Crooked Timber points out that Jeff Jarvies is pointing out that NJ media may have known about the sexuality of the Governer McGreevy, and the apparent appointment of his lover to a State job should have prompted them to report. It is illegal is it not?
It’s great that McGreevey came right out and told the world that he was gay without apologizing for it. But if the charges about cronyism for his lover are true, they’re much more serious than Jack Ryan’s trips to sex clubs.
Another good exerpt from the interview.
P. J. O'ROURKE: Ok, well, this is the key one. Which is your favorite Beatle? I actually asked Bill Clinton that. When he was running for President, I interviewed him and I said, "Which one's your favorite Beatle?" And he looked quite surprised because he thought only policy questions would be asked. And it was Paul, wouldn't you know?SECRETARY POWELL: That's what I would say. Because I know Paul. Paul's a bud of mine.
P. J. O'ROURKE: I'm sure he's a great guy and all, but I would have thought anybody in their right mind would pick Ringo. He wanted the act to last just long enough so he would have enough money to open a chain of hairdressing shops. And, by God, he did.
SECRETARY POWELL: And Paul ended up with the most money.
P. J. O'ROURKE: He did. And he is alive.
SECRETARY POWELL: You know what I like about him, he is so normal.
P. J. O'ROURKE: Yes, so I understand.
Clinton also liked the skinny Elvis stamp, which I thought showed a lack of self-confidence.
SECRETARY POWELL: I knew Elvis.
P. J. O'ROURKE: Really?
SECRETARY POWELL: I met him when he was in the Army. I was a lieutenant; he was a sergeant. He was in the neighboring regiment—or combat command, as we called it—in the Third Armored Division in Germany.
We were in the training area one day and I was driving my jeep around and suddenly came upon this unit from the other outfit and there he was. And so I went over and shook hands.
He was a good soldier. You never would have thought he was anything but a soldier. He had a pimple on his face and everything else. He was not a big star. He was just another soldier.
P. J. O'ROURKE: I'll be darned. Well, good for him.
PJ O'Rourke interviews Colin Powell.
Here's a good sample:
P. J. O'ROURKE: The powers that are on our side, why aren't they pulling on their oars? I mean, the EU has as big an economy and as big a population as we do.SECRETARY POWELL: First of all, I do think they're on our side. I think we had a big hiccup on Iraq, and we lost some of them. But that'll swing back. The pendulum will come back our way because we do have more common interests than disagreements: terrorism, the world trading system, so many other things. Now, the reason we have to spend so much more is that there is no German navy preserving peace in the Pacific, there are no British troops standing guard in Korea, there is no need for any of our European Union friends to have the ability to project an army in a week or two from wherever they are to a place like Afghanistan.
P. J. O'ROURKE: But, why not?
SECRETARY POWELL: Because they have never felt that that was their destiny or their obligation. The United States entered into partnerships and believes it has these worldwide obligations. Nobody can move things like we can. They have never invested in it. Now, with the EU up to twenty-five nations, they're looking at whether or not this is where they should be putting their investment. And I think they should. But their domestic constituencies will not permit the kind of spending on defense that our domestic constituency permits. The Germans are dropping their defense spending and reducing the size of their armed forces. Whereas we've held steady for some years, and now Congress is passing laws to increase the size of our army.
The American people have always been more willing to shoulder this burden than our European friends, particularly now when the Cold War is over. There is no Iron Curtain, there is no Soviet Union, and the average European citizen looking around sees some of these out-of-the-way places like Afghanistan and the Balkans and Iraq. They're willing to do a little there, but they're not willing to put up to three or four percent of their GDP into defense spending the way we are.
P. J. O'ROURKE: I was shocked when I was in the Balkans in the early '90s that this was going on so close to the EU, essentially the same distance as from here to Jersey City, and they were letting it. They had the power to stop it.
SECRETARY POWELL: They had the power, but they are a union that does not have a predominant leader. NATO had a predominant leader in the United States. The European Union has a lot of pretenders and contenders for that position, but they don't have it yet, as evidenced by the debates they had over the constitution last week.
But our great strength is the image we still convey to the rest of the world. Notwithstanding all you read about anti-Americanism, people are still standing in line to come here, to get visas and come across our borders.
It's [America] an empire that has all the functions of military empire, if you like. It has the capacity to project itself in terms of force over vast geographical distances. It's an empire that is remarkably adept at spreading its culture globally. In that sense, it's an empire with almost unrivaled military and cultural power. But when it comes to what might be called imperial governance, it is an empire which, precisely because it doesn't recognize its own existence, consistently underperforms.
In this months Atlantic monthly some interesting exerpts from the latest tranche of Nixon tapes released this year. This is what Nixon had to say about the Irish, after Bloody Sunday, and just after the British Embassy in Dublin was burned down on February 2, 1972.
Speaking to William Rogers (Secretary of State)
'Cause you know, and let's face it, the Irish are—these people, the Irish, are pretty goddam bad here. They're the Kennedy type, out raising hell, blowing up the place, burning down the embassy and all that.
I managed to miss this earlier, but here is the transcript. You can watch it on video too if you click the video link.
The former head of counterterrorism at the National Security Council Richard A. Clarke, believe that the September 11 report is somewhat lacking. He proposes how the war on terrorism should really be fought:
We need to expose the Islamic world to values that are more attractive than those of the jihadists. This means aiding economic development and political openness in Muslim countries, and efforts to stabilize places like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Restarting the Israel-Palestinian peace process is also vital.Also, we can't do this alone. In addition to "hearts and minds' television and radio programming by the U.S. government, we would be greatly helped by a pan-Islamic council of respected spiritual and secular leaders to coordinate (without U.S. involvement) the Islamic world's own ideological effort against the new Qaeda.
Unfortunately, because of America's low standing in the Islamic world, we are now at a great disadvantage in the battle of ideas. This is primarily because of the unnecessary and counterproductive invasion of Iraq. In pulling its bipartisan punches, the commission failed to admit the obvious: we are less capable of defeating the jihadists because of the Iraq war.
Unanimity has its value, but so do debate and dissent in a democracy facing a crisis. To fully realize the potential of the commission's report, we must see it not as the end of the discussion but as a partial blueprint for victory. The jihadist enemy has learned how to spread hate and how to kill - and it is still doing both very effectively almost three years after 9/11.
No doubt Steyn would call such tactics the tactis of a girlie-man.
Gerald Posner of the NYT asks the question, also posed by Unger and Moore.
The report makes no mention that one of the Saudis on the flight that left Kentucky for Saudi Arabia was Prince Ahmed bin Salman. The nephew to King Fahd, Prince Ahmed was later mentioned to American interrogators in March 2002 by none other than Abu Zubaydah, a top Qaeda official captured that same month. The connection, if any, between a top operative of Al Qaeda and a leading member of the royal family has remained unresolved despite Saudi denials. Prince Ahmed cannot be asked: He died in 2002, at the age of 43, from complications from stomach surgery in a Riyadh hospital.Not only does the 9/11 report fail to resolve the matter of whether Zubaydah - who featured prominently in the now infamous Presidential Daily Briefing of Aug. 6, 2001 - was telling the truth when he named Prince Ahmed and several other princes as his contacts, but they do not even mention the prince in the entire report. The report does have seven references to Zubaydah's interrogations, yet not a single one is from March, the month of his capture, and the time he made his startling and still unproven accusations about high-ranking Saudi royals.
Of course, none of these matters undermine the report's central conclusions about what went wrong inside the United States leading up to 9/11. And satisfying answers to questions about the relationship between the Saudis and Al Qaeda might not be available yet. But the commission could have at least asked them. By failing to address adequately how Saudi leaders helped Al Qaeda flourish, the commission has risked damaging its otherwise good work.
Is it just me or is the September 11th Commission looking increasingly like the Warren Commission?
Amid all the criticism of Dublin's new LUAS system, it turns out that a US city built a light rail system of about the same size, for about the same price. But was it worth it? The economist seems to think it might be.
