Dubya on 20/20

[VicDaring]

One hour interview with the Prez by Diane Sawyer last night on ABC.

ABC News exerpts (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/US/bush_sawyer_excerpts_1_031216.html)

Mostly softballs. How did you feel when Saddam was captured? What did your dad say?

There were, though, two very important questions asked and W. dodged them both.

1. Did the administraion exaggerate the Iraq threat before the war?
A: The world is better with Saddam gone.

Not really an answer to the question, and Sawyer, to her credit, tried several times, to no avail.

2. Unless this administration can create 200,000 jobs a month for the remainder of W's term, it will be the 1st since Hoover with a net job loss.

A: Clinton's fault.

When in doubt...

EDIT: Oops. It was actually Nightline, not 20/20.

[GroundStrength]

I thought the interview reflected poorly on GWB, the first lady was visibly squirming around and trying to field some of the questions.

One of the worst things about GWB speaking is that he doesn't know when to stop talking. Sort of rambles on and on getting less and less coherant as he goes.

My thought is that he should have passed on the interview.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by VicDaring
One hour interview with the Prez by Diane Sawyer last night on ABC.

ABC News exerpts (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/US/bush_sawyer_excerpts_1_031216.html)

Mostly softballs. How did you feel when Saddam was captured? What did your dad say?

There were, though, two very important questions asked and W. dodged them both.

I wonder why you used your (rather poor) recollection of the questions and answers rather than actually quoting them from the page that you link to.

In any case, if one wants to know what Bush was actually asked, and what he answered, I urge them to read the interview itself, rather than relying on Vic's interpretation.

MattJ

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I wonder why you used your (rather poor) recollection of the questions and answers rather than actually quoting them from the page that you link to.

In any case, if one wants to know what Bush was actually asked, and what he answered, I urge them to read the interview itself, rather than relying on Vic's interpretation.

MattJ

Well, in the case of the first question, he did a pretty good job of capturing the gist of it.

But that's why he posted you see. If he just wanted people to read the article, he could have just slapped a link up there, and then said nothing. But he put the link up, then offered what he took away from the article with him, and implied an invitation to discuss your thoughts on the issue.

That's a disussion board.

[VicDaring]

I didn't think I did bad on the second one either.

DIANE SAWYER: One of the worrying sectors is still jobs. Treasury Secretary John Snow said that we needed to create 200,000 more jobs a month in order, at the end of this, for you not to be the first president, as everyone has said, since Herbert Hoover, who had a net job loss in his term. How are you going to create 200,000 new jobs a month?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, first, let's make sure the record, so I can distinguish myself from Herbert. I inherited the recession. I didn't create one. When we showed up in office, the country was beginning to go into decline, and we responded with some tax relief, strong tax relief to stimulate the economy, and it's working. It is also important that people keep — at least remember that the attacks happened just as the economy was coming around. We had corporate scandals, which we've acted strongly, "we" being the Congress and the executive branch. You know, it didn't help that we were marching to war, in all due respect for the TV stations and networks, there was at least — I know one had "March to War" every day on TV, which is not conducive to capital investment when you think you're marching to war. Anyway, we've overcome those obstacles, and the country's — the economy's growing. And I'm pleased and won't rest until people can — who are looking for a job can find work. But I am pleased with the progress we have made. ...

Mostly, I'm ashamed that I spelled "excerpts" wrong in the link.

[hgc]

Originally posted by VicDaring
...
You know, it didn't help that we were marching to war, in all due respect for the TV stations and networks, there was at least — I know one had "March to War" every day on TV, which is not conducive to capital investment when you think you're marching to war.
... This is one of my favorite bits of Bushie logic. He marched us to war, and but then blames the media for reporting on it and getting people all antsy.

[Mr Manifesto]

I clearly remember when Bush declared war on Iraq, he said "We're going to war with Iraq, but hey, don't let's make a big deal out of it."

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I clearly remember when Bush declared war on Iraq, he said "We're going to war with Iraq, but hey, don't let's make a big deal out of it."

