Membrane

Yeah, he did very well. No, I don't agree with everything he says, but he did very well. Here's a transcript of the entire show:

Meet the Press

Transcript for Feb. 8th

Guest: President George W. BushNBC News

Updated: 9:15 a.m. ET Feb. 08, 2004Copyright© 2004, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

MEET THE PRESS WITH TIM RUSSERT

INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

THE OVAL OFFICE, FEBRUARY 7, 2004

BROADCAST ON NBC’S MEET THE PRESS

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2004

PLEASE CREDIT ANY EXCERPTS TO NBC’S MEET THE PRESS

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 George W. 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.  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 AQ Kahn.  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, I don't  testify?  I will be glad to visit with them.  I will be glad to share with them knowledge.  I will 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 five  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 is 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," and 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 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 are 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 will 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 are doing a pretty good job of dismantling al Qaeda  better than a pretty good job, a very good job.  I keep saying in my speeches, two thirds of known al Qaeda leaders have been captured or killed, and that's the truth.

Russert: Do you 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: The … 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 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.  And 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. [CROSSTALK]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 preemptive 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 are 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 "preemption."  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 "preemption," 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.  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 is 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.

MR. 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 were in.  In Iraq  I mean, in North Korea, excuse me, the diplomacy is just beginning.  We are 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, given the tone of your questions, 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 are 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 would 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: Yes.

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, ‘Okay, you made a judgment as to how to secure America for the short term with the Taliban and with Saddam Hussein, and we are staying on the hunt for al Qaeda, 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 are 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 is 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: But

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 are 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 will 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 are going to take a quick break.

President Bush: Thank you.

Russert: We are 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 are 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 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 their 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 would you 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: Would 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 we provided a service to our country.  In those days we had what was called "Air Defense Command," and it was 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.  We’ll 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 are 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 are 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 will slow down economic growth.  You will 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: Well, 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 are going to take another quick break.  We will 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 the show you said that you wanted to change the tone in the nation.

President Bush: Yes.

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 with such contempt 

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 the (unintel) yet. (Laughs)

Russert: Number 322.

President Bush: First of all, he's not the nominee, and  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 have 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 have shown the American people I can lead.  I have 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, and I hope we could come back and talk about issues during the course of the campaign.

President Bush: Thank you, Tim.

Russert: That's all for today.  We will be back next week.  If it's Sunday, it's Meet The Press.

© 2004 MSNBC Interactive

It seems to be important to know who wins the debate on who has posted the better facts/knowledge of why the USA went to Iraq...[snip]

"Gentleman" - You gotta be kidding us right? YOU--FAIR?? ha!

I know you want the title of "Master Debater" , but you REALLY think you actually post FACTUAL information on the U.S.?? How can you be, when 100% of every single posting you ever post is 100% knocking the U.S. and you NEVER have anything positive to say. You certainly aren't proving yourself to be open-minded and "fair and balanced" are you?? Why would anyone believe what you have to say when you never deviate from knocking the U.S. in every way possible? From Bush to the "Special Forces" to the Iraq war to--well you get the idea...

Anybody can find an editorial piece that interprets news events in their favor--and that's all you really ever do. That's easy man! You're wimping out pal! Try getting a REAL NEWS STORY--not an editorial or some kind of "rant" page--and then try to prove your side.

Until you start doing that--until then--this "debate" hasn't even started...

the human civilization will always have war until the end of civilization, for a million year into the past ands it will continue million year into the future, we cannot help ourself and there is no other life form higher than us to teach us what to do.

Right again Chingy. Stephen Hawking, the famous physicist, scientist and theoretician, once said that the only way he could see mankind ridding itself of it's aggressive tendencies would be through genetically altering our species, weeding out the fight or flight response and other aggressive traits. Unfortunately, our aggression is part of us--witness it here on this forum, where so many bash the U.S. for being militaristic--but use aggression and intimidation in expressing their dissatisfaction!

By the way Chingy, I like your crazy little avatar!

Back to the topic - war turns people into animals as this post testifys - thats why we all dont want war - women and children, being killed and raped - that is what you dont see on television.