In Minneapolis a light rail was opened on June 26th, it runs for 12 miles, and cost $715m. St.Louis introduced light rail in 1993, the number of passengers was three times the projections, the same was true of Denver, Portland, Dallas, San Diego and Salt Lake City.
Minneapolis council predicts that the light rail will spur the development of 7000 housing units and 19 million square feet of office space.
Kevin Drum is hearing some buzz in Republican circles in Washington, but pretty much discounts Rice, saying that Bush-Cheney is much more likely.
On another note, is Condi Rice a lesbian?
A quick browse around reveals this popular story. I had an interesting chat about the idea with an editor from a big magazine and some people from Westminster last year - it stuck in my mind.
It appears that Best Buy might think that customers are no longer always right. I feel the same, in fact so would anyone that has worked in a service industry. Anyway, Slashdot links to the story that Best Buy is not happy with some of its customers - they rightly note that this may be the darker side of data mining.
Drum also mentions this interesting article from the editor of the Washington Monthly, written last year.
This kind of insight into Washington politics is fascinating. Lobbying is a curious industry.
Carole Coleman, RTE Washington correspondent, has caused a mini-controversy after her interview with George Bush. You can watch the full interview with Real Player.
John feels she was not up to the job. I am going to reserve judgement for now.
Watch it though.
Update: Kevin Drum lambasts the President for requiring scripted questions in the first place, while praising Coleman:
We have a president who apparently feels uncomfortable doing an interview with a foreign journalist unless he knows beforehand what she's going to ask, and then behaves childishly when she actually follows up and insists on genuine answers to the prescripted questions instead of the usual talking point pabulum that the American press laps up. How dare she interrupt the president of the United States and demand real answers!
Kevin Drum points to a funny story concerning Dick Cheney.
According to congressional aides, [Sen. Patrick] Leahy said hello to Cheney following the taking of the Senate group photo on the floor of the chamber.
Cheney, who is president of the Senate, then ripped into Leahy for the Democratic senator's criticism this week of alleged war profiteering in Iraq by Halliburton, the oil services company that Cheney once ran.
....During their exchange, Leahy noted that Republicans had accused Democrats of being anti-Catholic because they are opposed to some of President Bush's anti-abortion judges, the aides said.
That's when Cheney unloaded with the "F-bomb," aides said.
Poor old Cheney, he must be worried about something or other.
The Boston Globe had a good editorial piece on the Star Wars project, worth a look.
Instead of directing finite resources toward protecting America against likely threats, he is lavishing billions of dollars on a system that has not been tested under the realistic conditions that would obtain in the unlikely event America came under attack from ballistic missiles launched by North Korea. Instead of funding research that might one day make possible an effective defense against ballistic missiles, Bush is spending $10.2 billion this year - the single biggest item in the defense budget - on a system whose flaws independent scientists regard as insurmountable.
From Slashdot, looks like the US Navy has been busy, they plan to implement rail gun technology by 2011.
DD(X) is in development by the Navy, Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and other firms. When the new ship arrives in service it will be armed with very advanced, but conventional weaponry, including two United Defense 155mm Advanced Gun System cannons and an 80-cell vertical launch system for various guided missiles. But these systems are stepping stones to greater capabilities, according to Michael Collins, Navy IPS/electric drive program manager. “This technology opens the door” to advanced weapons, he said.
A report on Rail Gun technology can be read here. (PDF)
PJ O'Rourke has an entertaining article on right wing politics in the US. He poses the question I have often asked myself...When was the last time a conservative talk show changed a mind?
He likes Rush Limbaugh? Apparently so, but he still is not all that right:
Me. I am a little to the right of ... Why is the Attila comparison used? Fifth-century Hunnish depredations on the Roman Empire were the work of an overpowerful executive pursuing a policy of economic redistribution in an atmosphere of permissive social mores. I am a little to the right of Rush Limbaugh. I'm so conservative that I approve of San Francisco City Hall marriages, adoption by same-sex couples, and New Hampshire's recently ordained Episcopal bishop. Gays want to get married, have children, and go to church. Next they'll be advocating school vouchers, boycotting HBO, and voting Republican.
He is critical of the right, for usually being just too extreme. And of the left he asks :
Do some liberals feel as if they're guarding the net while their teammates make a furious rush at their own goal? NPR seems more whiny than hectoring, except at fundraising time.
A funny piece.
Third on the list are some truly staggering figures:
Every year Americans lose as much money on legal gambling as they spend on movies, amusement parks, spectator sports, and video games combined—which is one reason that opponents of legalized casinos claim that gambling leads to financial ruin for many Americans.
Now that is alot of money. The full report is available here.
The Atlantic finally popped through the door so I can point to all the interesting pieces in this months issue. Some of the material is available online, but I prefer reading the hardcopy issue, and then linking to the stories.
First up is Primary Sources, always one of the most interesting parts of the Atlantic.
The first story details how much Congress spends on projects tacked onto appropriations bills. It seems fiscal year 2004 was a record, with 10, 656 such projects. The Pig Book can be found here.
Among others:
Choice slices of pork listed in the Pig Book include $50 million to build the world's largest indoor rain forest in Coralville, Iowa; hundreds of thousands of dollars for "poultry litter composting" and "berry research"; and $5 million for the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), which was originally designed to "capture energy from the aurora borealis" and now aims to "heat the ionosphere to improve military communications." It's no coincidence that HAARP, which has absorbed nearly a hundred million federal dollars since 1995, is an Alaska-based project: the state's senior senator, the Republican Ted Stevens, chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee—and Alaska procured more pork per capita than any other state in 2004, with $524 million in appropriations.
Capture energy from the aurora borealis? Not heard that one before.
Defying the Bush administration, the Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday to add 20,000 troops to an Army stretched thin by the war in Iraq and other commitments around the world.The 93-4 vote in the Republican-led Senate -- following a similar action by the House -- reflected the anxieties lawmakers have been hearing from families of service personnel whose tours in Iraq keep getting extended and whose return to civilian life is repeatedly postponed.
Thanks to An Oasis for this one...the anti-Chomsky blog (linked to by Andy Sullivan too) I too watched Chomsky take on Paxman a few weeks back, it was curious to say the least. My interest has been heightened having seen Des Bishop's blogroll including me and Chomsky. Des has been critical of the US administration lately, it makes for entertaining reading.
As for Chomsky, I have read many of his books, but have also read too many eloquent criticisms of him - and I am falling of the side of disagreeing with Chomsky more often than not.
Craig Unger, author of "House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties.", with a brief piece in the IHT today. He poses a question asked by Michael Moore in his latest film.
It has also emerged that:
In addition, new evidence shows that the evacuation involved more than the departure of 142 Saudis on six charter flights that the commission is investigating. According to newly released documents, 160 Saudis left the United States on 55 flights immediately after Sept. 11 - making a total of about 300 people who left with the apparent approval of the Bush administration, far more than has been reported before.
The records were released by the Department of Homeland Security in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative, nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington.
The vast majority of the newly disclosed flights were commercial airline flights, not charters, often carrying just two or three Saudi passengers. They originated from more than 20 cities, including Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Detroit and Houston. One Saudi Arabian Airlines flight left Kennedy Airport on Sept. 13 with 46 Saudis. The next day, another Saudi Arabian Airlines flight left with 13 Saudis.
Why did this happen?
Must Americans wait until intrusive general searches mushroom into scandal, weakening America's ability to collect information that saves lives? Congress should debate this Pentagon report, exercising foresight, rather than years from now, in the high dudgeon of hindsight.
So says William Safire of this recently released Pentagon report. I'll have a look round the net for it. As for Safire, he seems to favour more wiretaps and surveillance, I just wonder whether it will do any good. Is not al-Qaeda well versed in encrypting documents, and using various simple, but highly effective techniques to avoid surveillance?
Naomi Klein this week with some curious remarks - and interesting insight.
The echo was probably intentional. Bush is so desperate for the Hispanic vote that he has taken to shouting " Vamos a ganar! We're going to win!" during stump speeches in Ohio.
Of course he is desperate for the hispanic vote - what candidate wouldn't be?
