Bush’s Remarks

Bush Administration, elections, Iraq War

The transcript.

THE PRESIDENT: … I’m an optimistic person, is what I am. And I knew we were going to lose seats, I just didn’t know how many.

Q How could you not know that and not be out of touch?

THE PRESIDENT: You didn’t know it, either.

Q A lot of polls showed it.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, there was a — I read those same polls, and I believe that — I thought when it was all said and done, the American people would understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security. But the people have spoken, and now it’s time for us to move on.

Looks like commenters to the last post were right — Bush said the people don’t understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security.

He’s insulting the intelligence of the voters.

All afternoon I’ve seen talking heads on television praise Bush for being willing to change direction in Iraq. But Jack Murtha is on MSNBC right now saying that he’s not hearing about a change in policy. I agree. Let’s go back to the transcript.

What Bush said:

The message yesterday was clear: The American people want their leaders in Washington to set aside partisan differences, conduct ourselves in an ethical manner, and work together to address the challenges facing our nation.

We live in historic times. The challenges and opportunities are plain for all to see: Will this country continue to strengthen our economy today and over the long run? Will we provide a first-class education for our children? And will we be prepared for the global challenges of the 21st century? Will we build upon the recent progress we’ve made in addressing our energy dependence by aggressively pursuing new technologies to break our addiction to foreign sources of energy? And most importantly, will this generation of leaders meet our obligation to protect the American people?

Translation: Bush is daring the Dems to just try to force him to change his policies on taxes, No Child Left Behind, globalization, energy, and Iraq.

I know there’s a lot of speculation on what the election means for the battle we’re waging in Iraq. I recognize that many Americans voted last night to register their displeasure with the lack of progress being made there. Yet I also believe most Americans and leaders here in Washington from both political parties understand we cannot accept defeat.

Translation: Bush is not even thinking about taking troops out of Iraq.

In the coming days and weeks, I and members of my national security team will meet with the members of both parties to brief them on latest developments and listen to their views about the way forward. We’ll also provide briefings to the new members of Congress so they can be fully informed as they prepare for their new responsibilities.

As we work with the new leaders in Congress, I’m also looking forward to hearing the views of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by Secretary James Baker and Congressman Lee Hamilton. This group is assessing the situation in Iraq and are expected to provide — and the group is expected to provide recommendations on a way forward. And I’m going to meet with them, I think, early next week.

Translation: Bush will go through the motions of listening to different points of view. And then he’ll decide to stay in Iraq.

The election has changed many things in Washington, but it has not changed my fundamental responsibility, and that is to protect the American people from attack. As the Commander-in-Chief, I take these responsibilities seriously.

Translation: I’m still in charge.

Amid this time of change, I have a message for those on the front lines. To our enemies: Do not be joyful. Do not confuse the workings of our democracy with a lack of will. Our nation is committed to bringing you to justice. Liberty and democracy are the source of America’s strength, and liberty and democracy will lift up the hopes and desires of those you are trying to destroy.

To the people of Iraq: Do not be fearful. As you take the difficult steps toward democracy and peace, America is going to stand with you. We know you want a better way of life, and now is the time to seize it.

To our brave men and women in uniform: Don’t be doubtful. America will always support you. Our nation is blessed to have men and women who volunteer to serve, and are willing to risk their own lives for the safety of our fellow citizens.

Translation: They’ll have to waterboard me to get me to agree to a withdrawal from Iraq.

When I first came to Washington nearly six years ago, I was hopeful I could help change the tone here in the capital. As governor of Texas, I had successfully worked with both Democrats and Republicans to find common-sense solutions to the problems facing our state. While we made some progress on changing the tone, I’m disappointed we haven’t made more.

Translation: The President is a sociopath.

I’m confident that we can work together. I’m confident we can overcome the temptation to divide this country between red and blue. The issues before us are bigger than that and we are bigger than that. By putting this election and partisanship behind us, we can launch a new era of cooperation and make these next two years productive ones for the American people.