And you are a professional soldier right? How many times have you raped and killed women and children? Why not post some of your personal experiences, as a soldier. But no, you have to find an article that's derogatory about the U.S.

Also you say your military will be punished - I actually dont think that will be the case in most cases - in war, "turn the other cheek" is usually the norm and the highest ranking officer on the front line is not going to give up his mates.

Well, you're not an American, so you don't know what you're talking about.

I posted this as I though it to be enlightning as to effects to soldiers and victims - it is a lot of pressure for a young guy to handle and makes people very racist/hatefull in all of their actions. The "innocent" bystanders get caught up in the rage and prejudice.

Oh yeah RIGHT! Please--give me a break.

Taking a look at your most recent threads you started...

"Halliburton Gets Iraq Oil Contract (is this a surprise?)"

"Bush Support Slumps (A Liar and cant manage finances)"

"Did The USA Invade Iraq For Oil? lets show who the minority is!"

Sure seems like a common thread to me...

And by the way Gentleman, if you are so opposed to war, why did you choose that as a profession??? (and still brag about it)??

You know "gentleman", it does seem you are going out of your way to constantly post ONLY stuff that makes Americans look bad. I realize you and G-P have a feud going on, but come on--don't take it out on all Americans. Do you want me to start looking stuff up on Australia and posting it here (that's where you're from right)?

I just took a quick look at the titles of every single post you've made here--and they are 100% anti-U.S. So what's going on here?? You're obviously on the offensive here, trying to keep us Americans on the defensive with a constant barage of anti-U.S. threads. I'm sure your country has a few skeletons in the closet. You want to see how much I can dig up and start posting here?

Yeah chingy, exactly right. They will be brought to justice. And that's the big difference between the U.S. and other countries, especially Saddam's regime. The U.S. OPENLY admits to problems (that's why this stuff can be found on the web) and brings their own renegades to justice (but people HERE don't like to talk about that part).

I wonder what one could Google if they started looking around for "prison guard rapes in Australia" or something like that. Wonder what would come up?

[snip]

I am a professional when it comes to "altercations", I served in countries where there was no war -none that you heard of anyway. Our Unit used to teach warfare to your US elite - If you want a go at the big prize, that is up to you.

[snip]

Now, now Gentlemen. You wouldn't condone violence as a way to settle disputes now would you?

My two cents: THIS PISSES ME OFF!

Leave Thailand alone! I like it just the way it is--er--was!

Write that...exactly, to the Bangkok Post...letters to the Editor. Things are getting critical here...in the real world. It is becoming the Thai hate Thai Party.

Heck, send it to the Nation too. Get the word out Wolf. Things in Thailand are changing far too much and far too fast--and in the wrong direction.

....y-a-w-n....

Is that the best answer you can give when confronted to facts ?

You know "cynic", some of you guys must think because I've defended some of Bush's decisions, that I'm 100% pro-Bush, but you're wrong. At this point, I don't know if I really care if he's re-elected or not, to be honest. I'm not a democrat or a republican.

But I do get tired of you guys--who don't live here--always grumbling about American politics like you live here and that it affects you personally. Like you can vote here in the U.S. or like what you have to say matters to us over here. It gets boring and tiresome. There's very little creativity here. Nothing else going on except the usual grumbling about the U.S., how stupid GWB is, blah blah blah... Boring....

You live in Thailand? And you have nothing else to do but to discuss this crap all day long? Jesus--get a freakin' life!

Like I said... y-a-w-n....

....y-a-w-n....

what a sad world it would be, if this was a possibilty!

What a sad world it is, that you can't appreciate and understand their contributions to peace.

the word American is between brackets then Iraqi-American in capital letters following by an exclamation mark. Are you sure it's all in my mind ?

Heavy sigh... the reason American is in quotes, is because no real AMERICAN would have ACCEPTED BRIBES FROM SADDAM HUSSEIN.

UNDERSTAND NOW?

Ummm maybe I didnt read the whole thread but isn't this a fake? I haven't heard anything about this on the Worldnews or BBC. Am I mistaken?