But the main purpose of the "Yes, American can" bus tour, of course, was to shift the attention of US voters away from the Iraq prison scandal towards the recovering job market.
I would imagine that the tour was planned well in advance of the Abu Ghraib pictures coming out. It should read 'effect' instead of 'purpose'.
Here is an interesting figure though:
With more than 2 million Americans behind bars, the number of prison guards has exploded - from 270,317 in 2000 to 476,000 in 2002.
That's quite a number of state-created jobs is it not? Hmm.
But here is where Klein gets serious:
There's Sergeant Ivan Frederick, another prison guard, this time from rural Virginia. Before he joined what Van Jones, a prisoners' rights lawyer, calls "America's gulag economy", Frederick had a decent job at the Bausch and Lomb factory in Mountain Lake, Maryland. But according to the New York Times, that factory shut down and moved to Mexico - one of the nearly 900,000 jobs that the Economic Policy Institute estimates have been lost since the North American Free Trade Agreement came into force in 1994, the vast majority in manufacturing.Free trade has turned the US labour market into an hourglass: plenty of jobs at the bottom, a fair bit at the top, but very little in the middle. At the same time, getting from the bottom to the top has become increasingly difficult, with tuition fees at state colleges up by more than 50% since 1990.
And that's where the US military comes in: the army has positioned itself as the bridge across America's growing class chasm: money for tuition in exchange for military service. Call it the Nafta draft.
I have lots of anecodotal experiences of this, many Americans I have known have told me of this choice - to do your time in the military to get cheaper education. It sounds like a curious position, in what is supposed to be a market economy. The State is essentially bargaining with its citizens - and I think the phrase 'Nafta draft' is apt.
Dan Drezner is calling for a boycott of the new film - I for one love this kind of stuff. As much as alot of is plain nonsense - I'm a sucker for big epic special effects pop-corn movies. I had the same buzz with Independence Day, and no doubt it will be the same for this film.
As for the environmental aspect, I think MoveOn.org are taking this one just a bit too far. But as already discussed on this blog, I am of the opinion that global warming is taking place, and that Carthage must be destroyed.
In case you missed it, Kevin Drum has the transcript from the rather funny episode of Meet the Press, where one of Colin Powell's aides goes a bit crazy and ends an interview in the middle of a question. Powell seemed a bit surprised - and wanted to answer the question. She wanted to end it.
Russert: Finally, Mr. Secretary, in February of 2003, you placed your enormous personal credibility before the United Nations and laid out a case against Saddam Hussein citing...
Emily: You're off.
Powell: I am not off.
Emily: No. They can't use it. They're editing it. They (unintelligible).
Powell: He's still asking me questions.
Emily: He was not...
Powell: Tim, I'm sorry, I lost you.
Russert: I'm right here, Mr. Secretary. I would hope they would put you back on camera. I don't know who did that.
Powell: We've really scre...
Russert: I think that was one of your staff, Mr. Secretary. I don't think that's appropriate.
Powell: Emily, get out of the way.
Emily: OK.
Powell: Bring the camera back, please. I think we're back on, Tim. Go ahead with your last question.
I think she just lost her job.
They are still spending money on this? What is the point? Have they not heard of 737s laden with fuel? Have they not heard of new technology that can avoid missile defence?
Sounds like a big scam to me.
Kevin Drum quoting Eric Alterman in the Nation...
That's too bad, because unfortunately Cheney is nuts. As Powell puts it, Cheney was in the grip of a "fever," no longer the "steady, unemotional rock that he had witnessed a dozen years earlier during the run-up to the Gulf War. The vice president was beyond hell-bent for action against Saddam. It was as if nothing else existed." Woodward gives us the backstory: Cheney, confirmed by his equally fevered aide "Scooter" Libby, repeatedly pitched--as he does today--the apparently imaginary meeting between Mohamed Atta and Iraqi intelligence in Prague. Powell/Woodward aptly term this contention "worse than ridiculous." It goes on. "Cheney would take an intercept and say it shows something was happening. No, no, no, Powell or another would say, it shows that somebody talked to somebody else who said something might be happening. A conversation would suggest something might be happening, and Cheney would convert that into a 'We know.'"
The other lesson here is the way independent news operations like the Memory Hole are helping to reshape journalism. The little guy, in using the Freedom of Information Act, did something that most of the established media didn't bother to try.
Kevin Drum has some insight into the military records of both George W Bush and John Kerry. I think his analysis is correct - the Republican game here is pretty low, and I don't think they can win the argument.
Zachary Selden explains the phenomenon of Neocons in the US.
The very attractive editor of the Nation, Katrina, with a slew of criticisms of Bush's 9/11 commercial, full of good links and good ideas. A short but enlightening read.
Hugo Chavez has gone off on one, he is starting to sound a bit paranoid. But the idea of a 100 year war sounds interesting, he certainly has enough oil to sell to all the other South American nations.
But I just can't help being suspicious of US intentions, especially where oil is concerned. Hey, call me cliched.
So Bush had a few friends over to stay. Kevin Drum nails down Bush on comments about Clinton during the 2000 election debates. Hmmm. Pot, kettle, black.
It's rumoured that it was the Department of Homeland Security that is going to need all this RAM. But any agency or government that needs this much memory is up to something I guess.
2.5 Terabytes of RAM.
My laptop has 256Mb. So they have 10,000 times the memory. Good god.
US style guru Martha Stewart has been found guilty of lying to investigators a over a suspicious sale of shares in drug company ImClone.
Ms Stewart was found guilty of one count of conspiracy, two counts of making false statements and one count of obstruction of agency proceedings.
Each count carries a possible five-year jail term and a $250,000 fine.
Ms Stewart's former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic, was found guilty of four of the five charges against him.
He was found not guilty of one charge of making a false statement.
The most serious charges of securities fraud, carrying a maximum 10-year jail term, had been dismissed last week.
Robert Kennedy is laying some serious charges at the door of the Bush administration over in the Nation. Read it all, some of the issues he raises have been discusses on this weblog over the last week. Among the charges:
The Bush Administration's first instinct when it comes to science has been to suppress, discredit or alter facts it doesn't like. Probably the best-known case is global warming. Over the past two years the Administration has done this to a dozen major government studies on global warming, as well as to a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its own efforts to stall action to control industrial emissions. The list also includes major long-term studies by the federal government's National Research Council and National Academy of Sciences, and by scientific teams at the EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA, and a 2002 collaborative report by scientists at all three of those agencies.
The Administration has taken special pains to shield Vice President Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton, which is part of an industry that has contributed $58 million to Republicans since 2000. Halliburton is the leading practitioner of a process used in extracting oil and gas known as hydraulic fracturing, in which benzene is injected into underground formations. EPA scientists studying the process in 2002 found that it could contaminate ground-water supplies in excess of federal drinking water standards. A week after reporting their findings to Congressional staff members, however, they revised the data to indicate that benzene levels would not exceed government standards. In a letter to Representative Henry Waxman, EPA officials said the change was made based on "industry feedback."
As a favor to utility and coal industries, America's largest mercury dischargers, the EPA sat for nine months on a report exposing the catastrophic impact on children's health of mercury, finally releasing it in February 2003. Among the findings of the report: The bloodstream of one in twelve US women is saturated with enough mercury to cause neurological damage, permanent IQ loss and a grim inventory of other diseases in their unborn children.
Dan points to this article by the infamous Ann Coulter, talking about that horrible liberal Max Cleland. I think Dan gets it right as usual. Imagine. This is only February.
Interestingly, the paper that published that, Human Events, has edited out some parts of Coulter's article. The original apparently is here in Townhall. Having a quick look it appears this was edited out:
Indeed, if Cleland had dropped a grenade on himself at Fort Dix rather than in Vietnam, he would never have been a U.S. senator in the first place. Maybe he'd be the best pharmacist in Atlanta, but not a U.S. senator. He got into office on the basis of serving in Vietnam and was thrown out for his performance as a senator.
