was just thinking and it popped into my lil' ol' head just now.... bu$h wants America to sacrifice liberties & blood 'for the good of the country'... yet, when it comes to sacrificing with our taxes, oh boy, can't have none of that.

what a hypocrite.

priorities. that's what i was thinking. having a priority of going to the moon over getting child care available to people who wanna work, is an example. there are so much more, but the core theme is priorities. having your priorities in order can only make you a winner.

oh wow, my memory escapes me every time i open blogger ... gimme a few

AFN plays favorites with Fox

I’ve been stationed in South Korea for about 10 months now, and I’ve noticed something that’s greatly disturbing. When I watch the news on AFN, I see three major cable news networks: MSNBC, CNN and Fox News Channel. All of these networks cover a lot of aspects of the war in Iraq and the upcoming presidential election. But only one stands out above all the others as far as expressing its views on politics and the war. That network is Fox, and Fox seems to lean more to the right on all issues.

The problem is that, when it comes to discussion panels, AFN seems to concentrate solely on Fox’s discussion panels, which I feel is irresponsible and unfair on AFN’s part. Fox’s discussion panel shows have Bush-loving Republicans bashing the left and giving the message that not siding with the Bush administration is un-American. It’s not the fact that AFN airs Fox’s discussion panel shows, but that it airs Fox discussion shows more than any of the other networks’ shows.

AFN is trying to keep we viewers on the pro-Bush side by showing only Fox network discussion panel shows. Knowing that AFN is the only source of TV news for overseas troops makes me believe that AFN is abusing its power by showing what it thinks we should watch when it comes to political debates. Stars and Stripes readers should be aware of what’s going on with today’s news networks.

Airman Gregory L. Dietrich
Air Base, South Korea

they keep talkin this 'gotta do this because how can you connect the dots when you aint got dots' bullshit. excuse me, but it wasn't a problem with collecting the dots. it was a problem of making someone in charge see the connections.

what idiots

Democratic Underground Forums - U.N. Recommends Iraq Caretaker Government ( * not going to be happy: "This is why the June 30 deadline is so important to the Bushites.


As time passes and the situation in Iraq stagnates or deteriorates, there will be more calls for this sort of thing. It's vitally important that they get their boys installed as the 'legitimate govmint' so that any subsequent UN intervention has to deal with the 'Existing Iraqi Government'.

As soon as the handoff has been made, look for the new 'Iraqi' government to hit the UN up for assistance---probably within days."

The New York Times > International > Middle East > Combat: Marines in Falluja Still Face and Return Relentless Fire: "Colonel Baggott said the insurgents were increasingly well organized. But when asked if he knew who the insurgents were, which groups or alliances, he paused for a moment.
'We don't,' he said."

the text of his speech
Text of President Bush's press conference at the White
House on Tuesday, April 13, 2004, as transcribed by
eMediaMillWorks Inc.:

BUSH: Good evening.

Before I take your questions, let me speak with the
American people about the situation in Iraq.

This has been tough weeks in that country. Coalition forces
have encountered serious violence in some areas of Iraq.
Our military commanders report that this violence is being
instigated by three groups. Some remnants of Saddam
Hussein's regime, along with Islamic militants, have
attacked coalition forces in the city of Fallujah.
Terrorists from other countries have infiltrated Iraq to
incite and organize attacks.

In the south of Iraq, coalition forces face riots and
attacks that are being incited by a radical cleric named
al-Sadr. He has assembled some of his supporters into an
illegal militia and publicly supported the terrorist groups
Hamas and Hezbollah.

Al-Sadr's methods of violence and intimidation are widely
repudiated by other Iraqi Shia. He's been indicted by Iraqi
authorities for the murder of a prominent Shia cleric.

Although these instigations of violence come from different
factions, they share common goals. They want to run us out
of Iraq and destroy the democratic hopes of the Iraqi
people.

The violence we have seen is a power grab by these extreme
and ruthless elements. It's not a civil war. It's not a
popular uprising. Most of Iraq is relatively stable. Most
Iraqis by far reject violence and oppose dictatorship.

In forums where Iraqis have met to discuss their political
future, and in all the proceedings of the Iraqi Governing
Council, Iraqis have expressed clear commitments. They want
strong protections for individual rights. They want their
independence. And they want their freedom.