No, it's not a fake. Here's the link to the article again... Go Here. To see the entire list, make sure you go to the bottom of the page to continue the article (it's broken up and spans four pages).

Is an Iraqi-American less American than an Italian-American, an African-American or an Irish-American ?

Is everybody equal in the US or are some people more equal than others ?

Who said anyone thinks of them as anything less? What are you even talking about? Are you guilty, maybe, because YOU think they are less than anyone else, just because they came from Iraq? ...because no one else is looking down on them, just because they came from Iraq.

No, we are only pointing out that THEY TOOK BRIBES FROM SADDAM HUSSEIN--and if we are "looking down on them", that's why. And it IS interesting that they are originally from Iraq, only because one wonders exactly how the connection to Saddam got started and maybe if they were here to do something else for him, maybe some kind of spy work or something... But anyway, no one mentioned anything RACIST at all--only you--that's all in your own mind, which apparently is desparately trying to come up with something to blame on us?

Nice try, but no cigar!

Boon Mee

Israelites mate I've just given my age away. I'm getting weary and it will be good to be dead then I can sleep for all eternity.

Well you've given something away. They haven't been called "Israelites" for something like 2,000 years.

Israelites? heh heh Haven't heard 'em being called that since--Sunday school!

"Yea, verily! The Israelites doth vex the Palestinians and the sons of Mohab! Mak mak!"

Thanks pal!

0.880 Ammonia in the blot hole moves most of 'em.

Blot hole? Never heard that expression before! Is that anything like a bung hole? ---If so, THAT would be sure to cause any dog to get away fast!

Thanks p_brownstone, for posting the article. Here is the rest of the article (not posted above) and the complete list of names and countries involved in accepting bribes from Saddam--(pretty shocking, how far up the chain some of them are).

Hmm.... The only two "Americans" listed (Samir Vincent and Shakir Alkhalaji) are two IRAQI-AMERICANS.

Anyway, here is the list:

According to the document, France was the second-largest beneficiary, with tens of millions of barrels awarded to Patrick Maugein, a close political associate and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac.

Maugein, individually and through companies connected to him, received contracts for some 36 million barrels. Chirac's office said it was unaware of Maugein's deals, which Maugein told ABCNEWS are perfectly legal.

The single biggest set of contracts were given to the Russian government and Russian political figures, more than 1.3 billion barrels in all — including 92 million barrels to individual officials in the office of President Vladimir Putin.

Another 1 million barrels were contracted to the Russian ambassador to Baghdad, 137 million barrels of oil were given to the Russian Communist Party, and 5 million barrels were contracted to the Russian Orthodox Church.

Also on the list are the names of prominent journalists, two Iraqi-Americans, and a French priest who organized a meeting between the pope and Tariq Aziz, Saddam's deputy prime minister.

The following are the names of some of those who, according to the document, received Iraqi oil contracts (amounts are in millions of barrels of oil):

Russia

The Companies of the Russian Communist Party: 137 million

The Companies of the Liberal Democratic Party: 79.8 million

The Russian Committee for Solidarity with Iraq: 6.5 million and 12.5 million (2 separate contracts)

Head of the Russian Presidential Cabinet: 90 million

The Russian Orthodox Church: 5 million

France

Charles Pasqua, former minister of interior: 12 million

Trafigura (Patrick Maugein), businessman: 25 million

Ibex: 47.2 million

Bernard Merimee, former French ambassador to the United Nations: 3 million

Michel Grimard, founder of the French-Iraqi Export Club: 17.1 million

Syria

Firas Mostafa Tlass, son of Syria's defense minister: 6 million

Turkey

Zeynel Abidin Erdem: more than 27 million

Lotfy Doghan: more than 11 million

Indonesia

Megawati Sukarnoputri: 11 million

Spain

Ali Ballout, Lebanese journalist: 8.8 million

Yugoslavia

The Socialist Party: 22 million

Kostunica's Party: 6 million

Canada

Arthur Millholland, president and CEO of Oilexco: 9.5 million

Italy

Father Benjamin, a French Catholic priest who arranged a meeting between the pope and Tariq Aziz: 4.5 million

