anyone able to watch it?

From today's press conference, the president says Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001:

BUSH: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

Bush admits that the main reason we went into Iraq was WMDs and further admits that there were no WMDs in Iraq! Mark Noonan to hold funeral for the death of two of his favorite lies: "WMDs were not the main reason," and "we found WMDs!"

From today's press conference:

THE PRESIDENT: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

Q What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q The attack on the World Trade Center?

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

in answer to your question KJC, i watched the whole thing. as usual bush displayed his standard act, hamming it up with the reporters in an attempt to disarm them with his locker room wit.

he appeared angry and defensive and offered little more than 'more of the same' and 'stay the course' SNORE..

What lib troll posted was only the part of the question and answer that it wanted to post leaving it out of context. Here is the transcript in that area:

Q Can I follow --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish. On the other hand, Ken, I don't think you've ever heard me say -- and you've now been covering me for quite a while, 12 years -- I don't think I've -- 12 years? Yes. I don't think you've ever heard me say, gosh, I'd better change positions because the polls say this or that. I've been here long enough to understand you cannot make good decisions if you're trying to chase a poll. And so the second part of your question is, look, I'm going to do what I think is right, and if people don't like me for it, that's just the way it is.

Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.

Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

Q What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q The attack on the World Trade Center?

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case.

And one way to defeat that -- defeat resentment is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government. Now, I said going into Iraq that we've got to take these threats seriously before they fully materialize. I saw a threat. I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world is better off without him. Now, the question is how do we succeed in Iraq? And you don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete, like some in this political process are suggesting.

Sounds a little different, no? Full transcript here.

I watched the whole thing and thought the President was masterful in his command of the issues and very clear in communicating what's at stake. The snorefest comes from the reporters who ask the same questions over and over ad naseum.

a suicider? is that like being the decider?

a suicider? is that like being the decider?

Thank you for providing further proof (as if we needed it) that liberals are idiots with nothing important to say.

Rev,

Thanks for putting the whole quote up - I actually got to see that answer on TV, and the Prez simply slam-dunked that idiot MSMer for asking such a stupid question. The whole presser was great for the Prez, a disaster for the MSM which ever more clearly shows itself as just a parrot of leftwing talking points.

To echo three dots...

This is my favorite part of the press conference:

"the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction."

Still want to say WMDs were not the main reason we invaded Iraq, Mark?

From the transcript:

Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.

Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

Shipley, you're a fraud.

Rev., how am I a fraud?

Out of George W's own mouth came the words "the main reason we went into Iraq at the time we thought he had weapons of mass destruction."

You can quote the entire press conference if you'd like. But you can't take that quote out of context.

"It turns out he didn't." Hard to take that one out of context as well.

This whole "taking quotes out of context" crutch you guys are using is getting to be a joke.

I will again ask Mark, do you still claim WMDs were not the main reason we invaded Iraq?

a suicider? is that like being the decider?

Thank you for providing further proof (as if we needed it) that liberals are idiots with nothing important to say.
Posted by: Reverend Scaramonga [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 21, 2006 04:24 PM

nothing important outside of pointing out the ridiculous that is.

george bush comes across as very defensive and I would guess that it is because it is becoming very clear that the iraq debacle is looking ever more like the albatross that it is.

i wonder if karl rove's 'war is good marketing product in august' strategy will ever be repeated by future presidential advisors.

Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.

Oh, boy. Straight out of the Decider's mouth. And yet still the ol' Rev and Noonan try to spin it their way. Truly, truly pathetic, and even more shameless.

We went into Iraq for weapons that weren't there. 3,000 Americans dead. 20 times as many Iraqis dead. Civil war. No end in sight. This is precisely why Iraq will always be a debacle. This is precisely why Bush is absolutely loathed as a chimp frat cowboy with no idea how to run the Texas Rangers, let alone the greatest nation on Earth.

You guys are really that studpid, aren't you?

Rev:

1) Was the main reason we invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMD?

2) Did we end up finding those WMD that Bush talked about?

Two very straightforward questions. We await your answers.

You guys really are that stupid. Thanks for the demonstration, idiots.

Still want to say WMDs were not the main reason we invaded Iraq, Mark?

Rev, Tom's not a fraud--he's the real deal, a nit-picky lib who needs affirmation. Here's Tom: "Nah, nah, I'm right, and you're wrong. I win." What a tool.

To the left, the Middle East was a stable place before President Bush took office. Containment and appeasement are status quo with the LLLs.

Funny, isn't it, how none of the left's social programs worked, but they lauded themselves for trying. However, when a Republican administration tries to actually do something in the Middle East, the powderkeg of the world, we're branded failures, even though the final results aren't in.

Although I'm seriously concerned about how things are going in Baghdad, I'm still proud of a man who stuck to his word and didn't waver because the polls were bad. This is why the libs can't be trusted to do any heavy lifting--it's all about being liked with them.

Rev, Tom's not a fraud

Sure he is and along with his drones, hie stupid. And nobody gets that stupid without intentionally deciding to become that stupid.

You and I and anybody with at least half a clue about the real world knows what the President said and these hair-splitting, sentence-diagramming jerks try to bend and twist and deceive their way to a pointless "conclusion." The only kind of people I know that behave like that are stupid and fraudulent - or just plain liars. These clowns just demonstrated that in spades.