Another Newshour bombshell!!

[bananarepublican]

In response to a question from Lehrer about why his surge plan needs to be followed through on... (paraphrasing part of *'s answer) "... we also need to prevent Al Quaida from getting a foot-hold in Iraq".

Later on Mark Shields points out that within the Iraq War Resolution it was stated that they already had a foot-hold in Iraq (presumably under Saddam's blessings). So in other words, one of the reasons I went to war was to irradicate the 'foot-hold', and now the reason is to prevent what I supposedly irradicated in the first place!!!)

The WOT (War On Terror) needs to be renamed the WTFW (Wot The F*ck War)!!!!

[sam sarrha]

1. IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPE

[calimary]

2. Seconded!

Thirded.

Fourthed.

Fifthed.

Sixthed.

Etc.

Etc.

[lapfog_1]

3. IWR may have stated such things as facts, but that doesn't make

it so.

The administration has long tried to link the war on Bin Laden with the war on Saddam. In fact, the only reason that there was any Al Qaida presence in Iraq was the sanctions and no-fly zones we imposed after the first Gulf war. Saddam, evil bastard that he was, had no love for Bin Laden, in fact, one of Bin Ladens' chief complaints about the Saudis is that they rejected his offer to bring his jihadists back from Afghanistan defend the holy land (Saudi Arabia) from the "infidel" Saddam. The Saudis rejected this offer and, instead, called GHWB to bring the cavalry (literally) and build bases and leave troops (even after the war was over) in the holy land. Bin Laden didn't like this any better than Saddam invading (American infidels! near Mecca! with guns and tanks!) To Bin Laden, you might as well have called the Israelis to send their military to the Kingdom.

Anyway, Bin Laden and Saddam did not like each other and had no dealings with each other.

[livvy]

4. Part of the transcript

MR. LEHRER: What does success mean in these terms now, Mr. President?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah, well, success, Jim, means a government that is providing security for its people. A success means for the American people to see Iraqi troops chasing down killers with American help initially. A success means a Baghdad that is, you know, relatively calm compared to last year so that people's lives can go forward and a political process can go forward along with it. Success means the government taking steps to share the oil wealth or to deal with a de-Baathification law, to encourage local elections. Success means reconstruction projects that employ Iraqis. Success also means making sure al-Qaida doesn't get a foothold in Iraq, which they're trying to do in Anbar province. So success is measurable; it's definable; and last year was a year in which there was a setback to success.

>snip

MR. LEHRER: And you're an optimist - you're optimistic about it all at this point?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I am. No question there's a - look, a year ago if we'd been having this discussion prior to the Samarra bombing, I'd have been - look what happened. And then the enemy responded. And by the way, it was al-Qaida that bombed the Samarra mosque. It was al-Qaida that said, we're losing; democracy is something we can't stand, so let us kill innocent lives and bomb a holy site in order to try to provoke sectarian violence. And they were successful. This guy, Zarqawi, did a good job.

It's important for the American people to understand it is al-Qaida that is doing a lot of these spectacular bombings. Why? Because they want a safe haven. They still have ambitions about hurting America. The very same guys - type of guys that flew those airplanes on September 11th are still the ones that are battling against a young democracy in Iraq. And we've got to defeat them, we got to defeat them there. And what changed in 2005 was this level of - and 2006, was this level of sectarian violence that you have accurately described. And the decision I had to make was, does it make sense to help the Iraqis with additional U.S. forces go in and secure those neighborhoods and not only drive them out, drive the insurgents out, but to have enough troops to hold them, and so that the politics and the reconstruction could go forward. And I spent a lot of time thinking about it, Jim, obviously. You mentioned five weeks. This is what presidents do; they take time, they listen. I listened to a lot of folks, a lot of good, decent folks, and came up with this answer as the best way to succeed. And my only call to Congress is that if you've got a better way to succeed, step up and explain it. I fully understand your skepticism, I say to them, but if you share with me the concern that failure's not an option, then what is - what's your - what's your prescription for success? And I think they owe that explanation to the American people.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june07/bush_01-16.html

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. ignore how dark the night sky is. don't you see that

night provides the best reading light? and how else could you see all those tiny flickering little lights that I hung up in the sky? Ignore the fact that it is pitch black. Heck, this is a measure of how successful my new and improved electric company has been.

You mentioned five weeks?
This is what presidents do?
They take time?
They listen?

the man is off his rocker. I saw that interview and I am convinced that the man is off his rocker.

[Arkansas Granny]

6. Another exchange that I thought was pretty revealing about Bush:

MR. LEHRER: Putting the whole thing together, Mr. President, there were two major factors that everybody said that played in your mind and in your decision making. One was the results of the mid-term elections. Another was the - were the findings and the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission. And the end result - some of the folks are saying - was that you decided a bipartisan approach, that - come up with something that everybody could accept and try to work together on as a result of the elections, as a result of Baker-Hamilton. You rejected that as an idea. Am I right about that?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Not really. I - the elections - you know, what made my determination that we needed to change policy was what was happening in Iraq; not what was happening in American elections. I want to succeed in Iraq.

This just provides further proof that Bush is not interested in what the American people think or in doing the will of the American people. He is wholly owned and directed by corporate America and they want the oil, which he mentioned several times in the interview last night.

[snappyturtle]

7. The president's statement you've posted here............

is the ONE that blew my mind! Does this president forget we serves at the pleasure of the American people...or-r-r-r in his case, SCOTUS? Completely delusional.

[ginnyinWI]

8. he knows what he wants, but not how to get there

So he just keeps stating what he wants, over and over and over and over....

On Newshour we saw a collision: an inflexible, unimaginative, narrow-minded man (with the power to be heard), going head-on into realities he doesn't like and has no ability of accepting. So it's stay-the-denial. It's all he knows how to do.

This, if nothing else so far, should be evidence to us that he's not really smart or clever enough to organize or even to participate in any grand conspiracies. Secret activities, yes--but the rest of what might look to be a conspiracy is merely gross incompetence on a previously unseen scale in a presidency of the U.S.A.

[Alamom]

9. We are just not educated well enough to understand, BUT

have no fear, THE EDUCATOR in CHIEF will make sure we are educated...he said so and he never lies, nor does he have incredibly long delusional episodes.

Now, don't we all feel better ! :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:






edsp

[alfredo]

10. Fire up the word processors. Was bush lying then, or is he

lying now? That's a good question to ask in a letter to the editor.