Translation: It’s my way or the highway.

That’s how I heard it. If you disagree, speak up.

Now, for the questions from the press:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Does the departure of Don Rumsfeld signal a new direction in Iraq? A solid majority of Americans said yesterday that they wanted some American troops, if not all, withdrawn from Iraq. Did you hear that call, and will you heed it?

THE PRESIDENT: Terry, I’d like our troops to come home, too, but I want them to come home with victory, and that is a country that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself. And I can understand Americans saying, come home. But I don’t know if they said come home and leave behind an Iraq that could end up being a safe haven for al Qaeda. I don’t believe they said that. And so, I’m committed to victory. I’m committed to helping this country so that we can come home.

Now, first part about —

Q A new direction.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, new direction. Well, there’s certainly going to be new leadership at the Pentagon. And as I mentioned in my comments, that Secretary Rumsfeld and I agree that sometimes it’s necessary to have a fresh perspective, and Bob Gates will bring a fresh perspective. He’ll also bring great managerial experience.

And he is — I had a good talk with him on Sunday in Crawford. I hadn’t — it took me a while to be able to sit down and visit with him, and I did, and I found him to be of like mind. He understands we’re in a global war against these terrorists. He understands that defeat is not an option in Iraq. And I believe it’s important that there be a fresh perspective, and so does Secretary Rumsfeld.

I don’t know how much more plainly he could say that he’s not going to change policy in Iraq. He’ll make some tactical tweaks, but no more.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You said you’re interested in changing the tone, and committed to changing the tone in Washington. Just a few days before this election, in Texas, you said that Democrats, no matter how they put it, their approach to Iraq comes down to terrorists win, America loses. What has changed today, number one? Number two, is this administration prepared to deal with the level of oversight and investigation that is possibly going to come from one chamber or two in Congress?

THE PRESIDENT: What’s changed today is the election is over, and the Democrats won. And now we’re going to work together for two years to accomplish big objectives for the country. And secondly, the Democrats are going to have to make up their mind about how they’re going to conduct their affairs.

Arrogant as ever, ain’t he?

Q Mr. President, thank you. You acknowledged that this is a message election on the war in Iraq. And so the American public today, having voted, will want to know what you mean in terms of “course correction on Iraq.” And particularly in light of this fact, that last week the Vice President pointed out that you and he aren’t running for anything anymore, and that it’s “full speed ahead on Iraqi.” So which is it? Are you listening to the voters, or are you listening to the Vice President? And what does that mean?

THE PRESIDENT: David, I believe Iraq had a lot to do with the election, but I believe there was other factors, as well. People want their Congress — congressmen to be honest and ethical. So in some races, that was the primary factor. There were different factors that determined the outcome of different races, but no question, Iraq was on people’s minds. And as you have just learned, I am making a change at the Secretary of Defense to bring a fresh perspective as to how to achieve something I think most Americans want, which is a victory.

We will work with members of Congress; we will work with the Baker-Hamilton Commission. My point is, is that while we have been adjusting, we will continue to adjust to achieve the objective. And I believe that’s what the American people want.

Somehow it seeped in their conscious that my attitude was just simply “stay the course.” “Stay the course” means, let’s get the job done, but it doesn’t mean staying stuck on a strategy or tactics that may not be working. So perhaps I need to do a better job of explaining that we’re constantly adjusting. And so there’s fresh perspective — so what the American people hear today is we’re constantly looking for fresh perspective.

But what’s also important for the American people to understand is that if we were to leave before the job is done, the country becomes more at risk. That’s what the Vice President was saying — he said, if the job is not complete, al Qaeda will have safe haven from which to launch attacks. These radicals and extremists have made it clear, they want to topple moderate governments to spread their ideology. They believe that it’s just a matter of time before we leave so they can implement their strategies. We’re just not going to let them do that. We’re going to help this government become a government that can defend, govern, and sustain itself, and an ally in the war on terror.