Cleland wore the uniform, he was in Vietnam, and he has shown courage by going on to lead a productive life. But he didn't "give his limbs for his country," or leave them "on the battlefield." There was no bravery involved in dropping a grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight. That could have happened in the Texas National Guard – which Cleland denigrates while demanding his own sanctification.
Hmm. I wonder why.
The story of Dudley Hiibel is an interesting one, and says alot about the rights of citizens in a democracy to protect their privacy. The local sheriff in the Nevada town demanded ID, Dudley refused - and what ensued has been released on video onto the internet - it is notably however, the police camera that caught the incident.
The case comes up in the US Supreme Court in March. I shall be following this one. [via Dan]
Here is a transcript of what happened:
Tape Transcript
Dudley Hiibel = H
Deputy Dove = D
Mimi Hiibel = M
Radio Dispacher: 10-4 ------ Turn lane on C ---- 3 ---------------
Hiibel: How's it goin' Sheriff
Dove: How ya doin'?
Dove: Well, ...................
H: Looks like I'm parked ok
D: Well, I've got a report that there's been a fightin' going on between you two tonight.
H: I don't know nuttin' about that. ------ Of course, I've -----------------
D: Why don't you come over here, ok?
H: I'm parked alright on the side of the road
D: You've got any identification on you?
H: No, ------------ why should I have an ID? Why do you want me to...
D: The thing is this ----- we're doin' an investigation, ok and I wanna see some identification
H: Naw, I'm ------ gonna ------
D: I need to see some identification
H: I don't, I don't think, I think I've --------------------
D: Come over here. Sir...
H: Sir, don't grab onto me
D: I won't grab you if you'll come back over here
H: ------ sorry ---------------------
D: Come back over here, ok
H: Why in hell do I go over here? Why? Am I under arrest?
D: I just need to see some identification.
H: Why?
D: Because I'm investigating an investigation
H: Investigating what?
D: I'm investigating
H: I'm a legal
D:
H: I'm illegally parked, I mean, I mean I am illegally parked?
D: How'd you get home yesterday
H: That don't matter
D: ------------------
H: ---------------------
D: It could be a searchable situation
H: Ok, take me to jail.
D: I didn't say that
H: Alright then I'm not illegally parked
D: ok
H: I know what, I know what I'm talking to
D:
H: I know what you ----- type --------
D: ---------- registration ------
H: Why?
D: Because I wanna find out who you are and I wanna find out what I've got going on here
H: -----------------
D: So, you're refusing to --------
H: ---------------------
D: --------------------
H: --------------------
D: Show me your identification.....
H: Why?
D: and uh, uh fine. Show me your identification.
H: I'm uh, I'm uh, I'm being cooperative with you. I'm...
D: Show me your ID
H: I'm, I'm cooperating with you
D: Show me your ID
H: If you've got something take me to jail
D: Show me your ID
H: -------------------------
D: --------------------
H:
D: ...and then we'll talk, ok?
H: I don't want to talk. I've done nothin'. I've broken no laws. Take me to jail, I don't care.
D: Why would I, why would I take you to jail if you've broken no laws?
H: Because you wanna apparently. I'm not illegally parked, I'm not doin' nothin'. I've got a guy behind me who wants to take me to jail.
D: I want to see some ID, ok.
H: Why?
D: Because
H: Why
D: -------------------
H: -------------------
D: ------------------
H: I don't care
D: You're not going to cooperate?
H: Because I ...
D: So then you're not gonna cooperate with me at all? Ok, turn around and put your hands on your back. Spread your feet.
M: Nooo more!
D: Spread your feet, spread your feet,
M: No more!
D: Spread your feet wider, thank you sir.
M: Aaaahhhh
D: Ok, I'm going to tilt you back in a second. Do you got any -------- or stick that will hurt me?
H: I ...
D: I'm gonna take your knife and you'll get it back at a later time, now.
D: Ok, --------- back here.
M: Aaahhhh.
Radio: -----------------
M: Aaahhhhhh
(Sirens)
M: Aaahhhhh! Get off of me! Get off of me!
H: Big man, big man, real big man!
Radio: ----------------
M: Aaahhh!
H: Big man, gee what a big man!
M: Stop!
H: I can't, I've never seen such a big man since you guys.
M: Get off of me! Get off of me!
M: Get off of me!
H: Oh, yes. Big men. Big men, I've never seen such big men since you guys.
M: Stop! Stop!
H: Big men!
M: Why are you doing this to me?
H: Big men, big men.
M: (expletive)
D: (to daughter) Can you explain to me what happened tonight?
M: I told you. We got in a fight (.........) and I told ya what we we were arguing about because we were fightin'.
D: You feel like standin' up?
M: I feel like you getting this thing off of me
D: Can I help you stand up so then we can talk? Maybe we can take those off.
M: Come on...
D: Wanna stand up?
D: What's you're name?
H: Big man
D: What's your name?
M. Mimi.
D: Mimi what?
M: Hiibel
Green Violet blogged this before I got the chance to - it is a funny read. I hope all of my Republican readers don't mind.
GEORGE W. BUSH
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20520
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:
Law Enforcement:
I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.
Military:
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.
College:
I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader.
PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock. I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money. With the help of my father and our friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS
I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America. I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money. I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history. With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week. I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury. I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history. I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period. I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period. I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market. In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month. I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President. I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations. My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron.
My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision. I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip- offs in history. I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed. I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history. I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts. I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history. I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government. I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history! I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission. I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law. I refused to allow inspector's access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention. I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election). I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any President since the advent of television. I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.
I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history. I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind. I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community. I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families -- in wartime. In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends. I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security. I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD. I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden [sic] to justice.
RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view. All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004.
For those who missed it, here's the full transcript of George Bush's interview with Meet the Press. Some scary stuff in there.
Tim Russert: And we are in the Oval Office this morning with the President of the United States. Mr. President, welcome back to “Meet The Press.”
President Bush: Thank you, sir.
Russert: On Friday, you announced a committee, commission to look into intelligence failures regarding the Iraq war and our entire intelligence community. You have been reluctant to do that for some time. Why?
President Bush: Well, first let me kind of step back and talk about intelligence in general, if I might. Intelligence is a vital part of fighting and winning the war against the terrorists. It is — because the war against terrorists is a war against individuals who hide in caves in remote parts of the world, individuals who have these kind of shadowy networks, individuals who deal with rogue nations. So, we need a good intelligence system. We need really good intelligence.
So, the commission I set up is to obviously analyze what went right or what went wrong with the Iraqi intelligence. It was kind of lessons learned. But it's really set up to make sure the intelligence services provide as good a product as possible for future presidents as well. This is just a part of analyzing where we are on the war against terror.
There is a lot of investigations going on about the intelligence service, particularly in the Congress, and that's good as well. The Congress has got the capacity to look at the intelligence gathering without giving away state secrets, and I look forward to all the investigations and looks.
Again, I repeat to you, the capacity to have good intelligence means that a president can make good calls about fighting this war on terror.
Russert: Prime Minister Blair has set up a similar commission in Great Britain.
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: His is going to report back in July.
President Bush: Right.
Russert: Ours is not going to be until March of 2005, five months after the presidential election.
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: Shouldn't the American people have the benefit of the commission before the election?
President Bush: Well, the reason why we gave it time is because we didn't want it to be hurried. This is a strategic look, kind of a big-picture look about the intelligence-gathering capacities of the United States of America, whether it be the capacity to gather intelligence in North Korea or how we've used our intelligence to, for example, learn more information about A.Q. Khan. And it's important that this investigation take its time.
Now, look, we are in a political season. I fully understand people — He's trying to avoid responsibility. There is going to be ample time for the American people to assess whether or not I made a — good calls, whether or not I used good judgment, whether or not I made the right decision in removing Saddam Hussein from power, and I look forward to that debate, and I look forward to talking to the American people about why I made the decisions I made.
The commission I set up, Tim, is one that will help future presidents understand how best to fight the war on terror, and it's an important part of the kind of lessons learned in Iraq and lessons learned in Afghanistan prior to us going in, lessons learned that we can apply to both Iran and North Korea because we still have a dangerous world. And that's very important for, I think, the people to understand where I'm coming from to know that this is a dangerous world. I wish it wasn't.
