An observation about Bush*'s press conference.

[Goldmund]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040405-4.html

It's the same one where he sneered about being called "sir" instead of "Mr. President". That incident overshadowed something that I think is much more interesting than yet another proof that * is no "Mr. Nice Guy" but a spoiled little brat.

Look at this:

"Let me just be very clear about this: Had we had the information that was necessary to stop an attack, I'd have stopped the attack. And I'm convinced any other government would have, too. I mean, make no mistake about it; if we'd had known that the enemy was going to fly airplanes into our buildings, we'd have done everything in our power to stop it."

This is the FIRST time that I know of in which Bush* actually SAYS "I would have stopped it if I could.". Up until now, that was treated as the overarching, unspoken, undeniable, general assumption that was above discussion. Can you imagine Bush* on 9/12/01 feeling the need to say "I would have stopped it if I could."? I can't. But to even bring this up, or rather, to feel the need to bring this up, signals to me that this (not only the ability of the administration, but the willingness to stop the attacks) has entered the discourse arena at high levels of the government.

He's come a long way since 9/11, hasn't he? To the point where now he has to practically publicly deny M/LIHOP.

[quinnox]

1. I caught that too, very surprising he said this

It is almost as if he was paranoid about it, and was answering an unspoken question. Really odd.

[Sparkly]

26. It's the "He Didn't Know!" defense.

Al Franken wrote about this, and of course the next question is "If he didn't know what he should have known, WHY didn't he know what he should have known?"

[el_gato]

2. they are scared to death of the 9/11 questions

IMHO this is THE issue

[central scrutinizer]

4. absolutely

all of the neocons' power flows from 9/11. They were given carte blanche which they squandered and over-reached in their greed. Knock down that prop and everything else will tumble.

[rucky]

3. Yep. It's a defensive comment.

the first one I've seen from him.

and maybe the closest we'll ever get to admission of personal responsibility for anything.

if I hear "make no mistake about it" again, I'm going to :puke:

[sangh0]

5. Clinton vs. Bush*

Clinton denied:

1) getting a BJ

Bush* has denied

1) Torturing detainees
2) Lying about 9/11
3) Doing nothing before 9/11
4) Lying about his tax cuts
etc

[FreeSpeechCrusader]

11. Yeah, I can't just hope and pray that

he will actually be held accountable for something...

[Malva Zebrina]

6. the man is full of himself--if "we" had the information "I" would have

stopped the attack. !!!!

Ta da----superman Bush, single handedly stops Al Queda attack on the WTC!!!!!! (drum roll)

Get outa the White House bud. It is much too big a job for your little britches.

PS--take the upholstered frump o lump, leech off the American tax payer, with you.

[berry]

7. Another odd thing--

"And I'm convinced any other government would have, too."

Does this mean that the WH is dropping the claim that the country would've been worse off if Gore had been president? That was a BIG part of their spin not too long ago. NOW, it appears they will be happy just to have people think that they were no worse than Clinton in fighting terrorism.... (In their dreams, of course. In fact, they were FAR worse than Clinton, and finally people are taking note.)

But it is very odd--I wonder what Rove et al. think of this.

[LiberalFighter]

18. According to Clarke in his book...

other countries were doing their part in detaining these terrorists. And it was because of the communication that we received from them that alerted us to a possible terrorist activity(ies)

[Cocoa]

8. is that what he's going to say to the commission?

in response to precise questions, is he going to respond with defensive statements like that? Is the commission going to let him?

[arcane1]

9. he's sounding more like Bob Boudelang (sp?)

"if we'd had known that the enemy was going to fly airplanes into our buildings, we'd have done everything in our power to stop it. so stop saying that!!!" :evilgrin:

makes you wonder what is being whispered behind closed doors, no?

[LiberalFighter]

20. What would he had done?

Make the jet fuel disappear?
Start giving them nicknames so that they felt wanted?
Put a force shield around the WTC?
Cancel their visas/passports?
Have the FBI look up their address in the phone book so they know where to pick them up?
Invite them to a fake meeting of Muslim faithfuls and arrest them when they show up?

[arcane1]

24. they were the best thing that ever happened to Bush

he would've done nothing. Why risk losing his phony 'mandate'??

[LiberalFighter]

28. That po's me when they say he had a mandate!!!

Those damn repugs keep redefining the meaning of words to confuse the populace.

Next thing you know they will say that established a new democratic government in Iraq elected by the people and future will be brighter.

[arcane1]

30. closest election in history and they call it mandate...

just goes to show how out-of-touch they are

deep down inside, Iguarantee you that most freeps are happy 9/11 happened, for that very reason: With us or against us. We can now call libruls traitors with impunity

[webtrainer]

10. Makes me think . . .

that they knew that hijackings were going to happen that day, but they just didn't know that they would actually be crashed into the Towers.

[DoYouEverWonder]

25. Bingo

That's why they all freaked out.

Someone upped the anti and their original plan went out the window. As a result, they all had to wing it, which they are not good at, at all, especially W.

[w13rd0]

12. Ok, his answer begs that the following question be asked:

Mr. Bush, you have said, "if we'd known that the enemy was going to fly airplanes into our buildings, we'd have done everything in our power to stop it."

Mr. Bush: Did you know that the enemy was going to hijack airplanes? What is the "it" you would have done everything to stop? The flying of planes into buildings, or the hijacking of the planes?"

Of course, since he's not under oath, just "sharing (dis)information", and he's appearing alongside his puppetmaster, Oily Dick, it's not as if this would compel a truthful answer. Maybe someone should ask Rice.

Oh, I have a few others I'd like Bush to answer publicly:

Mr. Bush: Why did you only agree to allow Ms Rice to testify on the condition that you would have Dick's hand up your ass when you appear to "share information"? And why on the condition that she, nor ANY OTHER WH OFFICIAL, be called back to give further testimony? WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE YA BASTARD?!?!