Again, how much more plainly can he say that he’s not changing policy? He’ll consider tactical changes, but that’s it.

I’m not sure what this was about:

THE PRESIDENT: … And so, Jim, look, I understand people don’t agree — didn’t agree with some of my decisions. I’m going to continue making decisions based upon what I think is right for the country. I’ve never been one to try to fashion the principles I believe or the decisions I make based upon trying to — kind of short-term popularity. I do understand where the people — the heart of the people. I understand they’re frustrated. I am, too, as I said the other day. I wish this had gone faster. So does Secretary Rumsfeld. But the reality is, is that it’s a tough fight, and we’re going to win the fight. And I truly believe the only way we won’t win is if we leave before the job is done.

Yes, Jim.

Q May I follow, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: I know, terrible principle. I’m sorry.

Q Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: You think I’m nuts? (Laughter.) You think — you think my sensibility has left me as a result of working hard on the campaign trail, Gregory? (Laughter.)

WTF?

Q But to follow, we were speaking about the war, and during the campaign, two very different viewpoints of the war came out. You spoke a lot, as Bret mentioned, about what you saw as the Democratic approach to the war, which you were greatly concerned about. Are you worried that you won’t be able to work with the Democrats, or do you feel like you have to prevail upon them your viewpoint?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we’re going to have to work with them, but — just like I think we’re going to have to work with the Baker-Hamilton Commission. It’s very important that the people understand the consequences of failure. And I have vowed to the country that we’re not going to fail. We’re not going to leave before the job is done. And obviously, we’ve got a lot of work to do with some members of Congress. I don’t know how many members of Congress said, get out right now — I mean, the candidates running for Congress in the Senate. I haven’t seen that chart. Some of the comments I read where they said, well, look, we just need a different approach to make sure we succeed; well, you can find common ground there.

Translation: “OK, so I’ll talk to the Democrats and the Baker Commission if I have to, but I only want to listen to suggestions about how my policy might become more glorious than it already is.”

See, if the goal is success, then we can work together. If the goal is, get out now regardless, then that’s going to be hard to work together. But I believe the Democrats want to work together to win this aspect of the war on terror.

See?

I’m also looking forward to working with them to make sure that we institutionalize to the extent possible steps necessary to make sure future Presidents are capable of waging this war. Because Iraq is a part of the war on terror,

Translation: I’m going to bleep up the Middle East so much we won’t get out of Iraq until the 22nd century.

… and it’s — I think back to Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. Harry Truman began the Cold War, and Eisenhower, obviously, from a different party, continued it. And I would hope that would be the spirit that we’re able to work together. We may not agree with every tactic, but we should agree that this country needs to secure ourselves against an enemy that would like to strike us again.

Translation: We should agree that I’m right.

This enemy is not going away after my presidency.

And I look forward to working with them. And I truly believe that Congresswoman Pelosi and Harry Reid care just about as much — they care about the security of this country, like I do. They see — no leader in Washington is going to walk away from protecting the country. We have different views on how to do that, but their spirit is such that they want to protect America. That’s what I believe.

Just like I talked about the troops. I meant what I said. Look, the people that’s — are going to be looking at this election — the enemy is going to say, well, it must mean America is going to leave. And the answer is, no, that doesn’t — not what it means. Our troops are wondering whether or not they’re going to get the support they need after this election. Democrats are going to support our troops just like Republicans will. And the Iraqis have got to understand this election — as I said, don’t be fearful. In other words, don’t look at the results of the elections and say, oh, no, America is going to leave us before the job is complete. That’s not what’s going to happen, Jim.

How many more bleeping ways can he say, “I’m not changing the course”?

Several reporters questioned how Bush could pledge to stick by Rumsfeld last week and dump him this week. Bush’s answers basically boiled down to what I said last week was just politics, because of the election. But in another part of the questions he said “I’m still going to try to speak plainly about what I think are the important priorities of the country.” OK.

