"When it comes to funding our troops, some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground, and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters."
By watching the video of the event (if one can stomach "Old Smirky"), this inanity is greeted with thunderous applause. (video available at the White House link)
But he babbled these responses to questions back in March 2002
Q. Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.
Q. But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I --I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.
These are famous quotes that have been often spun or even denied by Bushbots and a supportive media. I'm surprised they haven't been scrubbed from the official press releases. Luckily they stopped doing that after being caught one too many times.
So which is it? Are we supposed to believe that bin Laden is not really that big a deal any more or is he still America's worst nightmare? Every time Bush is in trouble, he hauls out his all-time greatest hit titled "The Terrorists Who Struck America That September Morning Intend To Strike Us Again."
So, on November 1, 2007, Bush suddenly remembers:
Bush: History teaches that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake. In the early 1900s, the world ignored the words of Lenin, as he laid out his plans to launch a Communist revolution in Russia -- and the world paid a terrible price. The Soviet Empire he established killed tens of millions, and brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war. (huh? Who ringed the USSR with missiles? Who was the first to actually use the A-bomb? If this is a reference to the Cuban missile crisis, how dare the USSR place missiles as close to the US as the US had thousands close to the USSR? It was also US war games in Europe that almost triggered a Soviet nuclear response because they were so afraid the games were a cover for a US first strike.--david)
In the 1920s, the world ignored the words of Hitler, as he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany, take revenge on Europe, and eradicate the Jews -- and the world paid a terrible price. His Nazi regime killed millions in the gas chambers, and set the world aflame in war, before it was finally defeated at a terrible cost in lives and treasure. (treasure? god forbid! it wasn't as if the US actually gave a damn about the Jews. Hitler was a wonderful business partner for many US corporations like Ford and IBM. Should we also bring up grand pappy Prescott Bush's financially advantageous relationship with the NAZIS? Fucking hypocrite!--david)
Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is: Will we listen?
September 27, 2007 The Bush administration may have a difficult time acquiring its request from Congress for more money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked for an additional $42 billion, bringing this year's total to $190 billion.
And this is what this slope-headed primate of a President states on Nov 1 :
Bush: Congress also needs to pass the Department of Defense spending bill, as well as the funding bill for our nation's veterans. (don't act like you really give a damn--david) There are reports that congressional leaders may be considering combining the funding bills for our military and our veterans together with a bloated labor, health and education spending bill. It's hard to imagine a more cynical ploy than holding funding for our troops and our wounded warriors hostage in order to extract $11 billion in wasteful Washington spending.(this is code for social programs that benefit the poor in the USA--david) If the reports of this strategy are true, I will veto such a three-bill pileup. (Applause.)
...Congress needs to put the needs of those who put on the uniform ahead of their desire to spend more money.
OMG! How can this moron stand in front of the public and spew this garbage with a straight face?
Bush: We are standing with those who yearn for liberty in the Middle East, because we know that the terrorists fear freedom even more than they fear our firepower. They know that given a choice, no one will choose to live under their dark ideology of violence and death.
You mean like what the US brought to Iraq?
The Right-Wing thugs like to label those of us on the Left as "America haters." as long as Bush is in the White House and Corporate imperialism is the reigning ideology, they are right. I hate what the US has become.
It IS Congress' job to perform the will of the people, something they have refused to do. If it were true that they were paying attention to "MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters" the situation in the US would be much different. What the hell is a "MoveOn.org blogger anyway? This is an indication el Busho has no clue about the organization or how bogging has become the true free press.