Roberto Frimigoni: 24.5 million

United States

Samir Vincent: 7 million

Shakir Alkhalaji: 10.5 million

United Kingdom

George Galloway, member of Parliament: 19 million

Mujaheddin Khalq: 36.5 million

South Africa

Tokyo Saxwale: 4 million

Jordan

Shaker bin Zaid: 6.5 million

The Jordanian Ministry of Energy: 5 million

Fawaz Zureikat: 6 million

Toujan Al Faisal, former member of Parliament: 3 million

Lebanon

The son of President Lahoud: 5.5 million

Egypt

Khaled Abdel Nasser: 16.5 million

Emad Al Galda, businessman and Parliament member: 14 million

Palestinian Territories

The Palestinian Liberation Organization: 4 million

Abu Al Abbas: 11.5 million

Qatar

Hamad bin Ali Al Thany: 14 million

Libya

Prime Minister Shukri Ghanem: 1 million

Chad

Foreign minister of Chad: 3 million

Brazil

The October 8th Movement: 4.5 million

Myanmar (Burma)

The minister of the Forests of Myanmar: 5 million

Ukraine

The Social Democratic Party: 8.5 million

The Communist Party: 6 million

The Socialist Party: 2 million

The FTD oil company: 2 million

Now... with that much bribery, is it any wonder there was a "world-wide movement" to try to stop the U.S. from going in and removing Saddam? Is it any wonder they have tried to use a clever (but weak) argument that the U.S. is trying to steal all the oil? What utter nonsense! But some people are just gullible enough to believe it--either that, or they are already biased against the U.S. Plus, they ignore the fact that the U.S. has spent it's own blood and billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq's hospitals, schools, etc. Also keeping their eyes and ears closed to the fact, as SoCal pointed out, that Iraq's oil is controlled by their state agency, and sold on the world market.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If the U.S. wanted to take the oil, we just would have. We wouldn't have bothered to rebuild schools, hospitals, etc. And we certainly would NOT have allowed the oil to be put up for sale on the world market!

How much clearer can that be?

Get a toy squirt gun, fill it with ammonia (or bleach, but ammonia works better). Keep it in your pocket and when the cute little doggie comes up, blast the f##ker in the face! GUARANTEED!

Well ONE GUY is happy, for sure!

(Thanks Bronco)!

no Israelies were killed and no one turned up for work at the "Israel Embassy" - I am not sure which Israel "department" - did anyone else hear this?

It is a major point, I think - anyone shed more light?

Oh yeah--I heard that too!

..and I also heard that NO JEWS were killed in Nazi Germany. It was all faked by the U.S.--and JEWS!! Have you ever seen the old movie reels showing piles of dead bodies being bulldozed into huge open graves? Well, that's all just special effects, created by Hollywood and paid for by the CIA and a bunch of Jews!!

..also, the Titanic didn't really go down. It was all FAKED by Jews and Christians, in order to get the insurance pay outs! and they were trying to make the Palestinians look bad!

..and on top of that, the U.S. never went to the moon! It's actually made of green cheese, made by--more Christians and JEWS! It's a special secret recipe created by Noah--and Jesus actually wrote all about it in the Torah.

Yep.. it's all on the Internet, yep. I'm sure I can find the websites that talk about it, but I gotta smoke another bowl first... now where did Gentleman put that bong??

You're pretty funny when you get angry, singa-trez!

Sure, so the European "supported" Saddam because they would receive a few barrels of Oil ... but the US did not invade Iraq for it ? ...  maybe you too believe in the more moral, more white, more fair country!

It's funny when you are talking about the Europeans only wanting a "few barrels of oil", but when you talk about the Americans, you make it sound like we want it all. NOWHERE NEAR THE TRUTH. --But of course, you are so insecure, biggoted and narrow-mindedly prejudiced against the west, you are going to believe whatever you want anyway--and that's always going to include a seething hatred of anything American.