America's commitment to freedom in Iraq is consistent with
our ideals and required by our interests. Iraq will either
be a peaceful, democratic country or it will again be a
source of violence, a haven for terror and a threat to
America and to the world.

By helping secure a free Iraq, Americans serving in that
country are protecting their fellow citizens. Our nation is
grateful to them all and to their families that face
hardship and long separation.

This weekend, at a Fort Hood hospital, I presented a Purple
Heart to some of our wounded, had the honor of thanking
them on behalf of all Americans.

Other men and women have paid an even greater cost. Our
nation honors the memory of those who have been killed, and
we pray that their families will find God's comfort in the
midst of their grief.

As I have said to those who have lost loved ones, we will
finish the work of the fallen.

America's armed forces are performing brilliantly, with all
the skill and honor we expect of them. We're constantly
reviewing their needs. Troop strength now and in the future
is determined by the situation on the ground. If additional
forces are needed, I will send them. If additional
resources are needed, we will provide them.

The people of our country are united behind our men and
women in uniform, and this government will do all that is
necessary to assure the success of their historic mission.

One central commitment of that mission is the transfer of
the sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. We have set a
deadline of June 30th. It is important that we meet that
deadline.

As a proud, independent people, Iraqis do not support an
indefinite occupation, and neither does America. We're not
an imperial power, as nations such as Japan and Germany can
attest. We're a liberating power, as nations in Europe and
Asia can attest as well.

America's objective in Iraq is limited, and it is firm. We
seek an independent, free and secure Iraq.

Were the coalition to step back from the June 30th pledge,
many Iraqis would question our intentions and feel their
hopes betrayed. And those in Iraq who trade in hatred and
conspiracy theories would find a larger audience and gain a
stronger hand.

We will not step back from our pledge. On June 30th, Iraqi
sovereignty will be placed in Iraqi hands.

Sovereignty involves more than a date and a ceremony. It
requires Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own
future.

Iraqi authorities are now confronting the security
challenge of the last several weeks.

In Fallujah, coalition forces have suspended offensive
operations, allowing members of the Iraqi Governing Council
and local leaders to work on the restoration of central
authority in that city. These leaders are communicating
with the insurgents to ensure an orderly turnover of that
city to Iraqi forces, so that the resumption of military
action does not become necessary.

They are also insisting that those who killed and mutilated
four American contract workers be handed over for trial and
punishment.

In addition, members of the Governing Council are seeking
to resolve the situation in the south. Al-Sadr must answer
the charges against him and disband his illegal militia.

Our coalition is standing with responsible Iraqi leaders as
they establish growing authority in their country. The
transition to sovereignty requires that we demonstrate
confidence in Iraqis. And we have that confidence. Many
Iraqi leaders are showing great personal courage, and their
example will bring out the same quality in others.

The transition to sovereignty also requires an atmosphere
of security, and our coalition is working to provide that
security.

We will continue taking the greatest care to prevent harm
to innocent civilians, yet we will not permit the spread of
chaos and violence. I have directed our military commanders
to make every preparation to use decisive force if
necessary to maintain order and to protect our troops.

The nation of Iraq is moving toward self-rule, and Iraqis
and Americans will see evidence in the months to come. On
June 30th, when the flag of a free Iraq is raised, Iraqi
officials will assume full responsibility for the
ministries of government. On that day, the transitional
administrative law, including a bill of rights that is
unprecedented in the Arab world, will take full effect.

The United States and all the nations of our coalition will
establish normal diplomatic relations with the Iraqi
government. An American embassy will open, and an American
ambassador will be posted.

According to the schedule already approved by the Governing
Council, Iraq will hold elections for a national assembly
no later than next January. That assembly will draft a new
permanent constitution, which will be presented to the
Iraqi people in a national referendum held in October of
next year.

Iraqis will then elect a permanent government by December
15, 2005 -- an event that will mark the completion of
Iraq's transition from dictatorship to freedom.

Other nations and international institutions are stepping
up to their responsibilities in building a free and secure
Iraq. We're working closely with the United Nations envoy,
Lakhdar Brahimi, and with Iraqis to determine the exact
form of the government that will receive sovereignty on
June 30th.

The United Nations Election Assistance Team, headed by
Karina Perelli, is in Iraq developing plans for next
January's election. NATO is providing support for the
Polish-led, multinational division in Iraq. And 17 of
NATO's 26 members are contributing forces to maintain
security.

Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of State Rumsfeld
and a number of NATO defense and foreign ministers are
exploring a more formal role for NATO, such as turning the
Polish-led division into a NATO operation and giving NATO
specific responsibilities for border control.

Iraqis' neighbors also have responsibilities to make their
region more stable. So I'm sending Deputy Secretary of
State Armitage to the Middle East to discuss with these
nations our common interest in a free and independent Iraq,
and how they can help achieve this goal.

As we've made clear all along, our commitment to the
success and security of Iraq will not end on June 30th. On
July 1st and beyond, our reconstruction assistance will
continue and our military commitment will continue.

Having helped Iraqis establish a new government, coalition
military forces will help Iraqis to protect their
government from external aggression and internal
subversion.

The success of free government in Iraq is vital for many
reasons:

A free Iraq is vital because 25 million Iraqis have as much
right to live in freedom as we do.

A free Iraq will stand as an example to reformers across
the Middle East.

A free Iraq will show that America is on the side of
Muslims who wish to live in peace, as we've already shown
in Kuwait and Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan.

A free Iraq will confirm to a watching world that America's
word, once given, can be relied upon, even in the toughest
times.

Above all, the defeat of violence and terror in Iraq is
vital to the defeat of violence and terror elsewhere and
vital, therefore, to the safety of the American people.

Now is the time, and Iraq is the place, in which the
enemies of the civilized world are testing the will of the
civilized world. We must not waver.

The violence we are seeing in Iraq is familiar. The
terrorists who take hostages or plants a roadside bomb near
Baghdad is serving the same ideology of murder that kills
innocent people on trains in Madrid, and murders children
on buses in Jerusalem, and blows up a nightclub in Bali and
cuts the throat of a young reporter for being a Jew.

We've seen the same ideology of murder in the killing of
241 Marines in Beirut, the first attack on the World Trade
Center, in the destruction of two embassies in Africa, in
the attack on the USS Cole, and in the merciless horror
inflicted upon thousands of innocent men and women and
children on September the 11th, 2001.

None of these acts is the work of a religion. All are the
work of a fanatical political ideology. The servants of
this ideology seek tyranny in the Middle East and beyond.
They seek to oppress and persecute women.

BUSH: They seek the death of Jews and Christians and every
Muslim who desires peace over theocratic terror. They seek
to intimidate America into panic and retreat, and to set
free nations against each other. And they seek weapons of
mass destruction, to blackmail and murder on a massive
scale.

Over the last several decades, we've seen that any
concession or retreat on our part will only embolden this
enemy and invite more bloodshed. And the enemy has seen,
over the last 31 months, that we will no longer live in
denial or seek to appease them.

For the first time, the civilized world has provided a
concerted response to the ideology of terror -- a series of
powerful, effective blows.

The terrorists have lost the shelter of the Taliban and the
training camps in Afghanistan. They have lost safe havens
in Pakistan. They lost an ally in Baghdad. And Libya has
turned its back on terror.

They've lost many leaders in an unrelenting international
manhunt. And perhaps more frightening to these men and
their movement, the terrorists are seeing the advance of
freedom and reform in the greater Middle East.

A desperate enemy is also a dangerous enemy. And our work
may become more difficult before it is finished. No one can
predict all the hazards that lie ahead or the cost that
they will bring.

Yet, in this conflict, there is no safe alternative to
resolute action. The consequences of failure in Iraq would
be unthinkable.

Every friend of America in Iraq would be betrayed to prison
and murder, as a new tyranny arose. Every enemy of America
in the world would celebrate, proclaiming our weakness and
decadence, and using that victory to recruit a new
generation of killers.

We will succeed in Iraq. We're carrying out a decision that
has already been made and will not change. Iraq will be a
free, independent country, and America and the Middle East
will be safer because of it.

Our coalition has the means and the will to prevail. We
serve the cause of liberty, and that is always and
everywhere a cause worth serving.

BUSH: Now I'll be glad to take your questions. I will start
with you.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in
Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are
comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire.
Polls show that support for your policy is declining and
that fewer than half of Americans now support it.

What does that say to you? And how do you answer the
Vietnam comparison?

BUSH: I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think
that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops and
sends the wrong message to the enemy.