[Brotherjohn]

13. It's their last refuge. It's a talking point I thought he'd recently...

... said somewhere else, but I know someone else in the administration has already said it (almost verbatim). Maybe Rice?

It's the last thing they can say, as it becomes more and more painfully obvious that they WERE asleep at the wheel.

Saying "we would have stopped it had we known" the specifics is not contradictory with the fact that they SHOULD have known and they SHOULD have paid more attention. They're pleading ignorance, because that is better than pleading incompetence or negligence (or worse, LIHOP). It will be difficult or impossible that they knew exact details, or even to PROVE that they were negligent (there will always be what-ifs).

They are walking a fine line here. As ex-FBI translator Sibel Edmonds said in speaking to the Independent (U.K.), "President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September". (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=507514)

[Virginian]

14. Precise wording is suspicious.

..."if we'd had known that the enemy was going to fly airplanes into our buildings, we'd have done everything in our power to stop it."

Which word had the emphasis? How about "our."
But it would be OK if they were going to fly them into someone else's buildings? You thought they were going to be flown into someone else's buildings and that is why they were not stopped?
.
.
.
"Had we had the information that was necessary to stop an attack, I'd have stopped the attack. "
Ummm, what information might that be? is that information the phone number for NORAD?

[Brotherjohn]

15. One can argue that almost any information was not "enough" to stop...

... the attacks.

Also, even if they knew the hijackers names and the fact that they were all going to hijack planes on that day, they still can argue that they did not know that "the enemy was going to fly airplanes into our buildings".

VERY legalistic. They're being VERY careful here. They're definitely hiding something.

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. You know the Bu$h's are so out of touch

that they don't know how to dial 411 to get a phone number, or that such a service even exists.

[pinto]

16. this must be the "line" they will stay on, repeatedly, "if we had

the necessary information". The mention of "any other government" may be a reference to Clinton admin..they almost seem to be making a weird, "if you blame us you have to blame Clinton, too" argument.....

and, yes, he seems to be saying "I" an awful lot recently, instead of "our administration", "this administration" or some other inclusive term....

also, seems like he's showing the pressure of being the center of the universe.

[LiberalFighter]

21. Did they want the necessary information?

Were they focused on the terrorist problem? Or did they ignore the expert advice of Richard Clarke and others?

When did they decide that the information was necessary?

[KC21304]

17. I did not see the exchange but the transcript sounds like he is

losing it. How arrogant to chastise a reporter for calling him sir instead of Mr. President and then turn around and demean David Gregory by continually calling him Stretch. David should have said
" Who are you talking to ? "

And to insist that it will be a " meeting " when he and Cheney answer questions. I really think he is in way over his head and he maybe finally realizes it.

[BootinUp]

19. "I am not a crook"

Same thing right? I was too young to care about politics at that time. But wasn't the effect of Nixon saying that actually negative?

[Junkdrawer]

22. The Players Got Played..

They Expected a Hijacking, They Got 9-11....

[LandOLincoln]

31. That's exactly what I've thought all along.

They knew something was going to happen, they just had no idea how truly godawful it was going to be.

They were waiting and hoping for something along the lines of the attack on the Cole, or the bombings in Kenya and Saudi Arabia, so they could invade Iraq & show what MACHO STUDS they are as opposed to those pussies in the Clinton administration...

[Junkdrawer]

33. Here's the followup...

The Players Got Played - That spike in chatter before 9/11....

[LandOLincoln]

34. Again, I think you're right on the money. They goin down--

but I'm very much afraid they'll figure out a way to take the rest of us down with 'em.

[LiberalFighter]

23. I wonder how much briefing he needs before each press conference.

Q Mr. President, in regard to the June 30th deadline, is there a chance that that would be moved back?

THE PRESIDENT: No, the intention is to make sure the deadline remains the same. I believe we can transfer authority by June 30th. We're working toward that day. We're, obviously, constantly in touch with Jerry Bremer on the transfer of sovereignty. The United Nations is over there now. The United Nations representative is there now to work on the -- on a -- on to whom we transfer sovereignty. I mean, in other words, it's one thing to decide to transfer. We're now in the process of deciding what the entity will look like to whom we will transfer sovereignty. But, no, the date remains firm.

####

Did you all figure out what was wrong with the above statement?

He refers to Jerry Bremer when it is Paul Bremer or L Paul Bremer. I guess he couldn't use the nickname for Bremer and couldn't remember his given name.

[Lisa]

29. I thought Americans fought a war to stop the bowing/scraping

Aren't American citizens not supposed to accept British knighthoods, for example, on that very basis?

And in any case, one would think that "sir" would be perfectly fitting when addressing a man who is older and/or in a high-powered job ... after all, "Mr. Bush" is used by major newspapers.

Of course, he doesn't like reporters very much -- he never seems to tire of needling them, even at inappropriate times.

[DoYouEverWonder]

32. They're flipping out

Not a single one of them can give an acceptable answer to the question, where were you when you heard about the attack on the first tower and what did you do? Second, where were you when you heard about the attack on the second tower and what did you do?

Especially, since the Booker Elementary tape has been copied onto half the hard drives in America. For someone who is claiming he would have done everything he possibly could to stop the attack, just doesn't square up with the video of his actual reaction, which was to do nothing. Sorry George, you're so busted.

[nostamj]

35. it's not the FIRST time

he's used this for at least a week. first in MA (though I could certainly be wrong)

it is the FIRST time (in terms of since 9/11) that he's used such rhetoric though.

he's using a 'specific information' dodge, but it doesn't play.

since they knew there was a significant threat to the airlines, there is NO excuse for not, even cosmetically, increasing airline security.

no EXCUSE.