I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them.
Russert: Will you testify before the commission?
President Bush: This commission? You know, testify? I mean, I’d be glad to visit with them. I’d be glad to share with them knowledge. I’d be glad to make recommendations, if they ask for some.
I'm interested in getting — I'm interested in making sure the intelligence gathering works well.
Listen, we got some fine — let me — let me, again, just give you a sense of where I am on the intelligence systems of America. First of all, I strongly believe the CIA is ably led by George Tenet. He comes and briefs me on a regular basis about what he and his analysts see in the world.
Russert: His job is not in jeopardy?
President Bush: No, not at all, not at all. We've got people working hard in intelligence gathering around the world to get as good an information as possible.
Intelligence requires, you know, all kinds of assets to bring information to the President, and I want that intelligence service to be strong, viable, competent, confident, and provide good product to the President so I can make judgment calls.
Russert: There’s another commission right now looking into September 11th.
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: Will you testify before that commission?
President Bush: We have given extraordinary cooperation with Chairmen Kean and Hamilton. As you know, we made an agreement on what's called "Presidential Daily Briefs," so they could see the information the CIA provided me that is unique, by the way, to have provided what's called the PDB, because —
Russert: Presidential Daily Brief?
President Bush: Right.
And see, the danger of allowing for information that I get briefed on out in the public arena is that it could mean that the product that I receive or future presidents receive is somewhat guarded for fear of — for fear of it being revealed, and for fear of people saying, “Well, you know, we’re going to second-guess that which you told the President.”
I need good, honest information, but we have shared this information with both those gentlemen, gentlemen I trust, so they could get a better picture of what took place prior to September the 11th.
And again, we want — I want the truth to be known. I want there to be a full analysis done so that we can better prepare the homeland, for example, against what might occur.
And this is all in the context of war, and the more we learn about, you know, what took place in the past, the more we’re going to be able to better prepare for future attacks.
Russert: Would you submit for questioning, though, to the 9/11 Commission?
President Bush: Perhaps, perhaps.
Russert: Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican —
President Bush: Yes.
Russert: — said he is absolutely convinced we will capture Osama bin Laden before the election.
President Bush: Well, I appreciate his optimism. I have no idea whether we will capture or bring him to justice, may be the best way to put it. I know we are on the hunt, and Osama bin Laden is a cold-blooded killer, and he represents the nature of the enemy that we face.
These are — these are people that will kill on a moment's notice, and they’ll kill innocent women and children. And he's hiding, and we're trying to find him.
There's a — I know there is a lot of focus on Iraq, and there should be, but we’ve got thousands of troops, agents, allies on the hunt, and we’re doing a pretty good job of dismantling al-Qaida — better than a pretty good job, a very good job. I keep saying in my speeches, two-thirds of known al-Qaida leaders have been captured or killed, and that's the truth.
Russert: Do we have a pretty good idea where Osama is?
President Bush: You know, I'm not going to comment on that.
Russert: Let me turn to Iraq. And this is the whole idea of what you based your decision to go to war on.
President Bush: Sure, sure.
Russert: The night you took the country to war, March 17th, you said this: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
President Bush: Right.
Russert: That apparently is not the case.
President Bush: Correct.
Russert: How do you respond to critics who say that you brought the nation to war under false pretenses?
President Bush: Yes. First of all, I expected to find the weapons. Sitting behind this desk making a very difficult decision of war and peace, and I based my decision on the best intelligence possible, intelligence that had been gathered over the years, intelligence that not only our analysts thought was valid but analysts from other countries thought were valid.
And I made a decision based upon that intelligence in the context of the war against terror. In other words, we were attacked, and therefore every threat had to be reanalyzed. Every threat had to be looked at. Every potential harm to America had to be judged in the context of this war on terror.
And I made the decision, obviously, to take our case to the international community in the hopes that we could do this — achieve a disarmament of Saddam Hussein peacefully. In other words, we looked at the intelligence. And we remembered the fact that he had used weapons, which meant he had had weapons. We knew the fact that he was paying for suicide bombers. We knew the fact he was funding terrorist groups. In other words, he was a dangerous man. And that was the intelligence I was using prior to the run up to this war.
Now, let me — which is — this is a vital question —
Russert: Nothing more important.
President Bush: Vital question.
And so we — I expected there to be stockpiles of weapons. But David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. Now, when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we’ll find out. That's what the Iraqi Survey Group — let me — let me finish here.
But David Kay did report to the American people that Saddam had the capacity to make weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with the ability to make weapons. He was a dangerous man in the dangerous part of the world.
And I made the decision to go to the United Nations.
By the way, quoting a lot of their data — in other words, this is unaccounted for stockpiles that you thought he had because I don't think America can stand by and hope for the best from a madman, and I believe it is essential — I believe it is essential — that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It's too late if they become imminent. It's too late in this new kind of war, and so that's why I made the decision I made.
Russert: Mr. President, the Director of the CIA said that his briefings had qualifiers and caveats, but when you spoke to the country, you said "there is no doubt." When Vice President Cheney spoke to the country, he said "there is no doubt." Secretary Powell, "no doubt." Secretary Rumsfeld, "no doubt, we know where the weapons are." You said, quote, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.” “Saddam Hussein is a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible."
You gave the clear sense that this was an immediate threat that must be dealt with.
President Bush: I think, if I might remind you that in my language I called it a grave and gathering threat, but I don't want to get into word contests. But what I do want to share with you is my sentiment at the time. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a danger to America. No doubt.
Russert: In what way?
President Bush: Well, because he had the capacity to have a weapon, make a weapon. We thought he had weapons. The international community thought he had weapons. But he had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network.
It's important for people to understand the context in which I made a decision here in the Oval Office. I'm dealing with a world in which we have gotten struck by terrorists with airplanes, and we get intelligence saying that there is, you know, we want to harm America. And the worst nightmare scenario for any president is to realize that these kind of terrorist networks had the capacity to arm up with some of these deadly weapons, and then strike us.
And the President of the United States’ most solemn responsibility is to keep this country secure. And the man was a threat, and we dealt with him, and we dealt with him because we cannot hope for the best. We can't say, “Let's don't deal with Saddam Hussein. Let's hope he changes his stripes, or let's trust in the goodwill of Saddam Hussein. Let's let us, kind of, try to contain him.” Containment doesn't work with a man who is a madman.
And remember, Tim, he had used weapons against his own people.
Russert: But can you launch a pre-emptive war without iron-clad, absolute intelligence that he had weapons of mass destruction?
President Bush: Let me take a step back for a second and — there is no such thing necessarily in a dictatorial regime of iron-clad absolutely solid evidence. The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon.
Russert: But it may have been wrong.
President Bush: Well, but what wasn't wrong was the fact that he had the ability to make a weapon. That wasn't right.
Russert: This is an important point because when you say that he has biological and chemical weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles —
President Bush: Which he had.
Russert: — and they could come and attack the United States, you’re saying to the American people: we have to deal now with a man who has these things.
President Bush: That's exactly what I said.
Russert: And if that's not the case, do you believe if you had gone to the Congress and said he should be removed because he's a threat to his people but I'm not sure he has weapons of mass destruction, Congress would authorize war?
President Bush: I went to Congress with the same intelligence — Congress saw the same intelligence I had, and they looked at exactly what I looked at, and they made an informed judgment based upon the information that I had. The same information, by the way, that my predecessor had. And all of us, you know, made this judgment that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed.
You mentioned "pre-emption." If I might, I went to the United Nations and said, “Here is what we know, you know, at this moment, and you need to act. After all, you are the body that issued resolution after resolution after resolution, and he ignored those resolutions.”
So, in other words, when you say "pre-emption," it almost sounds like, “Well, Mr. President, you decided to move.” What I decided to do was to go to the international community and see if we could not disarm Saddam Hussein peacefully through international pressure.
