This is the one, most disturbing lie I caught last night:
KERRY — Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."
BUSH — Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.
What? Hold the phone Shrub, even I remember this one and I'm sure your crack communications team almost passed out when you said it.
As I say, we haven't heard much from [Bin Laden]. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.
President Bush — Whitehouse Press Conference, March 13th 2002
What else did I miss?
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
Maybe his earpiece had fallen out at that point.
Yes, it is true....however, it is totally taken out of context, much like the "terrorism as a nuisance" BS that the Bush camp has been all over. Bush was saying in 2002 that bin Laden was the one who should be concerned.
There were plenty of un-truths last night by both sides. See here.
Anyway...
Greg, your transcipt doesn't adequately capture the mocking, smartass, smirking style that W delivered his [factually incorrect] reply. The disturbing thing is that this little joust pretty much sums up how this administration replies to all criticism: Say something out of one side of your smirking face, with little regard as to whether it's true or not, because most people won't bother to check—and if you sound like a regular guy and not a nerdy policy geek, then most average Joes are likely to just believe you. This isn't just a debate slip, it's reflective of an purposeful approach to rebuttals and a signature White House communication style. I can only hope that most of America is finding that this act is wearing a little thin.
If you read the entire transcript you can clearly see it was not taken out of context. Regardless, wether it was taken out of context or not, he did say it and denied saying it adding that it was an "exaggeration". I agree that niether candidate is perfect but our current adminitration has to end. We need to wake up.
For those so inclined, the DNC has posted the video version of Greg's transcript. Most pundits are noting that what's bad about this for W is that it's such a clunker that it leaves him looking either like he's either lying or pre-Alsheimers (neither very good), and that he's pretty much guaranteed this same clip juxtaposition will be shown on every weekend news program. Rove: "Call out the flying monkeys!"
Well, the guys from Massachusetts and Texas lost last night. And that was just the baseball games.
As far as I can tell from the substance of the "debate" (joint press conference/pep rally) we are all losers in this one. To quote the cover from this month's Reason magazine, which features Chimpy and Munster on the cover, "The good news is one of these guys will lose."
Bleah.
I don't see how you can be apathetic about the situation. Of course politicians are going to twist everything into word games that forward their policy in lengthy replies. Of course they have to pander to each other. Of course they wouldn't agree to a debate or live-questionaire where the only answers they could give were "Yes" and "No". But saying that the good thing is one will lose is quite frankly fucking absurd. This kind of shit is unprecedented.
That really pissed me off. The *instant* he said that, I did less than 4 seconds of Googling to find the exact quote.
That slimy bastard.
Beerzie, who's opinion I respect, is about to go on about how his employer, a big company with the past tense of the word "blow" in their nickname, gives money to both parties, and therefore there's no substantial difference between the candidates and we'd be better off with 3, 4, 6 or 11 parties who govern through coalitions and/or backroom deals (like Italy, Spain, or Israel—see how well it works there?). It's a comfy position to take, because certainly both major parties have a long list of pandering, bending over, and putting self-sustaining initiatives above the public good. That said, if you can't see a clear difference in this election, if you can live in a battleground state and throw your vote away, then you deserve the type of governence you get. "There's none so blind as they that won't see." —Jonathan Swift
"like Italy, Spain, or Israel—see how well it works there?"
Look at the statistics on voter turnouts in a few elections in Europe. They may have an inferior setup in your eyes, but at least they're working on it, using their power.
We're content to sit around delusional, fattened and drunk off our naivete and ignorance.
I'd gladly take a 9 party melee over this dichotomous soap opera we call politics. We're standing still, and you'd be a fool to think that's because we've gotten everything mostly right.
I most definitely agree with you Seth. The 2-party system does not work. What kind of options do we as voters have? Bad and worse? Add Nader into that mix and you get Bad, Worse, and Crazy.
I don't know if it will be in our lifetime, but I would like to see a 3rd major party, because Democrats and Republicans...both of them have their heads so far up their asses that they don't have a clue what the American public wants.
Seth, that's not what I mean to imply (that the USA has gotten mostly everything right), but rather that multiple parties and coalition governments don't necessarily offer a better or even more representative system. I'm willing to try, and have voted 3rd party myself, but not this time around.
I'm sure the Kerry team was crossing their fingers and toes, waiting for Bush to make a stumble like this. I can see it now, all holding hands muttering... come on, come on baby... and erupting into wild jubilation and high fives, as if their home team had just scored a touch down in the 4th quarter with only 23 seconds remaining on the game clock.
Tom, whose opinion I respect, (truly) is about to go on about how voting for a third party is a vote for Bush, and how we must vote for the lesser of two evils. Tom, we have done this for the last, say 30 years, and it has gotten us to where we are, which in my opinion, is a mess.
If both major parties have a long list of pandering, bending over, and putting self-sustaining initiatives above the public good, how does -- in the long run -- voting for either change that fact? The major parties do what works, and if running a turkey who is slightly different than their opponent works (i.e., you encourage them by voting for them) they will continue to do it. Continually being goaded into voting against someone is a pretty dismal use of the democratic process. And the net result = no change.
And if you think taking this position is comfy, think again. I have been subject to more shit-showers in the last few months (from friends and others) than I care to remember. But I really believe that the system needs to change, and if we have to endure some more crap to get to that point, perhaps my children will get to live in a better country.
This is my favorite part (aside from the identical outfits they showed up in last night. Yes, Kerry's tie was a bit deeper, but dang. Right down to the little American flag lapel pins. So cute. Like twins).
So according to Bush, drugs we buy from Canada may be a risk, because (as he puts it here in the second presidential debate) "When a drug comes in from Canada, I want to make sure it cures you and doesn't kill you."
