I said it all there.

We now need a real president. A good president. One that can restore faith in America both here and abroad again.

I like the irony in one of your Bush quotes: The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East.

To me, the whole justification for invading Iraq comes down to this: had the Bush administration said what they are saying now, that Saddam Hussein was an evil dicator and the world would be better off without him, there's no way even this conservative Congress would have authorized war. They said something completely different, something that we have since found out to not only be untrue but perhaps an outright lie.

As we have heard from one expert after another, intelligence information is seldom black and white and involves both interpretation and filtering, based on what you believe and what you want to see.

It will be increasingly harder to convince people that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al did not have Iraq on the agenda from the beginning.

These guys have to go.

Then there's this quote from Meet the Press: "See, free societies are societies that don't develop weapons of mass terror and don't blackmail the world."

I wonder how that statement would fly in the 35 countries from whom the Bush administration withdrew military support after they resisted signing bilateral immunity agreements with the U.S.

I meant to watch the interview but missed it. Did Bush handle the interview well? Did it sound scripted? Was Bush grilled at all? I'm assuming he demanded to know all of the questions in advance.

Hal, your four conclusions appear spot-on to me.

Just don't mention that the incessant diversionary line: "Saddam Was A Bad Guy And It's Good He's Gone" makes you sleepy---I went from being heartless in regards to 9/11 to a "holocaust denier'" in about three posts.


Aside: I'm still amazed that few mention that the primary sponsors of Islamic terrorism are our 'friends' in Saudi Arabia. (15 of the 19 hijackers, to boot!)

For the life of me, I don't understand why.

(I will continue this thread later; gotta run for now: I have to check my Exxon stock quotes and fill up my SUV.)

I believe the interview will air on MSNBC at 5pm EST today (Sunday). There's a transcript at the Washington Post site.

re. #2 - "Red Herring"

If we operate under the assumption that a "bad guy" justifies a full-scale military invasion, there are A LOT OF PLACES left on that list.

PS: And I'll be the first to volunteer to parachute into Washington D.C.!

Charter Cable in southern California is showing the interview on CNBC at 7PM and 10 PM.

As far as presentation, goes I think he did adequately well. He did stick to scripted answers, but he's a reader not a leader, so that's to be expected.

---SHARK'S DAILY PREDICTION ---

Biggest issue that will come back to haunt Bush in IRAQ:


RUSSERT: If the Iraqis choose...an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that?

BUSH: They're not going to develop that. And the reason I can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're writing.

(yeah, and it's called "SHARIA")


"Meet the new boss---same as the old boss" ---Pete Townsend

Big gaps in Russert's SOFTBALL tournament:

1) complicity of Musharrif, Pakistani Military, and Khan in nuclear weapons sales to 'rogue nations' ---and why don't we invade Pakistan?

2) Saudi Arabia's terrorist connections and Bush's (Sr. & Jr!) friendly ties to same bunch of rich thugs---and why don't we invade Saudi Arabia?

(Ah, shucks, nevermind: they're our "Friends" for the next 15 minutes or so)

3) Halliburton/France/possible indictment of Cheney

4) Why did Bush fly entire Bin Laden family out of the country a few days after 9/11???

5) Why slash the budget dedicated to improving voting systems prior to next election??? (see 2/8 NY times article)

6) Just what was stuffed into that flight-suit codpiece?

More? Anyone?

Some of you have forgotten the first responsibility of the President is protecting the country.

He got the best intel available, on that information he must make his judgement of th4e threat. Here is the question you have assk yourself if in his shoes.

Do I base my decision on the lowest level threat that the CIA is reporting and hope its is right. Or do I accept the highest possible threat given and act on that information?

If your an invading General and have two scenarios, one that the enemy has 10000 troops, and another that he has 2000 troops which is the more prudent?
If you accept the secon I got news for you your dead, your army is dead, another WTC may happen.

Marc: "Do I base my decision on the lowest level threat that the CIA is reporting and hope its is right. Or do I accept the highest possible threat...and act on that information?"

...or better yet, do I decide to invade Iraq a *few days after taking office and then try to manufacture an excuse using questionable intelligence?