Look, this is hard work. It's hard to advance freedom in a
country that has been strangled by tyranny. And yet we must
stay the course because the end result is in our nation's
interest.

A secure and free Iraq is an historic opportunity to change
the world and make America more secure. A free Iraq in the
midst of the Middle East will have incredible change.

It's hard. Freedom is not easy to achieve. I mean, we had a
little trouble in our own country achieving freedom.

And we've been there a year. I know that seems like a long
time. It seems like a long time to the loved ones whose
troops have been overseas. But when you think about where
the country has come from, it's a relatively short period
of time.

And we're making progress. There's no question it's been a
tough, tough series of weeks for the American people. It's
been really tough for the families. I understand that. It's
been tough on this administration. But we're doing the
right thing.

And as to whether or not I made decisions based upon polls,
I don't. I just don't make decisions that way. I fully
understand the consequences of what we're doing. We're
changing the world, and the world will be better off and
America will be more secure as a result of the actions
we're taking.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. What's your best
prediction on how long U.S. troops will have to be in Iraq?
And it sounds like you will have to add some troops. Is
that a fair assessment?

BUSH: Well, first of all, that's up to General Abizaid, and
he's clearly indicating that he may want more troops. It's
coming up through the chain of command. And if that's what
he wants, that's what he gets.

Generally, we've had about a 115,000 troops in Iraq.
There's 135,000 now as a result of the changeover from one
division to the next.

If he wants to keep troops there to help, I'm more than
willing to say, yes, General Abizaid.

I talk to General Abizaid quite frequently. I'm constantly
asking him does he have what he needs, whether it be in
troop strength or in equipment. He and General Sanchez talk
all the time. And if he makes the recommendation, he'll get
it.

In terms of how long we'll be there, as long as necessary,
and not one day more. The Iraqi people need us there to
help with security. They need us there to fight off these,
you know, violent few, who are doing everything they can to
resist the advance of freedom. And I mentioned who they
are.

And as I mentioned in my opening remarks, our commanders on
the ground have got the authorities necessary to deal with
violence, and will -- will in firm fashion.

And that's what by far the vast majority of the Iraqis
want. They want security so they can advance toward a free
society.

Once we transfer sovereignty, we'll enter into a security
agreement with the government to which we pass sovereignty,
the entity to which we pass sovereignty. And we'll need to
be there for a while.

We'll also need to continue training the Iraqi troops. I
was disappointed in the performance of some of the troops.
Some of the units performed brilliantly. Some of them
didn't. And we need to find out why. If they're lacking in
equipment, we'll get them equipment. If there needs to be
more intense training, we'll get more intense training.

But eventually, Iraq's security is going to be handled by
the Iraqi people themselves.

Oh, let's see here. Terry.

QUESTION: Mr. President, before the war, you and members of
your administration made several claims about Iraq: that
U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and
flowers; that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the
reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass
destruction but, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we
know where they are.

How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong?
And how do you answer your opponents who say that you took
this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to
be a series of false premises?

BUSH: Well, let me step back and review my thinking prior
to going into Iraq.

First, the lesson of September the 11th is that when this
nation sees a threat, a gathering threat, we got to deal
with it. We can no longer hope that oceans protect us from
harm. Every threat we must take seriously.

Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had
used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was
a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat
because he funded suiciders. He was a threat to the region.
He was a threat to the United States.

That's the assessment that I made from the intelligence,
the assessment that Congress made from the intelligence.
That's the exact same assessment that the United Nations
Security Council made with the intelligence.

I went to the U.N., as you might recall, and said, either
you take care of him, or we will. Any time an American
president says, if you don't, we will, we better be
prepared to. And I was prepared to.

BUSH: I thought it was important for the United Nations
Security Council that when it says something, it means
something for the sake of security in the world.

See, the war on terror had changed the calculations. We
needed to work with people. People needed to come together
to work. And therefore, empty words would embolden the
actions of those who are willing to kill indiscriminately.

The United Nations passed a Security Council resolution
unanimously that said, disarm or face serious consequences.
And he refused to disarm.

I thought it was very interesting that Charlie Duelfer, who
just came back -- he's the head of the Iraqi Survey Group
-- reported some interesting findings from his recent tour
there. And one of the things was, he was amazed at how
deceptive the Iraqis had been toward UNMOVIC and UNSCOM,
deceptive in hiding things.