Share Button
23 Comments

22 Comments

  1. Ian  •  Nov 8, 2006 @4:48 pm

    The sentence that jumped out at me… “In other words, don’t look at the results of the elections and say, oh, no, America is going to leave us before the job is complete.”

    Yup. That’s exactly what the average Iraqi is thinking, “Oh NOES!!! The Americans might go home!!!!!!”

    Or, you know, not.

    -me

  2. moonbat  •  Nov 8, 2006 @4:51 pm

    …I’m also looking forward to working with them to make sure that we institutionalize to the extent possible steps necessary to make sure future Presidents are capable of waging this war. Because Iraq is a part of the war on terror…

    My translation: We’re going to continue to build up the Imperial Presidency to such an extent where the President can do anything he damn well pleases.

  3. wmr  •  Nov 8, 2006 @4:59 pm

    Two that leaped out at me:

    make sure that we institutionalize to the extent possible steps necessary to make sure future Presidents are capable of waging this war. Or, in other words, no backtracking on the powers of the new imperial executive.

    Somehow it seeped in their conscious that my attitude was just simply “stay the course.” Or in other words, “Gee, I wonder how they SOMEHOW got that silly idea. Sure wasn’t from listening to me.”

    In the immortal words of B. Bunny, “What a maroon!”

  4. wmr  •  Nov 8, 2006 @5:01 pm

    That moonbat is very perceptive.

  5. marijam  •  Nov 8, 2006 @5:26 pm

    Come on, why start this so soon? Can’t you sit back and just enjoy taking back the Congress for one day? As a former Democrat for 49 years and now an Independent, I’ve got to tell you that I am not far-left and I do not want the Democratic party to go far left and I don’t want us to cut and run from Iraq. We cannot just pull our troops out and leave those people to their fate like we did in Saigon. Take a deep breath, take a step back and try to think about what would happen to the people of Iraq if we did that.

  6. paradoctor  •  Nov 8, 2006 @5:31 pm

    Take a deep breath, take a step back and try to think about what would happen to the people of Iraq if we did _not_ pull our troops out as soon as possible.

  7. Craig  •  Nov 8, 2006 @5:42 pm

    First, I heard the press conference and it was indeed very much as you describe. Very Nixonian.

    But, it was the day after the election and Bush is embarrassed and angry. And he isn’t the most insightful guy on the block. I have no idea if he’ll be different a week from now after some time to cool down and think. Maybe. Maybe not.

    What I do read is that Bush is slowly getting boxed in. It’s been going on for months. And it’s going to continue. The pressure on him by fellow Republicans to preserve some remnant of the Republican Party is going to be enormous. Increasingly, a majority of Americans see Bush’s base as the lunatic fringe. And yet, Bush can’t even be bothered at times to make gestures to Republican moderates. This is going to alarm and worry the more rational (and powerful?) Republicans who see far more clearly than Bush. They know they have to rebuild the Republican Party and they can’t do it until they deal with the Bush problem.

    The boxing in of Bush may take another six months or so; it may take more time or less, but it’s going to happen and it will be done without impeachment. I’m stretching my neck out saying this but I’m pretty sure I’m reading it right. The key, once again, is that, despite some setbacks, the boxing in has been going on for months and the pressure is going to increase.

  8. Bonnie  •  Nov 8, 2006 @5:45 pm

    And, while you’re taking that deep breath, think about what wouldn’t have happened to those people if he hadn’t gone in in the first place. Sure Saddam was bad; but so is Qaddafi and so is George W. Bush–he advocates torture in case you have forgotten!

  9. JD  •  Nov 8, 2006 @6:10 pm

    Gates as Secretary of Defense sounds like someone finally told Dubya he wasn’t welcome at Poppy’s this Christmas if he didn’t straighten up.