Actually, he did say something like that!

Well before the war, the Washington media was all abuzz because "the next target" was Iraq. Bush invited all of the press to calm down.

About a month/six weeks later, the US stepped up rhetoric against Iraq, starting the drive to war.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

I wonder why you used your (rather poor) recollection of the questions and answers rather than actually quoting them from the page that you link to.

In any case, if one wants to know what Bush was actually asked, and what he answered, I urge them to read the interview itself, rather than relying on Vic's interpretation.

MattJ
Well, here is the part on WMD. I find GWB's responses to be quite lacking, and I think that the summary by Vic is actually quite accurate, for a two liner. The worst part of the answer is that he invokes 9/11 a couple of times - as if it has anything to do with Iraq.

WMD Intelligence


DIANE SAWYER: Fifty percent of the American people have said that they think the administration exaggerated the evidence going into the war with Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, connection to terrorism. Are the American people wrong? Misguided?

PRESIDENT BUSH: The intelligence I operated one was good sound intelligence, the same intelligence that my predecessor operated on. The — there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a threat. The — otherwise the United Nations might — wouldn't a passed, you know, resolution after resolution after resolution, demanding that he disarm. ... I first went to the United Nations, September the 12th, 2002, and said you've given this man resolution after resolution after resolution. He's ignoring them. You step up and see that he honor those resolutions. Otherwise you become a feckless debating society. ... And so for the sake of peace and for the sake of freedom of the Iraqi people, for the sake of security of the country, and for the sake of the credibility of institu — in — international institutions, a group of us moved, and the world is better for it.

DIANE SAWYER: But let me try to ask — this could be a long question. ... ... When you take a look back, Vice President Cheney said there is no doubt, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, not programs, not intent. There is no doubt he has weapons of mass destruction. Secretary Powell said 100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons and now the inspectors say that there's no evidence of these weapons existing right now. The yellow cake in Niger, in Niger. George Tenet has said that shouldn't have been in your speech. Secretary Powell talked about mobile labs. Again, the intelligence — the inspectors have said they can't confirm this, they can't corroborate.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet.

DIANE SAWYER: — an active —

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet.

DIANE SAWYER: Is it yet?

PRESIDENT BUSH: But what David Kay did discover was they had a weapons program, and had that, that — let me finish for a second. Now it's more extensive than, than missiles. Had that knowledge been examined by the United Nations or had David Kay's report been placed in front of the United Nations, he, he, Saddam Hussein, would have been in material breach of 1441, which meant it was a causis belli. And look, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous person, and there's no doubt we had a body of evidence proving that, and there is no doubt that the president must act, after 9/11, to make America a more secure country.

DIANE SAWYER: Again, I'm just trying to ask, these are supporters, people who believed in the war who have asked the question.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, you can keep asking the question and my answer's gonna be the same. Saddam was a danger and the world is better off cause we got rid of him.

DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —

PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?

DIANE SAWYER: Well —

PRESIDENT BUSH: The possibility that he could acquire weapons. If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger. That's, that's what I'm trying to explain to you. A gathering threat, after 9/11, is a threat that needed to be de — dealt with, and it was done after 12 long years of the world saying the man's a danger. And so we got rid of him and there's no doubt the world is a safer, freer place as a result of Saddam being gone.

DIANE SAWYER: But, but, again, some, some of the critics have said this combined with the failure to establish proof of, of elaborate terrorism contacts, has indicated that there's just not precision, at best, and misleading, at worst.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah. Look — what — what we based our evidence on was a very sound National Intelligence Estimate. ...

DIANE SAWYER: Nothing should have been more precise?

PRESIDENT BUSH: What — I, I — I made my decision based upon enough intelligence to tell me that this country was threatened with Saddam Hussein in power.

DIANE SAWYER: What would it take to convince you he didn't have weapons of mass destruction?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Saddam Hussein was a threat and the fact that he is gone means America is a safer country.