We knew they were hiding things. A country that hides
something is a country that is afraid of getting caught,
and that was part of our calculation. Charlie confirmed
that.

He also confirmed that Saddam had the ability to produce
biological and chemical weapons. In other words, he was a
danger. And he had long-range missiles that were undeclared
to the United Nations. He was a danger. And so we dealt
with him.

And what else was part the question? Oh, oil revenues.


Well, the oil revenues, they're bigger than we thought they
would be at this point in time. I mean, one year after the
liberation of Iraq, the revenues of the oil stream is
pretty darn significant.

One of the things I was concerned about, prior to going
into Iraq, was that the oil fields would be destroyed, but
they weren't. They're now up and running. And that money is
-- it will benefit the Iraqi people. It's their oil, and
they'll use it to reconstruct the country.

Finally, the attitude of the Iraqis toward the American
people -- it's an interesting question. They're really
pleased we got rid of Saddam Hussein, and you can
understand why. This guy was a torturer, a killer, a
maimer. There's mass graves.

I mean, he was a horrible individual that really shocked
the country in many ways, shocked it into a kind of a fear
of making decisions toward liberty. That's what we've seen
recently. Some citizens are fearful of stepping up.

And they were happy -- they're not happy they're occupied.
I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either. They do want
us there to help with security.

And that's why this transfer of sovereignty is an important
signal to send, and it's why it's also important for them
to hear we will stand with them until they become a free
country.

Elisabeth? Excuse me.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE), Mr. President. To move to the 9-11
commission, you yourself have acknowledged that Osama bin
Laden was not a central focus of the administration in the
months before September 11th. I was not on point, you told
the journalist Bob Woodward. I didn't feel that sense of
urgency.

Two and a half years later, do you feel any sense of
personal responsibility for September 11th?

BUSH: Let me put that quote to Woodward in context, because
he had asked me if I was -- something about killing bin
Laden. That's what the question was.

And I said, you know, compared to how I felt at the time,
after the attack, I didn't have that -- and I also went on
to say, my blood wasn't boiling, I think is what the quote
said.

I didn't see -- I mean, I didn't have that great sense of
outrage that I felt on September the 11th. I was -- on that
day, I was angry and sad. Angry that al-Qaida -- I thought
at the time al-Qaida, found out shortly thereafter it was
al-Qaida -- had unleashed this attack. Sad for those who
lost their life.

Your question, do I feel -- yes?

QUESTION: Personal responsibility for September 11th?


BUSH: I feel incredibly grieved when I meet with family
members, and I do quite frequently. I grieve for, you know,
the incredible loss of life that they feel, the emptiness
they feel.

There are some things I wish we'd have done, when I look
back. I mean, hindsight's easy. It's easy for a president
to stand up and say, now that I know what happened, it
would have been nice if there were certain things in place.


For example, a Homeland Security Department. And why -- I
say that because that provides the ability for our agencies
to coordinate better and to work together better than it
was before.

I think the hearings will show that the Patriot Act is an
important change in the law that will allow the FBI and the
CIA to better share information together.

We were kind of stovepiped, I guess is a way to describe
it. There was, you know, kind of departments that at times
didn't communicate -- because of law, in the FBI's case.

And the other thing I look back on and realize is that we
weren't on a war footing. The country was not on a war
footing, and yet the enemy was at war with us. And it
didn't take me long to put us on a war footing.

And we've been on a war ever since.

The lessons of 9-11
-- one lesson was we must deal with gathering threats, and
that's part of the reason I dealt with Iraq the way I did.

The other lesson is, is that this country must go on the
offense and stay on the offense. In order to secure the
country, we must do everything in our power to find these
killers and bring them to justice before they hurt us
again. I'm afraid they want to hurt us again. They're still
there.

They can be right one time; we got to be right 100 percent
of the time in order to protect the country. It's a mighty
task.

But our government has changed since the 9-11 attacks.
We're better equipped to respond. We're better at sharing
intelligence. But we've still got a lot of work to do.

Dave?

QUESTION: Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on a
couple of these questions that have been asked.

One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's
WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question
of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9-11,
you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism, and do
you believe that there were any errors in judgment that you
made related to any of those topics I brought up?