  10. Sachem515  •  Nov 8, 2006 @6:12 pm

    In come Papa Bush’s Pragmatists to keep Shrubbie off the same ashbin of history that several Repubs landed on yesterday. If you listened carefully under all the media, Dewine, Sanatorium, Allen, Chafee, Burns and Talent made a most pleasing “THUD” on their way out.

    Even Buchanan was pleased to note that the idealogues are off the field. Cheney returns to the wilderness with gun in hand. Game Over.

    Now about all those signing statements, Uh no, no, no and no. Wow, rule of law. Checks and balances, ahh, we live at home again in our Republic. Madison and Jefferson et al sleep peacefully once more.

    But then there’s this Rummy thing. Someone put a stamp on his head and mail him to the Hague for his trial. How in God’s name do you explain to the families of the recently sacrified that this decision had to wait until the election?

    The dead arrive at Dover DE daily. The recieve none of the honor and respect they are due because of el decidor. It doesn’t matter what blather comes out of his mouth, he wears a mantle of disgrace for all to see.

  11. maha  •  Nov 8, 2006 @6:17 pm

    We cannot just pull our troops out and leave those people to their fate like we did in Saigon.

    I’m too tired to reprise the history of the U.S. in Vietnam. I will only point out that half of the troops whose names are carved on the Vietnam Memorial died while Nixon was flapping around looking for “peace with honor.” And in the end it didn’t matter. We could have left years earlier, saved thousands of soldiers’ lives, saved thousands of Vietnamese lives (remember My Lai, for example), and the political result would have been the same.

    And if we’d stayed another ten years, requiring a Vietnam Memorial a mile long, I can’t see how it would have mattered. We were in an untenable position.

    Sometimes there are no good solutions.

  12. joanr16  •  Nov 8, 2006 @6:23 pm

    Wow, yeah, if we cut and ran tomorrow, we might not be able to put any more of our young soldiers on trial for abduction, rape and murder. It would be a damned shame to miss out on the opportunity to destroy all those additional souls.

    Left and right has nothing to do with the mess we’re in. All along it’s been sensible v. stupid, Constitutional v. unconstitutional, honest v. dishonest. And, btw, anyone who uses the phrase “cut and run” with a straight face is not an Independent. It shows a scary lack of independent thinking.

  13. k  •  Nov 8, 2006 @7:48 pm

    “The Democrats are going to have to make up their mind about how they are going to conduct their affairs”
    So oversight and accountability are a party function and not a constitutional mandate?
    “My job is to protect the american people”- no your oath is to uphold and defend the Constitution.
    “Terrorists should not rejoice etc” 2 days ago you said we were the terrorists and that a victory of Dems was a victory for terror.

    Sorry Bush, since you said on Limbaugh that “words have consequences” I thought you ought to be reminded of some of your own.

  14. Swami  •  Nov 8, 2006 @8:02 pm

    Bush needs to make a show of good faith and sincerity by abandoning the permanent military bases in Iraq. All his lofty talk about his love and concern for the Iraqi people just doesn’t mesh with the existence of a permanent American military presence in their country. I see a big contradiction between his words and his actions.

    Bush brings back fond childhood memories for me. I remember telling my parents..” I’m gonna hold my breath until I die, and you’ll be sorry”

  15. Craig  •  Nov 8, 2006 @8:13 pm

    Maha: Sometimes there are no good solutions.

    That’s exactly the bottom line in Iraq. Bush created a mess and now our foreign policy is a trainwreck. There are numerous foreign policies issues we can’t deal with at the moment because Bush has us tied down in Iraq. And of course it’s an enormous drag on our economy for something that has given us very little in return and not much for the Iraqis. And our president’s long list of slogans can’t hide the fact that he can’t tell us what we’re supposed to be winning at this late stage of the game. At this stage, all we’re doing is cleaning up Bush’s mess. Sooner or later, we need to get out before we can go forward again in other areas.

  16. Doug Hughes  •  Nov 8, 2006 @9:41 pm

    I was offshore for the evacuation of Saigon, and it’s a source of great pride for me. Thousands of GIs died in Nam after the die was cast because elected bureacrats in 3-piece suits wanted a process that would allow America to save face. Pride. How many lives is it worth?