You remember U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 clearly stated “show us your arms and destroy them, or your programs and destroy them.” And we said, “There are serious consequences if you don't” and that was a unanimous verdict. In other words, the worlds of the U.N. Security Council said we're unanimous and you're a danger. So, it wasn't just me and the United States. The world thought he was dangerous and needed to be disarmed.
And, of course, he defied the world once again.
In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences. People look at us and say, they don't mean what they say, they are not willing to follow through.
And by the way, by clearly stating policy, whether it be in Afghanistan or stating the policy that we expect you, Mr. Saddam Hussein, to disarm, your choice to disarm, but if you don't, there will be serious consequences in following through, it has had positive effects in the world. Libya, for example, there was an positive effect in Libya where Moammar Khaddafy voluntarily disclosed his weapons programs and agreed to dismantle — dismantle them, and the world is a better place as a result of that. And the world is a safer and better place as a result of Saddam Hussein not being in power.
Russert: There’s a sense in the country that the intelligence that was given was ambiguous, and that you took it and molded it and shaped it — your opponents have said "hyped" it — and rushed to war.
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: And now, in the world, if you, in the future, say we must go into North Korea or we must go into Iran because they have nuclear capability, either this country or the world will say, ‘Excuse you, Mr. President, we want it now in hard, cold facts.’
President Bush: Well, Tim, I and my team took the intelligence that was available to us and we analyzed it, and it clearly said Saddam Hussein was a threat to America.
Now, I know I'm getting repetitive, but I'm just trying to make sure you understand the context in which I was making decisions.
He had used weapons. He had manufactured weapons. He had funded suicide bombers into Israel. He had terrorist connections. In other words, all of those ingredients said to me: Threat.
The fundamental question is: Do you deal with the threat once you see it? What — in the war on terror, how do you deal with threats? I dealt with the threat by taking the case to the world and said, “Let's deal with this. We must deal with it now.”
I repeat to you what I strongly believe that inaction in Iraq would have emboldened Saddam Hussein. He could have developed a nuclear weapon over time — I'm not saying immediately, but over time — which would then have put us in what position? We would have been in a position of blackmail.
In other words, you can't rely upon a madman, and he was a madman. You can't rely upon him making rational decisions when it comes to war and peace, and it's too late, in my judgment, when a madman who has got terrorist connections is able to act.
Russert: But there are lots of madmen in the world, Fidel Castro …
President Bush: True.
Russert: … in Iran, in North Korea, in Burma, and yet we don't go in and take down those governments.
President Bush: Correct, and I could — that's a legitimate question as to why we like felt we needed to use force in Iraq and not in North Korea. And the reason why I felt like we needed to use force in Iraq and not in North Korea, because we had run the diplomatic string in Iraq. As a matter of fact, failed diplomacy could embolden Saddam Hussein in the face of this war we’re in. In Iraq — I mean, in North Korea, excuse me, the diplomacy is just beginning. We’re making good progress in North Korea.
As I've said in my speeches, every situation requires a different response and a different analysis, and so in Iran there is no question they're in danger, but the international community is now trying to convince Iran to get rid of its nuclear weapons program. And on the Korean peninsula, now the United States and China, along with South Korea and Japan and Russia, are sending a clear message to Kim Jung Il, if you are interested in a different relationship, disclose and destroy your program in a transparent way.
In other words, the policy of this administration is to be — is to be clear and straightforward and to be realistic about the different threats that we face.
Russert: On Iraq, the vice president said, “we would be greeted as liberators.”
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: It's now nearly a year, and we are in a very difficult situation. Did we miscalculate how we would be treated and received in Iraq?
President Bush: Well, I think we are welcomed in Iraq. I'm not exactly sure, because the tone of your question is, we're not. We are welcomed in Iraq.
Russert: Are you surprised by the level and intensity of resistance?
President Bush: No, I'm not. And the reason I'm not surprised is because there are people in that part of the world who recognize what a free Iraq will mean in the war on terror. In other words, there are people who desperately want to stop the advance of freedom and democracy because freedom and democracy will be a powerful long-term deterrent to terrorist activities.
See, free societies are societies that don't develop weapons of mass terror and don't blackmail the world.
If I could share some stories with you about some of the people I have seen from Iraq, the leaders from Iraq, there is no question in my mind that people that I have seen at least are thrilled with the activities we've taken. There is a nervousness about their future, however.
Russert: If the Iraqi people choose —
President Bush: Well, let me finish on the nervousness. I don't want to leave it on that note.
There's nervousness because they're not exactly sure what their form of government will look like, and there is — you can understand why. In nine months' time, there’s — we’re now saying, democracy must flourish. And as I recall from my history, it took us quite a while here in the United States, but nevertheless we are making progress.
And so, when you see the debate and the discussion about freedom, those are welcoming signs as far as I'm concerned. People are saying how best to develop this system so that we’re free and minority rights are protected.
Russert: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein?
President 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. They're not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment, that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion.
I remember speaking to Mr. al-Hakim here, who is a fellow who has lost 63 family members during the Saddam reign. His brother was one of the people that was assassinated early on in this past year. I expected to see a very bitter person. If 63 members of your family had been killed by a group of people, you’d be a little bitter. He obviously was concerned, but he — I said, you know, “I'm a Methodist, what are my chances of success in your country and your vision?” And he said, “It's going to be a free society where you can worship freely.” This is a Shiia fellow.
And my only point to you is these people are committed to a pluralistic society. And it's not going to be easy. The road to democracy is bumpy. It's bumpy particularly because these are folks that have been terrorized, tortured, brutalized by Saddam Hussein.
Russert: You do seem to have changed your mind from the 2000 campaign. In a debate, you said, "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called 'nation-building.'"
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: We clearly are involved in nation-building.
President Bush: Right. And I also said — let me put it in context. I'm not suggesting you're pulling one of these Washington tricks where you leave half the equation out.
But I did say also that our troops must be trained and prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, make peace more possible. And our troops were trained to fight and win war, and we did, and a second phase of the war is now going on. The first phase, of course, was the Tommy Franks troop movement.
Russert: But this is nation-building.
President Bush: Well, it is. That's right, but we're also fighting a war so that they can build a nation. And [crosstalk] the war is against terrorists and disgruntled Baathists who are saying we had it good in the past, and therefore we don't want this new society to spring up because they have no faith in democracy, and the terrorists who want to stop the advance of freedom.
And if I might, people say to me, ‘OK, you made a judgment as to how to secure America for the short term with the Taliban and with Saddam Hussein, and with staying on the hunt for al-Qaida, but what about the long term?’ Which is a legitimate question. And the best way to secure America for the long term is to promote freedom and a free society and to encourage democracy.
And we’re doing so in a part of the world where people say it can't happen, but the long-term vision and the long-term hope is — and I believe it's going to happen — is that a free Iraq will help change the Middle East. You may have heard me say we have a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. It's because I believe so strongly that freedom is etched in everybody's heart — I believe that — and I believe this country must continue to lead.
Russert: Are you now willing to allow the United Nations to play a central role in the reconstruction?
President Bush: In the recon — in spending our money, no. They don't want to spend our money, the money that was appropriated by the United States Congress I think you're talking about, but they will play a vital role in helping the Iraqis determine the proper course to democracy.
Russert: In transferring power, the U.N. will play a central role?
President Bush: Yeah. I call it a vital role because there is a lot of roles being played by different players, but the U.N. will play — and this role is a very important role. It says to the Iraqi citizens who again are trying to figure out the right balance as they head toward this new democracy after years of — after years of being enslaved by a tyrant — how best to do this, and I think it's very helpful to have the stamp of the international community be placed upon the political process.
In terms of reconstruction, of course we want the international community to participate, and they are. There’s a lot of participation by the international community in restoring this infrastructure of the country of Iraq that Saddam Hussein had just totally — I shouldn't say "totally," but destroyed a lot of.
