you in the future. That is reality, that is how it works in the real world, this ”Let’s get along, lets try to talk it out BS” is a fantasy dreamed up by people that have no clue what the hell is going on and just don’t have the ***** to risk failure in the beginning for winning peace in the end.

Peace is maintained by force, that is reality and that is how it will be for many decades to come and long after we are gone. Those afraid to use force to protect their peace WILL fail in the end, there is no if ands or butts about it…

In politics that is how it works, the liberals are the ones that when they hear a women being beat by her husband they pretend not to hear anything, but will talk up a storm about how its not right to beat women. Non-liberals on the other hand don’t do much talking and go and whip the guy’s *** for beating on a women…

I say that’s fine, if liberals want to sit back and pretend nothing is wrong because they are afraid to stand up for themselves then fine, sit back and get out of the way while others with courage take care of the situation but while the others with courage are taking care of the situation stay out of the way and keep your mouths shut, your inactions forfeit your right to speak until the situation is under control…

 

I'll post this now.....


link

 

We beat the living snot out of the Taliban. The hardliners lost an entire country because of their actions. Isn't it possible that it occurred to them to start leaving people alone before they lose everything?

By going after them we have made it clear that they have no reason to stop fighting because they are going to get attacked either way. If we could obliterate them entirely, this would be a great idea. The problem is that we do not have the resources to eradicate every last terrorist on Earth. That leaves us with a bunch of desperate madmen who have no problem with cold blooded murder.

Great leadership, just like great parenting is knowing when to be harsh and when to show restraint. We demonstrated quite clearly that we know how to be harsh. The Taliban lost their entire country. What we haven't figured out is when to show restraint.

We could defeat every country in the world, many at the same time. So what? Do we really want to spend the rest of our lives policing the world? Do we really want to live our lives hoping that our intelligence agencies are able to stop the latest terrorist attack before it can be carried out?

Or would it perhaps be wiser to undermine the societies that give rise to terrorists? Let the hardliners die out while we coopt the youth of those countries?

I am not asking you to care what the other guy feels. Frankly most of the rest of the world can rot for all I care. What I care about is my personal freedom and safety. What good is eradicating terrorism if I have to pass through checkpoints and get fingerprinted everywhere I go? What good is destroying Saddam Hussein if it just makes him a martyr to the terrorist cause?

First off, I am not sure what this has to do with Saddam Hussein. The money that you and I gave to Saudi Arabia when we purchased gas is what made the attacks on the towers possible. If you want to invade a country, how about we start with them?

The kind of lunatics who fly planes into buildings probably do not think twice about "throwing a punch our way" even after being beaten sensless.

And the non-liberal is the one beating on his wife in the first place. After all, violence solves everything

Courage? Is that it? It takes courage to send the world's strongest army against the joke that was the Iraqi army? I see the word "courage" has been redefined.

I am not for a second suggesting we "sit back and pretend nothing is wrong." I was all for the war in Afghanistan because I thought some *** needed kicking. The war in Iraq was stupid but this conversation has been here before so there isn't much point in rehashing it.

If you want to fight, why not a good fight? How about we try to do some good in the world? Why not put an end to the violence in Africa? Destroy the warlords who have destroyed an otherwise beautiful continent. If not Africa than any of the other places where people are oppressed?

-Don

 

01 is going to bash liberals and defend the attacks against Iraq.

sirket is going to say that there are other places that should have been attacked instead of Iraq.

A few of us like arrbilly, me, Raoul, Grendal, etc will pop-up every couple of posts and make some other points.

This topic is getting way to hashed out. But as long we have one-liners like this:
Argue away

 

Pretty much right on. What people dont understand anymore is that in order to gain freedom, prices have to be paid. Ive had family members in every single war this country has ever seen. My grandpa pulled 3 people out of a crashed B-19 bomber during WWII after their plane was hit with enemy fire, and was ordered to serve 6 months to help clean up the deathcamp Auschwitz. He never refers to himself as a hero. But you sure as hell DONT hear him backing down from threats to our country or bytching about us going over there and attacking. He HATED Clinton for his unusually high cowardness and ignorance. Our purpose in Iraq is not to "kick *** and destroy as much stuff as possible, whether we ruin peoples land/cultures,etc." Our mission is to promote peace. If we werent over there doing our job, why would be have Iraqi citizens fighting on our side and praising our prescence in their country? Doesnt that make you feel like our country is doing the right thing, when the citizens of the country were invading are on our side?