BUSH: Well, I think, as I mentioned, you know, the country
wasn't on war footing, and yet we're at war.

And that's just a reality, Dave. I mean, that was the
situation that existed prior to 9-11, because the truth of
the matter is most in the country never felt that we'd be
vulnerable to an attack such as the one that Osama bin
Laden unleashed on us.

We knew he had designs on us. We knew he hated us. But
there was nobody in our government, at least, and I don't
think the prior government that could envision flying
airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.

The people know where I stand, I mean, in terms of Iraq. I
was very clear about what I believed. And, of course, I
want to know why we haven't found a weapon yet. But I still
know Saddam Hussein was a threat. And the world is better
off without Saddam Hussein.

I don't think anybody can -- maybe people can argue that. I
know the Iraqi people don't believe that, that they're
better off with Saddam Hussein -- would be better off with
Saddam Hussein in power.

I also know that there's an historic opportunity here to
change the world. And it's very important for the loved
ones of our troops to understand that the mission is an
important, vital mission for the security of America and
for the ability to change the world for the better.

Let's see. Ed?

QUESTION: Mr. President, good evening. I'd
like to ask you about the August 6th PDB.

BUSH: Sure.

QUESTION: You've mentioned it at Fort Hood on Sunday. You
pointed out that it did not warn of a hijacking of
airplanes to crash into buildings, but that it warned of
hijacking to obviously take hostages and to secure the
release of extremists that are being held by the U.S.

Did that trigger some specific actions on your part in the
administration, since it dealt with potentially hundreds of
lives and a blackmail attempt on the United States
government?

BUSH: And I asked for the briefing. And the reason I did is
because there had been a lot of threat intelligence from
overseas. And so, I -- part of it had to do with the Genoa
G-8 conference that I was going to attend. And I asked at
that point in time, let's make sure we are paying attention
here at home, as well. And that's what triggered the
report.

The report itself, I've characterized it as mainly history.
And I think when you look at it, you'll see that it was
talking about a '97 and '98 and '99.

It was also an indication, as you mentioned, that bin Laden
might want to hijack an airplane but, as you said, not to
fly into a building, but perhaps to release a person in
jail. In other words, he would serve it as a blackmail.

And of course that concerns me. All those reports concern
me. As a matter of fact, I was dealing with terrorism a lot
as the president when George Tenet came in to brief me. I
mean, that's where I got my information.

I changed the way that the relationship between the
president and the CIA director. And I wanted Tenet in the
Oval Office all the time. And we had briefings about
terrorist threats. This was a summary.

Now, in the -- what's called the PDB, there was a warning
about bin Laden's desires on America. But, frankly, I
didn't think there was anything new. I mean, major
newspapers had talked about bin Laden's desires on hurting
America.

What was interesting in there was that there was a report
that the FBI was conducting field investigations. And that
was good news, that they were doing their job.

The way my administration worked, Ed, was that I met with
Tenet all the time. I obviously met with my principals a
lot. We talked about threats that had emerged. We have a
counterterrorism group meeting on a regular basis to
analyze the threats that came in. Had there been a threat
that required action by anybody in the government, I would
have dealt with it.

BUSH: In other words, had they come up and said, this is
where we see something happening, you can rest assured that
the people of this government would have responded and
responded in a forceful way.

I mean, one of the things about Elizabeth's question was, I
stepped back and I've asked myself a lot, is there anything
we could have done to stop the attacks? Of course I've
asked that question, as have many people in my government.
Nobody wants this to happen to America.

And the answer is that had I had any inkling whatsoever
that the people were going to fly airplanes into buildings,
we would have moved heaven and earth to save the country,
just like we're working hard to prevent a further attack.

Let's see -- Jim?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You
mentioned the PDB and the assurance you got that the FBI
was working on terrorism investigations here. The number
they had used was 70.

But we learned today in the September 11th hearings that
the acting director of the FBI at the time now says the FBI
tells him that number was wrong, that he doesn't even know
how it got into your PDB. And two of the commissioners
strongly suggested the number was exaggerated.

Have you learned anything else about that report since that
time? And do you now believe you were falsely comforted by
the FBI?

BUSH: No, I heard about that today, obviously, and my
response to that was, I expect to get valid information. As
the ultimate decision maker for this country, I expect
information that comes to my desk to be real and valid.