DIANE SAWYER: And if he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction [inaudible] —

PRESIDENT BUSH: Diane, you can keep asking the question. I'm telling you — I made the right decision for America —

DIANE SAWYER: But-

PRESIDENT BUSH: — because Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction, invaded Kuwait. ... But the fact that he is not there is, means America's a more secure country.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by VicDaring
I didn't think I did bad on the second one either.

I don't see "Clinton" in that.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I don't see "Clinton" in that.

Not by name but he did say:

I inherited the recession.

Which pretty much implies Clinton, since I don't think he meant a relative died and left it to him in the will.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Not by name but he did say:

Which pretty much implies Clinton, since I don't think he meant a relative died and left it to him in the will.

Perhaps it implies 'Clinton' to people who believe that there is no such thing as a business cycle.

Do you believe in the business cycle?

MattJ

[DavidJames]

"I don't see "Clinton" in that."

Yes, the word "Clinton" isn't there. I can't imagine who he is referring to. Perhaps it was the residual recession left over from his dad :)

"PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, first, let's make sure the record, so I can distinguish myself from Herbert. I inherited the recession. I didn't create one. When we showed up in office, the country was beginning to go into decline"

[patoco12]

Originally posted by VicDaring
I didn't think I did bad on the second one either.

PRESIDENT BUSH: When we showed up in office, the country was beginning to go into decline, and we responded with some tax relief, strong tax relief to stimulate the economy, and it's working. [/i]

Hmmm, I thought the first tax cuts were to give the "projected surplus" back to the taxpayers?? I don't recall him selling it as a stimulus.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by patoco12

Hmmm, I thought the first tax cuts were to give the "projected surplus" back to the taxpayers?? I don't recall him selling it as a stimulus.

Link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010727-2.html)

And given the economic news of the day, the tax cut was -- looks more and more wise. I mean, after all, there's a new report out that shows over the last four quarters, economic growth has been slow. It hasn't been up to standard. The economy is puttering along. It's not nearly as strong as it should be. And what the tax cut does by sending money back to the American working people, it provides an incredibly important boost to economic vitality and economic growth.

[Zero]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Perhaps it implies 'Clinton' to people who believe that there is no such thing as a business cycle.

Do you believe in the business cycle?

MattJ Apparently Bush doesn't, since anyone who knows about teh business cycle knows that , tax cuts or no tax cuts, the economy generally takes an upswing after 18-24 months of recession. The tax cuts likely HURT the economy, since the burden fell on local economies, which stifled economic growth and job creation.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Zero
Apparently Bush doesn't, since anyone who knows about teh business cycle knows that , tax cuts or no tax cuts, the economy generally takes an upswing after 18-24 months of recession. The tax cuts likely HURT the economy, since the burden fell on local economies, which stifled economic growth and job creation.

Your snarky first comment aside, the economic result of a tax cut is a matter upon which you and Bush disagree, not evidence that he was blaming Clinton for a recession.

In what way did the burden fall on local economies due to the tax cut?

MattJ

[patoco12]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010727-2.html)


That link talks specifically about the death tax.

Here is a link from March 2001:

Link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010316-3.html)

After all, in the first four months of this year the cash flow coming into our treasury is $40 billion more than anticipated. And it seems like to me that if you're collecting $40 billion more than you thought, somebody is being overcharged.
And so we've submitted a plan to Congress to provide meaningful tax relief.

[Zero]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Your snarky first comment aside, the economic result of a tax cut is a matter upon which you and Bush disagree, not evidence that he was blaming Clinton for a recession.

In what way did the burden fall on local economies due to the tax cut?

MattJ The fact is that projects that were supposed to be partially funded by federal dollars went underfunded or got scrapped, causing states to have to raise taxes or go into a deficit. Remember, it is a stated goal of many Republicans to destroy government programs by starving them of cash, and the tax cuts have had that effect.