And from last night's debate, in response to the question about the flu vaccine shortage: "We're working with Canada to - hopefully they'll produce a - help us realize the vaccine necessary to make sure our citizens have got flu vaccinations during this upcoming season."
Let me guess, Bristol Meyers Squibb doesn't make a competing flu shot.
Beerzie Yoink — The country does need to change, and it will -- though the majority of the problem is not many of the people on this blog, it sits more with the narrow-minded Americans that get their news before watching All My Children.
I've always voted 3rd party, for almost every race from Presidential to School Boards (when available); and though I don't condone throwing a vote -- if you don't see that this election has been drastically more crucial than any before, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not voting LP this year, it'll be Democrat for president.
Think strategy; our 3rd party rhetoric will do little to battle the Bush -- and most likely it will throw us into more harm then good. LP's take Republican votes, but the rest take Democratic votes. We can look to another four years of building to take down the two party system -- but the fact is you and I voting 3rd party will not end one of the worst administrations in histories, all powerful, and decietful, rein. In fact, that makes you a pawn for this current circus -- and the very reason why they are more successful than us. This election they've clearly used 3rd parties to pull votes away from their opponent.
None of the 3rd parties are organized enough, financial backed enough, intellectually backed enough, have enough voter turnout, or enough support to beat either one November 2nd, and we all know this. Do I want a 3rd party candidate? Yes, but it ain't gonna' happen this election, not possible. Do I want George Bush in office? Absolutely not, his views are contradictory to well over a majority of what my views stand for. Do I want Kerry in office? Not really, but I disagree with less of his views.
Much less, when I vote, I don't think of myself. I think of my family and friends and relatives -- and I don't want my vote not going for a fighting chance in 3 weeks to defeat another Corporatist. I understand this is a change in principle, especially for strong 3rd party supporters like myself -- but there's too much to lose, and to little to gain by voting for a 3rd party candidate.
I would much rather have Kerry in office, and give myself another 4 years of time to fight.
[One of the candidates, Jack Johnson, begins the debate.]
Johnson: [on TV] It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: "I'm against those things that everybody hates".
[The other candidate is John Jackson.]
Jackson: [on TV] Now I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man but, quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said!
Fry: These are the candidates? They sound like clones. [He looks a little harder.] Wait a minute. They are clones!
Leela: Don't let their identical DNA fool you. They differ on some key issues.
Mr. Dolan,
I realize you weren't saying we have it all figured out. I didn't mean to imply that you were. But your reply seems to illustrate that you didn't quite grok my main point: regardless of the basic system in place, the key is participation.
Our system is pretty good, but we do not participate. We spectate. We consume what is handed to us. Bush last nite talked of how a key to getting the economy going is to spur consumption. If that doesn't just make your brain rot... aye yaye yaye. But that's another topic entirely... ;)
Hello:
As has been mentioned, Mr Bush's quote was not taken out of context whatsoever.
I was just like to say that the comments on this post, and throughout this blog, and among the most cordial, mature, respectful and reasonable of any out there. Congratulations to all, it is quite refreshing.
{Off topic}
It creeps me out the way GW pronounces the word terror as if there is only one syllable. "tearr" It's almost staccato like when he adds that little punctuated laugh on the end.
"tearr" - "ha"
I've found factcheck.org to provide good post-debate cleanup.
I too remember this quote. I also remember many of the things he's said that he's contradicted during the debates. I also remember him making up the phrase 'green shaded eyes' which I have yet to figure out what the hell it means ('rose colored glasses' didn't work in context either). The sad thing is, as mentioned, that not many people are willing to figure this stuff out for themselves.
Case in point. One of Bush's arguments was that Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. People hear that and they think, whoa we can't elect him. However, Bush favored the act! Cheney might've even (I haven't looked it up yet) proposed it! He says thing that are contradictory all the freaking time and it pisses me off. I wish there were commentators during the debates to help the ignorant really know what's going on.
Tom and Seth (despite your bickering),
You all hit this nail on the head. Tom, you said it dead on. This type of rope-a-dope — as I'll call it — maneuver is growing quite old and thin. I only wish the rest of the world would see it. I grow ever weary when I hear that these debates are tied, or when I listen to CNN and they're espousing Bush as being on the top of his game. If the top of his game is lying, cheating, and making up words, looking stupid, and laughing inappropriately at his own lie as if he's obviously telling the truth, then yes, he's on the top of his game.
Kerry has made good points in the debates and has generally made Bush look stupid. However, Bush makes most of these remarks at the times when Kerry has already given his rebuttal. Case in point: the logging company. I believe Bush still owns that damn logging company and Kerry couldn't refute it because a new question was asked and he'd look stupid talking about the last question in the middle of it.
Anyone want any wood? I wish Kerry'd give him a 2x4 to the face — it'd sure wipe that stupid smirk off his face in a damn hurry!
You know what I wish we had during those debates? On-screen fact checking/analysis. Surely we have the technology for it. Imagine: either Bush or Kerry makes a statement - within a few seconds there is an on-screen graphic telling us if this statement is in fact true or not! The analysts would need wall-street reflexes, of course, but I'm pretty sure it could be done. Then we would all at least be sure of the facts - which is quite important in a presidential race!
And in cases like the one in this particular transcript - we could have an instant replay of the very statement Bush denied making.
It only makes sense to vote if you understand what's really going on. I think too many people lack fact checking skills and just vote for whomever 'seems' to be the most decent.
Are you sure your name isn't Jim Crow?
'Are you sure your name isn't Jim Crow?'
-- is this directed at me? I'm not getting it. I thought Jim Crow was something to do with racial segregation?