And I presume the 9-11 commission will find out -- will
follow up on his suggestions and his recollection, and
garner the truth. That is an important part of the 9-11
commission's job, is to analyze what went on and what could
have perhaps been done differently so that we can better
secure America for the future.

But of course I expect to get valid information. I can't
make good decisions unless I get valid information.

QUESTION: Has the FBI come back to you, sir?

BUSH: No, I
haven't talked to anybody today yet. I will, though. We'll
find out.

John?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the
NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the
American people for failing them prior to 9-11. Do you
believe the American people deserve a similar apology from
you, and would you prepared to give them one?

BUSH: Look, I can understand why people in my
administration are anguished over the fact that people lost
their life. I feel the same way. I mean, I'm sick when I
think about the death that took place on that day. And as I
mentioned, I've met with a lot of family members, and I do
the best to console them about the loss of their loved one.


As I mentioned, I oftentimes think about what I could have
done differently. I can assure the American people that had
we had any inkling that this was going to happen, we would
have done everything in our power to stop the attack.

Here's what I feel about that: The person responsible for
the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That's who's responsible
for killing Americans. And that's why we will stay on the
offense until we bring people to justice.

John?

QUESTION: Mr. President, thank you. You mentioned that 17
of the 26 NATO members providing some help on the ground in
Iraq. But if you look at the numbers -- 135,000 U.S.
troops, 10,000 or 12,000 British troops. Then the next
largest, perhaps even the second- largest contingent of
guns on the ground are private contractors, literally hired
guns.

Your critics, including your Democratic opponents, say
that's proof to them your coalition is window dressing. How
would you answer those critics?

And can you assure the American people that,
post-sovereignty, when the handover takes place, that there
will be more burden-sharing by allies in terms of security
forces?

BUSH: Yes, John, my response is I don't think people ought
to demean the contributions of our friends into Iraq.
People are sacrificing their lives in Iraq from different
countries. We ought to honor that, and we ought to welcome
that.

I'm proud of the coalition that is there. These are people
that have got leaders that have made the decision to put
people in harm's way for the good of the world. And we
appreciate that sacrifice in America, and we appreciate
that commitment.

I think that one of the things you're seeing is more
involvement by the United Nations, in terms of the
political process. That's helpful. I'd like to get another
U.N. Security Council resolution out that will help other
nations to decide to participate.

One of the things I've found, John, is that, in calling
around, particularly during this week -- I spoke to Prime
Minister Berlusconi and President Kwasniewski -- there is a
resolve by these leaders that is a heartening resolve. Tony
Blair is the same way.

He understands, like I understand, that we cannot yield at
this point in time, that we must remain steadfast and
strong, that it's the intentions of the enemy to shake our
will. That's what they want to do. They want us to leave.
And we're not going to leave. We're going to do the job.

And a free Iraq is going to be a major blow for terrorism.
It'll change the world. A free Iraq in the midst of the
Middle East is vital to future peace and security.

MORE TO COME


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/politics/13CND-BTEX.html?ex=1082907918&ei=1&en=9c651fafe64a5502

how is it that he can continue to make alllllllllllll these predictions and assure us that everything's going to be rosy... when ALLLLLLLL his previous predictions turned out wrong.l

how?

HOW??

the nakedness of the administration's iraq policy is feeding the resistance.

so the 'news' conference is tonite. there'll undoubtedly be some sort of announcement. still nobody's gaggin. but one thing i bet does happen. the focus will be on how everything will just be rosy and peachy once he gets done doing what 'he has to do'.

$10?

a kicker in the nytimes (picked up from slate's TP):

"Truman said, 'The buck stops here.' Bush is saying, 'The buck never got to me."

i could be a millionaire if i played the 'betcha didn't know that' game.

why are the guests on imus always in this 'masochistic' mode? they sit there and just lap up the shit imus gives 'em. yet they keep comin back for more. i mean, is this just all showtime acting? almost everyone of those guests - AND STAFF for that matter - just take a beating almost every day. in one form or another.

imus is a sadistic bastard. but i luv 'im anyway. ben listenin to his ass for years now.

if the excuse of the day is that the CIA and FBI didn't talk to each other, then how would you explain the CIA memo referring to the FBI's ongoing investigations?

i don't get it. we're expecting explanations from liars about their lies?

exactly how does that work?