I hate you bleeding heart Liberals. I dont understand how you all can be in favor of giving hard earned American citizen dollars to lazy-aszes that have no inititiave to work, but you back down whenever fighting is a necessary undertaking. Ironically, me and a couple buddies just got done throwing snowballs at protesters of the war on campus. I love it how every single person makes fun of them for being sacred to fight, and if we do find someone that thinks the US should back out, everyone thinks their stupid.

ok im done for now

 

XLT, the results of that investigation will show what they show. It's impossible to tell right now whether or not they will villify Democrats, Republicans, or anybody. It's a safe move on his part to not take a chance that whatever is turned up be spun against him.

The fact that much of the inteligence was the same between the two administrations is not at issue. It's in how that information was interpreted that the arguments lie. Clinton's administration felt that the evidence didn't warrant going to war. Bush's administration did. Which was right? Statistics can be used to 'prove' almost anything. The same can be said about inteligence. If Clinton's administration didn't want to go to war and therefore interpreted the inteligence with an emphasis on reasons not to go, then perhaps they are at fault. If Bush's administration interpreted the inteligence with an emphasis on reasons to go, then perhaps they are at fault. It's anyone's guess, and the two sides are happy to assume, and insinuate what the other party did.

 

I would respectfully disagree and say that as you state Clinton had the same intelligence as did President Bush but Clinton like President Bush was all for going to war and gave basically the same speeches as did President Bush did with the very SAME reasons.

Just about every democrat in the house backed a bill that would have allowed Clinton to go to war (Remember it was Clintons administration and the democrats that coined the phrase “regime change” and “removing Saddam from power”) but the important difference is “not” that Clinton used the intelligence to justify “not” going to war, because Clinton was all for that. The difference is Clinton did not have the moral courage to actual go through with what he continuous spewed to the public.

Only difference between administrations was not what they used the intelligence for, the difference was one administration loved to talk with little to no action, while the other does little talking and follow through with actions…

 

And what about all of the people busy attacking our soldiers? There seem to be plenty of people unhappy with our being there.

And I hate you ignorant fools. Feel better?

Who is in favor of giving money away? Where did this argument come from? Just for the record it was Clinton who slashed welfare and not Bush.

That's the crux of our dispute now isn't it. We disagree on whether this war was necessary. There are plenty of war heroes who think this foray into Iraq was a fools errand.

Wow. You must feel like a real man after throwing snowballs at protesters. Not like those pansies who actually enlist and fight for this country. I'll bet the women dig your macho attitude despite your other... shortcomings.

Their is possessive. They're is a contraction. It is short for "they are" and would seem to be the word you meant to use.

-Don

 

Question - What is the difference between a liberal and a puppy?

Answer -A puppy stops whining after it grows up.

_____________

Question - What is the only thing worse than an incompetent liberal President?

Answer -A competent liberal President.

_____________

Question - Why do the male members of the Kennedy family cry while having sex?

Answer - Mace.

_____________

Question - Who was the first liberal Democrat?

Answer -Christopher Columbus. He left not knowing where he was going,got there not knowing where he was,left not knowing where he'd been and did it all on borrowed money.

_____________


Q: How do you tell the difference between a liberal and a conservative?
A: Easy. Watch a man drowning fifty feet offshore.
The conservative will throw out 25 feet of rope and shout "swim for it!"

The liberal will toss out 50 feet of rope, drop his own end, and go off to do another good deed.

_____________


Question - How many Liberal Democrats does it take to change a lightbulb?

Answer - None. "Well it's not really a question of should we change it or should we not change the lightbulb, but more a question of...(blah blah waffle)"

_____________

Question - How many liberals does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Answer - One liberal and twenty eight delegates representing all the social, economic, and ethnic communities.

_____________

Question - How many liberals does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Answer - Two-one to do it and the other to keep the first one's knee from jerking.

_____________

Question - How many liberals does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Answer - None: They can't remove the old ones since they are already part of the environment.

_____________

Question - How many social scientists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Answer - They do not change light bulbs; they search for the root cause as to why the last one went out.

 

You know, you loose a lot of credability when you do this crap. This is a message board, not english class. Never mind that though, you're better than he is.