Russert: Before we take a break, now that we have determined there are probably not these stockpiles of weapons that we had thought, and the primary rationale for the war had been to disarm Saddam Hussein, Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defense Secretary, said that you had settled on weapons of mass destruction as an issue we could agree on, but there were three. “One was the weapons of mass destruction, the second is the support for terrorism, and third is Saddam's criminal treatment of his Iraqi people.”
He said the “third one by itself is a reason to help Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did.”
President Bush: Um-hmm.
Russert: Now looking back, in your mind, is it worth the loss of 530 American lives and 3,000 injuries and woundings simply to remove Saddam Hussein, even though there were no weapons of mass destruction?
President Bush: Every life is precious. Every person that is willing to sacrifice for this country deserves our praise, and yes.
Russert: Do you think —
President Bush: Let me finish.
Russert: Please.
President Bush: It's essential that I explain this properly to the parents of those who lost their lives.
Saddam Hussein was dangerous, and I’m not gonna leave him in power and trust a madman. He's a dangerous man. He had the ability to make weapons at the very minimum.
For the parents of the soldiers who have fallen who are listening, David Kay, the weapons inspector, came back and said, “In many ways Iraq was more dangerous than we thought.” It's — we’re in a war against these terrorists who will bring great harm to America, and I've asked these young ones to sacrifice for that.
A free Iraq will change the world. It's historic times. A free Iraq will make it easier for other children in our own country to grow up in a safer world because in the Middle East is where you find the hatred and violence that enables the enemy to recruit its killers.
And, Tim, as you can tell, I've got a foreign policy that is one that believes America has a responsibility in this world to lead, a responsibility to lead in the war against terror, a responsibility to speak clearly about the threats that we all face, a responsibility to promote freedom, to free people from the clutches of barbaric people such as Saddam Hussein who tortured, mutilated — there were mass graves that we have found— a responsibility to fight AIDS, the pandemic of AIDS, and to feed the hungry. We have a responsibility. To me that is history's call to America. I accept the call and will continue to lead in that direction.
Russert: In light of not finding the weapons of mass destruction, do you believe the war in Iraq is a war of choice or a war of necessity?
President Bush: I think that's an interesting question. Please elaborate on that a little bit. A war of choice or a war of necessity? It's a war of necessity. We — in my judgment, we had no choice when we look at the intelligence I looked at that says the man was a threat. And you know, we’ll find out about the weapons of mass destruction that we all thought were there. That's part of the Iraqi Survey Group and the group I put together to look at.
But again, I repeat to you, I don't want to sound like a broken record, but David Kay, who is the man who led the Iraqi Survey Group, who has now returned with an interim report, clearly said that the place was a dangerous place. When asked if President Bush had done — had made the right decision, he said yes. In other words, the evidence we have uncovered thus far says we had no choice.
Russert: We’re going to take a quick break.
President Bush: Thank you.
Russert: We’re going to come back and talk to the President a lot more about our world and our economy here at home and the presidential election of 2004. We’re in the Oval Office with President George W. Bush.
(Commercial)
Russert: And we are back in the Oval Office talking to the President of the United States.
Mr. President, this campaign is fully engaged. The chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Terence McAuliffe, said this last week: "I look forward to that debate when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard. He didn't show up when he should have showed up…"
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: How do you respond?
President Bush: Political season is here. I was — I served in the National Guard. I flew F-102 aircraft. I got an honorable discharge. I've heard this — I've heard this ever since I started running for office. I — I put in my time, proudly so.
I would be careful to not denigrate the Guard. It's fine to go after me, which I expect the other side will do. I wouldn't denigrate service to the Guard, though, and the reason I wouldn't, is because there are a lot of really fine people who have served in the National Guard and who are serving in the National Guard today in Iraq.
Russert: The Boston Globe and the Associated Press have gone through some of the records and said there’s no evidence that you reported to duty in Alabama during the summer and fall of 1972.
President Bush: Yeah, they’re — they're just wrong. There may be no evidence, but I did report; otherwise, I wouldn't have been honorably discharged. In other words, you don't just say "I did something" without there being verification. Military doesn't work that way. I got an honorable discharge, and I did show up in Alabama.
Russert: You did — were allowed to leave eight months before your term expired. Was there a reason?
President Bush: Right. Well, I was going to Harvard Business School and worked it out with the military.
Russert: When allegations were made about John McCain or Wesley Clark on their military records, they opened up their entire files. Would you agree to do that?
President Bush: Yeah. Listen, these files — I mean, people have been looking for these files for a long period of time, trust me, and starting in the 1994 campaign for governor. And I can assure you in the year 2000 people were looking for those files as well. Probably you were. And — absolutely. I mean, I —
Russert: But you would allow pay stubs, tax records, anything to show that you were serving during that period?
President Bush: Yeah. If we still have them, but I — you know, the records are kept in Colorado, as I understand, and they scoured the records.
And I'm just telling you, I did my duty, and it's politics, you know, to kind of ascribe all kinds of motives to me. But I have been through it before. I'm used to it. What I don't like is when people say serving in the Guard is — is — may not be a true service.
Russert: But you authorize the release of everything to settle this?
President Bush: Yes, absolutely.
We did so in 2000, by the way.
Russert: Were you favor of the war in Vietnam?
President Bush: I supported my government. I did. And would have gone had my unit been called up, by the way.
Russert: But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go.
President Bush: No, I didn't. You're right. I served. I flew fighters and enjoyed it, and provided a service to our country. In those days we had what was called "air defense command," and it was a part of the air defense command system.
The thing about the Vietnam War that troubles me as I look back was it was a political war. We had politicians making military decisions, and it is lessons that any president must learn, and that is to the set the goal and the objective and allow the military to come up with the plans to achieve that objective. And those are essential lessons to be learned from the Vietnam War.
Russert: Let me turn to the economy.
President Bush: Yes.
Russert: And this is one of my charts that I would like to show you.
President Bush: I was hoping to see one of them.
Russert: The Bush-Cheney first three years, the unemployment rate has gone up 33 percent, there has been a loss of 2.2 million jobs. We've gone from a $281 billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit. The debt has gone from $5.7 trillion, to $7 trillion — up 23 percent.
Based on that record, why should the American people rehire you as CEO?
President Bush: Sure, because I have been the President during a time of tremendous stress on our economy and made the decisions necessary to lead — that would enhance recovery. Let me review the bidding here. The stock market started to decline in March of 2000. That was the first sign that things were troubled. The recession started upon my arrival. It could have been some say February, some say March, some speculate maybe earlier it started, but nevertheless it happened as we showed up here.
The attacks on our country affected our economy. Corporate scandals affected the confidence of people and therefore affected the economy. My decision on Iraq, this kind of march to war, affected the economy, but we have been through a lot. And what those numbers show is the fact we have been through a lot.
But what the people must understand is that instead of wondering what to do, I acted, and I acted by cutting the taxes on individuals and small businesses, primarily. And that, itself, has led to this recovery.
So, you show that the numbers kind of — I'm not suggesting the chart only shows the bad numbers, but how about the fact that we are now increasing jobs or the fact that unemployment is now down to 5.6 percent? There was a winter recession and unemployment went up, and now it's heading in the right direction.
The economic stimulus plan that I passed, or I asked the Congress to pass, and I worked with Congress to pass, is making a big difference.
Russert: But when you proposed your first tax cut in 2001, you said this was going to generate 800,000 new jobs. Your tax cut of 2003, create a million new jobs. That has not happened.
President Bush: Well, it's happening. It's happening. And there is good momentum when it comes to the creation of new jobs.
Again, we have been through a lot. This economy has been through a lot, which is why I'm so optimistic about the future because I know what we have been through.
And I look forward to debate on the economy because I think one of those things that's very important is that the entrepreneurial spirit of this country be strong and the small business sector be strong. And the policies I have laid out enhance entrepreneurship, they encourage small business creation, and I think this economy is coming around just right, frankly.
Russert: The General Accounting Office, which are the nation's auditors —
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: — have done a study of our finances.
President Bush: Um-hmm.
Russert: And this is what your legacy will be to the next generation. It says that our “current fiscal policy is unsustainable.” They did a computer simulation that shows that balancing the budget in 2040 could require either cutting total federal spending in half or doubling federal taxes.