Further, Bush's specific tax cuts were no boon to the working American. Between the fact that local and state taxes went up, and services became harder to get, or more expensive, tax cuts for the wealthiest few do NOT boost the economy. Bill Gates wasn't sitting around thinging "Jeez, I'd love to create more jobs, and pay my workers better, but without an extra $90,000 in my pocket, I just can't do it" Rich people don't boost the economy near as much as us poor folks do, because we spend nearly every dime we make.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
The tax cuts likely HURT the economy, since the burden fell on local economies, which stifled economic growth and job creation.

How does putting more money into the economy, which a tax cut does, hurt the economy?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony


How does putting more money into the economy, which a tax cut does, hurt the economy? Becuase it really doesn't put the money into the economy where it can do any good. I don't think J. Lo spent any more or less maney with her tax cut than she would have otherwise. Buying a $10,000 handbag does nothing for the economy, but average Americans buying $10,000 worth of $20 jeans at Walmart does have an effect.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Zero
The fact is that projects that were supposed to be partially funded by federal dollars went underfunded or got scrapped, causing states to have to raise taxes or go into a deficit. Remember, it is a stated goal of many Republicans to destroy government programs by starving them of cash, and the tax cuts have had that effect.

Further, Bush's specific tax cuts were no boon to the working American. Between the fact that local and state taxes went up, and services became harder to get, or more expensive, tax cuts for the wealthiest few do NOT boost the economy. Bill Gates wasn't sitting around thinging "Jeez, I'd love to create more jobs, and pay my workers better, but without an extra $90,000 in my pocket, I just can't do it" Rich people don't boost the economy near as much as us poor folks do, because we spend nearly every dime we make.

I am a working American, and I got a tax cut, which I spent. Tax cuts, as you know, are being phased in by 2010, with the tax cuts that go 'only to the wealthy' being phased in last. The big tax breaks for Bill Gates get phased in last. The effect of the tax cuts that have not yet gone into effect have yet to be seen.

Your complaints about projects that got underfunded or scrapped due to tax cuts don't convince me, since it seems to me that (and this is the part that gets me angry, though it goes against your point) government spending has risen across the board.


Originally posted by patoco12
That link talks specifically about the death tax.

Here is a link from March 2001:

My but you are stubborn (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010529-4.html).



And for this year's first installment of the tax cut, the check will literally be in the mail. (Applause.) Late this summer and into the fall, every single American who pays income taxes will receive a check. Single taxpayers will receive a check of $300. Single parents who are heads of household will receive a check of $500. And married couples will receive a check of $600.

That immediate tax relief will provide an important boost at an important time for our economy. And what is more is you can feel comfortable using it because more tax relief is on the way. (Applause.) The checks are the first installment of lasting, long-term reductions in tax rates. As a result, when this tax relief plan is fully implemented, a typical family of four will see their taxes cut by about half. (Applause.)

Here is Bush taking his case to the people (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010310.html):

Our economy is sputtering. Economic growth has stalled. Consumer confidence is falling. We can't just stand by and hope for the best. We must act, and act now, to get ahead of this problem, and blunt or reverse this slowdown. And the best way to respond is to get more money into the hands of Americans, who will buy products and build businesses and create jobs. We must put more fuel into the engine of this economy, and that's what my tax relief package will do.

Also, in the link you provide, he specifically claims that the tax cut will serve as a stimulus.

MattJ

[Samus]

Originally posted by VicDaring
2. Unless this administration can create 200,000 jobs a month for the remainder of W's term, it will be the 1st since Hoover with a net job loss.

A: Clinton's fault. Negative. What he said was that he inherited a recession, which is true. The U.S. economy had already been on the downward trend months before he took office. Even if he had done nothing but continue the policies of his predecessor, the country would still have experienced a recession, because we already were. It's part and parcel of a cyclical free market.

Overall, I don't think it was a bad interview. He pretty clearly dodged questions about the existence of actual WMD, versus just a plan or intent. But hey, he's a politician, they all dodge questions.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Perhaps it implies 'Clinton' to people who believe that there is no such thing as a business cycle.

Do you believe in the business cycle?