    On the other hand, if the Prez can articulate a strategy which includes other powers in the region and gets the factions in Iraq to the table…. I don’t like it. But I will listen. Continue the current strategy, but change who’s sittting at Rumys old chair? Like HELL!

  17. MNPundit  •  Nov 8, 2006 @10:17 pm

    When Dobbs was going over that clip, when his R guest talked about how you could say he was misleading the American people Dobbs actually said that you could also say “lie” and the R guest visibly flinched.

  18. xpara  •  Nov 9, 2006 @1:18 am

    I thought the leader of the Greed Oil and Putrid Politics eschewed polls. Didn’t read them. Or anything else. A cowardly, malignant incompetent. lying sack of shit indeed. At least he’s consistent with his hobgoblin of a little mind. And, oh yeah, he’ll stick with Rummy for the rest of his misearable term. What’s a lie when votes are at stake. What’s a war when the dodger in cheif can play dressup and be a war president to win the votes of the gullible. Do not forget that tens of thousands have died, nearly 3,000 of our own, in a ploy that succeeded in winning the two elections before this one not corruptly decided by what is unfortunately the Supreme Court.

  19. Zeus  •  Nov 9, 2006 @2:21 am

    No disrespect to the serious comments above but I have to thank you for your translations, but especially:

    Bush: “….While we made some progress on changing the tone, I’m disappointed we haven’t made more.”

    Maha’s Translation: The President is a sociopath.

    I may be overtired and giddy, but that one just set me off into a fit of laughter. As the instant messagers say, LOL! Thank you for that and I’m going to bed the same way I woke up…SMILING!

  20. Kevin Hayden  •  Nov 9, 2006 @5:58 am

    Great translation.

    I’m looking to tackle the meme that departing Iraq will make it an Al Qaeda haven. I’m pretty sure most of the resistance views them only as a means to an end. With US troops departing, if reconstruction dollars stay in, the only group that would have any motivation to accept outside agitators would be the Sunnis.

    And if Shias like al-Sadr can be persuaded to make fair economic concessions that grants Sunnis survival, without vengeance (a la Mandela), there will be no Al Qaeda threat in Iraq.

    More people need to point out the obvious. Granting the possibility that Iraqis are not so different in their needs, desires and motivations is the next big step. I wish we could get hundreds of average Iraqis over here to speak at grange halls and public forums across the nation. People like Riverbend, who can get past the clutter of diplomacy and speak heart to heart.

  21. Gordon  •  Nov 9, 2006 @9:37 am

    “He’s insulting the intelligence of the voters”.

    I took it (the taxes part) as exposing his insularity. Like whoever that was (Hastert?) defending Bush’s tax-cuts-only-for-the-rich: “remember, those people don’t pay taxes”. The only way you can say that is if you’re so f-ing rich you reach the FICA cut-off before you’ve even thought about taking down the xmas decorations. Make taxes sufficiently regressive, and they’re not taxes anymore (to those that matter).

    The other possible translation: “Hey, Karl said it would work”.

    Meanwhile, like Zeus, I find myself feeling relaxed and pleasant in a way that I’d almost forgotten about. Aaaaaaaaaah.

  22. Doug Hughes  •  Nov 9, 2006 @8:19 pm

    Re the timing of Rummys departure: King George said he wants to fast-track the confimrmation, which makes me think he intends to have it sealed during the lame-duck session. If that’s true (and I maybe wrong) the timing – after the election – is because King George is afraid of confirmation hearings – and the questions that might be asked – in the next Senate.

    I expect he will be stabbed repeatedly by Republicans in the lame-duck session (et tu’ Santorium) because his stubbornness over Iraq prior to the election, (making it center stage in speeches and defending Rummy) cost Republicans the Senate for sure. Think they will jump thru hoops for him now?

1 Trackback