President Bush: Um-hmm.
Russert: How — why, as a fiscal conservative as you like to call yourself, would you allow a $500 billion deficit and this kind of deficit disaster?
President Bush: Sure. The budget I just proposed to the Congress cuts the deficit in half in five years.
Now, I don't know what the assumptions are in the GAO report, but I do know that if Congress is wise with the people's money, we can cut the deficit in half. And at that point in time, as a percentage of GDP, the deficit will be relatively low.
I agree with the assessment that we’ve got some long-term financial issues we must look at, and that's one reason I asked Congress to deal with Medicare. I strongly felt that if we didn't have an element of competition, that if we weren't modern with the Medicare program, if we didn't incorporate what's called "health savings accounts" to encourage Americans to take more control over their healthcare decisions, we would have even a worse financial picture in the long run.
I believe Medicare is going to not only make the system work better for seniors but is going to help the fiscal situation of our long-term projection.
We got to deal with Social Security as well. As you know, these entitlement programs need to be dealt with.
We’re dealing with some entitlement programs right now in the Congress. The highway bill. It's going to be an interesting test of fiscal discipline on both sides of the aisle. The Senate's is about 370, as I understand, $370 billion; the House is at less than that but over $300 billion. And as you know, the budget I propose is about $256 billion.
Russert: But your base conservatives — and listen to Rush Limbaugh, the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, they're all saying you are the biggest spender in American history.
President Bush: Well, they're wrong.
Russert: Mr. President —
President Bush: If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined.
And the other thing that I think it's important for people who watch the expenditures side of the equation is to understand we’re at war, Tim, and any time you commit your troops into harm's way, they must have the best equipment, the best training, and the best possible pay. That's where we owe it to their loved ones.
Russert: That's a very important point. Every president since the Civil War who has gone to war has raised taxes, not cut them.
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: Raised to pay for it. Why not say, I will not cut taxes any more until we have balanced the budget? If our situation is so precious and delicate because of the war, why do you keep cutting taxes and draining money from the treasury?
President Bush: Well, because I believe that the best way to stimulate economic growth is to let people keep more of their own money. And I believe that if you raise taxes as the economy is beginning to recover from really tough times, you’ll slow down economic growth. You’ll make it harder.
See, I'm more worried about the fellow looking for the job. That's what I'm worried about. I want people working. I want people to find work. And so, when we stimulate the economy, it's more likely that person is going to find work. And the best way to stimulate the economy is not to raise taxes but to hold the low taxes down.
Russert: How about no more tax cuts until the budget is balanced?
President Bush: That's a hypothetical question which I can't answer to you because I don't know how strong the economy is going to be.
I mean, the President must keep all options on the table, but I do know that raising the child — lowering the child credit thereby raising taxes on working families does not make sense when the economy is recovering, and that's exactly what some of them are calling for up on Capitol Hill. They want to raise taxes of the families with children, they want to increase the marriage penalty. They want to get rid of those taxes on small businesses that are encouraging the stimulation of new job creation, and I'm not going to have any of it.
Russert: We’re going to take another quick break. We’ll be right back with more of our conversation with the President in the Oval Office, right after this.
(Commercial)
Russert: And we are back.
Mr. President, last time you were on this show you said that you wanted to change the tone in the nation.
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: This is Time magazine: "Love Him or Hate Him: Why George Bush arouses such passion and what it means for the country."
President Bush: Yes.
Russert: Tom Daschle, the Democratic Leader in the Senate, said that you've changed the tone for the worse; that it's more acrimonious, more confrontations, that you are the most partisan political president he's ever worked with.
Our exit polls of primary voters, not just Democrats but Independents in South Carolina and New Hampshire, more than 70 percent of them said they are angry or dissatisfied with you, and they point to this whole idea of being a uniter as opposed to a divider.
Why do you think you are perceived as such a divider?
President Bush: Gosh, I don't know, because I'm working hard to unite the country. As a matter of fact, it's the hardest part of being the president. I was successful as the governor of Texas for bringing people together for the common good, and I must tell you it's tough here in Washington, and frankly it's the biggest disappointment that I've had so far of coming to Washington.
I'm not blaming anybody. It's just the environment here is such that it is difficult to find common ground. I‘ll give you a classic case: the Medicare bill. The Medicare bill was a tough vote, but the Medicare bill is a bill that a lot of people could have signed on to and had it not been for kind of the sense of, well, ‘Bush might win, we might lose,’ you know, or ‘Bush might lose, we might win’ kind of attitude.
And… but I will continue to work hard to unite the country. I don't speak ill of anybody in the process here. I think if you went back and looked at my comments, you will see I don't attack. I don't hold up people. I talk about what I believe in, and I lead, and maybe perhaps I believe so strongly in what we are doing around the world or doing here at home.
Russert: But around the world, in Europe, favorable ratings — unfavorable ratings, 70 in Germany, 67 in France.
President Bush: But you know, Tim, that —
Russert: Why do people hold you in such low esteem?
President Bush: Heck, I don't know, Ronald Reagan was unpopular in Europe when he was President, according to Jose Maria Aznar. And I said, ‘You know something? ‘
He said to me, he said, ‘You're nearly as unpopular as Ronald Reagan was.’ I said, ‘so, first of all, I'm keeping pretty good company.’
I think that people — when you do hard things, when you ask hard things of people, it can create tensions. And I — heck, I don't know why people do it. I'll tell you, though, I'm not going to change, see? I'm not trying to accommodate — I won't change my philosophy or my point of view. I believe I owe it to the American people to say what I'm going to do and do it, and to speak as clearly as I can, try to articulate as best I can why I make decisions I make, but I'm not going to change because of polls. That's just not my nature.
Russert: Two polls out this weekend show you —
President Bush: See there, you're quoting polls.
Russert: — you're trailing John Kerry in both U.S.A. Today and Newsweek polls by seven and five points.
President Bush: Yeah.
Russert: This is what John Kerry had to say last year. He said that his colleagues are appalled at the quote "President's lack of knowledge. They've managed him the same way they've managed Ronald Reagan. They send him out to the press for one event a day. They put him in a brown jacket and jeans and get him to move some hay or move a truck, and all of a sudden he's the Marlboro Man. I know this guy. He was two years behind me at Yale. I knew him, and he's still the same guy.”
Did you know him at Yale?
President Bush: No.
Russert: How do you respond to that?
President Bush: Politics. I mean, this is — you know, if you close your eyes and listen carefully to what you just said, it sounds like the year 2000 all over again.
Russert: You were both in Skull and Bones, the secret society.
President Bush: It's so secret we can't talk about it.
Russert: What does that mean for America? The conspiracy theorists are going to go wild.
President Bush: I'm sure they are. I don’t know. I haven't seen Web pages yet. (Laughs)
Russert: Number 322.
President Bush: First of all, he's not the nominee, and — but look, I look forward —
Russert: Are you prepared to lose?
President Bush: No, I'm not going to lose.
Russert: If you did, what would you do?
President Bush: Well, I don't plan on losing. I’ve got a vision for what I want to do for the country. See, I know exactly where I want to lead. I want to lead us — I want to lead this world toward more peace and freedom. I want to lead this great country to work with others to change the world in positive ways, particularly as we fight the war on terror, and we got changing times here in America, too.
Russert: Biggest issues in the upcoming campaign?
President Bush: Who can properly use American power in a way to make the world a better place, and who understands that the true strength of this country is the hearts and souls of the American citizens, who understands times are changing and how best to have policy reflect those times.
And I look forward to a good campaign. I know exactly where I want to lead the country. I’ve shown the American people I can lead. I’ve shown the American people I can sit here in the Oval Office when times are tough and be steady and make good decisions, and I look forward to articulating what I want to do the next four years if I'm fortunate enough to be their president.
Russert: Mr. President, we thank you for sharing your views. I hope we can come back and talk about issues during the course of the campaign.
President Bush: Thank you, Tim.
Russert: That's all for today. We’ll be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's “Meet The Press.”