MattJ

Sure, but the way he phrased it didn't imply anything as impersonal as the busines cycle. By saying that he "inherited" it, it tends to imply that the previous person was responsible for it.

It is an old, old game in politics to try to subtly blame one predecessors for whatever ills currently need to be dealt with.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
Negative. What he said was that he inherited a recession, which is true. The U.S. economy had already been on the downward trend months before he took office. Even if he had done nothing but continue the policies of his predecessor, the country would still have experienced a recession, because we already were. It's part and parcel of a cyclical free market.

Overall, I don't think it was a bad interview. He pretty clearly dodged questions about the existence of actual WMD, versus just a plan or intent. But hey, he's a politician, they all dodge questions. If he inhereted a recession, then why did the recession start in March, after he took office?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
Becuase it really doesn't put the money into the economy where it can do any good. I don't think J. Lo spent any more or less maney with her tax cut than she would have otherwise. Buying a $10,000 handbag does nothing for the economy, but average Americans buying $10,000 worth of $20 jeans at Walmart does have an effect.

That doesnt explain how the economy was hurt.

And the average american didnt get a tax cut?

[Zero]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Your complaints about projects that got underfunded or scrapped due to tax cuts don't convince me, since it seems to me that (and this is the part that gets me angry, though it goes against your point) government spending has risen across the board.





MattJ

The government spending is the same as the tax cuts...big boon to the already wealthy, and a bit of table scraps for the rest of us.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony


That doesnt explain how the economy was hurt.

And the average american didnt get a tax cut? Not enough of a tax cut to matter, and after money forpublic services were cut, no real tax cut at all.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
Not enough of a tax cut to matter

What do you base this on?

[Samus]

Zero: If he inhereted a recession, then why did the recession start in March, after he took office? He took office in the middle of January. The pronounced start date of the recession was March, a whopping six weeks later. A president cannot possibly turn an economy around and cause recession in six weeks, especially considering that Bush didn't implement much economic policy during that timeframe.

IOW, the recession was "fated" to happen (where's Frankowraith when you need him!) before Bush took office.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
He took office in the middle of January. The pronounced start date of the recession was March, a whopping six weeks later. A president cannot possibly turn an economy around and cause recession in six weeks, especially considering that Bush didn't implement much economic policy during that timeframe.

IOW, the recession was "fated" to happen (where's Frankowraith when you need him!) before Bush took office. LOL, sure, I'm just being nitpicky. Business cycle and all that. If I am going to be consistant, which I am, I say that while Bush gets no credit for any upswing, I don't think he gets the blame for the recession starting.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


My but you are stubborn (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010529-4.html).





Here is Bush taking his case to the people (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010310.html):



Also, in the link you provide, he specifically claims that the tax cut will serve as a stimulus.

MattJ

Aren't those quotes from after the tax cut was passed? Note, in the first quote, the checks were already in the mail.

I think you're both right: The tax cut was to get rid of that 40 billion projected surplus, and it was also sold as getting the economy back in gear.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


Aren't those quotes from after the tax cut was passed? Note, in the first quote, the checks were already in the mail.

I think you're both right: The tax cut was to get rid of that 40 billion projected surplus, and it was also sold as getting the economy back in gear.

The first one is. The radio address link was not, nor was the link patoco supplied where it is called a stimulus in addition to the portion patoco points out.

We are both right in that the tax cut was sold on both issues, but we are not both wrong, since I never claimed that the tax cuts weren't also sold on returning the surplus.

MattJ

[Samus]

Zero: If I am going to be consistant, which I am, I say that while Bush gets no credit for any upswing, I don't think he gets the blame for the recession starting. I would certainly say he cannot be blamed for the recession, regardless of the fact that it "started" on his watch (the trend didn't). It's tough to give him credit for the upswing, too. I wouldn't give him all the credit. The natural market cycle gets more credit than he does. Unfortunately, his decisions have a more lasting effect, viz. not controlling spending and allowing steep budget deficits.