Interesting to note that Lybia has or is about to be cleared from the list of country supporting terrorism, interesting don't you think so ? Used to blow up passenger planes ... ah, that's ok ... we will forgive you ... because we need to !

It's funny that you apparently can't stand a rogue nation to try to make ammends with the U.S. and to change her ways. Your smug and sarcastic tone (above) only masks an utter ignorance of how things in the world work (maybe you need a 101 on world politics, eh singa)?

If you had even glanced at the web site you quoted in your post, you would have read that Libya has decided to "dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and to allow United Nations inspectors into the country, as well as its accepting responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am 103 and agreeing to pay $2.7 billion in compensation to the victims’ families". You will probably disagree, but to me, that sounds like a pretty good start to ammending her ways, don't you? That's the whole point with working with countries like Libya, Iran, or Iraq--we want them to cooperate with us and to stop their savage terrorist activities. Then we can peacefully engage in free trade between our nations: we can buy their oil, and they can buy our technology, goods and services. Everybody wins, everybody is happy.

Policy Contradictions

The greater need for oil in the future is at odds with current sanctions on oil exporters Libya, Iraq, and Iran.

So what? Do you need me to explain this to you? It's a clear business-like assessment of the situation in the world But if I have to s-p-e-l-l it out for you: all that is stating is that "it's too bad we have had to place sanctions on these extremist, terrorist-loving, antagonistic governments, because they have the ability to control energy reserves that affect the U.S. and the entire world". (It's funny how you try to twist and infer points that aren't there).

Singa, maybe you need a 101 on world politics.. allow me to quote from SoCal's recent post, (with the words that you need to pay attention to, made real big and bold, so you can't miss the point)!

No disrespect, but get it through your thick head.

Iraq's oil is controlled by their state agency, and sold on the world market.

The American people have picked up a $100 billion dollar price tag.

DO YOU GET IT NOW?

Probably NOT, but please continue to amuse us with your silly little postings anyway!

Thank you Membrane for havind started this thread. But as you haven' read the original article published in the Iraqi newspaper AL MADA,

[snip]

Well Cynic, you didn't provide a link either, so how can I tell if you're not just making this up?? Provide a link to the actual article--that way we can all see for ourselves what you are talking about and verify it!

Now the truth comes out--old Saddam bribed 46 individuals, companies and organizations around the world to save his stinking hide!

From: washingtontimes.com:

Iraqi govt. papers: Saddam bribed Chirac

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 28 (UPI) -- Documents from Saddam Hussein's oil ministry reveal he used oil to bribe top French officials into opposing the imminent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The oil ministry papers, described by the independent Baghdad newspaper al-Mada, are apparently authentic and will become the basis of an official investigation by the new Iraqi Governing Council, the Independent reported Wednesday.

"I think the list is true," Naseer Chaderji, a governing council member, said. "I will demand an investigation. These people must be prosecuted."

Such evidence would undermine the French position before the war when President Jacques Chirac sought to couch his opposition to the invasion on a moral high ground.

A senior Bush administration official said Washington was aware of the reports but refused further comment.

French diplomats have dismissed any suggestion their foreign policy was influenced by payments from Saddam, but some European diplomats have long suspected France's steadfast opposition to the war was less moral than monetary.

"Oil runs thicker than blood," is how one former ambassador put his suspicions about the French motives for opposing action against Saddam.

Al-Mada's list cites a total of 46 individuals, companies and organizations inside and outside Iraq as receiving Saddam's oil bribes, including officials in

Egypt,

Jordan,

Syria,

the United Arab Emirates,

Turkey,

Sudan,

China,

Austria and

France,

as well as the Russian Orthodox Church,

the Russian Communist Party,

India's Congress Party and the

Palestine Liberation Organization.

So maybe that starts to explains how (apparently) "the whole world" was against the U.S. going into Iraq--and how the truth has been perverted and warped to the common lie that a lot of people now believe--the the U.S. went in to get the oil. (In case you're wondering, no the U.S. did not).

Just goes to show how rotten politics really is--and how gullible people can be!